United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region R5-MB-297-A May 2016

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

for Revision of the

Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests 

Land Management Plans

Volume 1: Chapters 1 through 4, 

Glossary, References, and Index
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

than English. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Forest
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

for Revision of the

Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests

Land Management Plans

Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Madera, Mariposa, Mono, and Tulare Counties, 

California, and Esmeralda and Mineral Counties, Nevada

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agencies: Environmental Protection Agency 

Inyo County (Inyo National Forest only) 

Responsible Officials: ED ARMENTA, Forest Supervisor

Inyo National Forest 

351 Pacu Lane 

Bishop, CA 93514 

KEVIN ELLIOTT, Forest Supervisor

Sequoia National Forest

1839 South Newcomb Street

Porterville, CA 93257 

DEAN GOULD, Forest Supervisor

Sierra National Forest

1600 Tollhouse Rd 

Clovis, CA 93611 

For Information Contact: Team Leader, Forest Plan Revision Team 

Pacific Southwest Regional Office

1323 Club Drive 

Vallejo, CA 94592 

(707) 562-9121 

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement documents the analysis of four alternatives (A 

through D) developed by the Forest Service to revise the land and resource management plans, as amended, 

for the Inyo National Forest (1988), Sequoia National Forest (1988), and Sierra National Forest (1992). The 

revised land management plans would provide for the programmatic management of approximately 

2 million acres administered by the Inyo National Forest, approximately 1.2 million acres administered by 

the Sequoia National Forest, and approximately 1.4 million acres administered by the Sierra National 

Forest. The alternatives are described in chapter 2. Alternative A is the no-action alternative, and would 

keep in place the management direction from the individual land and resource management plans, as 

amended. Alternative B is a modified version of the proposed action and is the preferred alternative. As the 

preferred alternative, alternative B is reflected in the accompanying “Draft Revised Land Management Plan 

for the Inyo National Forest,” “Draft Revised Land Management Plan for the Sequoia National Forest,” and 

“Draft Revised Land Management Plan for the Sierra National Forest,” which would guide resource 

management activities on each respective national forest.

Alternatives B, C, and D address three revision topics that reflect the purpose and needs for the revised 

plans: (1) to reduce the risk of large high-intensity wildfires to communities and assets; increase the ability 

to manage wildfires to meet resource objectives; and reduce smoke impacts to communities; (2) to restore 

the resilience of vegetation and aquatic and riparian ecosystems to fire, drought and climate; restore 
wildlife and plant habitat and diversity; and reduce the risk of wildfire impacts to species and wildlife 

habitat; and (3) to provide sustainable and diverse recreation opportunities that consider population 

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

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

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

three areas identified as a need for change in the notice of intent are addressed but plan direction does not 

change between alternatives: (1) to incorporate plan direction for lands transferred to the Inyo National 

Forest under the National Forest and Public Lands of Nevada Enhancement Act; (2) to address benefits to 

people and communities; and (3) to address tribal relations and uses. These areas are incorporated in 

various ways throughout the alternatives. 

Alternatives B through D address new information and concerns that emerged during the implementation of 

the current forest plans. Each alternative complies with Federal laws, regulations, and policies. These 

alternatives also address significant issues (unresolved conflicts with the proposed action) that were 

identified from comments received during our public engagement sessions and the formal 30-day comment 

period.

The Forest Service will use the “pre-decisional administrative review process,” also referred to as the 

“objection process” described in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219 Subpart B). This process gives an 

individual or entity an opportunity for an independent Forest Service review and resolution of issues before 

a final plan is approved. Subpart B identifies who may file objections to a plan revision, the responsibilities 

of the participants in an objection, and the procedures that apply to the review of the objection. Section 

219.53 of the Planning Rule describes who may file an objection. Individuals and entities who have 

submitted substantive formal comments related to this plan revision during the opportunities for public 

comment for this decision may file an objection.

Comments: It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that 

they are useful to the preparation of this environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be 

provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer’s concerns and 

contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer’s ability to participate 

in subsequent administrative review or judicial review. Comments received in response to this solicitation, 

including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed 

action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous 

comments will not provide the respondent with standing to participate in subsequent administrative or 

judicial reviews. Comments on the DEIS should be specific and should address the adequacy of the 

environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives discussed or both (40 CFR 1503.3).

Send Comments to: http://tinyurl.com/earlyadoptersfpr

OR

Forest Planner, Forest Plan Revision 

Sequoia National Forest

1839 So. Newcomb Street

Porterville, CA 93257

(559) 781-4744 fax

Email: r5planrevision@fs.fed.us

Date Comments Must Be Received: Within 90 days following publication of the notice of 

availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register. The notice is 

expected to be published on or around May 27, 2016; 

however, it is the commenter’s responsibility to calculate the 

end of the 90-day period.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

i 

Contents

Preface ............................................................................................................................................ ix

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Revising the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra Land 

Management Plans ......................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

Purpose of and Need for Revising the Forest Plans ..................................................................... 6

The Draft Revised Plans .............................................................................................................. 7

Decision Framework .................................................................................................................... 8

Public Participation ...................................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ......................................................... 13

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 13

Alternatives Considered in Detail .............................................................................................. 13

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ................................................... 40

Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 45

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ................................... 55

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 55

The Relationship between Forest Plans and Site-specific Activities ..................................... 55

Science and Assumptions Used in the Environmental Analyses ........................................... 55

How this Chapter is Organized .............................................................................................. 56

Agents of Change: Climate, Fire, Insects, and Pathogens ......................................................... 57

Climate Change...................................................................................................................... 57

Fire Trends ............................................................................................................................. 58

Insects and Pathogens ............................................................................................................ 74

Combined Effects of Climate, Fire, Insects, and Pathogens .................................................. 84

Revision Topic 1: Fire Management .......................................................................................... 86

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 86

Fire Management ................................................................................................................... 87

Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 116

Revision Topic 2: Ecological Integrity .................................................................................... 133

Background .......................................................................................................................... 133

Terrestrial Ecosystems ......................................................................................................... 133

Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems ....................................................................................... 263

Wildlife, Fish and Plants ...................................................................................................... 305

Revision Topic 3: Sustainable Recreation and Designated Areas ........................................... 460

Sustainable Recreation and Scenery .................................................................................... 460

Heritage Resources .............................................................................................................. 503

Wilderness ........................................................................................................................... 512

Eligible and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers ..................................................................... 525

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail ...................................................................................... 532

Tribal Relations and Uses ........................................................................................................ 552

Benefits to People and Communities ....................................................................................... 564

Background .......................................................................................................................... 564

Forest Products and Management ........................................................................................ 564

Economic Conditions ........................................................................................................... 578

Social Conditions ................................................................................................................. 598

Other Required Disclosures ..................................................................................................... 622

Unavoidable Adverse Effects .............................................................................................. 622
Contents

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

ii

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .................................................. 622

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ...................................................................... 622

Laws Requiring Consultation .............................................................................................. 622

Chapter 4. Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination ......................................................... 625

Preparers and Contributors ....................................................................................................... 625

Consultation and Coordination ................................................................................................ 633

Agencies, Organizations and Persons Sent Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement .................................................................................................................................. 638

Glossary ...................................................................................................................................... 639

References ................................................................................................................................... 655

Index ............................................................................................................................................ 723

Tables

Table 1. Management areas by alternative, Inyo National Forest ......................................................... 46

Table 2. Management areas by alternative, Sequoia National Forest ................................................... 47

Table 3. Management areas by alternative, Sierra National Forest ...................................................... 48

Table 4. Acres and miles of other designated areas by national forest (all alternatives) ...................... 49

Table 5. Other ecosystem or wildlife areas by alternative .................................................................... 49

Table 6. Estimated amounts of restoration activities by alternative per decade, Inyo National 

Forest .................................................................................................................................... 50

Table 7. Estimated amounts of restoration activities by alternative per decade, Sequoia National 

Forest .................................................................................................................................... 50

Table 8. Estimated amounts of restoration activities by alternative per decade, Sierra National 

Forest .................................................................................................................................... 50

Table 9. Water, aquatic, and riparian restoration activities by alternative per decade, Inyo 

National Forest ..................................................................................................................... 51

Table 10. Water, aquatic and riparian restoration activities by alternative per decade, Sequoia 

National Forest ..................................................................................................................... 51

Table 11. Water, aquatic and riparian restoration activities by alternative per decade, Sierra 

National Forest ..................................................................................................................... 51

Table 12. Comparison of sustainable recreation emphasis by alternative, all three national forests .... 52

Table 13. Sustainable recreation and scenery settings and activities by alternative per decade, 

Inyo National Forest ............................................................................................................. 52

Table 14. Sustainable recreation and scenery settings and activities by alternative per decade, 

Sequoia National Forest ....................................................................................................... 53

Table 15. Sustainable recreation and scenery settings and activities by alternative per decade, 

Sierra National Forest ........................................................................................................... 53

Table 16. Cut and sold volume in hundreds of cubic feet (CCF) per decade1 ...................................... 54

Table 17. Acres of areas of tribal importance maintained or restored per decade ................................ 54

Table 18. Summary comparison of proposed restoration levels by alternative .................................... 67

Table 19. Summary of expected changes in fire burned area, large fire size, likelihood of large 

fires, and fire intensity and fire type with projected climate trends by alternative ............... 68

Table 20. Percent change in likelihood of large fires by alternative and ecological/elevational 

zone ...................................................................................................................................... 69

Table 21. Key forest insect and pathogen species of the southern Sierra Nevada ................................ 75

Table 22. Summary of percent area at risk by basal area loss categories for the Inyo, Sequoia, and 

Sierra National Forests ......................................................................................................... 81

Table 23. Example highly valued resources and assets (HVRAs) and their relative importance 

values .................................................................................................................................... 92
Contents

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

iii

Table 24. Comparative ranking of alternatives by fire management indicators and measures ........... 114

Table 25. Summary of approach to wildfire risk management by alternative, all three national 

forests .................................................................................................................................. 116

Table 26. Table displaying baseline annual emissions in tons per year under alternative A 

compared to the modeled mid-century emissions with no change in management ............ 123

Table 27. Emissions from treatments under alternative B in tons per year compared to the 

baseline established in alternative A ................................................................................... 125

Table 28. Emissions from treatments under alternative C measured in tons per year and compared 

to the baseline established in alternative A ......................................................................... 127

Table 29. Emissions under alternative D in tons per year compared to the baseline established in 

Alternative A ...................................................................................................................... 129

Table 30. Summary of air quality indicators and effects by alternative .............................................. 132

Table 31. Area in acres by ecological zone or dominant vegetation type across each national 

forest, rounded to the nearest thousand acres ..................................................................... 134

Table 32. The indicators, measures and criteria for evaluating the current condition and 

consequences for westside montane ecological/elevational zone (ponderosa pine, black 

oak, moist and dry mixed conifer) composition ................................................................. 140

Table 33. The indicators, measures and criteria for evaluating the current condition and 

consequences for eastside ecological zones and vegetation types ...................................... 141

Table 34. Acres of major vegetation types, Inyo National Forest1...................................................... 146

Table 35. Acres of major vegetation types, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests1 ............................. 146

Table 36. Area in acres in different hardwood vegetation types by national forest, rounded to the 

nearest hundred acres .......................................................................................................... 147

Table 37. Comparison of current conditions to desired conditions, westside vegetation types and 

ecological zones .................................................................................................................. 147

Table 38. Comparison of current conditions to desired conditions, eastside vegetation types and 

ecological zones .................................................................................................................. 148

Table 39. Comparison of current conditions to desired conditions, vegetation types and 

ecological zones in the Kern River drainage ...................................................................... 148

Table 40. Draft forest plan desired conditions for vegetation across all vegetation types .................. 162

Table 41. Draft forest plan desired conditions by ecological zone and major vegetation types ......... 162

Table 42. Similarity to vegetation composition and structure desired conditions for westside 

foothill vegetation by alternative ........................................................................................ 168

Table 43. Similarity to vegetation composition and structure desired conditions for westside 

montane vegetation by alternative ...................................................................................... 168

Table 44. Similarity to vegetation composition and structure desired conditions for westside 

montane vegetation by alternative and location relative to the fire protection zones and 

focus landscapes ................................................................................................................. 169

Table 45. Similarity to vegetation composition and structure desired conditions for upper 

montane vegetation by alternative ...................................................................................... 169

Table 46. Similarity to vegetation composition and structure desired conditions for eastside 

pinyon-juniper ad sagebrush by alternative ........................................................................ 169

Table 47. Similarity to vegetation composition and structure desired conditions for eastside 

Jeffrey pine, mixed conifer, upper montane and subalpine forests and woodlands by 

alternative ........................................................................................................................... 170

Table 48. Application of large tree plan components across strategic fire management zones, 

alternative B ........................................................................................................................ 175

Table 49. Vegetation restoration objectives that include most or all of the westside montane zone, 

Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, Alternative B............................................................ 182

Table 50. Indicators, criteria and thresholds used to analyze environmental consequences for the 

old forest special forest habitat ........................................................................................... 207

Table 51. Indicators, criteria and thresholds used to analyze environmental consequences for 

complex early seral habitat special forest habitat ............................................................... 208
Contents

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

iv

Table 52. Indicators, criteria and thresholds used to analyze environmental consequences for 

limited habitat types special forest habitats ........................................................................ 208

Table 53. Characteristics from the National Forest Sustainability Framework used in the analysis .. 210

Table 54. Summary of the similarity of current conditions to desired conditions for major 

indicators of terrestrial function by ecological/elevational zone ........................................ 211

Table 55. Summary of current condition of fire regime integrity by ecological zone and 

vegetation type in westside areas of the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests ................... 215

Table 56. Summary of current condition of fire regime integrity by vegetation type in eastside 

areas in the Inyo and some of Sequoia National Forests .................................................... 216

Table 57. Overall ecosystem sustainability conditions by characteristic from National Forest 

Sustainability Report* by major ecological and elevational zone for the west side ........... 222

Table 58. Overall ecosystem sustainability conditions by characteristic from National Forest 

Sustainability Report* by major vegetation types for the eastside ..................................... 222

Table 59. Fire regime integrity for westside vegetation types by alternative ..................................... 223

Table 60. Fire regime integrity for eastside vegetation types by alternative ...................................... 224

Table 61. Plan direction and effects on large tree densities by location in alternative B .................... 233

Table 62. Summary of conditions for characteristics of integrated sustainability by alternative ....... 250

Table 63. Climate vulnerability of major vegetation types in the planning area ................................ 253

Table 64. Climate vulnerability of select species or species groups in the planning area .................. 254

Table 65. Rating of the amount of application climate adaptation strategies by alternatives ............. 256

Table 66. Summary of critical aquatic refuges and watershed conditions on the Inyo, Sequoia, 

and Sierra National Forest .................................................................................................. 267

Table 67. HUC-12 watersheds completely or partially located in the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra 

National Forests .................................................................................................................. 283

Table 68. 303(d) Listed waterbodies within or adjacent to the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National 

Forests ................................................................................................................................ 289

Table 69. Number of and percent of HUC 12 watersheds by condition class on the Inyo, Sequoia, 

and Sierra National Forests ................................................................................................ 291

Table 70. Summary of environmental consequences to water quality and watershed condition by 

alternative in comparison to current conditions1

 ................................................................ 303

Table 71. Number of federally threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species and species 

with critical habitat occurring in the forest planning areas ................................................. 307

Table 72. Number of species of conservation concern occurring in the forest planning areas ........... 308

Table 73. Federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species for the Inyo, 

Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests .................................................................................. 312

Table 74. Federally designated and proposed critical habitats for terrestrial wildlife species on the 

Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests ........................................................................ 313

Table 75. Mammal species of conservation concern for Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National 

Forests ................................................................................................................................ 313

Table 76. Bird species of conservation concern for Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests ....... 313

Table 77. Terrestrial amphibian species of conservation concern for Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra 

National Forests .................................................................................................................. 314

Table 78. Snail species of conservation concern for Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests ...... 314

Table 79. Butterfly and moth species of conservation concern for Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra 

National Forests .................................................................................................................. 314

Table 80. Status and threats for terrestrial salamander species of conservation concern ................... 341

Table 81. Draft forest plan desired conditions for terrestrial wildlife by habitat type or ecosystem 

function, alternatives B, C, and D ...................................................................................... 348

Table 82. Draft forest plan standards and guidelines for terrestrial wildlife habitat, alternatives B, 

C, and D .............................................................................................................................. 349

Table 83. Draft plan components addressing the identified potential threats to at-risk terrestrial 

wildlife species in alternatives B, C, and D ........................................................................ 350
Contents

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

v 

Table 84. Plan components guiding vegetation treatments in fisher and owl habitat that differ 

between areas in community buffers, focus landscapes, and outside of these two areas .... 373

Table 85. At-risk federally listed aquatic species on the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National 

Forests ................................................................................................................................. 399

Table 86. Aquatic amphibian species of conservation concern .......................................................... 399

Table 87. Fish species of conservation concern .................................................................................. 400

Table 88. Aquatic invertebrate species of conservation concern ........................................................ 400

Table 89. Aquatic at-risk species by ecosystem type .......................................................................... 406

Table 90. Plan components addressing the identified potential threats to at-risk aquatic species ...... 410

Table 91. Floristic geographic subdivisions represented in the planning area (Baldwin et al. 2012) . 432

Table 92. At-risk federally listed and candidate plant species in the planning area ............................ 433

Table 93. Distribution of whitebark pine in the planning area and California .................................... 434

Table 94. Numbers of plant species of conservation concern, by national forest and by life form .... 435

Table 95. Summary of the number of plant species of conservation concern that occur in each 

ecosystem type .................................................................................................................... 435

Table 96. Plant species of conservation concern for Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests ....... 436

Table 97. Known threats to plant species of conservation concern, as documented in best 

available scientific information........................................................................................... 449

Table 98. Overview comparing alternatives, with focus on identified potential threats to plant 

species of conservation concern.......................................................................................... 451

Table 99. Plan components addressing the identified potential threats to at-risk plants ..................... 452

Table 100. Cross-walk between Visual Management System and Scenery Management System 

terminology ......................................................................................................................... 465

Table 101. Existing recreation opportunity spectrum classes, Inyo National Forest .......................... 468

Table 102. Existing recreation opportunity spectrum classes, Sequoia National Forest ..................... 472

Table 103. Existing recreation opportunity spectrum classes, Sierra National Forest ........................ 475

Table 104. Existing (alternative A) and desired (alternatives B, C, D) recreation opportunity 

spectrum classes in acres and percent of national forest by alternative, Inyo National 

Forest .................................................................................................................................. 479

Table 105. Desired scenic integrity objectives by acres and percent of forest and alternative, Inyo 

National Forest .................................................................................................................... 485

Table 106. Existing (alternative A) and desired (alternatives B, C, and D) recreation opportunity 

spectrum classes in acres and percent of national forest by alternative, Sequoia 

National Forest .................................................................................................................... 487

Table 107. Desired scenic integrity objectives by acres and percent of forest and alternative, 

Sequoia National Forest ...................................................................................................... 492

Table 108. Existing (alternative A) and desired (alternatives B, C, and D) recreation opportunity 

spectrum classes in acres and percent of national forest by alternative, Sierra National 

Forest .................................................................................................................................. 493

Table 109. Desired scenic integrity objectives by acres and percent of forest and alternative, 

Sierra National Forest ......................................................................................................... 498

Table 110. Comparison of indicators by alternatives for the Inyo National Forest ............................ 499

Table 111. Comparison of indicators by alternatives for the Sequoia National Forest ....................... 501

Table 112. Comparison of indicators by alternatives for the Sierra National Forest .......................... 502

Table 113. Heritage survey for Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests ....................................... 507

Table 114. Number of heritage sites for Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra National Forests by type ................... 507

Table 115. Number of heritage site determinations and number of historic landmarks under the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National 

Forests ................................................................................................................................. 508

Table 116. Recommended wilderness additions adjacent to existing designated wilderness, Inyo 

National Forest .................................................................................................................... 516

Table 117. Recommended wilderness additions adjacent to existing designated wilderness, Inyo 

National Forest .................................................................................................................... 516
Contents

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

vi

Table 118. Recommended wilderness not adjacent to existing designated wilderness, Inyo 

National Forest ................................................................................................................... 517

Table 119. Recommended wilderness additions adjacent to existing designated wilderness, 

Sequoia National Forest ..................................................................................................... 517

Table 120. Recommended wilderness not adjacent to existing designated wilderness, Sequoia 

National Forest ................................................................................................................... 518

Table 121. Recommended wilderness additions adjacent to existing designated wilderness, Sierra 

National Forest ................................................................................................................... 518

Table 122. Recommended wilderness not adjacent to existing designated wilderness, Sequoia 

National Forest ................................................................................................................... 519

Table 123. Percent of area in fire management zones for areas in designated wilderness by 

national forest, alternative A .............................................................................................. 522

Table 124. Percent of area in fire management zones for areas in designated wilderness by 

national forest, alternatives B and D .................................................................................. 522

Table 125. Percent of area in fire management zones for areas in recommended wilderness by 

national forest, alternative B ............................................................................................... 522

Table 126. Percent of area in fire management zones for areas in designated wilderness by 

national forest, alternative C ............................................................................................... 523

Table 127. Percent of area in fire management zones for areas in recommended wilderness by 

national forest, alternative C ............................................................................................... 523

Table 128. Total miles of rivers in the National Wild and Scenic River System by managing 

entity and classification, nationwide .................................................................................. 527

Table 129. Total miles of rivers in the National Wild and Scenic River System in California by 

classification and miles managed by the Forest Service..................................................... 527

Table 130. Comparison of past and current wild and scenic river eligibility review findings in 

miles for the Inyo National Forest ...................................................................................... 530

Table 131. Comparison of past and current Wild and Scenic River eligibility review findings in 

miles for the Sequoia National Forest ................................................................................ 530

Table 132. Comparison of past and current Wild and Scenic River eligibility review findings in 

miles for the Sierra National Forest .................................................................................... 531

Table 133. Number of miles of forest trails and miles of Pacific Crest Trail within and outside of 

designated wilderness ......................................................................................................... 537

Table 134. Section and entire permits issued for the Pacific Crest Trail 2013-2015 .......................... 538

Table 135. Wind renewable energy summary (number) by Bureau of Land Management in 

California, October 2015 .................................................................................................... 542

Table 136. Wind renewable energy summary (acres) by Bureau of Land Management in 

California, October 2015 .................................................................................................... 542

Table 137. Solar renewable energy summary by Bureau of Land Management in California, Oct 

2015 .................................................................................................................................... 543

Table 138. Acres of each recreation opportunity spectrum class in the Pacific Crest Trail 

Management Area, Inyo National Forest ........................................................................... 544

Table 139. Acres of each recreation opportunity spectrum class in the Pacific Crest Trail 

Management Area, Sequoia National Forest ...................................................................... 544

Table 140. Acres of each recreation opportunity spectrum class in the Pacific Crest Trail 

Management Area, Sierra National Forest ......................................................................... 544

Table 141. Acres of Pacific Crest Trail Management Area inside and outside of wilderness, Inyo 

National Forest ................................................................................................................... 545

Table 142. Acres of the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area inside and outside of wilderness, 

Sequoia National Forest ..................................................................................................... 545

Table 143. Acres of Pacific Crest Trail Management Area inside and outside of wilderness, 

Sierra National Forest ......................................................................................................... 545

Table 144. Miles of motorized roads and trails within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area 

(outside wilderness), Inyo National Forest ......................................................................... 545
Contents

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

vii

Table 145. Miles of motorized roads and trails within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area 

(outside wilderness), Sequoia National Forest .................................................................... 546

Table 146. Miles of motorized roads and trails within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area 

(outside wilderness), Sierra National Forest ....................................................................... 546

Table 147. Acres of scenic integrity objectives within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area, 

Inyo National Forest ........................................................................................................... 547

Table 148. Acres of scenic integrity objectives within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area, 

Sequoia National Forest ...................................................................................................... 548

Table 149. Acres of scenic integrity objectives within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area, 

Sierra National Forest ......................................................................................................... 548

Table 150. Percent of cover type of lands suitable for timber production, combined for Inyo, 

Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests, alternative B ............................................................ 568

Table 151. Projected 10-year timber harvest volumes (million cubic feet) by product type and 

alternative ........................................................................................................................... 571

Table 152. Projected 10-year harvest area in acres by management practice and alternative ............. 571

Table 153. Economic health surrounding the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests ................. 581

Table 154. Estimates of the economic contributions, 2012 ................................................................. 583

Table 155. Summary of short-term and long-term potential effects on key national forest 

contributions by alternative................................................................................................. 589

Table 156. Percent of minority populations and people living below the poverty level in the area 

of influence for the Inyo National Forest ............................................................................ 608

Table 157. Percent of minority populations and people living below the poverty level in the area 

of influence for the Sequoia National Forest ...................................................................... 609

Table 158. Percent of minority populations and people living below the poverty level in the area 

of influence for the Sierra National Forest.......................................................................... 609

Figures

Figure 1. Map of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests, which constitute the planning 

area for revising the forest plans for these three national forests ............................................ x

Figure 2. Location of Nevada Enhancement Act lands on the Inyo National Forest ............................ 19

Figure 3. Map of changes in the predicted burned area in the next mid-century, 2035 to 2064, 

compared to 1961 through 1990 ........................................................................................... 63

Figure 4. Predicted change in large fire size from recent (1961 to 1990) rates based on three 

climate models ...................................................................................................................... 64

Figure 5. Line graphs showing the expected change in large fire size with different future climate 

and vegetation restoration scenarios ..................................................................................... 64

Figure 6. Bar graph showing the change in large fire size by ecological zone with different levels 

of modeled restoration .......................................................................................................... 65

Figure 7. Percent change in area burned at high severity (defined as greater than 50 percent 

overstory mortality) with future trends in climate ................................................................ 67

Figure 8. Photo of dead and dying ponderosa pines in the foothill zone of the Sierra National 

Forest, fall 2015 .................................................................................................................... 78

Figure 9. Drought and insect-related mortality in the southern Sierra Nevada based on aerial 

surveys by the Pest Management Program (from late fall 2015) .......................................... 79

Figure 10. Conceptual diagram of the interaction between climate, fire, insects/pathogens and 

vegetation .............................................................................................................................. 84

Figure 11. The wildfire management continuum .................................................................................. 90

Figure 12. Historic ignitions (Ign) and acres (Ac) burned by cause, 1992-2013, Inyo, Sequoia, 

and Sierra National Forests ................................................................................................... 94

Figure 13. Map showing the location of the fire management zones for alternative A......................... 97
Contents

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

viii

Figure 14. Map showing the location of the strategic fire management zones for alternatives B 

and D .................................................................................................................................... 98

Figure 15. Map showing the location of the strategic fire management zones for alternative C ........ 100

Figure 16. Proportion of the Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests within each zone in 

alternative A ....................................................................................................................... 101

Figure 17. Proportion of the Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests within each zone in 

alternatives B and D ........................................................................................................... 104

Figure 18. Proportion of the Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests within each zone in 

Alternative C ...................................................................................................................... 106

Figure 19. Risk location by alternative or comparison of the magnitude of net value change by 

strategic fire management zone .......................................................................................... 112

Figure 20. Risk source by alternative or comparison of the magnitude of net value change by 

strategic fire management zone .......................................................................................... 113

Figure 21. Map of air management districts in California .................................................................. 117

Figure 22. Graph displaying modeling results of particulate matter emissions from wildfires .......... 122

Figure 23. Ecological/elevational zones for the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests ........................ 135

Figure 24.Ecological/vegetation zones on the Inyo National Forest .................................................. 136

Figure 25. Major vegetation types from the Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory, Inyo National 

Forest .................................................................................................................................. 143

Figure 26. Major terrestrial vegetation types based on the California Wildlife Habitat 

Relationships classification, Sequoia National Forest ........................................................ 144

Figure 27. Major terrestrial vegetation types based on the California Wildlife Habitat 

Relationships classification, Sierra National Forest ........................................................... 145

Figure 28. Recently dead sugar pine in mixed conifer forests on the Sequoia National Forest .......... 151

Figure 29. Occurrences of cheatgrass in vegetation plots, Inyo National Forest ................................ 158

Figure 30. Landscape ecological fire resilience by restoration scenarios ........................................... 167

Figure 31. Example illustrating potential treatments in two possible focus landscapes ..................... 176

Figure 32. Example illustrating potential treatments in a possible focus landscape considering 

direction for wildlife ........................................................................................................... 178

Figure 33. Changes in tree canopy cover from current to modeled desired conditions for a 

representative area .............................................................................................................. 180

Figure 34. Illustration of potential changes in ecological fire resilience under alternative B ............. 186

Figure 35. Potential changes in ecological fire resilience, alternative D ............................................ 199

Figure 36. Map of fire return interval departure, Inyo National Forest .............................................. 212

Figure 37. Map of fire return interval departure, Sequoia National Forest ......................................... 213

Figure 38. Map of fire return interval departure, Sierra National Forest ............................................ 214

Figure 39. High levels of dead and dying trees in ponderosa pine and black oak-ponderosa pine 

forests on the Sequoia National Forest ............................................................................... 254

Figure 40. Floristic geographic subdivisions in the planning area ...................................................... 431

Figure 41. Graphic showing how the spectrum of recreation opportunity shifts from primitive to 

urban ................................................................................................................................... 464

Figure 42. The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail ............................................................................ 533

Figure 43. John Muir Trail Usage (which uses the same trail tread as the Pacific Crest Trail for 

most of its route) ................................................................................................................. 539

Figure 44. Census county divisions that intersect the Inyo National Forest administrative 

boundary ............................................................................................................................. 601

Figure 45. Census county divisions that intersect the Sequoia National Forest administrative 

boundary ............................................................................................................................. 602

Figure 46. Census county divisions that intersect the Sierra National Forest administrative 

boundary ............................................................................................................................. 603
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

ix

Preface

This draft environmental impact statement and supporting documents, which comprise the 

administrative record (also referred to as the project record) of the environmental analysis are on 

file at the Supervisor’s Office of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests and at the 

Regional Office in Vallejo, CA. Electronic copies of this document and other planning documents 

are available on the website for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests plan revision.1

. 

This draft environmental impact statement is organized as follows: 

Volume 1 

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Revising the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra Land 

Management Plans. This section discusses the background of the proposal, explains the purpose 

of and need for revising the forest plan, and briefly describes the action proposed to satisfy the 

purpose and need. It summarizes public participation in the environmental review process and 

lists preliminary environmental and social issues identified during the scoping period.2

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action. This section discusses the proposed 

action (draft revised forest plans), no action, and a range of reasonable alternatives. It also 

explains why other alternatives were dismissed from further consideration. It includes a summary 

comparison of the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative 

form, sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the 

decisionmaker and the public. 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. This section reports the 

results of a multiple resource analysis of the environmental consequences of implementing the 

proposed action and alternatives. It describes the affected environment, by resource areas, as a 

baseline against which the impacts of alternatives are measured. The description of the 

environment is followed by disclosure of the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of 

implementing the proposed action and each of the alternatives.

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination. This section lists the credentials of those who 

prepared this EIS and identifies the agencies, government officials, and selected other parties who 

were consulted regarding the proposed action. 

Glossary. This section provides a glossary of terminology. 

References. This section reports full citations for the sources cited in the text.

Index. This section provides page numbers for various topics related to the analysis

Volume 2 - Appendix

This volume contains evaluations of timber suitability (appendix A), wilderness (appendix B), 

and wild and scenic rivers (appendix C). 

Volume 3 - Maps

This volume contains maps of the different alternatives as they relate to each resource analyzed. 

The maps are grouped by each national forest and then follow the order of the various analysis 

sections in chapter 3.

 

1 http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5444003 2 The time during which a proposed action has been provided to the public for review and comment so that the scope of 

issues related to the proposed action can be determined.
Preface 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

x 

Figure 1. Map of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests, which constitute the planning 

area for revising the forest plans for these three national forests
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

1 

Chapter 1. 

Purpose of and Need for Revising the Inyo, 

Sequoia, and Sierra Land Management Plans

Introduction 

We, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, are proposing to revise the land and 

resource management plans, as amended, for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests. We 

have prepared this environmental impact statement in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations. This environmental impact statement 

discloses the potential effects of a proposed revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (USDA FS 1988a, 1988b, 1992). 

About the Inyo, Sierra, and Sequoia National Forests

Together, the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests encompass nearly 4.6 million acres of 

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

range (Figure 1), including approximately 1.6 million acres of designated wilderness. These 

national forests are areas of great diversity—they span an altitude range from less than 1,000 feet 

above sea level in the western foothills of the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests to 14,494 feet 

at the summit of Mount Whitney on the Inyo National Forest. All three national forests share a 

border with Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks; the Inyo and Sierra National Forests 

border Yosemite National Park, and the Inyo National Forest also shares a boundary with Death 

Valley National Park and Devils Postpile National Monument. Other adjacent federal lands 

include the Humboldt-Toiyabe and Stanislaus National Forests and lands administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management’s Bakersfield and Bishop Field Offices. The Tule River Indian 

Reservation is immediately west of the Sequoia National Forest. The Pacific Crest National 

Scenic Trail passes through all three national forests. Many mountain communities are located 

within the planning area and are surrounded wholly or in part by National Forest System lands. 

The Inyo National Forest

The Inyo National Forest is located in eastern California, with a small portion in Nevada (Figure 

1). The Inyo includes the crest of the Sierra Nevada from the Mono Basin to the Kern Plateau, 

plus the Glass, White, and Inyo Mountain Ranges. The Inyo encompasses approximately 

2 million acres, excluding Mono Lake, but including about 56,481 acres of private and State lands 

and 26,711 acres of the Sierra National Forest and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests, which are 

administered by the Inyo National Forest. The Inyo contains the 116,200 acres of Mono Basin 

National Forest Scenic Area and the 29,000-acre Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest National 

Protection Area (a botanical special interest area). Other land managers in the region include the 

Bureau of Land Management and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

Forty-six percent of the Inyo, (964,360 acres) consists of nine designated wilderness areas, either 

wholly or partially within the administrative boundary of the national forest. These areas include: 

Ansel Adams (shared with the Sierra National Forest), Boundary Peak, Golden Trout (shared with 

the Sequoia National Forest), Hoover (shared with the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest), Inyo 

Mountains (shared with Bureau of Land Management), John Muir (shared with the Sierra), 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Revising the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra Land Management Plans

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

2 

Owens River Headwaters, South Sierra (shared with the Sequoia), and White Mountains 

Wildernesses.

The Inyo National Forest Supervisor’s Office is centrally located in Bishop, California. The Inyo 

has four administrative ranger districts. The northern ranger districts, Mono Lake and Mammoth, 

are managed together as the “north zone.” The southern ranger districts, White Mountain and 

Mount Whitney, are managed together as the “south zone.” The Inyo comprises portions of Inyo 

and Mono Counties in California and Esmeralda and Mineral Counties in Nevada. The 

communities within and adjacent to the Inyo are relatively small and discrete. Key communities 

adjacent to the Inyo include: Lee Vining, June Lake, Mammoth Lakes, Bishop, Big Pine, 

Independence, and Lone Pine. 

The Sequoia National Forest

The Sequoia National Forest is located at the southernmost end of the Sierra Nevada range in 

California within portions of Tulare, Kern, and Fresno Counties (Figure 1). The Sequoia lies 

between the Los Angeles Basin and San Francisco Bay population centers, and is accessible to 

these areas in 3 to 5 hours driving time. Within the national forest boundary, there are 

approximately 1.2 million acres of National Forest System lands and 54,155 acres of state, private 

and other ownerships. Elevations range from 790 feet in the Lower Kern River Valley, to 11,873 

feet in the Golden Trout Wilderness. 

The Sequoia National Forest contains the 328,000-acre Giant Sequoia National Monument. Since 

the management plan for the Giant Sequoia National Monument was approved by the Regional 

Forester in 2012, there is no need to change this direction and this area is not analyzed in this EIS. 

The Giant Sequoia National Monument Plan will be the guiding document to provide 

management direction to the lands within the monument. 

The Sequoia National Forest Supervisor’s Office is centrally located in Porterville, California. 

The Sequoia is divided into three ranger districts: the Hume Lake Ranger District on the north 

end, the Western Divide Ranger District just east of Springville, and the Kern River Ranger 

District at the southern end near Lake Isabella. Several communities are closely connected to the 

Sequoia National Forest, such as those surrounding Lake Isabella (Kernville, Lake Isabella, 

Wofford Heights, Mountain Mesa, and many smaller communities) and several small foothill and 

mountain communities located on the Kern Plateau (Kennedy Meadows), and in the Greenhorn 

Mountains (Johnsondale, Alta Sierra, Sugarloaf, and Beartrap). There are six designated 

wilderness areas either wholly or partially within the administrative boundary of the Sequoia 

National Forest. These areas include Domeland, Golden Trout (shared with the Inyo), Jennie 

Lakes, Kiavah (shared with the Bureau of Land Management), Monarch (shared with Sierra 

National Forest), and South Sierra (shared with the Inyo). Other land managers in the region 

include the National Park Service and the Tule River Indian Reservation. 

The Sierra National Forest 

The Sierra National Forest is located on the western slope of the central Sierra Nevada Range in 

California (Figure 1). It covers the eastern portions of Mariposa, Madera, and Fresno Counties. 

Elevations range from 900 feet at Pine Flat Reservoir to nearly 14,000 feet at the summit of 

Mount Humphreys along the Sierra Crest. The 1.3 million acre Sierra National Forest includes the 

49,000-acre Kings River Special Management Area and the 3,200 acre Teakettle Creek 

Experimental Forest. Congress gave special designation to the Kings River Special Management 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Revising the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra Land Management Plans

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

3 

Area to enhance its recreational opportunities. The Sierra National Forest administers the entire 

Kings River Special Management Area, even though a portion of it is within the Sequoia National 

Forest boundary. Management of the Kings River Special Management Area is guided by the 

1991 Kings River Special Management Area Implementation Plan. 

The Sierra National Forest Supervisor’s Office is located in Clovis, California. The Sierra has two 

administrative ranger districts, Bass Lake and High Sierra. The gateway communities identified 

for the Sierra National Forest include: Oakhurst, Coarsegold, Mariposa, Midpines, El Portal, 

Shaver Lake, Bass Lake, Fish Camp, Auberry, and Friant. Other communities include North Fork, 

Prather, Huntington Lake, and Tollhouse. There are five designated wilderness areas wholly or 

partially within the administrative boundary of the Sierra National Forest including: Ansel Adams 

(shared with the Inyo National Forest), Dinkey Lakes, John Muir (shared with the Inyo), Kaiser, 

and Monarch (shared with the Sequoia National Forest) Wildernesses. Other land managers in the 

region include the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management. 

Regulatory Direction

In 1976, National Forest Management Act3 directed the Forest Service to develop land and 

resource management plans (hereafter referred to as “forest plans”) and use the direction in them 

to manage the natural resources and human uses of each national forest. The National Forest

Management Act and its implementing regulations4 require every national forest to revise its land 

management plan: 

• every 10 to 15 years;

• when conditions or demands in the area covered by the plan have changed significantly; 

• when changes in agency policies, goals, or objectives would have a significant effect on

forest level programs; and 

• when monitoring and evaluation indicate that a revision is necessary.

Today, many forest plans are over 20 years old and have not been revised within the 

recommended period for various reasons. The Inyo and Sequoia National Forests completed their 

first forest plans in 1988 and the Sierra National Forest completed theirs in 1992. The current 

plans have incorporated several amendments, including the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment, the 2007 Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment, and 

other local amendments. The Sequoia National Forest amended their forest plan in 2012 with the 

Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan. 

In addition to the National Forest Management Act, there are many other laws and regulations 

that apply to management of the national forests including, but not limited to, the Clean Air Act, 

Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Historic Preservation Act. These laws are 

generally not repeated or referenced in a forest plan unless there is an issue that merits citing 

direction in the law. Additional direction and policy for management of national forests are 

provided in executive orders, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Forest Service directives 

system, the latter of which consists of Forest Service manuals and Forest Service handbooks. 

Such direction is also not repeated in a forest plan. 

 

3 Public law 94-588 4 See 36 CFR 219
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Revising the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra Land Management Plans

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

4 

Plan Revision under the 2012 Planning Rule

In 2012, the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued a new rule for forest planning. The 2012 

Planning Rule emphasizes that forest plans are to guide management of the national forests so they 

are ecologically sustainable and contribute to social and economic sustainability. The national 

forests are managed to provide ecosystems and watersheds with ecological integrity and diverse 

plant and animal communities. In addition, they are managed to have the capacity to provide 

people and communities with ecosystem services and multiple uses that provide a range of social, 

economic, and ecological benefits for the present and into the future. 

The 2012 Planning Rule describes three phases to the planning process: 

• assessment; 

• development, amendment, or revision of forest plans; and 

• monitoring.5

5 See the Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219.6; 219.7; 219.12; and 219.13.

 

Because the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra forest plans are more than 15 years old and some conditions 

have changed significantly, managers at the three national forests initiated the process of revising

their plans in 2012 as part of a select group of national forests to implement the newly adopted 

planning rule. 

In 2013 we completed assessments: a Bio-regional Assessment (USDA FS 2014a) of the 

conditions and trends of resources, uses, and public interests that are common across the Sierra 

Nevada. This was followed by individual national forest assessments to frame the larger context 

for each of the three national forests in relation to the rest of the national forests in the Sierra 

Nevada (from the Sequoia National Forest all the way to the Modoc National Forest near the 

Oregon border). 

Since then, public involvement efforts have helped us identify the needs for changing the three 

plans as well as a proposed action and alternatives for developing the plans. Although we will 

plan the monitoring program as part of our proposed action, it will not be implemented until after 

the forest plans are revised.

Forest Plan Content

Forest plans provide a framework for integrated resource management and for guiding project 

and activity decisionmaking. Plans themselves do not compel any action, authorize projects or 

activities, or guarantee specific results. Instead, they provide the vision and strategic direction 

needed to move the national forest toward ecological, social, and economic sustainability.

The proposed draft revised plans include “plan components” and “other content.” Once approved, 

any substantive changes to plan components will require a plan amendment. A change to other 

content may be made using an administrative correction process, whereby nonsubstantive errors, 

such as misspellings or typographical mistakes, are corrected or information (such as data and 

maps) is updated. The public is notified of all plan amendments and administrative corrections 

before they become effective.

 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Revising the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra Land Management Plans

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

5 

Plan Components

A forest plan is a general framework to guide the national forest staff when they propose, analyze, 

and decide on projects and activities. The five required components of a forest plan are desired 

conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and suitability of lands. A plan may also include 

goals as an optional component.

• A desired condition is a description of specific social, economic, or ecological 

characteristics of the plan area, or a portion of the plan area, toward which management of 

the land and resources should be directed. This description is specific enough to allow 

progress toward achievement to be determined but does not include a completion date. 

• An objective is a concise, measurable, and time-specific statement of a desired rate of 

progress toward one or more desired conditions. Objectives are based on reasonable 

foreseeable budgets.

• A standard is a mandatory constraint on project and activity decisionmaking, established 

to help achieve or maintain the desired condition, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, 

or to meet applicable legal requirements. 

• A guideline is a constraint on project and activity decisionmaking that allows for departure 

from its terms (more flexibility), so long as the purpose of the guideline is met. Guidelines 

are established to help achieve or maintain the desired condition or conditions, to avoid or 

mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements.

• Suitability of lands is determined for specific lands within the plan area. The lands are 

identified as suitable or not suitable for various uses or activities based on desired 

conditions applicable to those lands. The suitability of lands is not identified for every use 

or activity. A plan’s identification of certain lands as suitable for a use is not a commitment 

to allow such use but only an indication that the use might be appropriate. If a plan 

identifies certain lands as not suitable for a use, then that use or activity may not be 

authorized unless a change in the plan is made. 

Optional Plan Components

• A goal describes an outcome that is not at the sole control of a national forest, such as the 

result of a partnership. 

Other Plan Content

Other content in the forest plans consist of background information, general descriptions of areas 

to provide context to plan components, identification of watersheds that are a priority for 

maintenance and restoration, proposed and possible actions, and potential management 

approaches. Potential management approaches describe the principal strategies and program 

priorities each national forest intends to employ to carry out projects and activities under the plan. 

Potential management approaches may discuss potential processes such as analysis, assessment, 

inventory, project planning, or project monitoring. 

The proposed plan monitoring programs are based in the practice of adaptive management, 

which is broadly recognized as critical for managing natural resources. The adaptive management 

cycle includes: identifying the desired conditions (forest plan); activities to help us get there 

(project-level implementation); monitoring whether we are achieving the results we intended 

(monitoring program), and using those evaluations to improve our implementation activities or to 

amend the forest plans.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Revising the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra Land Management Plans

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

6 

Purpose of and Need for Revising the Forest Plans

The purpose of revising the individual forest plans is to meet the legal requirements of the 

National Forest Management Act and the provisions of the 2012 Planning Rule. There is a need to

revise the existing forest plans to: (1) address the changing social and environmental conditions 

over time, and public issues described below; and (2) guide natural resource management

activities on the three national forests for the next 10 to 15 years.

A prominent theme underlying the need for change is that the existing forest plans 

are relatively inflexible and do not provide enough opportunity to manage natural 

resources in a constantly changing environment. Therefore, this revision effort 

provides an opportunity to address a need for more flexible and adaptive land 

management plans.

The need for plan revision is directly correlated to six overarching “needs for change” we 

identified during iterative pre-revision collaborative dialogues, meetings, tribal forums, studies 

and assessments (see the “Public Involvement and Collaborative Planning” section on page 8). 

These efforts involved our forest plan revision team of interdisciplinary resource specialists and 

many public groups, organizations, agencies, officials, and individuals. 

Three national forest assessments identified recent changes in ecological, economic, and social 

conditions and trends (USDA FS 2014b, 2014c, 2014d). Broader issues were identified in a “Bioregional Assessment” (USDA FS 2014a) and “Science Synthesis” (Long et al. 2014). Using the 

information in these reports, the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests examined the current 

conditions and trends of ecosystems, ecosystem services, and benefits to people. Although the 

staff at the three national forests determined that much of the existing management direction 

contained in the forest plans is adequate to provide sustainable, integrated resource management, 

they identified several emphasis areas of management direction potentially needing change 

(USDA FS 2014e, 2014f, 2014g).

This forest plan revision effort provides an opportunity to coordinate the development of the three 

forest plans and strategically define what management direction should be consistent across the 

three national forests and what direction should be distinct for each national forest. While the 

forest plan revision effort is based on the need for change, we also took advantage of the 

opportunity to incorporate emerging climate change information, reclassify current standards and 

guidelines as desired conditions or other plan components where appropriate, and reduce 

duplication of Forest Service Handbook and Manual direction and existing laws, regulations, and 

policies.

From Needs for Change to Revision Topics

Each emphasis area we identified in the need for change was considered as a potential revision 

topic. Revision topics are used in the environmental impact statement to organize the features of 

the alternatives and to compare and contrast the differences between alternatives.

It is important to note that there is overlap in management direction developed to address each 

revision topic. For example, management direction developed to address needs under revision 

topic 2, ecological integrity, also addresses needs identified under revision topic 1, fire 

management.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Revising the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra Land Management Plans

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

7 

Three of the emphasis areas we identified in the need for change were not considered to be 

revision topics because plan direction was the same in alternatives B, C, and D. The need for 

change to incorporate plan direction for lands transferred to the Inyo National Forest under the 

National Forest and Public Lands of Nevada Enhancement Act was addressed by incorporating 

plan direction that essentially continued existing management and uses. The needs for change to 

address benefits to people and communities and tribal relations and uses are fundamental 

requirements of the 2012 planning rule and were incorporated throughout desired conditions and 

other plan direction. Since these two areas are fundamental requirements, the consequences of the 

alternatives are displayed following the revision topics.

Each revision topic listed below provides a brief description and explanation of what the topic is 

and what needs to be revised in the plans to address the topic. Further explanations supporting the 

needs for changing the current plans are described in the project record.

Revision Topic 1: Fire Management

There is a need to reduce the risk of large high-intensity wildfires to communities and assets such 

as recreation sites and infrastructure; increase the ability to manage wildfires to meet resource 

objectives;

6 and reduce smoke impacts to communities.

Revision Topic 2: Ecological Integrity

There is a need to restore the resilience of vegetation and aquatic and riparian ecosystems to fire, 

drought and climate impacts; restore wildlife and plant habitat and diversity; and reduce the risk 

of large high-intensity wildfire impacts to species and wildlife habitat.

Revision Topic 3: Sustainable Recreation and Designated Areas

There is a need to provide sustainable and diverse recreation opportunities that consider 

population demographic characteristics; reflect desires of local communities, avoid overcrowding 

and use conflicts, and minimize resource damage; protect cultural resources; update direction for 

management of wilderness and wild and scenic rivers; and protect the values of the Pacific Crest 

National Scenic Trail.

The Draft Revised Plans

We prepared the draft revised Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan, Sequoia National 

Forest Land Management Plan, and Sierra National Forest Land Management Plan, (also referred 

to as the “draft forest plans”) in an iterative fashion with the public over a 3-year period, 

beginning with the preparation of the assessments. The draft forest plans are designed to provide 

strategic, program-level guidance for management of each national forest, including their natural 

resources and uses, over the next 10 to 15 years. For each of the revision topics described above, 

the plan revision team, in collaboration with the public and other agencies developed proposed 

revised plans, that:

 

6 A strategic choice to use unplanned wildfire starts to achieve resource management objectives and ecological 

purposes under specific environmental conditions. Such fires are monitored closely to ensure safe conditions for 

people, property, and other highly valued resources.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Revising the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra Land Management Plans

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

8 

• provide a context for future, project-level planning;

• identify strategies to maintain or achieve goals (like desired conditions) over time; 

• identify land areas as generally suitable or unsuitable for various uses;

• identify standards and guidelines to guide the planning of projects and activities; 

• identify areas with special or unique characteristics;

• provide monitoring and evaluation requirements; and 

• emphasize the use of best available science and adaptive management.

Specific details of the draft forest plans, as they evolved from the public collaborative process and 

internal evaluations that have occurred, are provided in chapter 2 and referenced as “alternative 

B.” A copy of the draft revised forest plans are provided as companion documents to this 

environmental impact statement. 

Decision Framework

The responsible officials for this proposed action are the individual Forest Supervisors of the 

respective national forests. After reviewing the results of the analysis evaluated in the final 

environmental impact statement, the responsible officials will each issue a record of decision, in 

accordance with agency decisionmaking procedures7 for their respective national forest that will:

• disclose the decision (identify the selected alternative) and reasons for the decision,

• discuss how public comments and issues were considered in the decision, and

• discuss how all alternatives were considered in reaching the decision, specifying which one 

is the environmentally preferable alternative.8

Approval of the revised plans will identify management areas and will include recommendations 

for areas that can only be designated by statute, such as wilderness and wild and scenic rivers.

Public Participation 

The Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests provided opportunities for public participation 

throughout the plan revision process. We used both formal and informal collaboration methods to 

prepare for and carry out plan revision. We developed a Collaboration, Tribal and Public 

Involvement Plan to guide interactions with other agencies and the public. 

Early Public Engagement Sessions – Informal collaboration began even before the final 

Planning Rule was released with a “Sierra Cascades Dialog” public engagement session held in 

Sacramento, California on the topic of “Preparing for Forest Planning” in December 2011. This 

was followed with additional dialog sessions on collaborative planning, adaptive management 

and recreation, social and economic opportunities and impacts, and monitoring. 

Based upon input from the public during the Sierra Cascades Dialog meeting in 2011, the Forest 

Service Pacific Southwest Research Station produced a science synthesis (Long et al. 2014) to 

 

7 40 CFR 1505.2 8 Environmentally preferable alternative is defined in 36 CFR 220.3. 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Revising the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra Land Management Plans

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

9 

examine the current science for a set of topics that were determined to have changed since the 

1996 Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project9

 (Centers of Water and Wildland Resources 1996). In 

addition, although not required, a Bio-Regional Assessment (USDA FS 2014a) was prepared to 

provide the context for examining resource across the entire Sierra Nevada range.

Continued Public Engagement Sessions – In 2013, we held one Sierra Cascades Dialog session 

to discuss the science synthesis and two dialog sessions to discuss the Bio-Regional Assessment. 

To allow the public to directly provide information about conditions and trends for 18 resource 

topics outlined in the 2012 Planning Rule, we prepared both the Bio-Regional Assessment and the 

national forest assessments using an open wiki site called the “Living Assessment.” We used 

public input received between January and September 2013 to create the Bio-Regional 

Assessment (USDA FS 2014a), the Inyo National Forest Assessment (USDA FS 2014b), the 

Sequoia National Forest Assessment (USDA FS 2014c), and the Sierra National Forest 

Assessment (USDA FS 2014d), which were all released in December 2013. 

Notice to Initiate Plan Revision – Following the assessments, we issued a notice to initiate plan 

revision on December 26, 2013 and developed a preliminary document outlining the need for 

changing the forest plans. We held tribal forums and public workshops in mid- to late-January 

2014 in Fresno, Bakersfield, and Bishop to present and collect feedback on the preliminary need 

for change. Based on public feedback, we revised the need for change and presented an updated 

version along with draft desired conditions. We collected feedback at another set of tribal forums 

and public workshops in mid-June of 2014 in Fresno, Lake Isabella, and Bishop. 

Notice of Intent and 30-day Comment Period – A notice of intent to revise the forest plans for 

the three national forests and to prepare this environmental impact statement was published in the 

Federal Register10 on August 29, 2014, initiating a 30-day public comment period. We circulated 

a detailed proposed action along with the notice of intent. The detailed proposed action provided 

potential plan components and other plan content focused on the revision topics of the purpose 

and need to revise the plans. Tribal forums and public meetings were held in Fresno, Porterville, 

and Bishop in mid-September 2014 to provide an update on the revision process and seek public 

input on the development of alternatives for the draft environmental impact statement.

During the 30-day comment period, we received approximately 7,317 emails and letters from 

individuals, agencies, organizations, tribes and governments commenting on the purpose and 

need and proposed action. Of the comments received, approximately 6,603 represented form 

letters. All comments received were sorted, grouped by subject and analyzed to determine 

concerns and issues. In mid-November 2014, we held a set of tribal forums and public meetings 

in Fresno, Porterville, and Bishop to share a preliminary summary of the comments received and 

an initial set of conceptual alternatives.

Other public involvement occurred as required by the planning rule related to developing the list 

of species of conservation concern, evaluating the suitability of lands, and developing the 

monitoring program. 

 

9 The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project was requested by Congress as a scientific review of the remaining old growth 

in the national forests of the Sierra Nevada in California, and a study of the entire Sierra Nevada ecosystem by an 

independent panel of scientists, with expertise in diverse areas related to the issue.

10 79 FR 51536
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Revising the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra Land Management Plans

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

10

Consultation with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes – The responsible official for each 

national forest regularly met with federally recognized Indian tribes to discuss the plan revision 

process and to engage in consultation as needed. 

A description of the public participation process for forest plan revision can be found in the Forest 

Plan Revision Collaboration, Tribal and Public Involvement Plan in the project record. 

Issues

The public, local and county governments, and State and Federal agencies submitted comments in 

response to the notice of intent during the 30-day comment period and at public meetings. We 

reviewed all the comments to identify issues and frame their associated cause-and-effect 

relationships. We then separated the issues into two groups: significant and nonsignificant. 

Significant issues are those used to develop alternatives and modify the proposed action. 

Nonsignificant issues are identified as those: (1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 

(2) already addressed by law, regulation, the proposed revised 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.

Issues that Served as the Basis for Alternative Development

There are two broad categories of issues: (1) ecosystem or wildlife issues, and (2) management or 

use issues. Each category is followed by numbered issue topics, each of which are followed by a 

summarized issue statement and a description of the many concerns we heard during public 

comments and engagement sessions about the issue.

Ecosystem or Wildlife Issues

Issue 1: Ecological Resilience, Wildlife Habitats, and Wildfire

The amount, type, and location of thinning to improve ecosystem resilience to large, highintensity wildfires and to reduce the threat of wildfires to communities may not provide adequate 

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

There is concern about the type and extent of management activities included in the proposed 

action for restoring ecological resilience, particularly mechanical thinning. Based on perceptions 

of current vegetation conditions and resilience, some respondents stated the proposal is too 

aggressive, while others stated the restoration proposal is not aggressive enough. Some believe a 

more active management approach using thinning of trees and removing fuels to restore 

ecological resilience will impact too much of the dense forest that provide wildlife habitats in the 

short term. They prefer to use more prescribed burning and more carefully managed wildfires 

instead of mechanical thinning, and limit mechanical thinning to only when needed closest to 

communities. Others think a more active management approach that substantially increases the 

areas thinned will reduce impacts from large, high-intensity wildfires and ensure that the forests 

are resilient to climate change. They believe that active management may have short-term 

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

services. 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Revising the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra Land Management Plans

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

11

Issue 2: Forest Resilience and Forest Density

The limitations on effectively treating enough areas to reduce the density of trees and the level of 

fuels because of concerns for wildlife habitats will leave too much of the forest at risk of loss or 

unacceptable damage from wildfires or insect attacks during droughts exacerbated by climate 

change. 

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

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

trees are stressed by droughts. The density of trees and high level of fuels that have accumulated 

also makes it easier for fire to spread quickly into tree crowns where it can kill more trees than 

would be expected under more natural conditions. Public concern is that overemphasizing 

wildlife habitat needs conflicts with the need to improve resilience and sustainability of the forest.

Issue 3: Fuels Treatments and Fire Management

The amount of prescribed fire and managed wildfire used to meet resource objectives may not be 

sufficient to restore fire in frequent fire ecosystems. The amount of fire restored to the landscape 

may not be achievable without reducing existing fuels before treatment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

wildfires that might be suitable for managing to meet resource objectives will continue to be 

suppressed unless there are strategic pre-treated locations to provide confidence that the fire can 

be safely managed without undue risks to communities or unacceptable impacts to resources. 

Issue 4: Watershed Restoration 

The amount of watershed restoration in the proposed revised plans may not keep pace with the 

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

There is a concern that with climate change and drought, aquatic and riparian ecosystems are 

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

threats of uncharacteristically large wildfires that affect large portions of watersheds and riparian 

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

forest density where more trees draw water to grow, and drying of meadows and unique features 

like fens and springs. Since aquatic and riparian systems are an essential component to sustain 

ecosystem integrity, the concern is that without an increased pace and scale of restoration to 

address these stressors, aquatic ecosystems will continue to degrade with less water and warmer 

water temperatures that may make it difficult or impossible for aquatic organisms to survive.

Issue 5: Protecting Aquatic Diversity

The proposed revised plans may not adequately protect areas of high aquatic species diversity.

There is a concern that if we don’t identify and provide additional protection to areas of high 

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

Maintaining and improving the resilience of these areas of concentrated species diversity is 

thought to be important as an adaptive strategy to address climate change.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Revising the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra Land Management Plans

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

12

Management or Use Issues

Issue 6: Recommended Wilderness

The proposed revised plans offer an opportunity to manage more areas as recommended 

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

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

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

would otherwise be allowed. 

The 2012 Planning Rule and Forest Service directives provide direction during forest plan 

revision on a process to inventory and evaluate lands that may be identified as recommended for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. During the 30-day comment period, 

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

suggested they become recommended wilderness areas. They asked that these or other additional 

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

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

because this would prevent them from participating in the activities that they currently enjoy 

within those areas. In particular, tribes, tribal groups and organizations, and traditional cultural 

practitioners expressed concern that access and use of sites where resources are gathered and 

ceremonies are held may be restricted if areas are managed as wilderness. There is also a concern 

that sacred sites and cultural resources may be damaged or vandalized if recreation use increases 

with wilderness designation. Some commenters felt wilderness designation could also limit 

management activities that provide economic benefits while reducing the risks of uncharacteristic 

wildfire, insect, and disease disturbances.

Issue 7: Smoke

Increasing the amount of prescribed burning, and allowing the management of wildfires to meet 

resource objectives would produce more smoke that might impact human health and affect the 

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

Recent very large wildfires in Sierra Nevada national forests have demonstrated that smoke can 

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

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

forests and can be substantial for communities dependent upon a recreation-based economy. 

There is a concern that increasing the amount of prescribed burning and managing more wildfires 

to meet resource objectives will produce too much smoke that will affect human health and, if not 

carefully planned and managed, it could affect local economies.

Issue 8: Forest Products

The amount of forest management activities and forest product outputs may not adequately 

contribute to sustaining local and regional industry infrastructure needed to accomplish 

restoration objectives. 

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

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

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

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

as contribute to the economic and social well-being of communities.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

13

Chapter 2. 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Introduction 

This chapter describes the proposed action for revising the existing forest plans and alternatives to 

the proposed action. We have developed and analyzed four alternatives in this environmental impact 

statement; the proposed action is referenced as alternative B. Alternatives are defined by the different 

ways they address the revision topics and the relevant needs for change. They provide a framework 

for analyzing different ways of achieving the needs for changing the forest plans and for addressing 

the issues described in chapter 1. The alternatives show a range of options for guiding land and 

resource management activities on the national forests during the life of each plan. While this draft 

environmental impact statement identifies alternative B as the preferred alternative, the key purpose 

of this document is to describe in detail the environmental consequences of implementing any one of 

the alternatives. This chapter also presents the alternatives in comparative form, so that the 

differences between each alternative can be readily discerned. Summary tables are provided that 

compare potential future activities by alternative and abbreviate the environmental consequences 

associated with each alternative.

Since one environmental impact statement is being prepared, the theme of each alternative applies to 

each of the three national forests; however, some aspects vary due to differences in vegetation, 

existing settings, sites, infrastructure and opportunities and are differentiated where appropriate. The 

details of the draft forest plans (alternative B) are provided in the separate draft land management 

plans prepared for each national forest.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Four alternatives are analyzed in this environmental impact statement: the no-action alternative 

(alternative A), which represents the existing plans (as amended), and three alternatives: the draft 

forest plans (alternative B; the preferred alternative) and two additional alternatives (alternatives C 

and D), which respond to the needs for change and issues identified from public involvement. The 

alternatives present a range of analysis options, as required by National Environmental Policy Act 

regulations.11

Alternative Development Process

We developed alternative B, the proposed action, to address the needs for changing the forest plans 

(as identified in chapter 1), as well as to carry forward existing forest plan direction that is still 

relevant. Information we gathered from the public and tribes during the collaborative process 

consisted of public comments, the Bio-Regional Assessment, the individual national forest 

assessments, and the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station’s Science Synthesis. All of 

this information contributed to refining the needs for change and creating a proposed action for 

revising the forest plans, as well as to developing the other alternatives. 

The public generally agreed with the proposed action except for the following issues related to it: 

 

11 See 40 CFR 1502.14
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

14

1. The amount, type, and location of thinning to improve ecosystem resilience may not provide 

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

2. The limitations on effectively treating enough areas to reduce the density of trees because of 

concerns for wildlife habitats will leave too much of the forest at risk of loss or unacceptable 

damage from wildfires or insect attacks during droughts; 

3. The amount of prescribed fire and managed wildfire used to meet resource objectives may 

not be achievable without reducing existing fuels before treatment; 

4. The amount of watershed restoration in the proposed revised plan may not keep pace with 

the increased stresses to aquatic and riparian systems from drought; 

5. The proposed revised plan may not adequately protect areas of high aquatic species 

diversity; 

6. Recommending additional wilderness areas in the proposed revised plan might unnecessarily 

prohibit and further geographically constrain management activities and uses, including 

tribal uses that would otherwise be allowed; 

7. Increasing the amount of prescribed burning would produce more smoke that might impact 

human health and affect the tourism-based and resource-based economies of counties and 

rural communities; and

8. The amount of forest management activities and forest product outputs may not adequately 

contribute to sustaining local and regional industry infrastructure. 

Alternative C was developed to address Issues 1 and 5, emphasizing prescribed fire as a 

management tool, rather than mechanical thinning and harvest. Management focus would be on 

treating small-diameter trees using mechanical and hand treatment methods instead of removing 

trees across a range of tree diameters, and focuses on follow-up prescribed burning within treated 

areas.

Mechanical treatments in alternative C would emphasize vegetation and fuel reduction treatments in 

the wildland-urban intermix defense zone to minimize the threat of large high-intensity wildfires to 

communities and there would be less fuel reduction treatment in wildland areas. The treatments in 

the wildland-urban intermix defense zone would focus on implementing and maintaining a pattern 

and intensity of effective fuel reductions to lower the intensity of wildfires immediately adjacent to 

communities. 

Alternative C complies with a 2014 court-ordered settlement agreement to include and analyze an 

alternative that is consistent with the findings and recommendations set forth in the “Southern Sierra 

Nevada Fisher Conservation Strategy” (Spencer et al. 2016); the “Draft Interim Recommendations 

for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National Forest System Lands” (USDA 

FS 2015); and that establishes plan components that conserve key characteristics associated with the 

ecological integrity for post-fire, complex early seral habitat. Alternative C adds the most critical 

aquatic refuges on all three national forests. Direction for riparian conservation areas remains similar 

to alternative B, but would not include the exception to allow mechanical thinning within riparian 

conservation areas to facilitate burning there. 

Alternative C includes the most area of recommended wilderness of all alternatives including many 

areas the public identified for consideration. It also includes the most areas that would be managed as 

critical aquatic refuges, including many areas the public identified for consideration. Alternative C 

also increases the size of the management area for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail to include 

areas that offer iconic views to better provide for the scenic values of the trail.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

15

Alternative D was developed to address Issues 2, 3, and 8 by increasing the intensity of treatments 

and the area where fuels are pre-treated using mechanical methods in combination with strategic 

treatment locations to favor larger landscape prescribed burns. Like alternative B, some of the 

strategic treatments are concentrated in focus landscapes with more area treated and with a greater 

restoration toward the desired condition. This approach allows for prescribed burning across larger 

landscapes and provides more opportunity to manage wildfires to meet resource objectives. It allows 

removal of more trees, which helps managers to more rapidly address desired conditions to reduce 

stand density and drought-related stress on residual large and old trees and improve overall resilience 

of vegetation. 

Alternative D emphasizes strategic mechanical thinning and prescribed burning treatments in the 

community wildfire protection zone, closest to communities, and the general wildfire protection 

zone, where fires can originate and have a high probability of reaching communities, to minimize the 

threat of large high-intensity wildfires. Alternative D also treats more area within the wildfire 

restoration zone increasing the potential to manage wildfires to meet resource objectives. 

Alternative D also addresses Issue 6 by not recommending any additional areas for wilderness 

designation. Critical aquatic refuges are the same as alternative B. Direction for riparian conservation 

areas remains the same as alternative B.

Issue 4, concern regarding the pace and scale of watershed restoration is addressed by having the 

greatest amount of stewardship project opportunities related to the increased amount of mechanical 

fuel reduction. Issue 7, concern regarding the potential of smoke to affect local community health 

and economic sustainability, is addressed by increasing the amount of mechanical fuel reduction 

prior to prescribed burning and by increasing the opportunity to manage wildfires to meet resource 

objectives through the use of strategically located treatments and larger landscape prescribed 

burning. 

Features Common to All Alternatives

All four alternatives have the following features in common.

Giant Sequoia National Monument

(Sequoia and Sierra National Forests)

The management plan for the Giant Sequoia National Monument was approved by the Regional 

Forester in 2012. The Giant Sequoia National Monument Plan was created pursuant to the 

Presidential Proclamation establishing the monument, and provides management direction for all 

lands within the monument. Approximately 24,280 acres of the Giant Sequoia National Monument 

that overlaps within the Kings River Special Management Area is managed by the Sierra National

Forest and continues to follow direction in the Kings River Special Management Area 

Implementation Plan. The 2012 Giant Sequoia National Monument Plan will be carried forward and 

will continue to govern the monument following this plan revision effort. 

This includes the preliminary recommendation for including the Moses Recommended Wilderness 

Area as an addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System. The area would continue to be 

managed according to plan described in the Giant Sequoia National Monument Plan. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

16

Features Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

Consideration of the

Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Conservation Strategy and

the Interim California Spotted Owl Conservation Assessment

Although specific plan direction varies, alternatives B, C, and D include plan direction to incorporate 

the findings and recommendations of the “Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Conservation Strategy” 

(Spencer et al. 2016) and the “Draft Interim Recommendations for the Management of California 

Spotted Owl Habitat on National Forest System Lands” (USDA FS 2015).

Following publication of a California spotted owl conservation assessment (in development) and the 

publication of additional key habitat information (a general technical report on the natural range of 

variation of mixed conifer forests), a California spotted owl conservation strategy will be developed, 

and may highlight management recommendations very different or similar to current standards and 

guidelines. While we cannot anticipate the final contents of the conservation strategy, it will seek to 

balance short and long term owl needs, and better address the long-term resiliency and sustainability 

of owl habitat across its range. Thus, additional conservation, restoration, resiliency, and 

sustainability-focused plan components may be added to incorporate the conservation strategy 

recommendations when they become available.

Complex Early Seral Habitat

Although specific plan direction varies, alternatives B, C, and D include plan components for 

conserving they key characteristics associated with the ecological integrity of complex early seral 

habitat. 

Species of Conservation Concern

The National Forest Management Act requires the Forest Service 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.” As such, the 2012 Planning Rule requires the Forest Service to 

maintain or restore ecological sustainability, integrity, and diversity as the primary approach to 

species conservation. In addition, the rule requires plan components to provide the ecological 

conditions to maintain a viable population of species of conservation concern. A viable population is 

defined as one “that continues to persist over the long term with sufficient distribution to be resilient 

and adaptable to stressors and likely future environments.” Species of conservation concern are those 

species that are known to occur within the plan area and for which there is a substantial concern 

about the species’ capability to persist over the long term in the plan area. As required by the 

Planning Rule and agency directives, the Regional Forester has identified a list species of 

conservation concern for each national forest, which do not vary by alternative. These species are 

listed in the section “Wildlife, Fish and Plants.” 

Alternatives B, C, and D identify vegetation desired conditions designed to provide overall 

ecological integrity, including habitat for all associated species, and specifically to ensure they 

provide the ecological conditions necessary to maintain viable populations of species of conservation 

concern within the plan area. A guideline was developed to protect trees from removal that are used 

for nesting, denning, or roosting by at-risk species. This extends to some adjacent trees that provide 

necessary shade or other important habitat conditions. In addition, a guideline was developed to 

consider at-risk species early in the environmental planning process. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

17

Alternatives B, C, and D identify desired conditions, standards, and guidelines for special habitats 

that represent small-scale habitat or vegetation types that support many at-risk plants and animals. 

These special habitats have plan direction to increase their consideration in project design and to help 

maintain and improve key ecological conditions that support several plant species of conservation 

concern. 

For some species of conservation concern, species-specific plan components have been developed or 

carried forward from the existing plans and are the same across alternatives. These species include 

great gray owl, Sierra marten, and bat species. Species-specific plan components related to willow 

flycatcher are not carried forward from the existing plans. We have also developed species-specific 

plan components for California spotted owl, Pacific fisher, greater sage-grouse, and Yosemite toad, 

but these vary across the alternatives and they are described under each alternative description. 

Willow Flycatcher (All Three National Forests) 

Species-specific plan direction for willow flycatcher is not being carried forward into plan revision. 

Current direction includes survey requirements and livestock grazing direction for occupied sites. 

However, there is no overlap of occupied sites and livestock grazing; therefore, additional speciesspecific plan direction is not necessary. 

Great Gray Owl (Sequoia and Sierra National Forests) 

Species-specific plan direction for great gray owl would be similar to existing plan direction but only 

applies to the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. Direction includes guidelines that designate a 

protected activity center, provide a limited operating period during the breeding season, and maintain

herbaceous vegetation in meadows near nest sites for prey. It also includes a potential management 

approach that provide for follow-up surveys. Additional desired conditions and guidelines for forests 

and woodlands that comprise great gray owl habitat would provide for improved habitat quality and 

resilience. The great gray owl is not a species of conservation concern for the Inyo National Forest as 

they are not known to breed there.

Sierra Marten (All Three National Forests)

Species-specific plan direction for Sierra marten incorporates recent mapping of combined Pacific 

fisher and marten core habitat and information from the “Science Synthesis and Climate Adaptation 

Strategy for the Sierra Nevada.” Much of marten core habitat overlaps with wilderness or inventoried 

roadless areas and would have limited management. Additional desired conditions and guidelines 

address management of core habitat to restore and maintain habitat quality and resilience to climate 

change. Although plan direction related to other species varies by alternative and may also affect 

marten habitat, alternatives B, C, and D include plan direction to incorporate Sierra marten core 

habitat and conserving the key habitat characteristics.

Bats (All Three National Forests) 

Species-specific plan direction for bats includes a standard that provides for the installation of bat 

gates at mines or caves with known breeding or hibernation. 

Tribal Relations and Uses

Desired conditions, goals, and potential management approaches in alternatives B, C, and D address 

and encourage working with tribes to manage resources of tribal importance. Plan components focus 

on management of some sites for tribal uses such as oak stand improvements for acorn gathering, 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

18

management of pine stands for piaga (Pandora moth) on the Inyo National Forest, and other 

gathering site improvements and considerations.

Partnerships

An emphasis on increasing forest capacity through the use of partnerships and volunteerism is 

included in plan direction in alternatives B, C, and D. A variety of strategies and tools would be used 

to increase the use of private, public, and tribal partnerships and volunteers. Partnerships and 

volunteers could assist with improving and maintaining recreation trails, recreation and 

administrative sites and other types of infrastructure, providing information and interpretive services, 

as well as participating in ecological restoration that would include restoring meadows and other 

archeological, cultural, and ecological features. Partnerships may also provide additional funding or 

other resources to increase the types and levels of services offered and to support an increased pace 

and scale of ecological restoration. In each alternative, the type of partnership or volunteer emphasis 

may shift; however, the ability to maintain and increase partnerships and volunteerism will continue 

to exist.

Wilderness

Desired conditions and guidelines were developed to address aspects of wilderness management that 

were not addressed in previous wilderness direction, including plan components to provide for 

restoration in wilderness, invasive species, a trails component, and the undeveloped quality of 

wilderness character.

For the Sierra National Forest, new plan components (desired conditions and standards) apply to the 

Kaiser Wilderness. This direction did not previously exist in the 1992 plan; however, this direction 

reflects how the Sierra National Forest has been managing the Kaiser Wilderness for several years.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

A new plan component would be added for management of rivers identified as eligible for inclusion 

in the National Wild and Scenic River System as well as for rivers that have been found to be 

suitable in previous wild and scenic river studies and have previously been recommended by the 

Forest Service for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. The standard applies

protection measures for these rivers until a decision is made through an Act of Congress or a 

suitability evaluation determines that an identified eligible river is not suitable.

The wild and scenic river eligibility evaluation identified an additional 869 miles of river or river

segments for potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. This includes 160 

miles of eligible rivers or segments on the Inyo National Forest, 80 miles of eligible rivers or 

segments on the Sequoia National Forest, and 633 miles of eligible rivers or segments on the Sierra 

National Forest. 

Nevada Enhancement Act Lands 

The Inyo National Forest acquired approximately 44,600 acres of lands through the National Forest 

and Public Lands of Nevada Enhancement Act of 198812 (see Figure 2). These lands have been 

managed consistent with the Bureau of Land Management’s Tonopah Management Plan and would 

be fully incorporated into the Inyo forest plan. Desired recreation opportunity spectrum classes and 

scenic integrity objectives are assigned to these lands reflecting the current management condition.

 

12 Public Law 100-550 - Oct. 28, 1988; 102 Stat. 2749
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

19

Figure 2. Location of Nevada Enhancement Act lands on the Inyo National Forest
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

20

Scenic Integrity

Scenic character would be managed using the direction of the Scenery Management System, 

which replaces the older visual management system in the existing forest plans. The Scenery 

Management System provides a systematic approach to inventory, analyze, and monitor scenic 

resources on National Forest System lands. It recognizes that landscapes are not static so 

objectives for scenery are grounded by naturally changing and evolving conditions that are 

described in the scenic character. The scenic character stability of the landscape becomes an 

element considered in implementing the management objectives related to restoration. This 

context ensures that objectives for scenery are linked to ecological changes rather than managing 

for a specific condition into perpetuity. Converting to the Scenery Management System advances 

the contemporary paradigm that both natural and cultural (built element) features are part of 

scenic character and contribute to “sense of place.” Scenic integrity objectives describe the 

minimum thresholds for the management of the scenery resource, ranging from very high scenic 

integrity objectives to low. Scenic integrity objectives reflect changes in public perceptions and 

the importance of viewing scenery as well as integrating scenery resources with the overall 

management of the landscape. Sustainable recreation concepts are integrated into plan direction 

for restoration projects to improve and protect scenic character and contribute to improved scenic 

stability.

Invasive Species

The direction for invasive species is primarily focused on noxious weeds in alternative A. For 

alternatives B, C, and D, the direction was updated and expanded to recognize the threats to 

ecosystem resilience from all non-native invasive aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals likely 

to cause harm to ecosystems. There is an emphasis on managing invasive species by including 

objectives that increases the amount of area with non-native invasive plants treated.

Climate Change

The Forest Service is addressing climate change in a variety of ways from reducing the impacts of 

the operations of facilities to encouraging reduced impacts from permitted activities. The desired 

conditions for alternatives B, C, and D include adaptations for climate change where relevant. An 

example is the climate adaptation strategy of providing for habitat connectivity to allow animals 

to move across the forests easier. Although they are not specifically addressed in the current forest 

plans, many of these strategies can and are considered during ongoing project development. 

Alternative A: Existing Plan Direction

Under alternative A, the existing plans, as amended, would continue to guide management of the 

Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests. Electronic copies of the existing forest plans are

provided for each national forest on the Forest Plan Revision Web site.

13

The following sections discuss existing plan direction as it relates to each of the revision topics 

and needs for change.

 

13 http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5444003
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

21

Revision Topic 1: Fire Management

Strategic Fire Management Zones

Current forest plan management focuses hazardous fuel reduction treatment in the wildland-urban 

intermix defense zone and threat zone as a priority. In the defense zone (the area closest to 

structures and communities), there are fewer restrictions on the intensity of thinning. Within the 

wildland-urban intermix defense and threat zones, where fuels are heavy and could contribute to 

high-intensity fire, thinning is allowed within protected activity centers for California spotted 

owls and northern goshawks if prescribed burning designed to reduce fire risk cannot be 

effectively conducted. (See chapter 3, page 96 for a map and more information, and volume 3 for 

maps of the strategic fire management zones in each national forest.) 

Managing Wildfire to Meet Resource Objectives

The current forest plans encourage the restoration of fire to the ecosystem through increased use of 

prescribed fire and by allowing management of some wildfires when they can meet resource objectives

defined by the forest plan. The existing plans provide general direction for resource objectives 

related to vegetation conditions, but they do not explicitly identify resource objectives to be 

accomplished using wildfire as a natural process.

Smoke and Air Quality

Prescribed fire is coordinated with adjacent land management agencies to ensure that State or 

Federal standards for ambient air quality are not exceeded.

Revision Topic 2: Ecological Integrity

Terrestrial Ecosystems

Ecosystem Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Change

Current plan direction focuses on vegetation management and fuel conditions at the stand or 

patch scale and it does not explicitly provide a framework for increasing landscape-level 

treatments. Plan direction is generally prescriptive, with specific requirements and limitations on 

the diameter sizes of trees that can be removed and requirements to retain certain amounts of tree 

canopy cover. The landscape management approach is to strategically place fuel reduction 

treatments to interrupt the spread of large wildfires. However, because many areas are 

inaccessible due to steep terrain or distance from roads, and the current plans include singlespecies-specific habitat management direction that limits treatment options, this approach has 

proven difficult to implement. This has left some wildlife habitats vulnerable to damage or loss 

from large high-intensity fires. The current forest plans describe the need to address stand density of 

forests to reduce the risk of trees dying due to stresses related to prolonged droughts, but single-speciesspecific habitat management direction limits the amount of treatment that can occur. 

Old Forests

The current forest plans contain desired conditions for old forest emphasis areas and provide 

standards and guidelines to generally retain all large trees and to minimize treatments within 

patches of dense-canopy forests with larger trees wherever they occur. The desired conditions for 

old forest emphasis areas provide for high levels of horizontal and vertical canopy diversity, and 

variability in size, species composition, and structure of roughly even-aged vegetation groups 

generally less than 5 acres in size. However, these desired conditions conflict in part with the 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

22

desired conditions and standards and guidelines for the California spotted owl, Sierra marten, and 

Pacific fisher, which generally favor retaining large contiguous areas of denser canopy cover and 

limit the ability to create a lot of horizontal and vertical canopy diversity. In some cases, the 

prescriptive plan direction for one species conflicts with direction for another species, which can 

limit the restoration of habitats as the most restrictive direction is applied to projects.

Wildlife and Plant Habitat Diversity

Risks to terrestrial habitat are mitigated in part by using restoration treatments (such as thinning, 

prescribed fire, and wildfires managed to meet resource objectives) at a landscape scale with the 

intent of reducing the impact of future large, high-intensity wildfires on key habitats each species 

needs. Despite the intent, the combination of protections for individual species often results in the 

inability to treat enough of the landscape to reduce the risks to habitat from wildfire.

Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems

The current forest plans provide direction for an aquatic management strategy with desired 

conditions, goals, and a set of standards and guidelines organized around a set of riparian 

conservation objectives that includes delineation of riparian conservation areas around streams, 

rivers, lakes, meadows and a variety of other wetland types, and a set of critical aquatic refuges. The 

current standards and guidelines generally limit disturbance and impacts within riparian 

conservation areas and critical aquatic refuges and call for consideration of impacts to aquatic and 

riparian systems and resources.

Critical Aquatic Refuges 

The current plans identify a set of critical aquatic refuges focused on areas with threatened and

endangered species or areas of other species with population concerns. The direction that applies 

to riparian conservation areas, the buffer area around streams, rivers, lakes, meadows, bogs, and 

other wetland types, applies to the critical aquatic refuges. There are 17 critical aquatic refuges on 

the Inyo National Forest, 6 on the Sequoia National Forest, and 7 on the Sierra National Forest.

Watershed Resilience to Climate Change

The desired conditions for aquatic and riparian ecosystems in the current plans do not specifically 

consider the change in temperature and precipitation related to climate change and other climate 

stressors to aquatic systems. Desired conditions do not exist connecting the condition of upland 

vegetation with the condition of aquatic and riparian ecosystems.

At-risk Species

At-risk species in alternative A consist of federally listed species under the Endangered Species 

Act and Forest Service sensitive species. The current forest plans employ an approach to species 

management that has a particular focus on providing habitats for species associated with old 

forest ecosystems and with aquatic and riparian systems, two of the issue areas identified in 2001 

as needing new or amended plan direction. The current plans use an approach primarily focused 

on limiting management activities within areas identified for wildlife management, especially 

protected activity centers for California spotted owl, northern goshawk, and great gray owl; home 

range core areas for California spotted owl; and den and rest sites for Pacific fisher and Sierra 

marten. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

23

California Spotted Owl (Sequoia and Sierra National Forests) 

Species-specific plan direction for California spotted owl in the current plans provides for 300-

acre protected activity centers designated around territorial locations and intended to provide 

sufficient habitat to support nesting owls. A surrounding home range core area encompassing an 

additional 300 acres on the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests and an additional 700 acres on 

the Inyo National Forest, is identified to provide sufficient foraging and roosting habitat to 

support the home range needs of California spotted owls. The current forest plans do not address 

the “Draft Interim Recommendations for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on 

National Forest System Lands” (USDA FS 2015); however, the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement applicable to project planning is followed as stipulated.

Pacific Fisher (Sequoia and Sierra National Forests) 

The current forest plans include direction for minimizing disturbance and activities near den sites 

for forest carnivores such as fisher and marten. They also include a southern Sierra fisher 

conservation area with direction to maintain dense canopy cover over at least half of the areas of 

fisher home ranges and to retain and minimize impacts to preferred fisher habitat elements such 

as trees with cavities that could serve as den sites, large snags, and downed logs.

Bi-state Distinct Population Segment

of Greater Sage-grouse (Inyo National Forest only) 

Under the current forest plan, the Inyo National Forest would continue to follow the “Inyo 

National Forests Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policy” (USDA FS 2012) pending a forest 

plan amendment to better address the bi-state distinct population segment of greater sage-grouse. 

In any plan amendment developed for sage-grouse, the Inyo National Forest would consider 

management direction that addresses current threats and, where feasible and applicable, would 

amend the plan to be consistent with the “Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Greater SageGrouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment” to better achieve 

consistency across the national forest boundaries. The Inyo National Forest would also continue

to consider management direction and emphasize management actions that are consistent with the 

“Bi-State Action Plan: Past, Present, and Future Actions for the Conservation of the Greater 

Sage-Grouse, Bi-State Distinct Population Segment.”

Yosemite Toad (Inyo and Sierra National Forests) 

The current plans for the Inyo and Sierra national forests include standards and guidelines that 

exclude livestock grazing within toad-occupied areas during the Yosemite toad breeding and 

rearing season. A standard and guideline allows waiver of the livestock exclusion if a site-specific 

management plan is approved and incorporated into allotment plans and relevant special-use 

permits.

Willow Flycatcher (All Three National Forests)

The current plans include standards and guidelines that guide livestock management by defining 

three categories of site occupancy: occupied willow flycatcher sites, historically occupied willow 

flycatcher sites, and conditionally occupied willow flycatcher sites.

Great Gray Owl (All Three National Forests) 

The current plans include designation of a protected activity center and standards and guidelines 

that provide for follow-up surveys, a limited operating period during the breeding season, and 

maintenance of herbaceous vegetation for all three national forests. Although there is no known 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

24

nesting of this species on the Inyo National Forest, it includes the same direction as the other 

national forests.

Sierra Marten (All Three National Forests)

The current forest plans include direction for minimizing disturbance and activities near den sites 

for forest carnivores such as marten.

Bats (All Three National Forests)

The current plans do not provide specific direction for bats.

Revision Topic 3: Sustainable Recreation and Designated Areas

Sustainable Recreation

Current plan direction for recreation varies by national forest. The existing plan direction was 

based on recreation uses and recreation demand existing and projected from the late 1970s and 

1980s when forest plans were first developed. The emphasis of the current plans is on improving 

recreation opportunities by focusing on the maintenance, development, adaptation, or alteration of 

dispersed and developed recreation sites consistent with the recreation opportunity spectrum class 

of the area. There is an emphasis to continue existing partnerships and volunteerism and to 

evaluate opportunities to develop new partnerships and volunteers to increase the amount of trails 

and facilities managed to desired standards.

Scenery

In the current plans, scenic character is managed using the 1986 Visual Management System and 

associated visual management objectives, which do not include specific guidance for designing 

projects to improve scenic character and scenic character stability within the desired landscape 

character.

Recommended Wilderness

Current plan direction for wilderness varies by forest. General management direction exists but 

many designated wilderness areas have wilderness management plans that provide more specific 

management guidance.

Pacific Crest Trail

The current plans manage the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail according to direction provided 

by a 1982 comprehensive management plan (USDA FS 1982) and direction is focused on the trail 

tread and immediate surroundings. Most of the Pacific Crest Trail is within existing wilderness 

areas except for 13 miles on the Sequoia National Forest and 5 miles on the Inyo National Forest. 

In these areas, there is limited specific plan direction to guide activities adjacent to the trail that 

may impact the scenic and recreational values of the trail.

Alternative B: Proposed Revised Plans 

Alternative B is the draft forest plans, which were developed in collaboration with the public, 

other agencies, government officials, and Native American tribes to respond to the need for 

change emphasis areas. As described in chapter 1, the draft forest plans were adjusted from what 

was initially produced to address issues and feedback received by the public to date. A copy of the 

draft forest plan for each national forest accompanies this document.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

25

The draft forest plans provide a management direction framework to improve ecological fire 

resilience and restore fire as an ecosystem process. The draft forest plans establish strategic fire 

management zones and emphasize active management in the form of harvest, mechanical 

thinning, and prescribed burning to support the use of wildfire (natural ignitions) for resource 

benefit where it can be safely managed. The draft forest plans balance the need for a greater focus 

on landscapes and processes with protection for wildlife with the need for more active 

management. The draft plans address the fact that a prescriptive, single-species approach to forest 

management has significant limitations in terms of achieving long-term sustainability and 

diversity of ecosystems in the face of stressors and climate change, especially in areas closest to 

communities and where there are high concentrations of assets and values important to people. 

Management approaches are adjusted for scenery and recreation settings to integrate with 

restoration activities at a landscape scale and address adapting sites and infrastructure to the needs 

of shifting demographics, budgets, and climate change. Specifically, the draft forest plans strive 

to streamline and simplify standards and guidelines to allow for increasing the pace and scale of 

restoration projects designed to reduce the risks associated with large, high-intensity wildfires, 

drought, insect outbreaks, and climate change. They also strive to improve watershed conditions 

within the community wildfire protection zone and the general wildfire protection zone while 

providing for overall species diversity and the persistence of at-risk species, supporting recovery 

of federally listed species, and improving recreation sustainability.

The draft forest plans retain much of the direction from the existing forest plans; however, the 

draft forest plans differ from the existing plans in a number of fundamental ways that are aimed at 

allowing forest management to be more adaptable over time and to be able to adjust to sitespecific conditions. Some concerns raised during the public comment period were incorporated 

into the draft plans, either by modifying existing language or by adding new language. The 

following sections describe how alternative B responds to each of the revision topics.

Revision Topic 1: Fire Management

Strategic Fire Management Zones

Direction in the draft forest plans would replace the current two distance-based land allocations in 

the wildland-urban intermix and the remaining areas that are not wildland-urban intermix with 

four management areas based on a fire risk analysis consistent with the National Cohesive Fire 

Strategy. (See chapter 3, page 98 for a broad-scale map and more information, and volume 3 for 

maps of the strategic fire management zones in each national forest). 

• The community wildfire protection zone would replace the wildland-urban intermix 

defense zone of alternative A and includes larger geographic areas where wildfire would 

likely threaten communities. This zone is based on modeling potential spread and intensity 

of wildfires that have a very high likelihood of burning into and negatively impacting 

communities and community assets. Due to variations in the potential of fire, this zone is 

irregular in shape unlike the uniform shape of the wildland-urban intermix defense zone of 

alternative A. Draft plan direction emphasizes active management using thinning and 

prescribed fire to reduce fuels within this zone. Most wildfires would be actively 

suppressed to protect communities and assets, although in some instances, wildfires may be 

managed to meet resource objectives if conditions allow and when it could be done in a 

safe manner. Plan direction identifies community buffers in close proximity to structures 

where fuel conditions, snags, and logs would be managed to facilitate safe wildfire 

operations. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

26

• The general wildfire protection zone would replace the wildland-urban intermix threat 

zone of alternative A; it is irregular in shape, covering a larger area. This zone is based on 

modeling potential spread and intensity of wildfires that have a very high likelihood of 

burning toward and negatively impacting communities and assets as well as negatively 

impacting natural resources in the zone. Draft forest plan direction emphasizes active fuel 

reduction treatments along ridgetops, roads, and other natural and manmade features that 

can serve as strategic anchor points for larger prescribed burns and to create areas of low 

fuel that can be used to manage wildfires. Due to the high likelihood of wildfire occurring 

in this zone and possibly spreading into the community wildfire protection zone, wildfires 

would most often be suppressed to reduce the threat to communities and assets. In some 

instances, wildfires could be managed to meet resource objectives if conditions allow and 

when it could be done in a safe manner. 

• The wildfire restoration zone would be a new zone that identifies areas with low to 

moderate risk for communities and structures and other resource values. This zone is based 

on modeling potential spread and intensity of wildfires that can pose a mix of positive and 

negative effects to resources and some isolated assets. Thinning or prescribed burning may 

be needed before wildfires can safely be managed to meet resource benefits. Proposed plan 

direction emphasizes active fuels management treatments in strategic locations to enable 

larger prescribed burns and to aid wildfire management that focuses on restoring fire to the 

ecosystem. Many wildfires in this zone would be managed to meet resource objectives 

under specific conditions and when it could be done in a safe manner, although in some 

instances wildfires may be suppressed.

• The wildfire maintenance zone would be a new zone that identifies areas with very low 

risk. This zone is based on modeling potential spread and intensity of wildfires that pose 

mostly a positive effect to resources. The wildfire maintenance zone is typically in the 

higher elevations, wilderness, and remote areas where mechanical treatments are often not a 

management options, thus restoring the role of fire is important to achieve ecological 

sustainability. Most wildfires in this zone would be managed to meet resource objectives 

under specific conditions and when it could be done in a safe manner. Prescribed burning 

would be used here where it increases the opportunity to manage wildfires and restore fireadapted ecosystems.

Managing Wildfire to Meet Resource Objectives

Draft forest plan direction would provide desired conditions and resource objectives that allow 

unplanned wildfire starts to be managed to meet resource objectives when it is safe to do so 

across the national forests. The conditions and opportunities to manage wildfires would vary by 

strategic fire management zone and plan direction would emphasize designing projects to reduce 

fuels in strategic locations to increase opportunities to manage unplanned wildfire starts in this 

way. 

Smoke and Air Quality

Draft forest plan direction for prescribed fire and managing wildfires to meet resource objectives 

would emphasize considering the impacts of smoke locally and regionally.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

27

Revision Topic 2: Ecological Integrity

Terrestrial Ecosystems

Ecosystem Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Change 

Draft forest plan direction would incorporate the concepts of ecological restoration expressed in 

recent scientific publications such as “An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Sierran MixedConifer Forests” (North et al. 2009) and “Managing Sierra Nevada Forests” (North 2012). The 

draft forest plans create a management framework that allows an increase in the amount of 

restoration treatments using thinning, prescribed fire, and wildfires managed to meet resource 

objectives to make progress toward desired conditions across the landscape.

On the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, this is accomplished in part by redefining the wildlandurban intermix defense and threat zones to the community wildfire protection zone and the general 

wildfire protection zone and shifting from a treatment strategy that used a pattern of disconnected 

strategically placed treatments across the landscape to a strategy using “focus landscape” treatments to

enhance ecosystem resilience and restore heterogeneity more effectively in large landscape areas. Focus 

landscapes are defined during project planning as large areas generally from 10,000 to 80,000 acres in 

size where mechanical thinning and prescribed burning are strategically located to treat enough of the 

landscape to change potential wildfire behavior and to improve the resilience of vegetation within the 

landscape. Treatments would focus especially on areas most departed from vegetation desired 

conditions, typically drier sites that have grown denser than is sustainable. Focus landscapes would also 

emphasize areas where there is negative fire risk to highly valued resources and assets. Many of these 

areas overlap with portions of the community and general wildfire protection zones.

Focus landscapes would not apply on the Inyo National Forest. Proposed plan direction would 

emphasize mechanical thinning and prescribed burning around communities and recreation areas and 

other forested areas. On the Inyo National Forest, the draft forest plans increase emphasis on 

restoration of sagebrush ecosystems, especially to benefit the greater sage-grouse as described for “Atrisk Species” on page 29. 

Draft forest plan direction for all three national forests emphasizes treating along key roads and ridges 

and connecting natural openings like rock outcrops that can make it easier to implement larger 

prescribed burns and manage or suppress fires. Treatments would focus on drier sites near the roads and 

ridges where restoration would move vegetation toward desired conditions.

To address climate change, the draft forest plans include desired conditions and direction for improving 

resilience to climate change in all vegetation types. In subalpine and alpine systems there is additional 

direction that focuses on the unique threats that these usually long-lived and slow-growing ecosystems 

(such as bristlecone pine) face as temperature and precipitation patterns change. The draft plans include 

direction to manage for increased risk of insects and diseases and changed fire patterns and cycles in 

these ecosystems.

The draft forest plans add desired conditions for old forests, including the desired densities of 

large trees and large snags, and the desired proportion of the landscape that should be in old forest

conditions. They include direction to increase the resilience of old forests and large or old trees to 

drought, climate change, and large, high-intensity wildfires, which acknowledges that the 

variation of forest types requires some flexibility in determining the best approach to improve 

resilience on the ground. The draft plans focus on managing for the key characteristics of 

ecological integrity for certain at-risk species such as the California spotted owl and Pacific fisher 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

28

with species-specific guidance to provide for habitat elements such as heterogeneity, snags, down 

logs, and large trees as important attributes of old forest structure.

Complex Early Seral Habitat

Alternative B would include plan components to provide for key characteristics that are important 

to the ecological integrity of complex early-seral habitats after large fires or in large areas where 

trees have been killed by drought, insects, pathogens, wind or other events. This includes desired 

conditions for complex habitat characteristics, wide-spread distribution of snags, logs, and live 

trees, while considering the need for other resource objectives such as hazard tree removal, 

reforestation, and strategic fuel treatments.

Wildlife and Plant Habitat Diversity

The draft forest plans adopt the approach to species management of providing for ecological 

diversity and ecological integrity of habitat as the primary means to ensure the persistence of 

most species. Like the existing plans, the draft forest plans contribute to the recovery of federally 

listed threatened and endangered species and do not jeopardize proposed or candidate species, 

including the incorporation of relevant provisions of the “Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher 

Conservation Strategy” (Spencer et al. 2016) and “Draft Interim Recommendations for the 

Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National Forest System Lands” (USDA FS 

2015) in the form of plan components. Proposed objectives moderately increase restoration 

treatments to trend terrestrial habitat toward the desired conditions at a moderate pace. There is 

an increased emphasis on restoring fire as an ecosystem process in fire-adapted ecosystems with 

frequent fire-return intervals (in ponderosa and Jeffrey pine, and mixed conifer stands). 

Additional desired conditions for vegetation provides for increased habitat heterogeneity for 

multiple species at both the fine scale as well as at landscape scales. Specific desired conditions 

and guidelines for individual vegetation types, old forest, and sagebrush provide ecological 

integrity of habitat for multiple species.

Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems

Proposed direction for riparian conservation areas and critical aquatic refuges is nearly identical to 

that contained in the existing plans, with the following changes. Some of the direction was changed 

to streamline and consolidate direction that is similar in nature; remove direction that repeats laws, 

regulations, or policies; drop the term “riparian conservation objectives” because of the potential for 

confusion with plan component “objectives;” and modify direction to allow prescribed burn

ignitions and, where necessary, mechanical and hand treatments to restore ecological integrity and 

improve the resilience of riparian ecosystems to fire, drought, and climate change.

Critical Aquatic Refuges

The Inyo National Forest draft forest plan adds one additional critical aquatic refuge to their 17 

existing refuges. The Sequoia National Forest will continue to manage their 6 existing critical 

aquatic refuges. The Sierra National Forest draft forest plan adds 11 critical aquatic refuges to 

their existing 7. The proposed additions are based on locations of at-risk aquatic species.

Watershed Resilience to Climate Change 

The desired conditions for aquatic and riparian ecosystems in the draft forest plans recognize 

changes in temperature and precipitation related to climate change and other climate stressors on 

aquatic systems. Desired conditions are for restored vegetation conditions within watersheds, 

which in turn improves the quantity of water available to improve aquatic systems and to be 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

29

available for other uses. Draft forest plan direction emphasizes improving watershed resilience to 

wildfire and climate change by treating vegetation and reducing fuels over larger areas to lower 

the intensity of wildfires. Restoration emphasizes thinning to reduce the effects of past 

management that has resulted in very dense forests, and mitigating impacts from unmaintained 

roads when they impair watershed function. 

At-risk Species

The 2012 Planning Rule defines two categories for at-risk species: (1) species that are federally 

recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species; and (2) species of 

conservation concern. Species of conservation concern are native, are known to occur in the plan 

area, and are species with a substantial concern for their capability to persist over the long term in 

the plan area. The 2012 Planning Rule requires plan components to provide the ecological 

conditions necessary to contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered 

species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and maintain a viable population of each 

species of conservation concern within the plan area.

As part of the plan revision process, coarse-filter plan components such as desired conditions 

were developed that describe the desired outcomes and conditions for terrestrial vegetation, 

riparian habitats and features, and aquatic habitats and features within the three national forests 

planning area. For most at-risk species, meeting and maintaining these desired conditions within 

the planning area and applying other standards or guidelines would help provide the habitat and 

key ecological conditions that would provide for their persistence and viability within the 

planning area. For a few species, additional species-specific plan components (desired conditions, 

standards, guidelines, and goals) were developed to better provide the habitats and key ecological 

conditions that provide for persistence and viability within the planning area. 

The list of species of conservation concern identified by the Regional Forester for which the draft 

forest plan direction has been developed is described in the “Wildlife, Fish and Plants” section. 

Because the list of species of conservation concern is based on plant and animal species known to 

occur within each national forest, the list of species differs slightly between the three national 

forests.

California Spotted Owl (Sequoia and Sierra National Forests) 

California spotted owl-specific plan direction in the draft forest plans for the Sequoia and Sierra 

National Forests is similar to the existing plans for protected activity centers and home range core 

areas. California spotted owl direction is removed from the Inyo forest plan since no California 

spotted owls occur on the Inyo National Forest. Updates have been made per the “Draft Interim 

Recommendations for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National Forest 

System Lands” (USDA FS 2015) including the desired condition to reflect findings emphasizing 

vegetation heterogeneity. Management direction for focus landscapes was developed to address 

long-term habitat resilience. To reduce wildfire and insect and disease risks in current densely 

vegetated conditions, vegetation treatments may occur in up to one-third of spotted owl protected 

activity centers, focused on locations in dry vegetation types, while continuing to support species 

persistence. The existing plan direction to conduct surveys for California spotted owls and apply 

one-quarter-mile limited operating periods when breeding individuals are discovered is changed 

in the draft forest plans to guidelines that ensure adequate consideration is given to the effects of

disturbance that might cause breeding failure. Vegetation treatments may also occur in protected 

activity centers in community buffers in the immediate vicinity of structures and along ridges and 

roads in the two wildfire protection zone management areas. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

30

Pacific Fisher (Sequoia and Sierra National Forests)

Species-specific draft plan direction for the Pacific fisher includes incorporating the relevant 

findings and recommendations of the “Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Conservation Strategy” 

(Spencer et al. 2016) on the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. Specifically, plan direction 

would change from a strategy based on identification of a large southern Sierra fisher 

conservation area and den site buffers to a strategy that uses habitat and occupancy modeling to 

identify areas important to maintain and restore Pacific fisher habitat and to support a persistent 

population in the southern Sierra Nevada. The fisher conservation strategy area is based upon a 

refined analysis of habitat likely to contribute substantially to the Pacific fisher population over 

the next 15 to 30 years and approaches to increase habitat resilience and restore habitat quality 

(heterogeneity). Consistent with the fisher conservation strategy area findings, additional desired 

conditions and plan direction would be applied to two specific areas: 2,500-acre fisher target cells

and fisher linkage areas. Direction for fisher den site buffers would be replaced by management 

of fisher denning habitat within larger occupied fisher habitat core areas.

Draft plan direction allows some departure from the fisher conservation strategy in community 

buffers immediately near structures and in focus landscape areas to meet long-term vegetation 

and habitat resilience objectives. Up to half of any suitable fisher target cell could be treated in 

these focus landscapes, provided that no more than one-third of the suitable fisher target cells are 

treated in any 10-year period. Outside of the focus landscapes or community buffers, no more 

than 13 percent of a fisher target cell could be treated in any 5-year period and plan direction 

would limit the extent of treatment in adjacent target cells. Currently unsuitable fisher target cells 

would be treated to move them to become suitable within three decades so there is a net increase 

in suitable habitat over time. Additional proposed plan direction emphasizes reducing other 

contributing sources of Pacific fisher mortality, especially risks associated with rodenticides and 

collisions with vehicles.

Bi-state Distinct Population Segment

of Greater Sage-grouse (Inyo National Forest) 

Species-specific plan direction is added for the bi-state distinct population segment of greater 

sage-grouse on the Inyo National Forest. The proposed plan direction is based on the existing 

“Inyo National Forest Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policy” and, where appropriate, 

additional management direction has been developed consistent with the “Humboldt-Toiyabe 

National Forest Greater Sage Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan 

Amendment.” The draft Inyo forest plan also includes management direction and emphasize 

management actions that are consistent with the “Bi-State Action Plan: Past, Present, and Future 

Actions for the Conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse, Bi-State Distinct Population Segment.” 

There would be more acres of treatments allowed to remove encroaching pinyon-juniper within 

sage-grouse habitat than what is allowed in the existing Inyo forest plan. 

Yosemite Toad (Inyo and Sierra National Forests) 

Species-specific proposed plan direction for Yosemite toad is similar to what is in the existing 

plans for the Inyo and Sierra National Forests. This species does not occur on the Sequoia 

National Forest.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

31

Revision Topic 3: Sustainable Recreation and Designated Areas

Sustainable Recreation

Recreation opportunity spectrum classes have been updated and the management approach for 

recreation settings is integrated with ecological restoration approaches. The draft forest plans

include desired conditions to manage developed recreation sites for ecological, social, and 

economic sustainability and an objective for fuel treatment restoration activities to protect 

recreation site infrastructure. Management of opportunities, sites and infrastructure are adjusted 

to respond to changing demographics, budgets and deferred maintenance, as well as climate 

change.

Scenery

The draft forest plan direction identifies scenic integrity objectives for the plan areas using the 

Scenery Management System. Scenery setting management would be integrated with ecological 

integrity and restoration to improve scenic character stability within the desired landscape 

character. The draft forest plans include plan components that require desired scenic integrity 

objectives be considered in the design of restoration projects.

Recommended Wilderness

Alternative B would make a preliminary administrative recommendation to include four 

additional areas in the National Wilderness Preservation System on the Inyo National Forest 

(South Sierra; Piper Mountain Addition; White Mountains East; and White Mountains West). 

These are also referred to as “recommended wilderness areas.” All four areas are adjacent to 

existing designated wilderness area boundaries and total 37,039 acres. No additional areas would 

be recommended on the Sequoia or Sierra National Forests. 

Pacific Crest Trail

The draft forest plans would create a management area allocation for the Pacific Crest National 

Scenic Trail by defining a corridor of the visual foreground landscape zone (up to one-half mile 

from the centerline of the trail where visibility is not obscured by terrain) as defined by the 

Scenery Management System. Management area-specific desired conditions, standards, and 

guidelines and a management approach would be included to protect the nature, purposes, and 

resource values of the trail from degradation by activities and development.

Alternative C

Alternative C emphasizes wilderness values and a passive management approach to restore fire as 

an ecosystem process, primarily using prescribed fire and natural disturbance processes (such as 

managing wildfire for resource benefit) to achieve landscape-level desired conditions.

Alternative C was developed to address concerns about whether the draft forest plans provide 

adequate short-term protections for wildlife habitat. It includes direction to minimize the effects 

of treatment on habitats by preserving specific structural components such as large trees and 

canopy cover for the California spotted owl and Pacific fisher consistent with the findings and 

recommendations set forth in the “Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Conservation Strategy” and the 

“Draft Interim Recommendations for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on 

National Forest System Lands”. This direction is also consistent with the findings and 

recommendations for Sierra marten in the Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for Focal 

Resources of the Sierra Nevada. Like alternative A, this alternative’s plan direction would 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

32

emphasize minimal active management in fisher and owl habitat to address restoration needs. In 

some cases, the prescriptive plan direction for one species limits the extent of achieving the 

desired condition for another species, as the most restrictive direction is applied to projects. Like 

alternative B, alternative C includes plan components for conserving key characteristics 

associated with the ecological integrity for post-fire, complex early seral habitat. Also, additional 

critical aquatic refuges are identified around areas of high aquatic species diversity.

Revision Topic 1: Fire Management

Strategic Fire Management Zones

In alternative C, the fire management zones would retain the distance-based wildland-urban 

intermix defense zone around communities from the existing plans and would have the same riskbased wildfire maintenance zone as alternative B. The remainder of the forest would be called the 

general wildfire zone. (See chapter 3, page 99 for a map and more information, and volume 3 for 

maps of the strategic fire management zones in each national forest.) 

• Similar to the existing plans, the wildland-urban intermix defense zone, closest to 

communities, would remain a high priority for hazardous fuel reduction treatment to reduce 

the intensity of wildfires in these areas while avoiding or minimizing mechanical thinning 

treatments in habitats for the spotted owl and fisher. Maintenance treatments using 

prescribed fire instead of mechanical treatments would be the preferred management 

method whenever possible. 

• Similar to the draft plans in alternative B, the wildfire maintenance zone, identifies areas 

with very low risk based on modeling potential spread and intensity of wildfires that pose 

mostly a positive effect to resources. In this zone, restoring the role of fire is important to 

achieve ecological sustainability and most wildfires in this zone would be managed to meet 

resource objectives under specific conditions and when it could be done in a safe manner. 

Prescribed burning would be used here where it increases the opportunity to manage 

wildfires and restore fire-adapted ecosystems.

• The remainder of the forest would be the general wildfire zone and would be managed to 

meet resource objectives the same as the wildfire maintenance zone in alternative B. 

Wildfires that occur in the general wildfire zone where fuel conditions are close to desired 

conditions may be managed to meet resource objectives when conditions allow and when it 

could be done in a safe manner. There would be less strategic treatment using mechanical 

methods as a precursor to larger prescribed burns. 

Managing Wildfire to Meet Resource Objectives

Like alternative B, alternative C would provide desired conditions and resource objectives that allow 

wildfires to be managed to meet resource objectives when it is safe to do so across the national 

forests. The conditions and opportunities to manage wildfires would vary by strategic fire 

management zone, and plan direction for the wildfire maintenance zone would be the same as for 

alternative B. Species-specific plan direction to provide for habitat conditions for certain wildlife 

species would override direction for strategic treatments designed to increase the opportunity to 

manage wildfires to meet resource objectives.

Smoke and Air Quality

Alternative C would include the same guidance for designing projects to minimize the impacts of 

smoke on communities as alternative B.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

33

Revision Topic 2: Ecological Integrity

Terrestrial Ecosystems

Ecosystem Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Change 

Alternative C is designed to manage the forest landscape to minimize short-term impacts on 

habitats from management activities while accepting the risk of large high-intensity wildfires that 

could affect mature and old forests. Alternative C focuses vegetation and fuel reduction 

treatments within the wildland-urban intermix defense zone and seeks to restore vegetation 

desired conditions in the larger landscape with limited, strategic use of mechanical thinning and a 

heavier emphasis on the use of prescribed fire and wildfire managed primarily for resource 

objectives where safe and consistent with desired conditions. Alternative C would not use the 

focused landscapes approach described in alternatives B and D.

Alternative C would include additional plan components for the California spotted owl, Sierra 

marten, and Pacific fisher to incorporate relevant provisions of the California spotted owl interim 

recommendations, fisher conservation strategy, and Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for 

Focal Resources of the Sierra Nevada, which would limit the application of mechanical treatment 

to address vegetation resilience. This would include standards and guidelines that prohibit 

treatments in spotted owl protected activity centers and prohibit mechanical treatment with 

designated owl habitat unless there are short-term benefits to owls. It would establish diameter 

limits for harvest and require retaining certain levels of tree canopy cover and certain levels of 

understory cover for vegetation treatment projects, especially within important habitat areas for 

Pacific fisher and California spotted owl. These standards and guidelines would emphasize 

reducing the risk of short-term impacts to wildlife species that use larger and denser canopied 

forests, prioritizing these species needs over other resource management objectives. There is an 

emphasis on maintaining connectivity of dense canopied forests throughout the montane and 

upper montane landscapes. Alternative C would allow mechanical fuel reduction on areas outside 

of important habitat areas for the California spotted owl and outside of habitat areas important to 

the Pacific fisher to address concerns related to large high-intensity wildfires.

Like alternative B, alternative C adds desired conditions for old forests, including the desired 

densities of large trees and large snags, and the desired proportion of the landscape that should be 

in old forest conditions. It includes direction to increase the resilience of old forests and large or 

old trees important to wildlife habitats to drought, climate change, and large, high-intensity 

wildfires by restoring landscape heterogeneity that emulates patchy habitat that results from 

active, low- to mixed-severity wildfire.

Complex Early Seral Habitat 

Like alternative B, alternative C would include plan components to provide key characteristics 

that contribute to the ecological integrity of complex early-seral habitats after large fires. 

However, alternative C would generally limit post-fire management to cutting burned trees that 

are a hazard to people and leaving them in place unless they pose a substantial hazard as downed 

logs. Direction in alternative C would vary from alternative B to leave most burned areas to 

recover naturally with no direct management action (no planting), even after very large fires. 

Where possible, efforts to treat half of the burned areas with prescribed fire would be planned 10 

years after the initial fire to reduce accumulations of fuels and to maintain a frequent fire interval 

as a part of forest succession.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

34

Wildlife and Plant Habitat Diversity

Desired conditions and other plan components for California spotted owl and Pacific fisher 

habitat would result in landscape conditions in the upper end of the moist mixed-conifer 

vegetation desired conditions. This is in contrast to alternative B and D which would strive for 

desired conditions within the natural range of variation for all habitat types. Prescribed burning 

would be the preferred method of treatment. 

Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems

Proposed direction for riparian conservation areas and critical aquatic refuges is nearly identical 

to that contained in alternative B, with the following changes. 

Critical Aquatic Refuges

Alternative C would add the most critical aquatic refuges of all alternatives. There would be 8 new 

critical aquatic refuges on the Inyo National Forest, 2 on the Sequoia National Forest, and 27 on the 

Sierra National Forest. Management direction would be the same as in alternative B.

Watershed Resilience to Climate Change

Alternative C would differ from alternative B because it would not modify current direction to 

allow prescribed fire ignitions and, where necessary, mechanical treatments within riparian 

conservation areas. Alternative C would allow prescribed fire in riparian areas where it was 

historically prevalent to restore desired fuel conditions, to the extent it could occur with limited or 

no mechanical preparation. 

At-risk Species

Alternative C emphasizes reducing the short-term consequences of restoration treatments to 

wildlife. For wildlife associated with old forests, as described in revision topic 1, it emphasizes 

retaining larger sized trees, minimizing reductions in forests with existing dense canopy cover, 

and retaining habitat elements such as high densities of large snags and downed logs, and 

retaining larger trees with cavities or deformities that can be used for nests or dens across the 

landscape.

California Spotted Owl (Sequoia and Sierra National Forests) 

Draft species-specific plan direction in alternative C for the California spotted owl incorporates 

the relevant “Draft Interim Recommendations for the Management of California Spotted Owl 

Habitat on National Forest System Lands” (USDA FS 2015). There are currently no California 

spotted owls on the Inyo National Forest so this alternative provides no specific plan direction for 

the California spotted owl there. 

Several specific changes would be made from the current direction in the existing forest plans and 

are only included in alternative C. In particular, the current strategy based on two habitat zones 

(the protected activity center and home range core area) would be changed to a strategy based on 

four zones: protected activity center, territory, home range area, and landscape, with all 

designated habitat areas only on National Forest System lands.

• The protected activity center would be delineated similar to the current protected activity 

center, and would be a 300-acre area of the highest quality nesting habitat surrounding the 

best location detected for a territorial or presumed territorial spotted owl.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

35

• The territory would be somewhat analogous to the current home range core area and it 

would provide additional nesting and foraging habitat within an 800-acre circular area 

surrounding the activity center that would be assumed to be used exclusively and not 

shared with adjacent owls.

• The home range area would provide for some additional suitable habitat within a 1.5-mile 

circle surrounding the activity center.

• Additional vegetation management direction for mature forest habitat in the broader 

landscape outside of the three main zones for the California spotted owl would be included 

to more intensively evaluate habitat at 10,000 to 30,000-acre subwatershed scales when 

planning projects to better define habitat restoration opportunities for designated spotted 

owl habitats.

Mechanical treatments would generally be prohibited within designated owl habitats (protected 

activity centers, territories, and home range areas) but hand treatments and protection of nest and 

roost trees would be allowed when preparing for prescribed burning. In all four areas, there would 

be desired conditions to maintain and restore specific levels of closed-canopied mature forest. There 

would continue to be standards for retention of all large trees 30 inches in diameter or greater, as 

well as pines 27 inches in diameter or greater. This is also consistent with the fisher conservation 

strategy (see below).

Fisher (Sequoia and Sierra National Forests) 

Like alternative B, species-specific plan direction for the Pacific fisher in alternative C would 

include incorporating the relevant findings and recommendations of the “Southern Sierra Nevada 

Fisher Conservation Strategy” (Spencer et al. 2016). Alternative C would use the same fisher 

strategy area, fisher target habitat, linkage areas, fisher core areas, and suitable fisher target cells 

described for alternative B. However, alternative C would include longer limited operating 

periods and treatment would be limited to less than 13 percent of suitable fisher target cells within 

any given 5-year period. There would be no exceptions to rendering adjacent fisher target cells 

unsuitable at the same time, as allowed in the focus landscapes of alternative B and D. Currently 

unsuitable fisher target cells would be treated so they could become suitable within three decades 

similar to alternative B. Like alternative B, additional plan components would emphasize 

reducing other contributing sources of fisher mortality, especially risks associated with 

rodenticides and collisions with vehicles.

Unlike alternative B, there would be no revised plan direction to allow departure from the fisher 

conservation strategy near communities and structures and in focus landscape areas to meet longterm vegetation and habitat resilience objectives. (As described earlier in this section, alternative 

C does not incorporate focus landscapes.) There would be standards for retention of all large trees 

greater than 30 inches diameter and greater than 27 inches diameter for pine trees in all areas. 

This is in contrast to alternative B where desired conditions for large trees are emphasized in the 

wildfire protection zones and there are no diameter limits.

Bi-state Distinct Population Segment

of Greater Sage-grouse (Inyo National Forest) 

Species-specific plan direction would be added for the bi-state distinct population segment of 

greater sage-grouse on the Inyo National Forest the same as alternative B, except the objective for 

acres of sage-grouse habitat maintained, improved, or restored would be increased slightly. This 

increase is due to less competition for funding resources with other ecological restoration projects 

as a result of increased restrictions on mechanical thinning to provide for the Sierra marten.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

36

Yosemite Toad (Inyo and Sierra National Forests) 

Species-specific proposed plan direction for Yosemite toad is the same as alternative B.

Revision Topic 3: Sustainable Recreation and Designated Areas

Sustainable Recreation

The range of recreation opportunity spectrum classes would shift with larger areas allocated to 

primitive and semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation settings and less area allocated to 

motorized recreation settings in alternative C. 

Scenery

Alternative C uses the same Scenery Management System as described for the draft forest plans. 

The emphasis on improving scenic character stability would be tempered by plan direction to 

maintain and improve denser forests conditions for California spotted owl and Pacific fisher, 

which accepts the risk of some effects to scenic stability from large wildfires.

Recommended Wilderness

Alternative C would make a preliminary administrative recommendation to include the following 

areas in the National Wilderness Preservation System:

• On the Inyo National Forest 24 areas totaling 315,531 acres would be recommended. This 

would include nine areas (70,278 acres) adjacent to existing designated wilderness and 15 

areas (245,253 acres) that are not.

• On the Sequoia National Forest 18 areas totaling 206,904 acres would be recommended. 

This would include 11 areas (86,105 acres) adjacent to existing designated wilderness and 

seven areas (120,799 acres) that are not.

• On the Sierra National Forest 17 areas totaling 220,641 acres would be recommended. This 

would include 12 areas (133,943 acres) adjacent to existing designated wilderness and five 

areas (86,698 acres) that are not.

Pacific Crest Trail

Alternative C would create a management area allocation for the Pacific Crest National Scenic 

Trail by defining a corridor that includes the same visible foreground (up to one-half mile of 

centerline of the trail where visibility is not obscured by terrain) of alternative B and also includes 

lands inventoried as “Scenic Attractiveness A” in the Scenery Management System within the 

trail’s viewshed. The plan direction assigned to the corridor would be the same as alternative B. 

Alternative D

Alternative D includes an emphasis on an increased pace and scale of restoration in response to 

the issues of improving resilience to fire, drought, climate change, insects, and diseases, while 

enhancing economic and social sustainability. Like alternative B, it emphasizes long-term habitat 

conservation, accepting that short-term impacts to species associated with dense forests would be 

offset by reducing the risk of habitat damage or loss from large high-intensity wildfire. However, 

alternative D includes additional focus landscapes, eliminates diameter limits, and expands 

operating periods to allow more active management to move vegetation toward desired conditions 

more than the draft forest plans. It emphasizes additional mechanical treatment on strategic 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

37

ridgetops, roads, and other natural and manmade features, and adjacent areas to increase the 

amount of landscape-scale prescribed burning to restore fire in the ecosystem.

Revision Topic 1: Fire Management

Strategic Fire Management Zones

Alternative D uses the same strategic fire management zones and similar direction as the draft 

forest plans of alternative B. Although desired conditions for old forest conditions would be the 

same, there would be no diameter limits for removing large trees across all three national forests, 

in contrast to alternative B where diameter limits do not apply in the community and general 

wildfire protection zones but apply elsewhere. (See chapter 3, page 98 for a map and more 

information, and volume 3 for maps of the strategic fire management zones in each national 

forest.) 

Managing Wildfire to Meet Resource Objectives

Alternative D uses the same approach as alternative B to emphasize an increased management of 

wildfires to meet resource objectives when it is safe to do so. More areas are designed and treated 

using mechanical treatments and prescribed burning to create more opportunities to manage 

wildfires to meet resource objectives safely.

Smoke and Air Quality

The emphasis for managing wildfires to meet resource objectives would consider the impacts of 

smoke locally and regionally as in alternative B. However, the additional opportunity for pretreating areas prior to prescribed burning and additional focus areas treated to trend toward 

desired vegetation conditions would reduce the potential for community smoke impacts from 

uncharacteristic wildfire.

Revision Topic 2: Ecological Integrity

Terrestrial Ecosystems

Ecosystem Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Change 

Alternative D is very similar to the draft forest plans except it doubles the pace and scale of 

restoration to have a greater likelihood of reducing the impact of future high-intensity wildfires. It 

uses the same landscape strategies and approaches as the draft forest plans with the following 

changes:

• Alternative D emphasizes the strategic use of mechanical treatments where it is physically and 

economically feasible to facilitate greater management of wildfire to a greater extent than the 

draft forest plans—both the active use in prescribed burning at greater landscape scales as well as 

through managing wildfires to meet resource objectives when conditions allow and when it 

can be done in a safe manner. There is more emphasis on strategic treatment of ridgetops 

and along strategic road locations in the wildfire restoration zone that would facilitate more 

landscape prescribed burning and serve as anchor points for managing wildfires to meet 

resource objectives.

• On the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, there would be more focus landscapes treated 

than in the draft forest plans, increasing the concentrated area where fuels would be 

reduced, which would have the potential to influence future fire behavior on the landscape. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

38

These focus landscape treatments would be designed to move toward vegetation desired 

conditions and to improve the resilience of treated stands to insects and disease, especially 

associated with drought and climate change. On the Inyo National Forest, there would be 

more areas treated than in the draft plans. 

• Like the draft forest plans, there would be more emphasis on providing variability within 

tree patches during treatments to increase heterogeneity and increasing resilience to 

drought. 

Alternative D would manage old forests the same as the draft forest plans, focusing on increasing 

the resilience of existing areas with old forest conditions and emphasizing landscapes that meet 

desired composition of seral stages and include old forest components throughout.

Alternative D retains similar direction as the draft forest plans for the management of burned 

areas following a large fire, except it increases the emphasis on salvage for economic return and 

reforestation of portions of large fires that burn at high severity. This includes desired conditions 

for reforestation when needed to address sustainability of forests given the length of time it could 

take to reestablish forests dominated by large and old trees with natural reforestation, forest 

connectivity, and species composition and seed sources considering climate change.

Complex Early Seral Habitat

Like the draft forest plans, alternative D would include plan components to provide for the key 

characteristics that provide for the ecological integrity of complex early seral habitats after large 

fires. This includes desired conditions for complex habitat characteristics, wide-spread 

distribution of snags, logs, and live trees while considering the need for other resource objectives 

such as hazard tree removal, reforestation, and strategic fuel treatments. Alternative D would 

emphasize economic recovery of burned forest while still contributing to desired conditions for 

this habitat.

Wildlife and Plant Habitat Diversity

Alternative D incorporates the same direction regarding at-risk species as the draft forest plans; 

however, plan direction emphasizes restoring enough area across the landscape to increase 

climate adaptation, and reduce the risk of large, high-intensity wildfires to important at-risk 

wildlife species habitat, while also continuing to manage a portion of the landscape as highquality habitat for at-risk species. This alternative accepts some short-term risk to species to 

manage more areas for vegetation desired conditions to provide for greater sustainability of 

habitats over time. Alternative D focuses on the long recovery time for habitats of many at-risk 

species and is designed to lessen the rate of habitats adversely affected by large high-intensity 

wildfires. Restoration treatments would occur at an increased level sufficient to trend terrestrial 

habitat toward the desired conditions at a moderate to high pace.

Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems

Critical Aquatic Refuges

Alternative D includes the same direction for riparian conservation areas and critical aquatic refuges

as the draft forest plans. 

Watershed Resilience to Climate Change

Alternative D incorporates the same aquatic management strategy direction as the draft forest 

plans. Maintenance and restoration would occur on more roads due to the increased area of 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

39

restoration treatments and increased stewardship opportunity. Restoration would emphasize 

reducing the legacy effects of past management that continue to degrade watershed function, 

especially reducing or eliminating sediment risks from roads and restoring hydrologic 

connectivity of habitat for amphibians and fish. 

At-risk Species

Plan direction for species of conversation concern would be the same as the draft forest plans. 

California Spotted Owl (Sequoia and Sierra National Forests) 

Direction would be the same as the draft forest plans except: 

• The one-quarter-mile limited operating period would allow activities after June 1 for 

portions outside of the protected activity center to increase the number of days where 

restoration activities can occur during the summer. 

• The limited operating period would also allow more early-season prescribed burning within 

and adjacent to spotted owl protected activity centers.

Pacific Fisher (Sequoia and Sierra National Forests)

Direction would be the same as the draft forest plans to allow up to 50 percent of a fisher target 

cell to be treated within focus landscapes or community buffers, except the total number of 

suitable fisher target cells that could be treated to this extent within a 10-year period would 

increase from no more than one-third to no more than one-half of all suitable fisher target cells.

Bi-State Distinct Population Segment

of Greater Sage-grouse (Inyo National Forest) 

Like alternative B, species-specific plan direction is added for the bi-state distinct population 

segment of greater sage-grouse on the Inyo National Forest, except the objective for acres of 

sage-grouse habitat maintained, improved, or restored is increased the same as alternative C. This 

increase is due to increased stewardship funding opportunities and an increase in landscape-scale 

restoration treatments overall.

Yosemite Toad (Inyo and Sierra National Forests) 

The standards and guidelines that exclude livestock grazing within areas occupied by Yosemite 

toads during the breeding and rearing season, except where a site-specific management plan is 

developed would change to a new system to determine appropriate management strategies. In the 

new system, either a known Yosemite toad occupied site, designated critical habitat, or the results 

of an empirically derived occupancy probability model would be used in combination with 

meadow habitat conditions to guide a matrix of grazing management strategies. These strategies 

would range from no grazing to the current forestwide grazing standards in alternative A.

Revision Topic 3: Sustainable Recreation and Designated Areas

Sustainable Recreation

The range of recreation opportunity spectrum classes would shift with fewer areas allocated to 

primitive and semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation settings and more area allocated to 

motorized recreation settings in alternative D. Improvements in recreation settings would be 

associated with larger treatment areas to improve landscape resilience to fire and climate change 

rather than emphasizing treatments around individual sites and infrastructure.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

40

Scenery

Alternative D uses the same Scenery Management System as described for the draft forest plans. 

Recommended Wilderness

Alternative D would not make any additional preliminary administrative recommendations to the 

National Wilderness Preservation System.

Pacific Crest Trail

Alternative D would create a management area allocation for the Pacific Crest National Scenic 

Trail by defining a corridor 1/4 mile from the centerline of the trail. The plan direction assigned to 

the corridor would be the same as the draft forest plans. 

Alternatives Considered

but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by the National Environmental Policy Act to rigorously explore and 

objectively evaluate 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

during the plan revision process provided suggestions for the proposed revised plan. Some of 

these suggestions may not have been part of identified needs for change, were duplicative of the 

alternatives considered in detail, or were determined to contain components that would cause

unnecessary environmental harm.

A number of alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons 

as summarized in the following paragraphs.

Alternative Eliminated 1:

Restore over half of the landscape within 10 to 15 years

An alternative was suggested that uses substantially more active vegetation management 

including thinning, selective harvest, and prescribed fire to restore forest resilience to fire, 

drought, insect and pathogen outbreaks, and climate change as quickly as possible. This 

alternative was not considered in detail because it would require more workforce and budget than 

is feasible for the agency given budgets received in recent years. More than half of the landscape 

on the three national forests is within special designated areas such as wilderness, monuments or 

wild and scenic river corridors that limit or prohibit the use of mechanical equipment. Another 25 

percent of the national forests have limitations on roaded access, such as inventoried roadless 

areas, which limit getting equipment into areas as well as making it difficult to transport staff or 

workers into these areas by motor vehicles. 

There are areas of particularly steep grades where restoration using equipment can be difficult as 

it must be designed to avoid causing unacceptable ecological damage due to accelerated erosion 

risks. There are other areas where sensitive ecological conditions and endangered species require 

restraint and caution in the amount of treatment and the rapidity of that treatment. Scientific 

knowledge is continuing to provide new insights into the biology of at-risk species in these 

forests and there is a concern about balancing rapid change in habitat from active management 

with changes in habitat that may occur without treatment in terms of the consequences to wildlife.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

41

Another limitation to rapid restoration related to forest thinning is the capacity of industry to do 

the work and use materials. Currently there is a limited infrastructure to process the timber 

resulting from restoration efforts. If restoration outpaces infrastructure capacity then the Forest 

Service costs increase and the agency’s capability to fund restoration will decrease. Therefore 

there is a limitation on the capability of the Forest Service to restore forests that is directly related 

to the limited capacity of the industry infrastructure.

The alternatives being considered increase the use of prescribed fire over current levels and 

recognize there are limits imposed by air quality restrictions, current forest conditions and forest 

capacity and resources to conduct more prescribed burning. Smoke and its impact on the health of 

rural communities is also a concern and can be a limitation on the number and acres and timing of 

prescribed burning. 

One of the identified needs for plan revision is “to improve recreation facilities, settings, 

opportunities and access and their sustainability.” Although it is true that rapidly addressing 

landscape restoration will contribute toward long-term recreation sustainability, during the time of 

rapid restoration there would be a great impact on recreation and the recreation experience, 

whether it would be from more smoke or fire on the landscape from prescribed fire, more crews 

and big trucks, or closed and restricted access to campgrounds while tree cutting and equipment 

operations are going on. The proposed level of restoration would limit the ability to meet the 

purpose and need for recreation as access and recreation opportunity would be substantially

diminished during the plan period.

Alternatives B and D increase the amount of restoration but the amount would still affect only 

about 20 to 40 percent of the treatable portions of the national forests per decade. The amount of 

restoration accomplished by managing wildfires to meet resource benefits would increase this, 

but it is entirely dependent upon actual wildfires that can only be estimated and not planned. It is 

expected that this pace may adjust in the future if capacity for active management increases.

Alternative Eliminated 2:

Include all areas identified by the public as recommendations for 

additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System

Various groups and individuals submitted feedback specific to the wilderness inventory and 

evaluation processes, suggesting additional areas that should be included in the preliminary 

administrative recommendations for additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

These areas were considered during the inventory and evaluation following the 2012 Planning 

Rule and associated implementation directives as described in appendix B. 

Forest Supervisors used the wilderness evaluation narratives and public input to identify which 

specific areas, or portions thereof, to carry forward into the draft environmental impact statement

analysis in one or more alternatives as recommended wilderness. Although many areas suggested 

by the public were brought forward for analysis in alternatives B and C, not all lands included in 

the inventory or suggested by the public were analyzed in detail because we determined they lack 

wilderness characteristics, had substantially noticeable human impacts, represented a departure 

from apparent naturalness due to improvements, had pervasive impacts that would influence a 

visitor’s opportunity for solitude including pervasive sights and sounds from outside the area, or 

were determined to be unmanageable to preserve their wilderness characteristics. In particular, 

areas with motor vehicle designations from recent travel management decisions were considered 

but then excluded from polygon boundaries carried forward for analysis in the draft 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

42

environmental impact statement. See appendix B for the full description of the inventory, 

evaluation, and analysis processes and findings.

Alternative Eliminated 3:

Identify critical aquatic refuges

around all areas of high aquatic species diversity

An alternative was suggested that identifies areas of high aquatic species diversity and 

recommended these areas be delineated and managed as critical aquatic refuges. This proposal 

identified 58 areas across the three national forests, 15 on the Inyo National Forest, 7 on the 

Sequoia National Forest, and 36 on the Sierra National Forest. These areas were evaluated by 

staff at each national forest and all but 21 areas were included in at least one alternative 

considered in detail. Of the 21 areas not included, 7 are on the Inyo National Forest, 5 are on the 

Sequoia National Forest, and 9 are on the Sierra National Forest. These areas were not included 

because they were either a proposed expansion that would not substantially increase the habitat 

protection of the existing critical aquatic refuge, were in portions of the national forest with a 

complex land ownership pattern, were located primarily on lands owned or managed by others, 

were identified for terrestrial and not aquatic species, or were already within watersheds that are a 

priority for maintenance or restoration. The evaluation of each area recommended for 

consideration as a critical aquatic refuge is included in the project record. Since these additional 

proposed critical aquatic refuges would not increase habitat protection, including all of them in an 

alternative would have substantially similar effects as alternative C and therefore adding them as 

part of an alternative was not necessary. 

Alternative Eliminated 4:

Evaluate an alternative that has minimal

active management and “let nature take its course”

An alternative was suggested that has minimal active management of vegetation and allows 

nature to take its course in shaping the vegetation and conditions in the forest. It was suggested 

that wildfires would reduce built up fuels and regenerate forests while creating early seral habitats 

for species that depend upon them. It was also suggested that natural mortality would thin 

weakened trees leaving more resources for the remaining trees and vegetation.

However, this type of “hands-off” approach is contrary to the best available science that 

recommends restoration efforts for many of the ecosystems that are outside their natural range of 

variation on the three national forests. Alternatives B, C, and D address long-term vegetation

health in the desired condition statements of how the various vegetation types on the three 

national forests should look and function. Management action is necessary to trend these 

ecosystems toward the desired conditions and strengthen ecosystem resilience in the face of 

expected climate changes in the western United States. 

This alternative also would not meet the requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule, which requires 

plans to be developed that are ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable. Nor would 

this alternative achieve various aspects of the purpose and need. For example this alternative 

would not: 

• improve ecosystem resilience to fire and climate change;

• decrease the threat of large, undesirable fires;
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

43

• increase the ability of forests to store and sequester carbon;

• improve ecological conditions for the California spotted owl and restore and maintaining 

greater sage grouse habitat on the Inyo National Forest;

• support local economies by maintaining levels of forest product and biomass production 

that support an economically-viable forest products industry, and encourages local hiring; 

• support economic opportunities in tribal communities; incorporate traditional ecological 

knowledge; and increase collaboration with the agency to meet restoration goals; or

• improve recreation facilities or improve and protect scenic character.

Because this alternative is not in alignment with the best available science of the best methods of 

achieving desired conditions and it does not meet the stated needs for revision it was not analyzed 

in detail.

Alternative Eliminated 5:

Apply the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

from the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

An alternative was suggested that requested that the revised plans incorporate the aquatic 

conservation strategy from the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA FS 2001) as 

plan direction. The fundamental principle of the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

aquatic management strategy was “to retain, restore, and protect the processes and landforms that 

provide habitat for aquatic and riparian-dependent organisms, and produce and deliver highquality waters for which the national forests were established.” In order for the aquatic 

management strategy to function as a comprehensive strategy there are a suite of interrelated 

actions that work together to manage and conserve aquatic habitats. These actions include: 

• a description of the desired condition of aquatic, riparian, and meadow habitats developed 

from the aquatic management strategy goals; 

• an array of land allocations (such as critical aquatic refuges and riparian areas) that 

delineate aquatic, riparian, and meadow habitats and emphasize specific actions in these 

areas; 

• a set of standards and guidelines that specify appropriate land uses and activities within 

different land allocations; 

• ecosystem analysis that enables managers to collect and evaluate relevant data and 

information over nested geographic zones (such as watersheds within river basins) for the 

purpose of considering current landscape conditions and results in appropriate, site-specific 

management decisions, including restoration of degraded areas; and

• adaptive management program that includes monitoring and research activities intended to 

assess planned management activities and provide information needed to adjust future 

management activities, as appropriate.

The 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment aquatic management strategy was incorporated 

into the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA FS 2004), which amended the 

existing forest plans with only a few changes directed at clarifications and simplifications to 

eliminate repetition of law, regulation, and policy in forest plan direction. These changes were 

analyzed in the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Therefore, the essential components 

of the original 2001 aquatic management strategy are included in alternative A.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

44

Alternative Eliminated 6:

Consider the document “National Forests in

the Sierra Nevada: A Conservation Strategy” as an Alternative

A group of respondents submitted a Conservation Strategy for National Forests in the Sierra 

Nevada with the request that it be analyzed as an alternative in detail. The Conservation Strategy 

contains several concepts and strategies related to sustainability and resilience of forests within 

the Sierra Nevada. Some of these concepts are already in place under the current forest plans 

(such as community fire planning, various collaborative efforts, and completion of travel 

analysis), some will be incorporated into the planning process and documents (such as a science 

consistency review will be conducted before the final environmental impact statement is 

prepared), and others are largely consistent with the draft forest plans. In most instances where 

the draft forest plans are not in agreement with the Conservation Strategy, concepts and direction 

similar to those in the Conservation Strategy are included as part of another alternative (C or D) 

that was analyzed in detail.

The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act14 states “it is the policy of the Congress that the national 

forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, 

and wildlife and fish purposes.” Similarly, the 2012 planning regulations require that plans 

“provide for social, economic, and ecological sustainability.”15 This is accomplished by including 

plan components, including standards and guidelines, “to guide the plan area’s contribution to 

social and economic sustainability.”16 While the Conservation Strategy would meet many of the 

requirements for ecological sustainability, it does not adequately meet the requirements of the 

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act or the Planning Rule requirements for social and economic 

sustainability because it does not include plan components for sustainable recreation, range, 

timber and other renewable and nonrenewable energy and mineral resources. 

For these reasons, we concluded that a detailed analysis of an alternative based on the 

Conservation Strategy was not needed. 

Alternative Eliminated 7:

Allow Existing Motorized and Mechanized

Uses to Continue in Recommended Wilderness

Public feedback on the recommended wilderness inventory and evaluation asked the Forest 

Service to consider an alternative that allowed existing motorized and mechanized recreation 

activities to continue in recommended wilderness areas. Although Forest Service policy does 

allow decisionmakers to consider allowing existing uses to continue, they can do so “only if such 

uses do not prevent the protection and maintenance of the social and ecological characteristics 

that provide the basis for wilderness designation.”17 Cole and Hall (2009) found that by 

controlling the setting (environmental, social, and managerial conditions), managers influence the 

nature and quality of [wilderness] experiences to a substantial degree. Thus, this environmental 

impact statement assesses the impacts of forest management that may impact recommended 

areas’ inherent wilderness characteristics (undeveloped, naturalness, opportunity to provide 

 

14 Public Law 86-517 15 36 CFR 219.8 16 36 CFR 219.8 (b) 17 Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, chapter 74.1
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

45

primitive and unconfined recreation, and natural ecosystem) that could detract from future 

consideration of the area as wilderness.

The use of motorized and mechanized transportation in recommended wilderness areas affects the 

wilderness characteristic of undeveloped settings where wilderness is essentially without 

permanent improvements or modern human occupation. In addition, the use of motorized and 

mechanized transport is not compatible with the desired condition of a primitive recreation 

opportunity, which, specifically in designated wilderness, has largely been interpreted as travel by 

horse, foot, and canoe (Landres et al. 2005). Also the presence, volume, and type of other users 

and the sounds and smells associated with motorized vehicles have all been identified by the 

public as affecting the personal subjective sense of solitude.

Some forests have taken a management approach to allow motorized and mechanized 

transportation to continue in recommended wilderness areas as long as the ecological and social 

characteristics were protected and maintained. However, this requires monitoring of a number of 

factors including level of existing use at the time of recommendation, levels of use over time 

(increase, decrease, or neutral), and the effects of the continued use on wilderness character over 

time. This is a challenging monitoring effort in a fiscally constrained environment. 

Because of the potential impacts to wilderness character, which may prevent the protection and 

maintenance of the social and ecological characteristics that provide the basis for future 

wilderness designation, and the difficulty of monitoring continued motorized and mechanized 

uses in recommended wilderness, this alternative was eliminated for detailed analysis.

Comparison of Alternatives

This section compares how the alternatives are different with respect to the issues to be resolved 

and their key indicators and management areas. In addition, forest plan objectives are also 

compared across alternatives.18

Comparison of Management Areas by Alternative

Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 describe management areas or designated areas applicable by 

alternative for each of the three national forests. In alternative A, areas with specific plan 

components were called land allocations, which is the equivalent to the 2012 Planning Rule 

definition for a management area. The management areas for wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, 

and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail are also designated areas. For other designated areas 

see Table 4. 

 

18 Note: For the Sequoia National Forest, all tables in this section refer to the portion of the national forest outside of 

the Giant Sequoia National Monument.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

46

Table 1. Management areas by alternative, Inyo National Forest

Management Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Wildland-urban Intermix 

Defense Zone (acres)

22,031 0 22,031 0 

Wildland-urban intermix Threat 

Zone (acres)

191,843 0 0 0 

Community Wildfire Protection 

Zone (acres)

0 170,987 0 170,987

General Wildfire Protection 

Zone (acres)

0 372,312 0 372,312

Wildfire Restoration Zone 

(acres) 

0 570,235 0 570,235

General Wildfire Zone (acres) 0 0 1,016,668 0 

Wildfire Maintenance Zone 

(acres) 

0 870,419 945,253 870,419

Designated Wilderness (acres) 967,039 967,039 967,039 967,039

Existing Recommended 

Wilderness (acres)

0 0 0 0 

New Recommended 

Wilderness (acres)

0 37,029 315,531 0 

Designated Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (miles)

17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4

Existing Recommended Wild 

and Scenic Rivers (miles)

0 0 0 0 

Existing Eligible and 

Recommended Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (miles)

128.3 128.3 128.3 128.3

New Eligible and 

Recommended Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (miles) 

0 159.8 159.8 159.8

Pacific Crest National Scenic 

Trail (miles)

86 86 86 86

Pacific Crest National Scenic 

Trail Management Area (acres)

116 39,973 130,350 22,052

Critical Aquatic Refuges (acres) 170,600 191,567 322,518 191,567
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

47

Table 2. Management areas by alternative, Sequoia National Forest

Management Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Wildland-urban Intermix

Defense Zone (acres)

18,585 0 18,585 0 

Wildland-urban intermix

Threat Zone (acres)

170,549 0 0 0 

Community Wildfire Protection 

Zone (acres)

0 80,124 0 80,124

General Wildfire Protection 

Zone (acres)

0 77,177 0 77,177

Wildfire Restoration Zone 

(acres) 

0 317,475 0 317,475

General Wildfire Zone 

(acres) 

0 0 444,868 0 

Wildfire Maintenance Zone 

(acres) 

0 335,904 347,226 335,904

Designated Wilderness

(acres) 

314,448 314,448 314,448 314,448

Existing Recommended 

Wilderness (acres)

15,110 15,110 15,110 15,110

New Recommended 

Wilderness (acres)

0 0 206,904 0 

Designated Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (miles)

124.0 124.0 124.0 124.0

Existing Recommended Wild 

and Scenic Rivers (miles)

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Existing Eligible Wild and 

Scenic Rivers (miles)

75.9 75.9 75.9 75.9

New Eligible Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (miles)

0 75.9 75.9 75.9

Pacific Crest National Scenic 

Trail (miles)

47 47 47 47

Pacific Crest National Scenic 

Trail Management Area 

(acres)

61 20,883 46,384 12,261

Critical Aquatic Refuges 

(acres) 

188,843 188,843 248,393 188,843
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

48

Table 3. Management areas by alternative, Sierra National Forest

Management Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Wildland-urban Intermix 

Defense Zone (acres)

51,253 0 51,253 0 

Wildland-urban intermix Threat 

Zone (acres)

273,284 0 0 0 

Community Wildfire Protection 

Zone (acres)

0 189,684 0 189,684

General Wildfire Protection 

Zone (acres)

0 172,066 0 172,066

Wildfire Restoration Zone 

(acres) 

0 353,904 0 353,904

General Wildfire Zone (acres) 0 0 665,730 0 

Wildfire Maintenance Zone 

(acres) 

0 576,394 575,065 576,394

Designated Wilderness (acres) 553,683 553,683 553,683 553,683

Existing Recommended 

Wilderness (acres)

0 0 0 0 

New Recommended 

Wilderness (acres)

0 0 220,641 0 

Designated Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (miles)

27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0

Existing Recommended Wild 

and Scenic Rivers (miles)

66.5 66.5 66.5 66.5

Existing Eligible Wild and 

Scenic Rivers (miles) 

0 0 0 0 

New Eligible Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (miles) 

0 633.5 633.5 633.5

Pacific Crest National Scenic 

Trail (miles)

27 27 27 27

Pacific Crest National Scenic 

Trail Management Area 

(acres) 

42 15,033 86,631 8,084

Critical Aquatic Refuges 

(acres) 

42,440 154,275 199,367 154,275
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

49 

Table 4 indicates which other designated areas occur on each national forest. Some management 

areas such as wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail are also 

designated areas but are included in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 above. 

Table 4. Acres and miles of other designated areas by national forest (all alternatives)

Type of Designated Area

Inyo

National Forest

Sequoia

National Forest

Sierra

National Forest

National Scenic Area (acres) 51,352 0 0 

National Protection Area (acres) 31,825 0 0 

Experimental Forest (acres) 0 0 4,490

Inventoried Roadless Area (acres) 836,583 263,751 145,717

National Historic Landmark (acres) 0 20.6 0 

National Recreation Trails (miles) 80 42 29

Research Natural Areas (acres) 15,301 4,626 4,471

Scenic Byway – Forest Service (miles) 39 0 112

Special Management Area (acres) 0 0 26,597

Wild Horse and Burro Territories (acres) 286,500 0 0 

Table 5 indicates which ecosystem-based or wildlife-based areas apply to which alternative across 

all three forests. In alternative A, areas with specific plan components were also called land 

allocations but they are not considered management areas under the 2012 Planning Rule for 

alternatives B, C, or D. 

Table 5. Other ecosystem or wildlife areas by alternative

Area Name

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Old forest emphasis areas Yes No Yes No

California spotted owl protected activity 

center 

Yes Yes Yes Yes

California spotted owl home range core 

area 

Yes Yes No Yes

California spotted owl territories No No Yes No

California spotted owl home range area No No Yes No

Goshawk protected activity center Yes No No No

Great gray owl protected activity center Yes No No No

Marten den sites Yes No No No

Fisher den sites Yes No No No

Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation 

Area 

Yes No No No

Southern Sierra Fisher Strategy Area No Yes Yes Yes

Fisher target habitat No Yes Yes Yes

Fisher linkage areas No Yes Yes Yes
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

50

Comparison of Alternatives by Restoration Activities

Estimated number of wildfires and acres managed to meet resource objectives come from fire 

occurrence and accomplishment reporting data for the last 10 years for alternative A. For 

alternatives B through D they are estimated from modeling of natural wildfire ignitions assuming 

wildfires burning with positive outcomes under different energy release component levels: 

alternative B is less than or equal to 90 percent; alternative C is less than or equal to 85 percent; 

and alternative D is less than or equal to 95 percent. 

Table 6. Estimated amounts of restoration activities by alternative per decade, Inyo National Forest

Type of Restoration Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres of mechanical treatments 

(TERR-FW-OBJ-01)

20,000 20,000 - 25,000 10,000 - 15,000 25,000 - 30,000

Acres of prescribed burning 

(TERR-FW-OBJ-02)

18,000 20,000 - 25,000 15,000 - 35,000 20,000 - 25,000

Estimated number of wildfires 

managed for resources

8 18 2 30

Estimated acres of wildfires 

managed for resources

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

Acres of non-native invasive

plants treated (INV-FW-OBJ-01)

n/a 300 300 300

Acres of sage-grouse habitat 

maintained, improved, or 

restored

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

Table 7. Estimated amounts of restoration activities by alternative per decade, Sequoia National Forest

Type of Restoration Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres of mechanical treatments 

(TERR-FW-OBJ-01)

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

Acres of prescribed burning 

(TERR-FW-OBJ-02)

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

Estimated number of wildfires 

managed for resources

10 15 8 24

Estimated acres of wildfires 

managed for resources

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

Acres of non-native invasive 

plants treated (INV-FW-OBJ-01)

n/a 300 300 300

Table 8. Estimated amounts of restoration activities by alternative per decade, Sierra National Forest

Type of Restoration Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres of mechanical treatments 

(TERR-FW-OBJ-01)

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

Acres of prescribed burning 

(TERR-FW-OBJ-02)

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

Est. number of wildfires 

managed for resources

4 33 3 53

Est. acres of wildfires managed 

for resources

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

Acres of non-native invasive 

plants treated (INV-FW-OBJ-01)

n/a 600 600 600
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

51

Comparison of Alternatives for Water, Aquatic and Riparian 

Ecosystem Restoration Activities over 10 years 

Based on past and ongoing forest management efforts, we anticipate riparian vegetation restoration 

is closely tied with upland restoration projects. Therefore, there would be increased restoration 

funds in alternatives B and D; more stewardship opportunities for watershed restoration in 

alternative D, then B, then A; and little to no stewardship opportunity in 

alternative C.

Table 9. Water, aquatic, and riparian restoration activities by alternative per decade, Inyo National 

Forest

Type of Restoration Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres of riparian vegetation 

improved (MA-RCA-OBJ-01)

300-400 400-500 400-500 500-600

Number of meadows maintained, 

enhanced or improved (RCAMEAD-OBJ-01)

3-5 5-10 20-25 5-10

Miles of streams maintained or 

restored (RCA-RIV-OBJ-01)

10-20 10-20 20 - 30 10 - 20

Table 10. Water, aquatic and riparian restoration activities by alternative per decade, Sequoia National 

Forest

Type of Restoration Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres of riparian vegetation 

improved (MA-RCA-OBJ-01)

300-400 500-1,000 300-400 1,000-1,500

Number of meadows maintained, 

enhanced or improved (RCAMEAD-OBJ-01)

3-5 10-15 20-25 15-20

Miles of streams maintained or 

restored (RCA-RIV-OBJ-01)

5-10 15-25 20 - 30 15-25

Number of high priority barriers to 

aquatic organism passage 

eliminated or mitigated (RCARIV-OBJ-02)

1 1 1-4 1-2 

Table 11. Water, aquatic and riparian restoration activities by alternative per decade, Sierra National 

Forest

Type of Restoration Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres of riparian vegetation 

improved (MA-RCA- OBJ-01)

500 500-1,000 500-1,000 1,000-1,500

Number of meadows maintained, 

enhanced or improved (RCAMEAD-OBJ-01)

3-5 5-10 10-15 15-20

Miles of streams maintained or 

restored (RCA-RIV-OBJ-01)

10 15-25 20-30 15-25

Number of high priority barriers to 

aquatic organism passage 

eliminated or mitigated (RCARIV-OBJ-02)

0 1 1-4 1-2 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

52

Comparison of Alternatives for Sustainable

Recreation and Scenery Activities over 10 years

Table 12. Comparison of sustainable recreation emphasis by alternative, all three national forests 

Management Emphasis Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Partnerships1 Decreases Increases Increase in 

wilderness 

stewardship 

partnerships

Increases more

1. Management emphasis on partnerships is focused on decreasing deferred maintenance, enhancing operational service 

quality, and increasing public stewardship

Table 13. Sustainable recreation and scenery settings and activities by alternative per decade, Inyo 

National Forest

Setting or Activity Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Primitive Recreation Settings (Percent) 53 55 67 55

Semi-primitive Non-Motorized 

Recreation Settings (Percent)

12 11 5 11

Semi-primitive Motorized Recreation 

Settings (Percent)

14 18 14 18

Roaded Natural Recreation Settings 

(Percent) 

15 12 11 12

Roaded Modified Recreation Settings 

(Percent—Only on the Inyo) 

2 2 2 2 

Rural Recreation Settings (Percent) not applicable 1 1 1 

Acres of restoration focused on 

recreation settings (REC-FW-OBJ-01)

not applicable 200 200 200

Percentage of existing recreation sites 

converted to group sites. (REC-FWOBJ-02)

not applicable 10% 10% 10%

Trail miles (5 year average) that meet 

standard (REC-FW-OBJ-03) 

969 1,100 - 1,300 1,100 - 1,300 1,100 - 1,300

Acres of vegetation treated to maintain 

or achieve scenic integrity objectives 

(SCEN-FW-OBJ-01)

not applicable 500 500 500

Number of cultural resource products 

produced (CULT-FW-OBJ-01)

not applicable 5 - 10 5 - 10 5 - 10
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

53

Table 14. Sustainable recreation and scenery settings and activities by alternative per decade, 

Sequoia National Forest

Setting or Activity Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Primitive Recreation Settings (Percent) 30 30 53 30

Semi-primitive Nonmotorized 

Recreation Settings (Percent)

5 5 5 5 

Semi-primitive Motorized Recreation 

Settings (Percent)

16 22 12 23

Roaded Natural Recreation Settings 

(Percent) 

48 41 28 41

Rural Recreation Settings (Percent) 1 2 2 2 

Acres of restoration focused on 

recreation settings (REC-FW-OBJ-01)

not applicable 200 200 200

Percentage of existing recreation sites 

converted to group sites. 

(REC-FW-OBJ-02)

not applicable 10% 10% 10%

Trail miles (5 year average) that meet 

standard (REC-FW-OBJ-03) 

214 300 - 500 300 - 500 300 - 500 

Acres of vegetation treated to maintain 

or achieve scenic integrity objectives 

(SCEN-FW-OBJ-01)

not applicable 2000 2000 2000

Number of cultural resource products 

produced (CULT-FW-OBJ-01)

not applicable 5 - 10 5 - 10 5 - 10

Table 15. Sustainable recreation and scenery settings and activities by alternative per decade, Sierra 

National Forest

Setting or Activity Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Primitive Recreation Settings 

(Percent) 

45 43 59 43

Semi-primitive Non-Motorized 

Recreation Settings (Percent)

3 3 1 3 

Semi-primitive Motorized Recreation 

Settings (Percent)

3 4 1 4 

Roaded Natural Recreation Settings 

(Percent) 

43 40 31 40

Rural Recreation Settings (Percent) 6 9 9 9 

Acres of restoration focused on 

recreation settings

(REC-FW-OBJ-01)

not applicable 200 200 200

Percentage of existing recreation sites 

converted to group sites. 

(REC-FW-OBJ-02)

not applicable 5% 5% 5%

Trail miles (5 year average) that meet 

standard (REC-FW-OBJ-03) 

502 600 - 800 600 - 800 600 - 800

Acres of vegetation treated to 

maintain or achieve scenic integrity 

objectives (SCEN-FW-OBJ-01)

not applicable 2000 2000 2000

Number of cultural resource products 

produced (CULT-FW-OBJ-01)

not applicable 5 - 10 5 - 10 5 - 10
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

54

Comparison of Alternatives for Benefits to People

Table 16. Cut and sold volume in hundreds of cubic feet (CCF) per decade1

National Forest Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Inyo 

(TIMB-FW-OBJ-01)

40,000 40,000 - 60,000 10,000 - 20,000 60,000 - 120,000

Sequoia 

(TIMB-FW-OBJ-01)

80,000 80,000 - 160,000 20,000 - 40,000 160,000 - 280,000

Sierra 

(TIMB-FW-OBJ-01)

250,000 250,000 - 500,000 50,000 - 100,000 500,000 - 800,000

1. Divide CCF by 2,000 to convert to million board foot (MMBF)

Comparison of Alternatives of Tribal Relations and Uses

Table 17. Acres of areas of tribal importance maintained or restored per decade

National Forest Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Inyo 

(TERR-FW-OBJ-03)

not applicable 1 - 5 1 - 5 1 - 5 

Sequoia 

(TERR-FW-OBJ-04)

not applicable 3 - 10 3 - 10 3 - 10

Sierra 

(TERR-FW-OBJ-03)

not applicable 3 - 10 3 - 10 3 - 10
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

55

Chapter 3. 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences 

Introduction 

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the 

planning area and the potential environmental consequences that may occur on those 

environments by implementing each alternative. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis 

for the comparison of alternatives presented in chapter 2. In some cases where indicated, more 

detailed information, including methodology, assumptions, and effects analyses, can be found in 

the specific resource supplemental report located in the planning record located at the Pacific 

Southwest Regional Office, Vallejo, California. 

The Relationship between

Forest Plans and Site-specific Activities

The focus of this analysis is to examine the implications or longer term environmental 

consequences of managing the national forests under the programmatic framework provided by 

the draft revised forest plans and alternatives. Forest plans do not authorize, fund, or carry out any 

project or activity described in the effects analyses. Instead, they provide a programmatic 

framework that guides site-specific actions that may be carried out in the future. 

Because a land management plan does not authorize or mandate any site-specific projects or 

activities (including ground-disturbing actions), there can be no direct effects. The draft forest 

plans set the stage for what future management actions are needed to achieve desired outcomes 

(for example, desired conditions and objectives), and provide the sideboards (such as suitability, 

standards, and guidelines) under which future activities may occur to manage risks to ecological, 

social, and economic environments. The draft forest plans also identify potential management 

approaches that may be used to help achieve desired conditions. To actually plan and proceed 

with a site-specific project, project-level planning, environmental analysis, and decisions must 

occur (for example, the draft forest plans contain direction to thin vegetation and reduce fuels to 

benefit ecosystem resilience; however, a subsequent site-specific analysis and decision must be 

made for each proposal that involves vegetation treatment or fuel reduction activity in a chosen 

area). 

Science and Assumptions

Used in the Environmental Analyses

During development of the environmental analyses that follow, the planning team used the best 

available scientific information, which is documented in the planning record. The environmental 

analyses focus on the needs for changing the existing plans and the issues identified through the 

scoping process; they also examine potential effects to programs and resources on the Inyo, 

Sequoia, or Sierra National Forests.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

56

The discussions in chapter 3 refer to the potential for consequences to occur, realizing that in 

many cases, they are only estimates. To estimate the consequences of alternatives at the 

programmatic plan level, we must assume that the kinds of resource management activities 

allowed under the prescriptions will occur to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives and 

move toward or achieve the desired conditions of each alternative. In many cases the nature of the 

consequences are similar across each national forest but the magnitude of the consequences may 

vary by the difference in plan objectives or opportunity. In these cases, the consequences are 

presented in general first and then specifically for each national forest as appropriate. This 

method of analysis is useful when comparing and evaluating alternatives on a forestwide basis but 

it is not to be applied to specific locations on a national forest.

Several assumptions made in the analyses of alternatives, include:

• Law, policy, regulations, and applicable best management practices would be followed 

when planning or implementing site-specific projects and activities.

• Plan components (such as desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, 

management areas, and suitability) would be followed when planning or implementing sitespecific projects and activities.

• Goals and potential management approaches would influence collaborative efforts and be 

considered in developing programs of work. 

• Plan objectives are generally stated as a range (from low to high). The actual level of 

accomplishment would depend on environmental conditions, budgets, and staffing. 

• Implementation of a land management plan would facilitate progress toward the attainment 

of desired conditions for each resource. As movement toward or achievement of desired 

conditions is made, forest ecosystems would become healthier and more resilient and 

would continue to provide for species diversity, goods, and services. 

• The planning period is 10 to 15 years; other timeframes may be used to compare expected 

future trends. Plans are expected to be revised at least every 15 years.

• Plan monitoring would occur and the land management plan will be amended, as needed. 

How this Chapter is Organized

First, a general analysis of environmental consequences of drivers and stressors of climate, fire, 

insects, and pathogens are described since they can affect many resource areas. Then, 

environmental consequences are organized under each revision topic. Finally, an analysis of the 

benefits to people and communities and consequences to tribal relations and uses is provided at 

the end of this chapter to evaluate how the alternatives contribute to economic and social 

wellbeing.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

57

Agents of Change: Climate, Fire, Insects, and Pathogens 

Drivers and stressors are recurring events, processes, or actions that affect ecosystems. These 

effects are important to ecosystem condition. For example, fire creates variation in habitat, which 

is important for biodiversity—it keeps vegetation density and surface fuels low and patchier; it is 

a “driver” of ecosystem condition. Fire can be a stressor when it is more severe than usual and 

outside its natural range of variation, either occurring less frequently or more frequently than in 

the past.

The context in which fire occurs is also important. For example, because the scenery around the 

Mammoth Lakes area is important to this recreation place, high-severity fire can decrease the 

scenic character and lower the recreation value. Scenery impacts from fire can be short term if 

they cover small areas and are visually absorbed as vegetation recovers, or they can be long term 

if they cover wide visible expanses dominated by burned forest. 

Other important drivers and stressors are insects and pathogens, climate change, and air pollution. 

Climate is a fundamental process that strongly influences other drivers and stressors in the Sierra

Nevada, including fire, invasive species, insects, pathogens, water development and diversion, air 

pollution, and land use patterns. 

In this section, three aspects of drivers and stressors are covered broadly. These include: climate; 

trends in fire with climate; and insects and pathogens. In later sections, response of specific 

vegetation types, habitats (such as old forest), and ecosystem functions (such as carbon storage) 

to drivers and stressors is discussed. Invasive plants are one of the most important, widespread 

stressors on the Inyo National Forest and lower elevations of the Sequoia and Sierra National 

Forests. Invasive animals and insects are increasingly important stressors that are addressed in the 

“Terrestrial Ecosystems,” “Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems” and “Wildlife, Fish and Plants” 

sections. Fire management is covered in revision topic 1. Air pollution impacts are covered in the 

“Air Resources” section.

Although climate change is an important theme in this section, it is also woven throughout many 

sections in the document because it influences and affects many aspects of national forests. There 

is a specific subsection focused on ecological vulnerabilities to climate and analysis of climate 

adaptation strategies proposed for each alternative at the end of the “Terrestrial Ecosystems” 

section.

Climate Change

This section summarizes current and future trends of climate to form a foundation for other 

analyses in this chapter.

Background

Climate change is anticipated to have lasting, large-scale impacts to a variety of ecological, 

social, and economic resources in national forests of the southern Sierra Nevada. Carbon 

sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions are not covered in this section but are addressed in 

the “Air Resources” and “Terrestrial Ecosystems” sections. The effects of climate change on 

specific social, cultural, and biological resources (such as cultural resources and species of special 

concern) are also covered in each relevant section of this chapter.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

58

This section summarizes the more detailed analysis of climate, ecological vulnerability and 

adaptation found in the final bio-regional and forest assessments (USDA FS 2013a, 2013b, 

2013c, 2013d) and the snapshots of the Living Assessment used to develop the final assessments 

(USDA FS 2013e, 2013f, 2013g, 2013h). 

Recent Past and Current Trends

Mean annual temperatures in the planning area have increased in the last several decades, mostly 

with increased nighttime temperatures (Meyer et al. 2012, Mallek et al. 2012). Unlike much of 

the rest of the Sierra Nevada, overall precipitation has remained steady at higher elevations but 

there have been some decreases at lower elevations. There has been a decrease in the amount of 

snow at low to mid-elevations and an increase in year-to-year variability (wetter wet years and 

drier dry years). At higher elevations, overall snowfall and spring snow water equivalent (amount 

of water in snowpack) have remained steady in most southern Sierra Nevada areas, but snowmelt 

occurs earlier in the year.

Changes in temperatures and amounts and timing of precipitation have led to earlier peak stream 

flow rates in most Sierra Nevada streams, with higher spring flows and lower summer flows. 

Warming temperatures are leading to glacial recession across the southern Sierra Nevada.

Projected Future Trends in Climate and Hydrology

Although climate change models vary in their projections for the latter half of the 21st century, all 

predict significant warming in the Sierra Nevada. Most expect precipitation to remain similar or 

slightly reduced compared to today (Safford et al. 2012). Most models also agree that summers 

will be drier (causing higher evapotranspiration rates) on average. Although snowpack in the 

higher elevations (higher than 7,500 feet) of the southern Sierra Nevada has generally remained 

steady (or risen) over the past half-century (Meyer et al. 2012, Mallek et al. 2012), continued 

warming is likely to decrease snowpack in much of the high southern Sierra Nevada.

Most models project a continuously increasing rain-to-snow ratio and earlier runoff dates for the 

next century, especially at higher elevations. Under most climate scenarios, models project higher 

winter-to-early spring runoff and lower spring-to-summer runoff, as higher temperatures hasten 

the onset of snowmelt. This could increase downstream flood potential due to earlier peak flow 

rates and the increased proportion of precipitation falling as rain. If overall precipitation increases 

over time, streamflow volumes during peak runoff will increase even more, leading to notably 

higher flood risk in downstream areas. 

Fire Trends

This section summarizes trends in fire with climate and general vegetation conditions. These 

trends are important to understanding conditions and fire effects to terrestrial, riparian and aquatic 

ecosystems, and social and economic conditions.

Background

Fires have been increasingly large and severe throughout the western U.S. (Calkin et al. 2005, 

Westerling et al. 2006) and California (Miller et al. 2009, Miller and Safford 2012) over the last 

several decades. The effects of these fires are often seen by people as overwhelmingly negative. 

In much of the wildlands of the western U.S. and the analysis area, fire has played a central role
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

59

in shaping ecosystems. Both the beneficial and destructive aspects of fire are important to

understand. The analysis examines different characteristics of fire, which can have implications

for the wildlands in areas we live in and use.

In this section, the trends in burned area and fire size are addressed in response to climate change 

and scenarios that represent different levels of vegetation restoration. The fire responses to the 

scenarios are used to describe the consequences of the alternatives on large fire size and burned 

area. The impacts of fire to vegetation and other ecological aspects of fire are covered in more 

detail in the “Terrestrial Ecosystems” section. Aspects of fire related to impacts on communities, 

people, and infrastructure (such as water systems or powerlines) are covered in the “Fire 

Management,” “Economic Conditions,” and “Social Conditions” sections. The projected trends in 

fire in this section provide a common basis for assumptions on fire trends for all other analysis 

sections in this document.

Analysis and Methods

This section is based primarily on a quantitative analysis of fire-climate trends conducted by the 

University of California (UC) in Merced as part of a cooperative agreement with the Forest 

Service (Westerling et al. 2015). Other scientific literature used is found in the Fire-climate 

supplemental report.

Climate scientists at UC Merced conducted a study to predict trends in wildfire with climate 

change under a broad range of different levels of vegetation restoration. The predictions are based 

on data from recent and past wildfires, associated vegetation condition, and climate data. The 

methodology was established in previously published research by Westerling and others (Preisler 

et al. 2008, Holmes et al. 2008, Bryant and Westerling 2014, Preisler et al. 2015). This research 

applies a statistical approach to predicting wildfire, in contrast to mechanistic models, such as 

FARSITE. They are well suited for broad analysis that takes into account trends in wildfire with 

climate change.

Scientists made projections of climate using several different climate models, since common 

trends in different models would indicate a more certain trend. The results presented here are 

primarily for the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory A2 climate scenario, as well as some 

results from the Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques (CNRM) and Community 

Climate System Model (CCSM) A2 climate scenario (Westerling et al. 2015). The differences 

between wildfire predictions for the selected climate scenarios were small compared to the effects 

of the restoration treatments scenarios. The Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory climate 

model was emphasized because it yielded mid-century increases in wildfire activity between the 

CNRM and CCSM models. 

Vegetation conditions were based on LANDFIRE vegetation condition class data (LANDFIRE 

2012). The conditions are derived from remote sensing data on existing vegetation density and 

species composition and derived differences with historic conditions based on fire history 

research and biophysical models of vegetation type and historic fire regime groups.19 Where there 

is a large departure in historic fire regime (that is, fire patterns and intensities are very different 

from what they used to be) and vegetation conditions are different than what they would have 

been under a historic fire regime, then the condition class is considered “highly departed.” The 

range of classes include:

 

19 http://www.landfire.gov/NationalProductDescriptions12.php 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

60

• vegetation condition class 1: no to low departure;

• vegetation condition class 2: moderate departure; and

• vegetation condition class 3: high departure. 

An example of the conditions would be ponderosa pine or eastside Jeffrey pine that is currently 

dense but historically would have been maintained as open forests due to frequent, historic fire. 

Exploratory analysis revealed that fire patterns (large fire size, extent and burned area) varied 

with vegetation condition class. The vegetation condition class is a broad classification and was 

determined to be well suited to the programmatic plan and array of different combinations of 

individual vegetation desired condition components that would be the result of restoration. 

Restoration treatments were modeled by changing potential treatment areas that are currently in 

vegetation condition class 3 or 2 to vegetation condition class 1. This is needed because previous 

exploratory analysis had shown that it was too difficult to discern differences in predicted fire 

trends between more subtle changes in vegetation condition class 3 to class 2 (Westerling 2015, 

personal communication February 2015). The restoration treatments were not modeled in a 

specific spatial pattern but as a broad level pattern to assess impacts at a programmatic level. 

These are referred to as “restoration scenarios.” The restoration scenarios included 15 percent, 30 

percent, 60 percent, and 100 percent of the area restored, with an emphasis in the Sierra Nevada 

foothill and montane, and Great Basin ecological zones (see “Terrestrial Ecosystems” section). 

The priority was on areas with vegetation heavily departed from historic conditions near roads but 

otherwise were randomly located. More detail on the analysis can be found in the final report 

(Westerling et al. 2015). 

A summary of fire impacts in the “Affected Environment” section was based on a combination of 

recent observed and future projected changes in fire in the planning area and entire bio-region. 

Recent fire trends were based upon data assembled for the area for other predictions made for the 

State of California and include the time periods from 1961 to 1990. This does not take into 

account very recent large fires, including the Rim and King Fires, but they were incorporated into 

the analysis using other information. Future projected changes focus on three periods, including 

early century (2010 to 2040) and mid-century (2040 to 2070) projections. These longer time 

periods are ideal in the analysis of climate change-related fire effects in land management 

planning efforts (Peterson et al. 2011).

Indicators and Measures

The primary indicators measured in this analysis are burned area, large fire size, and smoke and 

carbon emissions. The smoke and carbon emissions are described in the “Air Resources” section. 

Other important indicators that are based upon inferences on large fire size, burned area, and 

vegetation conditions (like density and fuel levels) include fire intensity, fire type, and large areas 

of vegetation burned at high severity. A combination of a qualitative assessment using scientific 

literature and quantitative analysis using fire behavior modeling and sensitivity analysis of the 

statistical fire-climate model for selected areas were used to make inferences on fire intensity, fire 

type, and occurrence and size of large patches of high severity. 

Fire intensity refers to how hot a fire burns, or the amount of heat per unit area. Fire type refers to 

how the fire burns in relation to the height and type of vegetation it is burning in. A surface fire, 

burns in the understory of forests or shrub lands or chaparral. In contrast, a crown fire burns in the 

tops of the crowns or tops of trees or shrubs. Fire severity refers to the effects of fire on 

vegetation or soil or other ecosystem components and is often measured at the landscape scale 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

61

using remote sensing data (Miller et al. 2009). In vegetation, fires that have higher top kill and 

high levels of tree or plant death are considered high severity. See the “Terrestrial Ecosystems” 

section for more details.

Assumptions

The analysis of fire includes several assumptions.

• The use of models predicting fire trends based on past climate-fire patterns may underpredict future trends in fires because the models are based on observations occurring under 

milder fire weather conditions. Because future climate is expected to exceed these 

conditions there is uncertainty in the fire projections. 

• Some fires exhibit a fire-atmospheric interaction where the fire influences the local weather 

affecting the fire. There is uncertainty around the extent that this may occur but it can 

dramatically alter fire size, intensity, and large patches of high severity such as seen on the 

Rim Fire 2013 and the King Fire 2014 (Coen et al. 2015) in the central Sierra Nevada. 

These phenomena may be increased with continued drought and climate trends. 

• High fire intensity in dry, hot conditions is expected to be reduced to moderate or low 

intensity or a mosaic of intensities when at least 40 percent of a landscape area is in a low 

or reduced fuel condition. A variety of landscape theory, fire modeling, and fire behavior 

case studies support this (Turner 1989, Parisien et al. 2008, 2010, 2012, Fites-Kaufman 

2014, Coen et al. 2015). Based on this information, for this analysis we assume that at least 

12,000 acres or more needs to have at least 40 percent of its area restored to result in 

changes in fire probability, extent, and large fire size. See Fire-Climate supplemental report 

for more detail. 

Affected Environment

Recent Past and Current Trends

Prior to European settlement, fire was widespread throughout the bio-region and California 

(Sugihara et al. 2006b, Stephens et al. 2007). The frequency, spatial pattern, and severity varied 

by ecosystem (van Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman 2006, Brooks and Minnich 2006). Most fires 

were low to moderate in intensity over large areas. This resulted in a mosaic of mostly surface 

fire, sweeping into the understory shrubs, herbs, small trees, and grasses, with small clumps or 

patches of fire making its way into the crowns of trees (crown fire). In chaparral and sagebrush, 

larger patches of crown fire would occur that reached the tops of the plants, killing them outright 

or top-killing them and stimulating new sprouts. Pinyon-juniper forests also typically experienced 

crown fire. See the “Terrestrial Ecosystems” section for more details on the historic and current 

fire regimes by major ecological zone and vegetation type. Overall, in the last century far less 

area has burned than did historically (Stephens et al. 2007) but the severity has increased (Collins 

and Skinner 2014, Mallek et al. 2013).

For thousands of years, Native Americans used fire to manage the landscape for a variety of 

beneficial uses (Anderson 2006). European settlement in the bio-region greatly intensified with 

discovery of gold in the Sierra Nevada in 1848 (Beesley 1996). At the same time, there was 

intensive logging to fuel steam-generated equipment and to build housing, along with extensive 

grazing by livestock. These early settlers affected fire directly and indirectly in numerous ways 

(Safford 2013). Overall, widespread fire decreased.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

62

Prior to the advent of modern fire suppression capability, fire was more widespread and less 

intense (van Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman 2006, Stephens et al. 2007). In the last 45 years, 

fires have become larger, and larger fires more frequent across the western U.S. (Calkin et al. 

2005, Westerling et al. 2006). In the Sierra Nevada (including the analysis area), the area burned 

annually in federally managed forests has increased by more than 24,700 acres per decade during 

this period (Westerling et al. 2015). Fire size has also changed, especially in recent years where 

some extremely large fires (such as McNally Fire 2002, Rim Fire 2013, and King Fire 2014) have 

burned, compared to the historical record. Since 1990, 9 out of the 10 largest recorded fires have 

occurred and 8 of those have been since 2000 alone (Steel et al. 2015). 

Over 100 years of fire exclusion (fire suppression and lack of extensive intentional burning), 

along with other land uses, changed how fire burns. Now fires burn with higher intensity, greater 

amounts of crown fire, and with larger areas of high severity (Miller et al. 2009, Miller and 

Safford 2012, Mallek et al. 2013, Steel et al. 2015). Most recently, some fires have moved very 

rapidly, burning at high intensity, in single days, across large swaths. This includes the Rim Fire 

on the Stanislaus National Forest and King fire on the Eldorado and Tahoe National Forests. 

These types of fire behavior are more likely when the fire burns over large areas with multiple 

fire fronts and creates its own “fire weather.” Extensively burning areas create their own high 

winds that accelerate the fire and multiple fire fronts burn toward each other (Coen 2005, Viegas 

et al. 2012). In the case of the King Fire, the very dry, uniformly dense overstory and understory 

vegetation across large areas combined to create three separate fronts or heads of the fire and an 

actively burning area of over 6,000 acres (Fites-Kaufman 2014). The heat from the three separate 

areas interacted and became one very large, several-miles-wide actively burning front and created 

winds of more than 40 miles per hour in front of the fire. After that, it grew to 50,000 acres 

burning intensely and fast. Similar vegetation conditions (such as large areas of dense understory 

and overstory vegetation and fuels) are common and with drought, longer fire seasons, and 

increasing temperatures, very large fires are likely to repeat. It is not certain exactly where and 

when similar fires will occur, but it is highly likely that they will occur and that the impacts will 

be similar to those seen in recent very large fires that burned in similar conditions.

Climate (precipitation and temperature) and fire have always been linked (Swetnam 1993). 

Today, changes in land use and associated changes in vegetation (that is, fewer fire-tolerant 

species and denser vegetation) magnify the effects of a warming climate on fire behavior.

Projected Future Trends

The projected future trends are based primarily on the statistical fire-climate models (Westerling 

et al. 2015). 

Burned Area

There has been a trend of increased burn area associated with low winter snowpack in the western 

U.S. in recent decades (Westerling et al. 2006). Predictions for the analysis area and all of the 

Sierra Nevada are that the burned area will double or quadruple over the next 20 to 30 years 

(Westerling et al. 2015). This would not be detrimental if the fires were low intensity, but much of 

the area is expected to burn at high intensity due to the current vegetation density patterns and 

drier, longer fire season weather. Most of this increase is associated with larger fires.

Figure 3 shows a map of changes in the predicted burned area in the next midcentury period, 

2035 to 2064, compared to 1961 through 1990, a period prior to the advent of widespread very 

large high-intensity wildfires. The change is shown in colors labeled on a scale at the bottom of 

the figure, below the outline map of California. Light green depicts no change or a decrease in the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

63

amount of burned area. Yellow to orange represents an increase of more than 1 to 2 times the 

amount of burned area. Red colors depict a tripling of burned area, and the darkest maroon colors 

represent a quadrupling of burned area. 

The greatest increases are expected in the upper montane and subalpine areas. The montane zone, 

where mixed conifer, ponderosa and Jeffrey pine forests occur show double to triple area burned. 

The least changes are in the lowest elevations on the west and east slopes, in the foothills on the 

west, and in the Great Basin sagebrush and pinyon-juniper on the east. These areas are shown in 

orange and still have one and a half to two times the area burned.

Figure 3. Map of changes in the predicted burned area in the next mid-century, 

2035 to 2064, compared to 1961 through 1990

Fire Size and Likelihood of Very Large Fires

Average fire size is expected to increase by 13 to 20 percent by mid-century with climate change 

in the absence of additional treatments to restore vegetation and reduce density and surface fuels 

(Westerling et al. 2015). The likelihood of very large fires is increasing as well. The likelihood of 

fires becoming larger than 24,700 acres increases between 23 and 52 percent by mid-century. The 

average size of large fires is projected to increase between 15 and 25 percent in the coming 

decades. None of these predictions account for the growing prevalence of very large fires driven 

by fire-atmospheric interactions, as discussed above. Increases in fire-atmospheric interactions 

would contribute to an even greater increase in the size and probability of large fires.

Figure 4 shows a line graph of the expected change in large fire size with different future climate 

scenarios. This is based solely on changes in climate as no changes in vegetation from restoration 

treatments were included in this calculation. The first graph shows the predicted trends in large 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

64

fire size between 2035 and 2064 for the three different climate models. The blue line is based on 

the Community Climate System model (CCSM). The red line is based on the Geophysical Fluid 

Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) model and the green line is based on the Centre National de 

Recherches Météorologiques (CNRM) model. The y-axis shows the percent change in large fire 

size, which is predicted to increase by 13 to 20 percent over the time period. 

Figure 4. Predicted change in large fire size from recent (1961 to 1990) rates based on 

three climate models

The second line graph in Figure 5, shows predicted trends when different amounts of the midand low-elevation landscapes are modeled as restored (from vegetation condition class 2 or 3 to 

class 1).20 There is a predicted trend of increasing large fire size for all restoration scenarios 

except for 60 percent, which stays nearly constant with current large fire size, and 100 percent, 

which shows a decrease in large fire size. This is consistent with other research predicting 

increases in fire with climate change (such as Moritz and Stephens 2008).

Figure 5. Line graphs showing the expected change in large fire size with different 

future climate and vegetation restoration scenarios

 

20 Using the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory or GFDL model
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

65

The amount of predicted change in area burned in large fires varies across the planning area 

somewhat aligned with differences in ecological and elevational zones. The montane and upper 

montane landscapes have the greatest increase in likelihood of large fires, with a 30 to 55 percent 

increase, respectively. 

Figure 6 shows predicted trends in area burned in large fires separated out by ecological zone as 

modeled by the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory A2 model (or GFDL A2). It is only 

shown for one climate scenario because the relative differences between the ecological zones are 

the same across the other climate models. The increase in probability of large fires remains above 

10 percent for the montane zone until the 60 percent scenario, where the trends decrease for all 

ecological zones except for the upper montane zone. This is because climate will have more

effect on increasing fire in the upper montane zone and most treatments were prioritized in the 

lower elevation montane and foothill zones because they are closest to communities and have the 

most values at risk (homes and infrastructure). These lower elevation areas are most deviated 

from the desired condition and natural range of variation. 

Figure 6. Bar graph showing the change in large fire size by ecological zone with different levels 

of modeled restoration

Fire Intensity, Fire Type and Severity

Changes in fire extent and large fire size are likely to be correlated with higher intensity and 

higher levels of crown fire. Increased crown fire is expected because of large areas of the 

landscape with dense vegetation and fuels that can cause more intense and larger fires (Collins 

and Skinner 2014); such fires have the potential for more fire-atmospheric interactions (Coen 

2005, Werth et al. 2011) and predicted drier and warmer fire weather conditions (Westerling et al. 

2015).Warmer and drier environments cause lower fuel moisture levels and more intense fires.

Once a crown fire starts, it is likely to spread in nearby areas with dense crown fuels. As 

described above, this can accelerate rapidly and cover very large areas in a short time if fire-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

66

atmospheric interactions occur (Werth et al. 2011), or if one part of the fire interacts with another 

causing a “mass fire” (Finney and McAllister 2011, Viegas et al. 2012). More information on 

potential fire types, including crown fire, are found in the “Terrestrial Ecosystems” section, under 

“Fire Resilience.” 

The amount and patch size of high-severity fire is most important for evaluating the consequences 

to ecosystems, particularly in vegetation types that historically had low- and mixed-severity fire 

regimes. High-severity fire is difficult to predict because it depends on the interaction of 

vegetation composition (size and species) and structure, and fire intensity and duration. Available 

research on predicting high fire severity at the landscape scale focuses on statistical analysis of 

fire size with fire severity (Westerling and Keyser 2016). An analysis of fires and large areas and 

patches of high fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and southern Oregon, (Farris 2015, personal 

communication) found that there is a correlation between very large fires (such as the Rim Fire) 

and both the amount of and size of large patches of high severity. This may partly be because 

larger fires can have larger patches of high severity whereas smaller fires physical can’t. 

However, short but intense fire runs can burn a lot of area, particularly under extreme weather 

conditions, such as on the Rim and King Fires. Statistical modeling shows that high fire severity 

areas show similar trends with climate to the trends in burned area (Westerling et al. 2015, 

Westerling and Keyser 2016). The model predicted that fire severity was more sensitive to 

changes in restoration scenarios than burned area alone. In other words, with restoration, fire 

severity declines more sharply than burned area. 

Modeling of trends in high fire severity with climate change and restoration scenarios by UC 

Merced show increasing total area burned with higher fire severity (greater than 50 percent of 

overstory vegetation killed) and increasing size of high fire severity patches. Figure 7 shows that 

in the map on the left with no fuels treatments, the area burned at high severity is expected to 

increase between 100 and 200 percent across most of the analysis area. The map in the middle 

shows the 30 percent restoration scenario, where most areas show decreases in the trend, but 

overall there is still a 50 to 100 percent increase in predicted area burned at high severity across 

the analysis area. High elevation areas show little change with the restoration scenario because 

most of the areas are in wilderness and wildfire managed to meet resource objectives was not 

modeled. The map on the right shows the 60 percent restoration scenario, where there are large 

landscape areas that show levels less than 20 and 40 percent growth, and some with reductions. 

The reductions are in areas where larger concentrations of simulated restored areas occurred. The 

legend on the bottom ranges from a reduction of -20 percent (green) to an increase of 300 percent 

(dark red) on the right.

Environmental Consequences to Fire Trends

The consequences of the alternatives were based largely on the UC Merced fire-climate modeling 

and how the results varied with four different restoration scenarios. Table 18 provides a summary 

comparing restoration levels by alternative and Table 19 and Table 20 provide an overall 

summary of the consequences of the alternatives.

Each alternative has proposed restoration levels of different treatment types (mechanical, 

prescribed fire, wildfire managed to meet resource objectives) that are described in acres that 

would be treated and fire ignitions that would be managed. These proposed restoration levels fall 

in between the restoration scenarios used in the fire-climate modeling. For example, proposed 

restoration objectives for alternative B (TERR-FW-OBJ-01 to 04; MA-RCA-OBJ-01; SCENFW-OBJ-01; SPEC-SG-OGJ-01) are mostly expressed in ranges that correspond to a restoration 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

67

of 15 to 30 percent of the low and mid-elevation landscape. The proposed restoration levels for 

the alternatives vary by ecological zone. For example, there is little restoration planned in the 

subalpine/alpine zone except for wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. The table below 

describes how the restoration levels in the scenarios were cross-walked to the restoration levels in 

the alternatives for this analysis.

Figure 7. Percent change in area burned at high severity (defined as greater than 50 percent 

overstory mortality) with future trends in climate

Table 18. Summary comparison of proposed restoration levels by alternative

Restoration 

Modeling 

Scenario Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Kern 

Drainage

Current levels 

(historic or baseline 

scenario)

Yes No Yes except for 

upper montane

No No

15 percent No Yes No No No

30 percent No Yes Yes in upper 

montane

Yes No

60 percent No No No Yes Yes

100 percent No No No No Yes
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

68

In general, alternative A is represented by the historic scenario, with restoration rates remaining 

the same at 5 to 10 percent of the landscape. Alternative B is represented by the range of 

conditions between the 15 and 30 percent restoration scenarios. Alternative C is represented by 

the range of conditions between the historic and 15 percent restoration scenarios. Alternative D is 

represented by the range of conditions between the 30 and 60 percent scenarios. The amount of 

restoration depends upon the location and is described in the narrative below. For example, on the 

Sequoia National Forest in the Kern River drainage, the restoration level varies between 40 and 

90 percent because of the remoteness and high levels of managed fire in the past 15 years. In 

Kern River drainage, 30 percent or more of the area has been restored through managing fires. In 

areas where there is a prevalence of both California spotted owl and Pacific fisher habitat, the 

level of restoration will be lower in alternatives where more restrictive plan direction limits the 

intensity (alternative B outside of focus landscapes, and alternative C) or extent (alternative C) of 

restoration. 

Table 19 below summarizes the expected changes in fire burned area, large fire size, likelihood of 

large fires, and fire intensity and fire type with projected climate trends by alternative. The 

information is based primarily upon the analysis by UC Merced (Westerling et al. 2015). The

values are for the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) model which represents the 

median model projections amongst the three climate models described earlier. More details on all 

three simulations are in Westerling et al. (2015). Table 20 shows the change in likelihood of large 

fires by alternative and by ecological and elevational zone for all areas. Both of these tables are 

referenced in the analysis of environmental consequences by alternative below.

Table 19. Summary of expected changes in fire burned area, large fire size, likelihood of large fires, 

and fire intensity and fire type with projected climate trends by alternative 

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Large fire size 

(percent change)

(23 percent 

increase

12 to 17 percent 

increase

Similar to 

alternative A 

3 to 12 percent 

increase

Fire intensity and 

type (crown 

versus surface 

fire) in hot, dry 

conditions

High; decreased in 

areas of recent 

large wildfires

High, except 

decreased to 

moderate in some 

areas (15 to 25% 

of montane 

forest)of 

concentrated 

restoration (focus 

landscapes, large 

prescribed fires, 

managed fire 

areas)

High, except 

decreased in 

limited areas 

(large prescribed 

fire and managed 

fire areas)

Moderate to high, 

decreased in some 

areas (30 to 50% 

of foothill and 

montane forests) 

of concentrated 

restoration (focus 

landscapes, large 

prescribed fires, 

managed fire 

areas, some other 

areas))

Large patches 

(more than 1,000 

acres) of very 

high intensity and 

severity (based on 

increases in large 

fire size)

At least 23 to 30 

percent increase

At least 10 to 18 

percent increase

Similar to 

alternative A

At least 4 to 11 

percent increase
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

69

Table 20. Percent change in likelihood of large fires by alternative and ecological/elevational zone

Ecological/Elevation 

Zone Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Foothill 17 to 22 percent 

increase

2 to 14 percent 

increase

Same as 

alternative A

8 percent 

increase to 6 

percent decrease

Montane 23 to 31 percent 

increase

3 to 18 percent 

increase

Similar to 

alternative A

10 percent 

increase to 11 

percent decrease

Upper Montane 55 percent 

increase

38 to 43 percent 

increase

Similar to B but 

less than D

19 to 38 percent 

increase

Kern River Drainage, 

Sequoia National 

Forest

4 to 11 percent 

decrease

Decrease of 11 to 

22 percent

Same as 

alternative B

Same as 

alternative B 

Great Basin 14 to 24 percent 

increase

1 to 10 percent 

increase 

Less than A but 

more than B 

1 increase to 6 

percent decrease

Consequences Common to all Alternatives

Although there is uncertainty in all the alternatives about how much prescribed fire and wildfire 

managed to meet resource objectives will occur, we anticipate that management direction would 

support planned levels (Table 6 through Table 8, chapter 2). Spring burning is when much of 

prescribed fire can be safely done in the dry and warmer fuel conditions that occur more 

frequently than in the past. In all alternatives, there are uncertainties in how much fire would 

occur for several other reasons. First, drier fuel conditions and longer fire seasons decrease the 

available window to conduct prescribed burns to safely meet burn objectives. Secondly, limited 

operating periods for the California spotted owl (SPEC-CSO-GDL-03), Pacific fisher (SPEC-PFGDL-04), great gray owl (SPEC-GGO-GDL-02), deer fawning (SPEC-FW-GDL 2), and sagegrouse (SPEC-SG-STD-06, -07) would make spring burning unlikely in many areas in the 

montane and ponderosa pine areas. Similarly, restrictions on burning in riparian area habitat for 

federally listed species such as yellow-legged frog and Yosemite toad would make spring burning 

more difficult in many areas. Lastly, there are uncertainties about the ability to conduct prescribed 

burning because of air quality constraints. Because of these uncertainties, the amount of 

restoration using prescribed fire may be overestimated for all alternatives.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Average annual burned acreage, large fire size, and fire intensity are expected to continue to 

increase under alternative A. Limited amounts of vegetation restoration, including mechanical 

thinning, prescribed fire, and wildfire managed to meet resource objectives would occur in most 

areas. Based upon the projected trends with climate change, burned area would increase by two to 

four times. Much of the change would be in increasingly larger fires. These are likely to have 

large patches of high-intensity fire and high-severity fire effects. This is expected because of 

projected increases in temperature, decreased precipitation, and a resulting longer fire season. The 

greatest changes would be in the montane and upper montane forests, except in the Kern River 

drainage (including the Kern Plateau) on the Sequoia National Forest. Here, there would be 

similar patterns of burned area but decreased fire sizes and intensities as fires burn into other 

recent fires from the last 15 years. There would be a continued trend of increased fire on the 

eastside in the pinyon-juniper, sagebrush and desert ecosystems. Fire size would continue to 

increase in these eastside areas, especially where extensive invasions of the non-native cheatgrass 

or red brome have occurred. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

70

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

In alternative B, there would be an increase in the amount of vegetation restoration that would

reduce the likelihood of large fires, burned area, and large patches of high fire severity (TERRFW-OBJ-01 to 04; MA-RCA-OBJ-01; SCEN-FW-OBJ-01; SPEC-SG-OBJ-01). There would be 

a continued trend of increasing burned area, large fire size, and fire intensity with climate trends 

(Figure 7); however, the rate of increase is lower (12 to 17 percent increase) than current rates of 

increase (23 percent) represented by alternative A (Figure 6, Table 20). The proposed restoration 

levels would vary with location in the landscape. Treatments would be prioritized in the montane, 

foothill (TERR-FW-OBJ-01), and sagebrush (SPEC-SG-OBJ-01) or pinyon-juniper areas, 

including around communities (MA-CWPZ-GOAL-01 to 02) and other high value areas. In 

addition to restoration objectives, the following potential management approaches in this 

alternative emphasize priorities in these areas:

Areas that historically supported more frequent fire, like ponderosa pine and Jeffrey pinedominated forests, and areas with high existing levels of understory fuels are prioritized 

for treatment. 

Prioritize fuel treatments in areas that pose the greatest threat to communities and highly 

valued resources. 

Prioritize ecological restoration of California spotted owl protected activity centers that 

have departed furthest from protected activity center and/or vegetation desired

conditions, and that promote the greatest ecological resilience of the protected activity 

center. Also consider prioritizing protected activity centers with the highest wildfire risk 

in the community buffers, such as on upper slopes or ridge tops or in canyons with large 

areas of chaparral below. Consider the risk of large high-intensity wildfire to clustered 

protected activity centers, degree of departure from desired condition, and whether some 

should be managed to reduce wildfire risk and increase overall resilience of protected 

activity centers and vegetation in an area.

On the west side of the Sierra Nevada on the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, at least half of 

the restoration would occur within focus landscapes, as described in the management approach 

below: 

Emphasize vegetation treatments in focus landscapes (10,000 to 80,000 acres in size) to 

move terrestrial ecosystems toward desired conditions and increase resilience of old 

forest habitat, while limiting impacts to the Pacific fisher and California spotted owl.

In some areas, such as the focus landscapes in west side mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forests 

and Jeffrey pine forests on the Inyo National Forest (which does not use a focus landscapes 

approach) there would be increases in restoration over current levels (chapter 2, Table 6). These 

areas would represent approximately 15 to 25 percent of the montane, forested areas. In these 

areas, where at least 40 percent of the area is restored to desired conditions, there would be a 

decrease in fire intensity (Coen et al. 2015), high fire severity (Wimberly et al. 2009) and size of 

large patches of high severity. There may be some effect of decreasing large fire size overall when 

fires burn into treated areas, but this is more likely when larger treatments areas are concentrated 

within a landscape (that is, greater than 12,000 acres; see analysis assumptions above). Guidelines 

(FIRE-FW-GDL-02) and management approaches emphasize treating larger landscape areas, 

using mechanical treatments and larger prescribed fires:

Develop landscape scale projects to increase the pace and scale of ecological restoration, 

ecosystem resilience and fire resilience, and to protect the carbon carrying capacity of the 

forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

71

Plan vegetation, fuels, and other restoration projects across large landscape areas (e.g., 

greater than 5,000 to 10,000 acres), when it can increase efficiency in planning and 

support partnership-based approaches, such as stewardship contracts.

During ecological restoration treatments, reduce fuels along ridges, roads, or other natural 

or man-made features to aid in the use of large prescribed fires and in managing wildfire, 

including wildfires managed to meet resource objectives.

The ability to conduct treatments within these prioritized areas affects the likelihood that 

sufficient treatments would occur to result in changes in large, high-intensity size and high fire 

severity areas from future fires. There is a moderate level of uncertainty that the levels of 

projected prescribed fire treatments would occur due to limited operating periods for wildlife 

described above in consequences for all alternatives. There is an ability to waive the limited 

operating periods for 5 percent of California spotted owl sites per year (SPEC-CSO-GDL-03b), 

but this may not be sufficient to reach the increased objectives for prescribed fire. However, 

limited operating periods for Pacific fisher are waived in the focus landscapes, so there may be an 

increased likelihood of prescribed fire treatments. Further, there are reduced limitations for both 

prescribed fire and mechanical treatments on the number of fisher cells and spotted owl protected 

activity centers that can be treated in focus landscapes (SPEC-CSO-GDL-07; SPEC-PF-STD-02). 

Without prescribed fire in mechanical treatment areas, it is less likely that all of the desired 

conditions for vegetation are attained, particularly for small tree density, understory vegetation 

vigor, and surface fuels. This may mean that the mechanical treatment restorations are less 

effective in changing fire behavior during hot and dry conditions (Wimberly et al. 2009).

Changes in fire management toward a risk-based approach (strategic fire management zones, see 

“Fire Management” section) would result in more wildfire that is managed to meet resource 

objectives in some areas, especially in the wildfire maintenance zone (MA-WMZ-GOAL-01; 

MA-WMZ-STD-01 to 02) and in some portions of the wildfire restoration zone (MA-WRZ-DC02 to 03; MA-WMZ-GOAL-01). This would result in decreased fuels, increased vegetation 

resilience, and has been shown to reduce future fire size and severity (Collins et al. 2009, Ewell et 

al. 2012, Vaillant 2009), but most of these fires would occur at higher elevations in more remote 

locations. Implementing the plan management strategy of emphasizing ecological restoration 

along ridges and some roads would improve the ability to reduce the intensity and spread rate of 

wildfires, manage fires, and conduct prescribed fires (MA-CWPZ-GDL-02; MA-GWPZ-GDL02; MA-WRZ-STD-01; MA-WMZ-STD-02). It would contribute to fire suppression success and 

allow more wildfires to be managed to meet resource objectives but to an unknown degree 

because there are other factors influencing fire management decisions including weather, fuel 

conditions (how dry fuels are) and proximity to communities or values at risk (see “Fire 

Management” section).

In alternative B, there would continue to be large, high-intensity fires, with large patches of high 

intensity and severity, driven by fire-atmospheric interactions where fires generate their own 

weather and accelerate winds and fire intensity and spread (Coen et al. 2015). The likelihood of 

this would be reduced in the focus landscapes and other areas greater than 12,000 acres where at 

least 40 percent of the area has been restored (see assumptions above). Greater effectiveness of 

vegetation restoration is projected in the sagebrush and pinyon-juniper areas, where model 

projections show that treating one-third of landscape areas has benefits in reducing the likelihood 

of large fires (Figure 6). However, there is uncertainty in the effects of restoration treatments 

because continued invasion and establishment of non-native, annual grasses can cause increases 

in fire spread and fire size in other untreated areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

72

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

The consequences of alternative C would be similar to alternative A but there are uncertainties 

associated with potential restoration amount and intensity in alternative C (chapter 2, Table 6

through Table 8). The proposed area treated with prescribed fire and wildfire managed to meet 

resource objectives would increase and potentially double on the Inyo and Sierra National 

Forests. On the Sequoia National Forest, the proposed area treated with prescribed fire would 

decrease because of limitations associated with prescribed fire in fisher habitat that occupies most 

of the analysis area on that national forest. Mechanical treatment on all three national forests 

would decrease by 25 to 75 percent. In addition to changes in the relative amounts of different 

treatment types, the intensity of treatments would be similar to alternative A and less than 

alternative B. Vegetation restoration is likely to be low treatment intensity because of an emphasis 

on retaining high canopy cover and greater tree basal area for the California spotted owl and 

Pacific fisher over much of the montane landscape, and on retaining greater sage-grouse and 

other wildlife habitat on the eastside.

There are fewer strategic fire management zones in alternative C, with more area emphasizing 

restoration of wildfire for resource objectives, but the fire risks remain the same as in the other 

alternatives so it is expected that fire management decisions would be the same as alternative A, 

except in the wildfire maintenance zone. With this alternative, less area would have mechanical 

restoration and those actions would be less intense in reducing fuels and reducing fire risk. 

Alternative C strives to use more prescribed burning to reduce fuels and achieve desired 

conditions but the amount of burning may be limited in some areas by the higher difficulty of 

burning areas with higher fuel loading and the same limited operating period constraints listed 

above in consequences common to all alternatives. There are additional limited operating periods 

for fisher denning habitat that were waived in the focus landscapes in alternative B but apply to 

alternative C. This makes it less likely prescribed fire could be applied to fisher habitat where 

additional restrictions apply for other wildlife. There would likely be less ecological restoration 

along ridges and some roads using mechanical treatment alone or in combination with prescribed 

fire, which would make it more difficult to manage wildfire to meet resource objectives. On the 

east side, there are fewer acres that would be restored in Jeffrey pine, pinyon-juniper, and 

sagebrush using mechanical treatment, prescribed fire, or wildfire managed to meet resource 

objectives. There would continue to be increases in the size and area in large, high-intensity fires.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

Alternative D is proposed to have the greatest level of restoration treatments of all kinds (Table 6

through Table 8, chapter 2). Proposed plan direction guiding restoration treatments and fire 

management would be mostly similar to alternative B. There would be an emphasis on restoration 

in focus landscapes on the west side but the number of focus landscapes in westside mixed 

conifer and pine forests would double. Other treatment areas outside of focus landscapes would 

double as well. An estimated 30 and 50 percent of landscape areas would be restored in much of 

the westside montane and foothill landscapes. On the east side, a greater area is also restored, up 

to 30 percent. These increases in restoration are to levels where the fire-climate models predict 

there would be a leveling off or decrease in the current increasing trend of fire size and likelihood 

of very large fires (Table 20; Westerling et al. 2015). Given the combination of more restored 

areas that would be less susceptible to high-intensity fire, there is expected to be a decrease in the 

amount of crown fire and large patches of high-severity fire toward the natural range of variation. 

This would especially be likely in the focus landscapes, where it is expected that at least 40 

percent of the area would be restored (see analysis assumptions). There would be substantially 

more ecological restoration of ridges and roads that that can provide more opportunities to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

73

conduct large prescribed fires in steep areas (like in canyons) and to manage wildfire to meet 

resource objectives. This would increase the likelihood that more area is burned under low- to 

moderate-intensity conditions that decrease fuels, provide ecological benefits and further decrease 

the likelihood of large, high-intensity fires beyond the natural range of variation. There is 

uncertainty about how much smoke regulations and air quality management would affect this 

potentially greater amount of prescribed fire and wildfires managed to meet resource objectives.

Cumulative Effects

There are cumulative effects spatially, from the management of adjacent landowners, and into the 

future with foreseeable trends in climate, human populations, and fire. Climate trends are 

influenced by many factors outside of the direct influence of projects and indirect influence of the 

forest plan alternatives. Trends in large, high-intensity fires are influenced by restoration 

treatments in adjacent areas and in the numbers and types of ignitions and fire management 

policy. Large adjacent land managers include the National Park Service, managing Sequoia, 

Kings Canyon and Yosemite National Parks, and the Bureau of Land Management. There are also 

large areas of private land adjacent to and within the national forests in the analysis area. The 

Park Service emphasizes fire restoration and has cooperated with the Sequoia National Forest 

numerous times on management of wildfires to meet resource objectives in the Kings River 

Drainage (Meyer 2015). There are also smaller private in-holdings and adjacent private lands 

where restoration treatments may occur. The draft forest plans emphasize an all-landsmanagement and shared-stewardship approach and this would occur with alternatives B, C and D 

(FIRE-FW-DC-04 to 05; LAND-FW-DC-02; TRIB-FW-DC-02; LOC-FW-DC-02; FIRE-FWGOAL-02 to 03; LOC-FW-GOAL-02; VIPS-FW-GOAL-01). This includes the following 

potential management approaches:

Work with adjacent land management agencies to identify methods to reduce costs and 

increase effectiveness in restoring fire to the landscape.

Prior to and during the fire season assess conditional thresholds under which desired 

conditions can be met for the strategic fire management zones (see management areas 

section in this chapter). Work with tribes and adjacent landowners to identify areas and 

resources of value considered in the assessments.

Develop a partnership and volunteer strategy to define the types of projects suitable for 

partnership and volunteer opportunities, potential partners and volunteers, and the 

mechanisms for developing partnerships and volunteer agreements.

The cumulative effect has been that on adjacent National Park Service and Sequoia National 

Forest lands there is a high level of restoration that has been accomplished in the last 15 years, 

greatly reducing the probability of large, high-intensity fires in this area. The Bureau of Land 

Management manages fires similarly to the Forest Service although with more of an emphasis on 

fire suppression. There has been little wildfire managed to meet resource objectives on National 

Forest System lands near Bureau of Land Management lands. Trends in large, high-intensity fires 

are the same on lands managed by both agencies. There is little difference in the cumulative 

effects on lands adjacent to Bureau of Land Management land as a result.

In the low and mid-elevations, the invasion of non-native annual grasses into large areas of 

sagebrush and pinyon-juniper vegetation on the Inyo National Forest, is expected to continue. 

This will likely increase the frequency and size of fires. Non-native annual grasses are more 

flammable and create more continuous fuel conditions that make fire spread more extensively 

(Brooks and Minnich 2006, Klinger et al. 2006). Areas adjacent to the Inyo National Forest 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Los Angeles Department of Water and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

74

Power are both at risk of non-native plant invasions, spread, and associated increased fire size. 

The cumulative effect would be more fires burning across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Population growth in California, and increases in visitors to the national forests in general are 

likely to result in more human-caused ignitions. Over 90 percent of unplanned wildfires are 

ignited by people (see “Fire Management” section). Some of the fires with the largest size and 

highest intensity that have occurred in the analysis area and nearby were caused by human 

ignitions. This includes the Rim (2013) and King (2014) Fires in the central Sierra Nevada. These 

types of fires become very large, very fast, and burn much of the area at very high intensity 

because of the combined effects of uniformly dense vegetation and high fuel loads, warming 

climate, drought, and increased human development in the wildland-urban intermix. 

Natural ignitions may also increase in the Sierra Nevada with climate change, but future 

projections in lightning strike density are highly uncertain. This would have a cumulative effect 

of increasing the likelihood of large, high-intensity fires but to an unknown degree. 

Analytical Conclusions

Under all alternatives, trends in climate remain the same but the landscape vegetation density and 

fuel levels would differ because levels and intensity of restoration differ by alternative. As a result 

of both of these factors, the likelihood of large, high-intensity fires differs among alternatives, 

even with climate trends that result in more severe fire weather. The likelihood of large highintensity fires continues to increase under all alternatives in low and mid-elevations on the west 

side of the analysis area except in alternative D. In alternative D, levels of large, high-intensity 

fires may stay the same or may decrease because of the higher proportion of landscapes that are 

restored (Table 20). On the east side, with both alternatives B and D, there is a high likelihood 

that the trend in large, high-intensity fires may not get any worse (Table 20). On the west side in 

the foothills and montane forests, there is a reduction in the likelihood of large high-intensity fires 

in the focus landscapes with alternative B, but the trend is still increasing with climate change. 

Focus landscapes are only treated on a portion of the overall landscape on the Sequoia and Sierra 

National Forests.

There is more uncertainty in alternative B that larger landscape prescribed burning would occur 

compared to alternative D due to less understory fuels reduction in fewer mechanically treated 

areas and due to fewer available days for prescribed burning due to limited operating periods

established for wildlife species. This increases the uncertainty that there would be enough 

treatment to decrease the trend in large fire size or area burned in large fires. In alternatives C and 

A there is a high likelihood that the current trend of increasing occurrence of large, high-intensity 

fires will continue or worsen. In all of the alternatives, any large area (greater than 12,000 acres) 

that has extensive restoration (greater than 40 percent) is likely to have a substantially lower 

probability of large, high-intensity fires and high-severity fire effects (Turner 1989, Wimberly et 

al. 2009, Parisien et al. 2008, 2010, 2012, Fites-Kaufman 2014, Coen et al. 2015, Westerling et al. 

2015). This situation currently occurs in the Kern Plateau and is likely to continue and expand 

across more of that area.

Insects and Pathogens

Background

Native insects and pathogens are an integral part of forest dynamics and process of change in the 

southern Sierra Nevada. Pathogens, often called “diseases,” are naturally occurring fungi or 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

75

plants and can play important roles creating cavities or snags used by wildlife. This section 

focuses on the insects and pathogens that affect trees.

Environmental factors such as drought, wildfires, or vegetation conditions strongly influence 

behavior of native insects and pathogens. While native insects and pathogens affect their host

plants to varying degrees, some are considered key species due to their ability to cause widespread or severe losses. Species that can kill the most trees are listed in Table 21. In the table, “H” 

indicates relatively high ability to kill host trees; “L” indicates secondary or lower ability to kill 

host trees; and “O” indicates occasional hosts. White pine blister rust is a non-native invasive

pathogen that is very deadly to white pines. Bark beetles are the leading cause of dying trees, and 

the recent outbreaks across western North America are the largest and most severe in recorded 

history (Bentz 2005). A 2009 update report from Western Forestry Leadership Coalition stated 

that between 2002 and 2003, acres affected by bark beetles increased from 4 million to 10 million 

acres across the west (Western Forestry Leadership Coalition 2009). Future projections estimate 

that bark beetle and other forest insect activity will increase because of climate changes such as 

elevated temperatures, frequent drought, and current high risk conditions (dense vegetation) of 

western forests (Bentz et al. 2010).

Table 21. Key forest insect and pathogen species of the southern Sierra Nevada

Key Pest Species Host Trees

Western Pine Beetle High: ponderosa pine

Mountain Pine Beetle High: sugar pine, lodgepole pine

Low ponderosa pine

Jeffrey Pine Beetle High: Jeffrey pine

Fir Engraver High: white fir, red fir

Pinyon Ips High: single-leaf pinyon pine

Pine Engravers (Ips spp.) High: ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, 5-needled pines*, singleleaf pinyon pine, lodgepole pine

California Flatheaded Borer High: Jeffrey pine

Red Turpentine Beetle Low: ponderosa Pine, Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, 5-needled pines*, singleleaf pinyon pine, lodgepole pine

Douglas-fir Tussock Moth High: white fir

Dwarf Mistletoes High: ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, lodgepole pine, white fir, 

red fir

Low: 5-needled pines*, single-leaf pinyon pine

Heterobasidion Root Disease High: white fir, red fir

Low: ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, 5-needled pines*

Black Stain Root Disease High: single-leaf pinyon pine

Armillaria Root Disease Low: sugar pine, 5-needled pines*, lodgepole pine, white fir, red fir, 

incense cedar, giant sequoia, California black oak; 

Occasional: ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine

White Pine Blister Rust High: sugar pine, 5-needled pines*

* These include sugar pine, whitebark pine, and bristlecone pine

In 2011, the Forest Service produced a western bark beetle strategy to develop future prevention 

management strategies to mitigate the wide-spread epidemic of bark-beetle-killed trees occurring 

all through the western states (USDA FS 2011). The strategy is based on three primary goals: 

human safety, forest recovery, and long-term forest resiliency. High levels of bark-beetle-killed 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

76

trees create public safety concerns, due to the risk of hazardous trees falling on the public and 

damaging property. The rapid loss of trees affects ecosystem integrity, dramatically altering the 

structure and composition of vegetation and distribution of trees, which decreases stability of 

forests, and alters ecological function. After significant bark beetle infestations, forest stands may 

or may not return back to original conditions; dead trees can increase wildfire potential; and loss 

of keystone tree species affect associated wildlife or vegetation. Thinning treatments to reduce 

forest density toward the natural range of variation can make stands more resilient and reduce the 

likelihood of high levels of bark beetle mortality. Salvage logging after infestations can recover

economic losses and create openings for reforestation, or improve overall human safety and 

recreational opportunities.

Analysis and Methods

There have been numerous research studies examining how forest conditions affect the likelihood 

and level of insect and pathogen impacts to trees. This includes measures of stand density, 

suitable diameter classes, or forest composition as potential risk factors for pest attack, especially 

bark beetles. Higher numbers of dying trees are often correlated with areas of densely growing 

trees for most bark beetles and their respective hosts. Drought conditions are included as a factor 

of likelihood that attacks will occur.

Despite measures that gauge insect and pathogen activity, discussions of environmental 

consequences of alternatives will be qualitative assessments. Insect and pathogen activity viewed 

at forest-level scales is addressed qualitatively since monitoring information is primarily based on 

general trends across the larger forested landscape. The levels of insect and pathogens were 

compared with information on reference conditions, or what is within the natural range of 

variation (Safford et al. 2013; see “Terrestrial Ecosystems” section). These are referred to as 

“background levels.” 

Indicators and Measures

Effects and impact severity due to forest insects and pathogens are often measured by several 

factors: affected acres, trees killed per acre, or percentage of trees affected. Annual aerial surveys 

are conducted by the Forest Health Monitoring Program under the Forest Service’s State and 

Private Forestry Program, which visibly detects and records areas of dying trees caused by forest 

insects and diseases on the landscape. The Forest Service’s Forest Health Protection Program has 

multiple tools in which to evaluate measures. Numbers of trees dying that are higher than 

background levels are often indicators of increasing pest activity or areas of growing infection by 

diseases. Unusual patterns of dead trees with particular host plants can also indicate pest 

presence. Compilation of acres affected or trees killed can provide indications of trends emerging 

on the landscape.

Forest Health Technology Enterprise has developed computer modeling tools that assess loss 

risks from forest pests based on current stand conditions (USDA FS 2012a). Gradations of risk 

are assessed up to greater than 25 percent basal area lost; considered the highest risk over a span 

of 15 years. Maps of specific locations or forests can be developed which assess levels of risk.

Assumptions

Most forest insects and pathogens are native. Current conditions of dense forested stands or 

predominance of shade-tolerant trees have significantly changed forests from the historic range of 

natural variation (Safford 2013; Meyer 2013a, 2013b, Slaton and Stone 2013a, 2013b). In 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

77

general, bark beetles target dense stands because the host trees in these conditions are often 

stressed and weakened due to high competition for water. Drought further stresses trees, 

triggering increased bark beetle attack. These trees are less able to produce resins that they use to 

fend off bark beetles that drill into the bark. For ponderosa pines in California, studies determined 

that stands with highest densities are most often first infested (Oliver 1995, Hayes et al. 2009). If 

droughts become more frequent, of greater intensity, or last longer in the future, higher levels and 

more wide-spread bark beetle-caused mortality should be expected.

Trees killed by insects and pathogens do provide important contributions to ecosystem function 

when they are at levels within the natural range of variation. Bark beetles and wood boring 

insects provide forage for wildlife (such as woodpeckers). Dead trees, standing or down, create 

essential habitat and organic biomass for forests. Trees killed by native insects and pathogens can 

result in small-scale disturbances that keep forests dynamic and regularly changing, by creating 

small openings and increasing heterogeneity (Fettig 2012). Native insects and pathogens are also 

used by Native American tribes. For example, in eastside forests, tribes use Pandora moth larvae 

as a traditional food source. Mushrooms, the fruiting bodies of pathogens, are used as food and 

medicine by Native American tribes as well.

Restoration treatments in forests to reduce tree density can restore forests to conditions similar to 

the natural range of variation, and associated background levels of insect and pathogen-related 

tree mortality (Fettig 2012). Reduced tree density, more varied structure, and diverse tree 

composition will significantly reduce susceptibility of trees to attack and infection and improve 

individual resistance mechanisms (Smith 2007, Fettig et al. 2007). One measure of forest density 

that is used to evaluate susceptibility to bark beetles, is stand density index. This measure is 

weighted by tree size, so forests dominated by small trees have higher index levels. This is 

because more small trees can “crowd” into the same space as fewer large trees. Light thinning, 

and especially thinning limited to small trees, may not reduce stand density index sufficiently to 

alter conditions that attract bark beetles (Oliver 1995). Prescribed fires alone may not reduce 

stand density index sufficiently if they are low intensity and can create situations that make trees 

more vulnerable to attack in the short term (Fettig et al. 2008). However, large wildfires managed 

to meet resource objectives can result in significant reductions in forest density and reduced 

susceptibility to insect attack (see “Affected Environment” section below). This is evident in the 

current outbreak where lower levels of dying trees are occurring on the Kern Plateau where 

extensive managed fires have occurred in the last 15 years (Meyer 2015). Heterogeneity across 

the landscape can also disrupt the expansion of insect activity. Variation of tree size, age, or 

species composition may limit the amount of suitable host material and, thus, reduce the number 

of dying trees (Fettig 2012).

The effects of treatment on insect and pathogen levels and susceptibility vary some by treatment 

type and combinations. Combinations of mechanical and prescribed fires have been found to be 

less attractive to bark beetles than prescribed fire treatments alone, as well as improving overall 

tree health and growth (Feeney et al. 1998, Wallin et al. 2008). Fire may result in heightened bark 

beetle activity due to the nature of injury that fire causes. Crown and bole scorch severity are two 

of the primary factors used to gauge tree survival but also susceptibility to bark beetle attack 

(Hood et al. 2007, Smith and Cluck 2011). Studies on bark beetle impacts followed by prescribed 

fires have determined that the likelihood of bark beetle infestation significantly increases with 

burning alone (Fettig et al. 2008, Fettig and McKelvey 2010). Therefore, it is important to 

recognize potential subsequent effects following a burn when drought events or underlying 

resource stress (such as high tree densities) are also present.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

78

Affected Environment

Current forest conditions are considered outside of the natural range of variation and prone to 

insect and pathogen outbreaks beyond background levels. Recent and ongoing, widespread, high 

levels of insect-related tree mortality reflect these conditions, magnified by drought (Asner et al. 

2015) and temperature increases (van Mantgem et al. 2009). Past management activities have 

changed forest structure, leading to changes in tree species diversity, age classes, and density.

Bark Beetles

Currently, there are extensive areas of very high drought and insect-related mortality occurring on 

the lower slopes of the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests (see Figure 8 and Figure 9). These 

levels are greater than what has occurred in the last 50 years but there have been other outbreaks 

of note as well. Over the past four decades, California has experienced significant drought events 

that have triggered unprecedented levels of bark beetle-associated tree mortality. From 1992 to 

1994, more than 1,430,000 acres (primarily true firs) were killed statewide; in 2002 to 2005, over 

6,688,400 acres of pines were killed, primarily in southern California forests; and recently since 

2006, upper montane whitebark pine forests have lost over 50 percent of overstory trees, with 

new patches of dead trees developing annually.

Figure 8. Photo of dead and dying ponderosa pines in the foothill zone of the 

Sierra National Forest, fall 2015
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

79

Figure 9. Drought and insect-related mortality in the southern Sierra Nevada based on aerial surveys 

by the Pest Management Program (from late fall 2015) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

80

These levels are greater than what has occurred in the last 50 years but there have been other 

outbreaks as well. Over the past four decades, California has experienced significant drought 

events that have triggered unprecedented levels of bark beetle-associated tree mortality. From 

1992 to 1994, more than 1,430,000 acres (primarily true firs) were killed statewide; in 2002 to 

2005, over 6,688,400 acres of pines were killed, primarily in southern California forests; and 

recently since 2006, upper montane whitebark pine forests have lost over 50 percent of overstory 

trees, with new patches of dead trees developing annually.

On the Inyo National Forest, the greatest concern is loss of pinyon and keystone high elevation 

species, such as whitebark pines. Since 2006, more than 61,000 acres of whitebark pine, an 

estimated 425,000 trees, have been affected by mountain pine beetle in California. Eighty to 88 

percent of the basal area has been lost in some areas of the Inyo National Forest (Meyer et al. 

2014). Pinyon Ips, often in association with black stain root disease, is building in scattered 

locations of the Inyo National Forest, most recently in the Inyo and White Mountains. 

Defoliators

Other insects that cause noticeable and significant damage have been defoliators, insects that eat 

the needles or leaves of trees and can kill the trees when attacks are severe. The native Douglasfir tussock moth cycles in population boom and bust every 7 to 10 years. White firs are its 

primary host, but other neighboring species can be affected if populations are high. From 1996 to 

1999, 44,000 acres in Sequoia-Kings National Park and Sequoia National Forest were defoliated; 

about 5,800 acres were severe (USDA FS 2015). Pandora moth is infrequent, but outbreaks can 

cause severe localized damage. Both insects become public safety hazards: Douglas-fir tussock 

moth larvae have urticating hairs that cause severe respiratory problems in sensitive individuals; 

Pandora moth larvae can become so numerous on roads or other public settings to create 

treacherous conditions. Pandora moth, however, is also a valued resource collected by tribal 

members.

Dwarf Mistletoes and Root Diseases

Dwarf mistletoes and root diseases can have profound long-term effects on forest structure and 

composition. Forest pathogens work slower than insects in killing individual tree hosts by 

extracting water and photosynthates, crippling and deteriorating tree metabolism and vigor. 

Infected hosts are thereby more susceptible to structure failure or attack by secondary pests that 

eventually kill the tree. Dwarf mistletoes are highly evolved parasitic plants that persist on 

individual trees for decades causing dieback or severely reducing growth and development. 

Heterobasidion spp. is the most common root disease found in the southern Sierra Nevada 

forests. True firs are highly susceptible to Heterobasidion infection. Ips confuses beetle attacks 

are commonly associated with prior infections of black stain root disease in pinyon pines. Black 

stain root disease is more prevalent in eastern Sierra Nevada pinyons.

Non-native Insects and Diseases

The most damaging conifer pathogen in California, white pine blister rust was introduced to the 

west coast of North America in 1910 on infected imported plant seedlings. White pines are all 

susceptible to white pine blister rust in laboratory studies, but only sugar pine and western white 

pine have been confirmed with infections so far. Recent surveys of white pine blister rust have 

found very low incidence in the southern Sierra Nevada national forests (Maloney 2011). 

However, preliminary research from Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks found a doubling 

to 45 percent white pine blister rust infection levels in western white pines since the initial survey 

conducted in the early 1990s (M. Cahill, University of Vermont, personal communication, 2013). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

81

The pathogen has not yet been found on eastside forests, but is continually expanding its range as 

observed in northwestern forests and Rocky Mountains. It continues to be a serious threat to 

white pines as climate conditions change and pathogens are easily transported through other 

pathways.

Expected Trends

Forest Health Monitoring risk maps (USDA FS 2012b) show substantial risk of increased tree 

mortality (greater than 25 percent basal area lost) in the next 15 years due to bark beetles and 

other pest complexes (see maps in the Insect and Pathogen supplemental report). Data from these 

maps are summarized in Table 22. 

Droughts may become frequent and prolonged, and it can be expected that mortality will be 

proportional (Smith 2007). Warming and drying climate are expected to greatly increase the 

likelihood and risk of widespread and elevated insect and pathogen outbreaks (Fettig 2012). 

Table 22. Summary of percent area at risk by basal area loss categories for the Inyo, Sequoia, and 

Sierra National Forests

Percent Basal Area 

Loss (%)

Percent Area at Risk

Inyo National Forest

Percent Area at Risk 

Sequoia National Forest

Percent Area at Risk 

Sierra National Forest

1-4 10% 8% 7%

5-14 23% 27% 24%

15-24 14% 20% 20%

>25 53% 45% 49%

Environmental Consequences to Insects and Pathogens

Consequences Common to all Alternatives

All forested lands are affected by native insects and diseases. With the exception of a few 

introduced insects and pathogens, forests in the Sierra Nevada have the same insect and disease 

associates they had 100 to 150 years ago. Every tree species has its complement of pest hosts that 

cause natural mortality and generate small-scale ecosystem disturbances. As opportunists when 

favorable conditions arise, bark beetle-associated activity can be expected to increase if current 

forest conditions remain unchanged or limited. If bark beetle attack potential is not mitigated, 

stands categorized as high risk may experience undesirable levels of dead and dying trees during 

times of drought or other conditions that are conducive for insect population growth and 

expansion. Climate change, urbanization, large wildfires, and chronic elevated ozone pollution 

levels all influence forest resilience to insects and pathogens in addition to the proposed 

restoration treatments.

All alternatives have measures to limit the spread and infection of non-native invasive insects and 

pathogens. This includes white pine blister rust. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Alternative A would have limited areas of restoration (Table 6 through Table 8, chapter 2),

including thinning from mechanical treatment or moderate intensity prescribed fire that would 

reduce the risk of bark beetle outbreaks. There would continue to be large areas at high risk of 

bark beetle-caused tree mortality beyond desired condition levels. Trees in dense stands, outside 

of the natural range of variation, would continue to experience high tree-to-tree competition for 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

82

water. Water stress from dense, competing trees as well as potential drought, compounded with 

pathogens such as root disease or dwarf mistletoes would combine to further weaken trees, 

inciting secondary insect attacks (beetles). Current elevated levels of tree mortality would be 

likely to continue now or develop again in the near future with drought and temperature increases.

Consequences Specific to Alternative B 

In alternative B, more forested acres are proposed to be treated whether with mechanical thinning, 

prescribed fires, and wildfires managed to meet resource objectives (TERR-FW-OBJ-01 to 04; 

MA-RCA-OBJ-01; SCEN-FW-OBJ-01; SPEC-SG-OGJ-01). This reduction of overall tree 

density across the landscape should reduce the likelihood of bark beetle infestations growing to 

epidemic levels within treated areas. This is because increased restoration treatment rates under 

alternative B would reduce stand densities, increase heterogeneity, and restore tree composition to 

conditions aligned with the natural range of variation (TERR-POND-DC-01 to 05; TERR-DMCDC-01 to 06; TERR-MMC-DC-01 to 06; TERR-RFIR-DC-01 to 07; TERR-UMJF-DC-01 to 07; 

TERR-MCHP-DC-01 to 02; TERR-PINY-DC-01 to 05; TERR-MJF-DC-01 to 07). Reducing 

density would reduce moisture stress to individual trees (trees have greater capacity to resist 

insect attack via pitching response) and reduce the likelihood that stands would support pathogen 

spread and insect eruptions. Greater heterogeneity in the forests, species diversity, and variations 

in spacing and structure may limit pathogen spread through root-to-root contact or canopy-aided 

dispersal. In alternative B, increased mechanical treatments in the focus landscapes and along 

ridges and roads would be particularly effective at enhancing the resilience of forest ecosystems 

to undesirable impacts by insects or pathogens, especially in low- to moderate-elevation forests 

such as mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and Jeffrey pine forests (see management approaches 

discussed in “Fire Trends” section).

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Alternative C would have lower levels of mechanical thinning than alternative A with more 

emphasis on prescribed burning and wildfire managed to meet resource objectives (Table 6

through Table 8, chapter 2). As a result there would continue to be high levels of risk to bark 

beetle-associated mortality unless the burned areas are extensive and moderate intensity with 

substantial reduction in tree densities. If the focus of mechanical treatments is removing smaller 

diameter trees, limited changes to current forest conditions may serve to perpetuate the risk of 

insect and pathogen outbreaks in many areas. The exception includes the wildland-urban intermix 

defense zone, where mechanical treatment rates under alternative C would be similar to 

alternatives A and some reduction in stand density would occur nearest to communities. There 

may be increased levels of bark-beetle infection in areas treated with burning alone, particularly 

when it occurs in dense stands where the trees are already stressed (Fettig et al. 2008, Fettig and 

McKelvey 2010). 

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

Alternative D would have similar consequences as alternative B but over substantially more area. 

Increased levels of thinning, prescribed fire and wildfire managed to meet resource objectives

proposed in alternative D (Table 6 through Table 8, chapter 2) would result in decreased levels of 

bark beetle activity in forest ecosystems. Alternative D would increase the pace and scale of 

forest restoration toward desired conditions and greatly improve forest resilience over larger 

spatial and longer temporal scales. Insect and pathogen outbreaks under this alternative would be 

more limited to localized, endemic levels that closer resemble historic conditions (Savage 1994). 

Trees in restored stands would have improved access to water and resources and lower 

competition for water. This would allow trees in restored stands to more rapidly recover after 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

83

drought or wildfire, and gradually adjust if climate conditions continue upward trends (North 

2012, Fettig et al. 2007). 

Cumulative Effects

There can be cumulative effects resulting from management of nearby lands under different 

ownerships. Insects and pathogens can increase on adjacent lands and spread to national forest 

lands. Similarly, insect and pathogen outbreaks can spread from national forest lands to adjacent 

lands. 

There are three different types of land ownership adjacent to national forest lands, each with 

varied capacities and likely forest management approaches that affect insect and pathogens. First, 

there are other Federal lands including Sequoia and Kings Canyon and Yosemite National Parks. 

Second there are urbanized or developed areas. Third, there are larger private land owners that 

actively manage the forests including private timberlands and utility companies.

There an emphasis on prescribed and managed fires and little mechanical thinning in national 

parks. This could result in different elevated mortality levels and potential spread to national 

forest lands, but to date mortality levels have been similar or less (see Figure 9). It could be that 

elevated mortality on national forest lands has resulted in elevated mortality levels on national 

park lands.

Forests on small private lands are often very dense, because trees are retained as natural screening 

or shading. There is a higher likelihood of root damage near structures and roads that can increase 

susceptibility to pathogens. This can increase the likelihood of insect and pathogen attack and 

may increase the spread to national forest lands but the amount of area in this condition is small. 

On the other hand, the recent bark beetle outbreaks within and surrounding Sequoia and Sierra 

National Forests may result in spread and elevated insect and pathogen levels in forests on those 

private lands. This spread may also occur to forests managed by larger private land owners.

Analytical Conclusions

Common consequences for all alternatives are such that (native and invasive) insect and disease 

activity would continue to persist, and effects to trees would occur regardless of treatments under 

all alternatives. The differences lie in the levels of intensity and severity of outbreaks; in 

particular, levels of tree mortality. Eastside and westside forests of the Sierras will experience 

varying degrees of mortality as insects and pathogens continue to target stands of highest risk 

(stands with highest stand densities and greatest moisture stress).

While alternative B allows for restoration treatments on the landscape, including the use of 

mechanical thinning, wildfire and prescribed fires, climate change predictions that forecast 

warmer, potentially drier temperatures in the next few decades may occur before much of that 

restoration is completed. With the greater rate and amount of restoration, alternative D may more 

rapidly prepare for these conditions. The trend of large-scale wildfires on an annual basis in 

California has increased urgency for developing resiliency and resistance to elevated forest pest 

levels and in current forest structures.

Management direction of alternatives A and C would not sufficiently reduce stand density, 

structure, or microsite conditions that are conducive to bark beetle-associated tree mortality, 

especially during periods of drought (Smith 2007). Ponderosa pine stands in California need 

lower stocking thresholds to prevent losses beyond background levels (Oliver 1995). The level of 

treatments proposed for alternative D followed by alternative B would be most effective to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

84

prevent bark beetles, such as western pine beetle, from reaching regional and bio-regional scales 

as is currently happening in the southern Sierra Nevada.

Combined Effects of Climate, Fire, Insects, and Pathogens

Terrestrial Ecosystems

Climate, fire, insects and pathogens all influence each other. Various aspects of how they 

influence each other are discussed in the individual subsections above. It is important to also 

consider them as a whole, since they all affect vegetation and are affected by vegetation 

condition. For the forest plans, the primary means of altering ecosystems is management of 

vegetation condition. In this subsection, the cumulative effects and analytical conclusions for 

climate, fire and insects and pathogens on vegetation condition and management are considered. 

More detail on the combined effects of climate, fire, insects and pathogens is described in the 

Vegetation Resilience supplemental report.

Cumulative Effects

The conceptual diagram below (Figure 

10) shows how each of these agents of 

change influence each other and 

vegetation condition. In the diagram, the 

direction and weight of arrows show how 

each agent of change and vegetation relate 

to each other. Although the way fire is 

managed may vary, fire will occur 

regardless at some point in time because 

the plan areas are dry and fire prone, with 

regular ignition sources (lightning and 

human-caused).

Figure 10. Conceptual diagram of the interaction between 

climate, fire, insects/pathogens and vegetation

Starting with vegetation and moving clockwise around the diagram: 

• Vegetation is in bold, because this is the only aspect of ecosystems that can be directly 

influenced by forest plan direction. 

• Climate influences vegetation, fire, and insects and pathogens directly through temperature 

and moisture changes. 

• Fire influences vegetation, and vegetation influences fire. The arrow between fire and 

vegetation is bold because there is a strong influence of vegetation on fire and vice versa.

• The arrow that goes from fire to insects and pathogens is thinner because most of the 

influence of insects and pathogens is through the changes it causes in vegetation. 

• The changes insects and pathogens have on vegetation change fuels, which then influences 

fire.

These interrelationships mean that cumulative effects are interrelated. As described above in the 

previous subsections, there has been and will continue to be a trend of warming climate, 

increased fire, and increased insect, pathogen, and disease levels and vegetation-related mortality. 

Effects on vegetation are magnified where vegetation structure and composition are outside the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

85

natural range of variation. There is a large proportion of the middle and lower-elevation 

landscapes that are outside the natural range of variation and are highly departed from the 

vegetation desired conditions (see the “Terrestrial Ecosystems” section). Denser vegetation has a 

lower resilience to climate change, fire, insects, and pathogens. Composition that has shifted 

toward dominance of less drought- and fire-tolerant species has decreased resilience. Non-native 

plant species may increase with climate change and changing fire, especially in eastside 

sagebrush, pinyon-juniper, and desert ecosystems. This is beginning to cause a negative feedback 

with increased non-native plant invasions causing more fire, which causes more invasions.

Analytical Conclusions

Three factors most important in changing ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future effects of 

climate, fire, insects, and pathogens on vegetation condition include the pace, scale, and intensity 

of restoration to change vegetation conditions toward desired conditions. The alternatives vary in 

the pace, scale, and intensity of restoration, particularly in the low and mid-elevation areas 

including ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, Jeffrey pine, pinyon-juniper and sagebrush vegetation 

types. 

Alternative D has the greatest amount of restoration treatment (pace), across the largest area 

(scale), with the greatest certainty of moving vegetation toward or achieving desired conditions 

(intensity) in treated areas. This would be through extensive thinning, prescribed fire and more 

opportunities for wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. There would be twice as many 

focus landscapes where limiting wildlife plan direction is waived or reduced, allowing more 

intensive treatments and high likelihood of fully achieving the vegetation desired conditions. Up 

to half of the landscapes most departed from desired conditions would be restored within the next 

10 years in alternative D and be resilient to fire, climate, drought, insects and pathogens. 

Alternative B would have the second most amount of restoration, but it would be concentrated in 

a less extensive portion of the national forests, in 15 to 25 percent of the lower and mid-elevation 

forested or sagebrush and pinyon-juniper areas. Outside of focus landscapes, there would be 

limitations on the intensity of restoration from canopy cover retention requirements for California 

spotted owl and Pacific fisher. In these areas, only part of the desired conditions would be 

achieved. There is a moderate level of uncertainty that only some of the prescribed fire objectives 

in alternative B would be achieved because of more limitations on prescribed fire in riparian and 

old forest wildlife habitat. Most of the landscape would continue to have low resilience to climate 

change, fire and insects and pathogens.

Alternatives A and C would likely have the lowest pace, scale, and intensity of restoration 

because they have the least amount of active mechanical and potentially prescribed fire 

treatments. Although there is more planned prescribed fire in alternative C (except for the 

Sequoia National Forest), there are more limitations on restoration because of canopy cover 

retention requirements for the California spotted owl and Pacific fisher that make prescribed fire 

more costly and difficult. There would be less mechanical treatment and less resulting restoration 

of ridges and roads that could be used to “anchor” off of for large prescribed fires.

Overall, only alternative D would have a substantial change in vegetation across enough area to 

limit the negative impacts of climate change, large high-intensity fire and elevated insect and 

pathogen levels. Alternative B would have some landscapes where the negative impacts would be 

moderated, but most of the landscape would be vulnerable. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

86

Revision Topic 1: 

Fire Management

Introduction

Wildfire has and will continue to affect vegetation and ultimately be a primary driver of change to 

ecosystems in the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests. Wildfire has been a vital part of the 

Sierra Nevada range for centuries. Many of the ecosystems that make up the three national forests 

have been shaped by the way fire moved across the landscape in the past as well as by the lack of 

fire in recent history. The historic role of fire in reducing fuels was nearly eliminated with 100 

years of effectively suppressing fires. Fire management has gone through several changes over 

the last few decades; transitioning from a more suppression-focused approach to moving toward a 

more managed approach. 

Decades of fires suppression, buildup of vegetation and forest debris, and more recently, drought 

and climate change have caused wildfires to grow larger and become more destructive (see the 

“Climate Change” and “Fire Trends” sections). Limited funding for prevention programs and 

many challenges to implement fuel reduction projects have resulted in limited progress toward

reducing the compounding effects of decades of suppression and an increase in the frequency of 

large, high-intensity wildfires. The number and extent of wildfires in the western United States 

each season is driven by natural factors such as fuel availability, temperature, precipitation, wind, 

humidity, and the location of lightning strikes, as well as human factors. It is well known that 

climate fluctuations significantly affect these natural factors, and thus the severity of the western 

wildfire season, at a variety of temporal and spatial scales (Westerling et al. 2003). Unwanted 

wildfires are those that have the potential to damage forests and wildlife habitat, negatively affect 

stream and watershed quality, reduce air quality with increased smoke, and destroy homes and 

communities in the wildland-urban intermix. Other wildfires burning under more desirable 

conditions provide an opportunity to be managed to meet resource objectives. 

The increase in wildfires in western U.S. forests is related to warmer spring and summer 

temperatures, reduced precipitation associated with warmer temperatures, reduced snowpack and 

earlier snowmelts, and longer, drier summer fire seasons in some middle upper elevation forests. 

These conditions can be attributed to climate change (Westerling and Bryant 2008). As the 

climate becomes warmer and drier, vegetation becomes drier, stressed, and more susceptible to 

insects and disease, and is more likely to be consumed by fire. Traditionally, fire season in 

California was from May to September. Recently, fires have occurred throughout the year more 

regularly, resulting in an almost year-round fire season. Not only are fires occurring more 

frequently outside of the traditional fire season, they are much more intense causing more severe 

and long-lasting damage to the vegetation and soils. Large-scale and long-duration droughts may 

occur and will increase the potential for fires to burn larger and with higher intensity than desired. 

The result of this type of changing climate is likely to be larger, more damaging wildfires with 

fewer opportunities to manage wildfires to meet resource objectives or to conduct prescribed 

burns. 

Increased amounts and duration of smoke produced from large wildfires is likely to continue to 

impact population centers, including those long distances from the fire. Increases in wildfire 

smoke emissions may have detrimental impacts on air quality and, combined with a growing 

population, may result in increased population exposure to unhealthy air pollutants (Hurteau et al. 

2014). Wildfires may occur during times of unfavorable atmospheric conditions resulting in a 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

87

compounded impact. However, substantially increasing the amount of fire restored to the 

landscape will require societal trade-offs, such as accepting more smoke from prescribed fires and 

managed wildfires versus continuing to live with high wildfire risk. When evaluating these 

tradeoffs, the costs to society, such as short-term versus long-term air quality impacts, must be 

considered in the context of doing nothing (Hurteau et al. 2014). Emissions from prescribed fires 

are typically lower than those from wildfires burning the same area (Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 

2010). Prescribed fires are planned with careful consideration of smoke to limit human health 

impacts, impacts to transportation corridors, and smoke-sensitive populations. Atmospheric 

dispersion (how pollutants disperse throughout the atmosphere) influences smoke behavior. By 

limiting the amount of fuels available to wildfires, impacts to air quality from future wildfires will 

likely be reduced. Since wildfires that are managed to meet resource objectives burn over many 

days, they may burn during unfavorable conditions such as during high ozone days; however, 

long-term benefits exist as fuels available for future wildfires will be diminished. See the “Air 

Resources” section for more information.

Wildfire suppression costs have increased significantly over the last decade (Association for Fire 

Ecology et al. 2015). This fact, coupled with decreasing or static budgets for fuels management, 

presents serious challenges to fire managers and increases the risk of continued large and highintensity wildfires. A way to address these issues is to use a risk-based approach to guide the 

future management of wildfire. The concept of managing for fire risk can be thought of as similar 

to the concept of the financial risk of investing. If you had a wide range of financial investment 

options and no risk information to manage the uncertainty of each option, would you invest at all? 

Not likely; you would want information up front on dealing with the uncertainty of the 

investment, such as what is the likelihood you would increase your investment and what is the 

likelihood you would lose your investment. In both financial investing and investing to change 

wildfire outcomes, timely upfront information on risk is essential to making informed decisions. 

Fire Management

Background

Fire management includes the strategies and actions used both before and during wildfires. 

Management of wildland fire (wildfire and prescribed fire) influences whether fire effects are 

beneficial or cause negative impacts to values such as water quality, air quality, habitat, recreation 

areas, or communities. Wildfire management includes a spectrum of responses from full 

suppression to managing a fire to meet resource objectives. Suppression is a management action 

used to extinguish or confine an unwanted wildfire at its discovery. The term used for naturally 

ignited wildfires that are managed to reduce fuels and improve ecosystem health is “manage 

wildfires to meet resource objectives.” This term is used throughout the document. These fires 

tend to have effects that are similar to or trend toward those that would have occurred historically. 

Managing wildfires to meet resource objectives is a strategic choice to use unplanned wildfire

ignitions to achieve resource management objectives and ecological purposes under specific 

environmental conditions. The benefits of managing wildfires to meet resource objectives include 

reducing fuels so that future fires burn in that area with lower intensity, lower impacts, and 

reduced smoke, are more manageable, and pose less threat to communities. Managing wildfires to 

meet resource objectives allows fire to resume its natural role in the ecosystem under preidentified objectives and conditions. By allowing this to occur, the results are a healthier 

ecosystem. Fire can create a diversity of habitats, cycle nutrients back into the soil, and reduce 

dense areas of vegetation, which improves vegetation health.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

88

Fuel reduction treatments include prescribed fire and mechanical treatments which are designed 

to change the amount, configuration, and spacing of live and dead vegetation. Prescribed fires are 

fires intentionally ignited by management actions in accordance with applicable laws, policies, 

and regulations to meet specific objectives. Mechanical treatments are changes made to

vegetation composition and structure (by cutting, thinning, or pruning) and changes made to 

forest fuels to reduce fire hazard. Mechanical treatments are often followed up with prescribed 

burning. The costs, environmental impacts, and effectiveness of different fuel treatment types 

vary. The desired outcomes of fuel reduction treatments are less intense fire behavior and reduced 

severity during wildfires, moving the area toward the natural range of variation, less tree 

mortality post fire, and reduced amounts of smoke. Strategically located fuel reduction treatments 

also provide more opportunities to proactively manage the size and costs of future wildfires.

Managing wildfires can be difficult because of smoke impacts, proximity to human communities, 

and liability and cost constraints (Quinn-Davidson and Varner 2012). In addition, policy and 

management requirements also factor into how wildfires are managed. For example, Forest 

Service fire policy (Forest Service Manual 2320) states that in wilderness, fire should be allowed 

to play its natural role as nearly as possible but this presents challenges if the fire has the potential 

to burn outside of wilderness areas and threaten communities or other resource values. 

Mechanical treatments have their own set of legal, operational, and administrative constraints, 

limiting the location and extent of treatment (North et al. 2015), including exclusion in 

wilderness. Forest and wildland fire managers in the southern Sierra Nevada currently have the 

ability to more holistically manage wildfire by incorporating the management of wildfires to meet 

resource objective within the forest plans (Meyer et al. 2015).

Holistic wildland fire management can be thought of as an approach that simultaneously 

considers the role of fire in the landscape, the ability of humans to plan for and adapt to living 

with fire, and the need to be prepared to respond to fire when it occurs. There are multiple factors 

that make it difficult for forest managers to incorporate a more holistic approach into fire 

management. Some of these factors are risk aversion, sociopolitical pressures, and a resulting 

propensity to choose the status quo fire response of suppression. These factors do not improve 

resource conditions and create a positive feedback loop; this is known as the “fire paradox,” in 

which aggressive suppression today leads to accumulation of fuels and worse fires in the future 

(Arno and Brown 1991). This in turn leads to continued excessive suppression expenditures 

(Thompson et al. 2013). Society’s expectation that fires are aggressively suppressed is well 

ingrained, regardless if the fires might meet the objectives of current policy. 

National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy

Increasingly, wildfire management is being viewed as a form of risk management, with a 

corresponding increase in analytical rigor and alignment with risk management principles (Calkin 

et al. 2001). Through planning, risk analysis, and collaboration between stakeholders, a broad 

coalition led by the Western Governors’ Association and Federal land management agencies 

(USDA Forest Service and Department of Interior agencies) developed the “National Cohesive 

Wildland Fire Management Strategy” to establish a national vision for fire management (referred 

to hereafter as the Cohesive Strategy). This strategy defines goals, describes wildfire challenges, 

identifies opportunities to reduce wildfire risk, and is the basis for the fire management strategies 

in the alternatives considered for revising the forest plans.

There are three primary goals to the Cohesive Strategy: (1) restore and maintain landscapes, (2) 

create fire-adapted communities, and (3) respond to wildfires safely and effectively. A riskmanagement approach serves as the foundation for all fire management activities. To restore and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

89

maintain resilient landscapes, risks and uncertainties relating to fire management must be 

understood, analyzed, communicated, and managed as they relate to the cost of doing or not 

doing an activity. To create fire-adapted communities, it is imperative to work with partners and 

use a risk management approach to identifying communities at risk and help protect these 

communities. A safe and effective response to wildfire requires moving beyond an emphasis on 

suppression and considering a more holistic way to meet resource objectives.

Funding is limited and there are not enough resources to reduce fuels with mechanical or 

prescribed fire treatments alone to change fire dynamics on a landscape scale. Managing wildfire 

to meet resource objectives is the most effective and efficient way to reduce fuels, effectively 

reduce the risk to communities and resources (such as water sources or habitat), and restore and 

maintain landscapes. Areas where fires were historically frequent can derive ecological benefits 

from fires; vegetation health is improved, habitat is improved, and species benefit.

Wildfire Risk Management

Wildfire risk management is the process whereby management decisions are made and actions 

taken concerning control of risk and acceptance of remaining risk. It involves identifying, 

assessing, and prioritizing risks followed by the coordinated and economical application of 

resources to minimize, monitor, and control the probability or impact of unfortunate events 

(Calkin et al. 2011). Wildfire risk management is often supported by a scientific assessment that 

can be used to determine where individual wildfires are likely to have negative or positive 

outcomes. It is based upon a detailed quantitative analysis of the location of values at risk (such 

as water sources, communities, or recreation sites) and the likelihood of fire starts (often called 

“ignitions”), fire spread, and fire intensity. For the forest plans and alternatives analyzed in this 

draft environmental impact statement, we conducted a wildfire risk analysis to evaluate the 

alternatives and develop science-based management areas for strategic fire management zones. 

The strategic fire management zones for the alternatives are described briefly in chapter 2 and in 

more detail on page 96. In the next section, a brief description of the underlying analysis for the 

wildfire risk assessment is described. This includes what values at risk were included and the 

relative ranking of each.

Fire Management Considerations

A strategy to address the need to change fire management includes recognizing constraints, 

acknowledging the ecological role of fire, aligning procedures with policy, and managing risk to 

the extent possible. 

Recognize Constraints to Fire Management 

Recognize that in general there are a very large number of burnable acres of National Forest 

System lands that cannot be actively managed by mechanical means, and an even larger number 

that cannot be economically treated with prescribed fire. Appropriately managing wildfire in 

places with an opportunity to obtain resource benefits and a low risk of potential damages may be 

the only way in many areas to increase the pace and scale of ecosystem restoration activities. 

Continued risk-informed management of wildfire would also need to include a method to 

maintain areas once restoration has occurred.

Acknowledge the Ecological Role of Fire

Acknowledge the ecological role of fire but also be cognizant of the fact that many fire regimes in 

the southern Sierra Nevada are currently highly altered and will stay altered because many 

sociopolitical concerns affect how wildfires are managed and how fuels are treated. Accepting 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

90

that fire regimes are altered is not a defeat; it is an acceptance of the world we live in today. We 

need better wildfire outcomes; some outcomes that are not desired but are less impactful than the 

worst wildfires may be more acceptable as long as they ultimately enhance and maintain what we 

value. The goal of ecological restoration is not to return the landscape to its historical fire regime

(because such an outcome is not realistic with the extent of human influence), but instead to have 

forests that are sustainable and resilient to expected changes over time.

Align with Policy

The 2009 “Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy” directs

Federal agencies to manage wildfires to accomplish protection and resource objectives. A wildfire 

may be concurrently managed for one or more objectives and these can change as fire spreads 

across the landscape. Objectives for wildfires are affected by changes in fuels, weather, and 

topography; varying social understanding and tolerance; and involvement of other governmental 

jurisdictions having different missions and objectives. This guidance requires land managers to 

address the location and conditions under which resource benefits and protection objectives can 

be met in forest plans. 

The “wildfire management continuum” was created to visually depict how wildfires may be 

managed for one or more objectives (Thompson et al. 2016). Using risk management results 

according to the dimension allow for the landscape to be zoned according to broad categories. 

The strategic fire management zones highlights where the objectives can be met under a wide 

range of fire season conditions. The basics of the wildfire management continuum can be 

described according to four dimensions (see Figure 11). 

Figure 11. The wildfire management continuum

• The length (side to side) of the continuum shows the spatial component, or the location on 

the landscape. The location also affects the mix of objectives: on the left, it favors 

protection objectives, whereas on the right it favors resource objectives. 

• The width (up and down) of the continuum illustrates the different social, ecological or 

environmental conditions affecting the mix of objectives. On the top, protection objectives 

prevail, whereas on the bottom resources objectives are easier to obtain.

• The colors depict the range of objectives, taking in the combination of both location and 

conditions. Red (upper left) represents how the combination of conditions and landscape 

location can experience higher risks to communities or ecological resources, which result in 

protection as the predominate objective. Blue (lower right) has the combination of low-risk 

conditions and landscape location that make managing for resources the primary objective. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

91

The colors also represent the net value change to natural resources and community assets; 

red indicates a negative change (damage) while blue indicates a positive change (benefit). 

The fire management response is to protect from potential damage and to obtain benefit. As 

risk is lowered on the landscape, more positive net value change opportunities exist over 

more locations and conditions, therefore increasing the ratio of blue to red. 

• The teeth on each end of the continuum indicate that it wraps around to form a cylinder. A 

wildfire on the far left could be near an area with high risk and management of that portion 

of the fire would be to meet protection objections. Whereas, a fire on the right side being 

managed primarily for resource objectives may change to a fire managed for protection 

objectives due to environmental changes that caused it to grow and threaten resources and 

assets.

Manage Risk

Effective management of wildfire addresses the nature of wildfire and its contributing factors, 

recognizes the positive and negative consequences of fire, addresses uncertainty, and develops 

plans that reduce the chances of catastrophic losses (USDA and USDI 2014). Forest and fire 

managers manage risk, both in the short and long terms. If the potential positive and negative 

consequences of fire are recognized, and management actions to obtain positive outcomes are 

matched, then in the long term the risk to communities and assets will be reduced; fire will be 

restored as an ecosystem function to the landscape; and smoke impacts to communities will be 

reduced. Also, risks and uncertainties relating to fire management activities must be understood, 

analyzed and communicated.

Synopsis

All wildfires are managed on a continuum between meeting protection objectives and resource 

objectives, and the mix of these objectives are based both on the location of a wildfire (or a 

portion of a wildfire) and the conditions under which it is burning. These resource objectives 

come from the forest plan mainly in the form of desired conditions. 

Forest Service policy dictates that every wildfire has some aspect of a protection objective in a 

fire management response (2015 “Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations”). 

This response can vary from monitoring the fire under conditions that are likely to achieve 

resource benefits to an aggressive suppression effort to protect communities and natural resources 

from potential damages.

During any wildfire, fire managers must consider firefighter and public safety, risk to property, 

fire management resource availability, national and regional priorities, costs, and potential 

resource benefits in all wildfire management decisions.

Analysis and Methods

We conducted a wildfire risk assessment using the methods outlined in the publication “A 

Wildfire Risk Assessment Framework for Land and Resource Management” (Scott et al. 2015), 

across all three national forests. The wildfire risk assessment identified areas of risk, which 

helped in the development of designating the strategic fire management zones. The spatial data 

used in the assessment analyzes where resource objectives and protection objectives can be met.

For this analysis, FSim, a computer program for large-fire simulation, was used to quantify 

wildfire hazard across the landscape. FSim is a comprehensive fire occurrence, growth, behavior, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

92

and suppression simulation system that uses locally relevant fuel, weather, topography, and 

historical fire occurrence information to estimate the contemporary likelihood and intensity of 

wildfire across the landscape (Finney et al. 2011). A geographic information systems model 

combined the FSim outputs and highly valued resources and assets (HVRAs) to identify the 

strategic fire management zones for the alternatives. We evaluated and refined the zones using 

local knowledge from fire managers, fuels specialists, and other forest managers. 

A major part of a wildfire risk assessment is to have a good indication of where potential damages 

and benefits can occur. This is more than just locating the highly valued resources and assets, it is 

locating where they have the potential to be positively or negatively affected considering the 

likelihood of a wildfire occurring and the intensity at which it would likely burn. The two main 

indicators are location (where the potential damages and benefits to highly valued resources and 

assets are located) and source (where the wildfire ignitions of these potential damages and 

benefits start). The technical measure of the potential damages and benefits for location and 

source is determined by the net value change and is documented in the Southern Sierra Nevada 

Wildfire Risk Assessment report in the project record. 

Highly valued resources and assets are a combination of natural resources and community assets 

whose value could potentially be affected either positively or negatively by fire. A requirement 

for highly valued resources and assets is that they must be able to be mapped. Once we identified 

and mapped the highly valued resources and assets categorically, resource specialists identified

what the potential response to fire would be for each category. Next, the responsible officials for 

the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests determined the relative importance between the 

highly valued resources and assets (Table 23). 

Table 23. Example highly valued resources and assets (HVRAs) and their relative importance values

Highly Valued Resources and Assets (HVRA) 

Relative Importance

(max. 100) 

Human habitation – (classified into 3 sub-HVRAs) High-density human 

habitation, moderate-density human habitation, and low-density human 

habitation

97

Major infrastructure – (classified into 4 sub-HVRAs) Electrical power 

transmission lines, non-hydroelectric power plants, communication sites, 

hydroelectric power plants

83

Watershed resources – (classified into sub-HVRAs) based on number of

people served (Forest to Faucets*), vegetation, slope and erosion potential

80

Critical terrestrial habitat (classified into sub-HVRAs) based on 4 habitat 

types: California spotted owl, Pacific fisher, northern goshawk, and greater 

sage-grouse, and different species type and size of trees

78

Timber resources – 3 groups of tree species and size (classified into 6 

sub-HVRAs) based on access (terrain steepness and access from road)

74

Inholdings – include State forests and private timber lands 67

Recreation and administrative infrastructure – (classified into 2 subHVRAs); Low and high developed sites

65

Visual resources - scenic byways 60

Vegetation condition class – (classified into 15 sub-HVRAs) based on 

biophysical settings, succession class, and relative abundance

50

Forests to Faucets is a reference for how the number of people served by watershed was determined (see 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/FS_Efforts/forests2faucets.shtml) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

93

Relative importance values were developed by first ranking the highly valued resources and 

assets then assigning a relative importance value to each. The most important highly valued 

resources and assets were assigned a relative importance value of 100. Each remaining highly 

valued resource and asset was then assigned a relative importance value indicating its importance 

relative to the most-important highly valued resource and asset. 

As previously stated, the Cohesive Strategy goals formed the basis for developing the fire 

management strategies in the alternatives. Using the wildfire risk assessment as a tool, the three 

goals from the Cohesive Strategy are evaluated as indicators for each alternative:

• Restore and maintain landscapes through the use of wildfire. Landscapes are resilient to 

fire-related disturbances in accordance with management objectives and the risk of 

undesired effects to landscapes is diminished. Managing wildfire to meet resource 

objectives is vital to meeting this goal, especially in areas where active management is 

limited.

• Support fire-adapted communities. Human populations and infrastructure within and 

adjacent to the national forest can withstand a wildfire without loss of life and property. 

Risk of wildfire impacts to communities is diminished. Assess the level of risk and 

establish roles and responsibilities for mitigating both the threat and the consequences of 

wildfire.

• Improve safe and effective fire response. All jurisdictions participate in making and 

implementing safe, effective, efficient risk-based wildfire management decisions. Assessing 

wildfire risk upfront is essential to safe and effective response. Risk exposure to firefighters 

is based on a balanced consideration of values protected and the probability of success. 

Injuries and loss of life to the public and firefighters are diminished. 

Two measures rate how well each alternative addresses the indicators:

• Managing Uncertainty: Managing uncertainty aids in making more holistic wildland fire 

management decisions by giving decisionmakers needed information on potential decision 

outcomes and their associated risks in advance of the time when these decisions become 

urgent. Uncertainty is measured by how well each strategic fire management zone in each 

alternative categorizes the potential damages and benefits to highly valued resources and 

assets from simulated wildfires. A zone that captures mostly benefits would have low 

uncertainty while a zone with a high mix of both damages and benefits would have high 

uncertainty. 

• Facilitating Wildland Fire Management: This measures the ability of each alternative to 

identify and enhance strategic fire management features on the landscape and provide a 

greater ability to enhance these features through fuel reduction and vegetation treatments.

Affected Environment

Historical Wildfires and Wildfires Managed to Meet Resource Objectives

Wildfires on all three national forests historically burned about 509,541 acres, averaging 23,000 

acres a year from 1992 to 2013. The amounts fluctuate from year to year depending on conditions 

and the number of fire ignitions. Fire ignitions are either from lightning or human-caused sources. 

Over the 22 year analysis period, 2,404 lightning-caused fires burned approximately 157,187 

acres whereas 1,729 human-caused fires burned approximately 352,355 acres (Figure 12).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

94

Figure 12. Historic ignitions (Ign) and acres (Ac) burned by cause, 1992-2013, Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

95

Currently, only lightning-caused wildfires are managed to meet resource objectives on all three 

national forests. Wildfires managed to meet resource objectives, on average totaled approximately 

4,625 acres a year (20-year average) across the three national forests. While fire managers on 

each national forest have had the option to manage wildfires to meet resource objectives, it has 

been rarely used, except on the Sequoia National Forests where it has been used primarily on the 

Kern Plateau. Wildfires on the Kern Plateau have been managed in conjunction with the National 

Park Service to meet resource and agency objectives in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National 

Parks and adjacent National Forest System lands. Fewer wildfires have been managed to meet 

resource objectives on the other national forests, with a few notable fires being the 2003 Summit 

Fire and 2008 Honey Bee Fire on the Inyo National Forest and the 2008 Tehipite Fire on the 

Sierra National Forest.

Fuel Reduction Treatments

Mechanical treatments average approximately 10,000 acres annually (10-year average) across the 

three national forests. Most mechanical treatments are a combination of mechanical thinning of 

understory trees and mastication or piling and burning of small trees and activity-generated fuels. 

Most treatments are designed to reduce surface fuels so that future fires will burn with lower 

flames. Treatments are intended to raise the height of tree branches so flames are less likely to 

burn into the crowns of trees and spread rapidly. Project design criteria often include 

requirements to retain more canopy cover for wildlife and to retain patches of shrubs and small 

trees for wildlife cover and to provide more natural scenery. This results in heterogeneity in fuels 

and higher fuel levels that influence the behavior of future fires within treated areas, increasing 

fire intensity and fire spread. However, overall amounts of treatments have not been extensive 

enough at landscape scales to substantially affect large wildfires.

Prescribed fire treatments across the national forests, on average, range from 4,800 to 5,100 acres 

annually (10-year average). Currently, the amount of prescribed burning is not occurring at a 

sufficient scale to reduce fuels to the extent that would influence large wildfires that burn at high 

intensity or at a pace to restore the desired fire return frequency that would restore resilience to 

the landscape. Most prescribed burning occurs within areas either previously mechanically treated 

to reduce fuels or areas that have previously been prescribed burned. Prior to a prescribed burn a 

burn plan is developed that determines the burn objectives and resource requirements (such as 

limited operating periods for wildlife and protection measures for cultural resources). Then fire 

managers determine if the weather and fuel conditions are optimal and fire management resources 

are sufficient to ensure the burn objectives can be safely met. Because prescribed burning is 

dependent upon weather and fuel conditions, seasonal timing, availability of resources, and 

acceptable conditions for managing smoke, many areas, especially on the Sierra and Sequoia 

National Forests, have been mechanically treated but have not yet been burned due to suboptimal 

conditions. 

Fire Management Coordination

The Forest Service coordinates with local fire districts and State fire agencies, interagency 

partners (especially the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management), and tribal 

liaisons during wildfire incidents and to develop prevention programs in high wildfire risk areas. 

Fire managers work with local communities to decide where and how to apply fuel reduction 

projects on Federal lands through a community wildfire protection plan. Under all alternatives, 

this communication and coordination would continue and propagate as fuel reduction treatments 

are planned on all three national forests.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

96

Environmental Consequences of Fire Management

Strategic Fire Management Zones

The wildfire risk assessment covers a 4,323,416-acre area encompassing the Inyo, Sequoia, and 

Sierra National Forests characterized by vegetation conditions ranging from valley-bottom 

grasslands in the Central Valley to alpine forests and rock at the highest elevations, and to arid 

sagebrush shrubland on the east side of the Sierra crest.

The zones used in alternative A consist of the two zones within the wildland-urban intermix: the 

defense zone and the threat zone; and the general forest, which consists of the area outside the 

urban-wildland intermix. These are derived from the current forest plans. The wildfire risk 

assessment was the basis for the creation of strategic fire management zones in alternatives B and 

D and, in part, the zones in alternative C. The zones identified from the modeling outputs are 

described below for comparison. The consequences are described separately by alternative in the 

analysis that follows.

Overview of the Proposed Strategic Fire Management Zones

Fire Management Zones in Alternative A

The zones in alternative A shown in Figure 13 were created for the existing three forest plans 

during the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA FS 2004) and were not created 

using a wildfire risk assessment.

Wildland-urban Intermix Defense Zone: This zone identifies areas with a one-quarter-mile 

buffer from structures. Fire management direction within this zone focuses on hazardous 

fuel reduction treatment as the highest priority. Fuel reduction treatments (mostly 

mechanical) in this zone are the most intense to create defensible space to prevent the 

loss of life and property. Lightning-caused wildfires may be managed to meet resource 

objectives when conditions allow, and it can be done in a safe manner as identified within 

the current forest plans.

Wildland-urban Intermix Threat Zone: This zone identifies areas with a buffer of 1.25 

miles beyond the one-quarter-mile buffer from the wildland-urban intermix defense zone. 

Fire management direction within this zone focuses on hazardous fuel reduction 

treatment as the highest priority. Fuel reduction treatments in this zone are strategically 

located to interrupt wildfire spread and reduce fire intensity. Fuel reduction treatments are 

more cautiously applied, particularly in California spotted owl protected activity centers 

and home range core areas, within the southern Sierra fisher conservation area, in old 

forest emphasis areas, and in stands consisting of large-diameter trees. Prescribed fire is 

emphasized in California spotted owl protected activity centers and home range core 

areas and in old forest emphasis areas. Lightning-caused wildfires may be managed to 

meet resource objectives when conditions allow and it can be done in a safe manner, as 

identified within the current forest plans.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

97

Figure 13. Map showing the location of the fire management zones for alternative A

(WUI = wildland-urban intermix; GSNM = Giant Sequoia National Monument) 

Other: This zone identifies areas in the rest of the forest outside the wildland-urban intermix 

defense and threat zones. This area encompasses other land allocations, but home range 

core areas, old forest emphasis areas, general forest, and wilderness allocations 

predominate. Fuel treatments in the general forest are designed to support treatments in 

the wildland-urban intermix threat zone, to protect sensitive habitats, and reintroduce fire 

into fire-dependent ecosystems. Fuel treatments are more cautiously applied, particularly 

in California spotted owl protected activity centers and home range core areas, in the 

southern Sierra fisher conservation area, in old forest emphasis areas, and in stands 

consisting of large-diameter trees. Prescribed fire is the only treatment allowed in 

California spotted owl protected activity centers and is emphasized in old forest emphasis 

areas and California spotted owl home range core areas. Wilderness is managed to 

maintain predominantly natural and natural-appearing environments and mechanical 

vegetation treatments are not allowed. Prescribed fire can be used to reduce the risk and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

98

consequences of wildfire burning within wilderness, or prevent wildfire escaping from 

wilderness to an acceptable level. Lightning-caused wildfires may be managed to meet 

resource objectives when conditions allow and it can be done in a safe manner, as 

identified within the current forest plans.

Strategic Fire Management Zones in Alternatives B and D

The zones for alternatives B and D are management areas created from modeled outputs produced 

by the wildfire risk assessment. The proportion of area in each zone is shown in Figure 17 along 

with a map in Figure 14. 

Figure 14. Map showing the location of the strategic fire management zones for alternatives B 

and D

(GSNM = Giant Sequoia National Monument)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

99

1. Community Wildfire Protection Zone: This zone identifies the areas with the highest 

risk to communities and community assets. This zone assists with preparedness decisions, 

communication and outreach to high-risk communities, and prioritization of fuel 

treatments within and near communities.

2. General Wildfire Protection Zone: This zone identifies areas with a moderate to high 

risk to communities and assets as well as natural resources. This zone assists in 

prioritizing fuel treatments and fire management activities where targeted ecological 

restoration and hazardous fuel reduction will be needed to contribute to the protection of 

communities. 

3. Wildfire Restoration Zone: This zone identifies the areas with a low to moderate risk, 

mostly to natural resources and some risk to assets. This zone assists with prioritization 

of fuel reduction treatments to create more opportunities under a wider range of 

conditions to manage wildfires to meet resource objectives and achieve forest plan 

desired conditions.

4. Wildfire Maintenance Zone: This zone identifies the areas with very low risk, mostly to 

natural resources and some risk to assets. Wildfires that occur in this zone will likely 

maintain or help achieve forest plan desired conditions. The management of wildfires to 

meet resource objective is encouraged when conditions allow and when it can be done in 

a safe manner.

Strategic Fire Management Zones in Alternative C

Figure 15 shows that the zones created for alternative C are management areas based on a 

combination of existing management areas and modeled outputs from the wildfire risk analysis. 

1. Wildland-urban Intermix Defense Zone: This zone identifies areas created with a onequarter-mile buffer from structures. This zone is the same as the wildland-urban intermix 

defense zone in alternative A.

2. Wildfire Maintenance Zone: This zone identifies areas with very low risk, mostly to 

natural resources and some risk to assets. Wildfires occurring in this zone will likely 

maintain or help achieve forest plan desired conditions. This zone was created with the 

same concept as the wildfire maintenance zone in alternatives B and D; however, the 

proportion of the forest area that it covers is slightly higher due to the way the zones were 

divided. Management of wildfires to meet resource objectives and applying prescribed 

fire treatments is encouraged in this zone when conditions allow and when it can be done 

in a safe manner. 

3. General Wildfire Zone: This zone identifies the remaining areas within the forest 

boundary. This is a broad area, including the wildfire restoration zone, general wildfire 

protection zone, and portions of the community wildfire protection zone from alternatives 

B and D. An increased emphasis on managing wildfire to meet resource objectives and 

increased use of prescribed fire in fire adapted ecosystems would occur in this zone.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

100

Figure 15. Map showing the location of the strategic fire management zones for alternative C

(WUI = wildland-urban intermix; GSNM = Giant Sequoia National Monument) 

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Under this alternative there are two fire management oriented zones and the rest of the forest area 

which we are calling “other” (see Figure 13 on page 97). The proportion of the total area of the 

Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests within each zone are 2 percent in the wildland-urban 

intermix defense zone, 16 percent in the wildland-urban intermix threat zone and 82 percent in 

“other” as shown in Figure 16. These two wildland-urban intermix zones used proximity to 

communities as a proxy for fire risk, with the highest risk immediately adjacent to communities 

but recognizing fires that start more than 1.5 miles away from communities and outside of the 

wildland-urban intermix can still be a threat. These wildland-urban intermix zones are used 

primarily to prioritize fuel treatments on each national forest. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

101

Figure 16. Proportion of the Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests within each zone in 

alternative A

The focus of fire management in this alternative is to use mechanical treatments and prescribed 

fire to slow fire spread in the forest overall and provide defendable space in the wildland-urban 

intermix. The overall strategy outside of the wildland-urban intermix is reliance on strategically 

placed land area treatments (also known as SPLATs) to slow fire spread and aid in the 

management of fires. For these strategically placed treatments to be effective, the pattern of 

treatments and percent of area treated on the landscape is important (USDA FS 2004). Due to 

various treatment constraints, treatment effectiveness is rarely obtained. Other strategically 

located treatments were not identified in relation to the risks and benefits they would provide to 

fire decisionmaking and are not a priority for treatment. Treating along key roads and ridges 

provides fire managers with opportunities to develop operational plans to conduct larger 

prescribed burns or to manage wildfires to meet resource objectives. Outside of wilderness and 

remote areas, without an emphasis on treating along these strategic locations, there are few 

opportunities to manage wildfires. The primary response to wildfire ignitions is to continue 

suppressing most lightning fires, which will continue to move areas away from the natural range 

of variation related to fire as an ecosystem function. 

Under alternative A, the amount of fuel reduction treatments (prescribed burning and mechanical 

treatment) would remain the same as under current direction.

Restore and Maintain Landscapes Through the Use of Wildfire

Managing Uncertainty: Alternative A was developed with an emphasis on reducing fire threats 

to communities based upon a concept of two distance-based zones in the wildland-urban intermix 

where fuel reductions are concentrated. Alternative A does not assess the potential benefits or 

damages to resources that would be expected from wildfires. The wildfire risk assessment 

validates that the existing wildland-urban intermix defense and threat zones reasonably capture

where potential damages might occur in relation to where people live as shown by the amount of 

red and orange areas in Figure 16 in those zones. However, the two wildland-urban intermix 

zones do not capture potential damages to infrastructure outside these areas or to natural 

resources as shown in the amount of red and orange in the “other” portion of the forests. In 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

102

addition, benefits to natural resources from wildfires shown in the blue areas in Figure 16 are not 

captured, so areas where wildfires could contribute to ecosystem restoration and maintenance of 

ecosystem functions are not identified.

In alternative A it is more difficult for forest and fire managers to know where the potential 

damages and benefits are located when deciding on a fire management strategy when a fire 

ignition occurs. Under this alternative these decisions are typically supported by analysis and 

information about potential wildfire risks and benefits gathered on-the-fly after the wildfire starts. 

This can be challenging when there are multiple fires occurring in the area, across states, or 

across the nation. In these situations, fire resources are scarce and precautionary decisions to 

suppress fires are often made by default. With current fire management strategies that lack 

upfront identification of potential risks and benefits and associated plan components that identify 

resource objectives, there would be a continued emphasis on suppressing wildfires.

Facilitating Wildland Fire Management: The primary emphasis in alternative A is to reduce the 

threat of wildfire to communities in the wildland-urban intermix. The strategies and priorities 

were designed to reduce fuels near communities and employ fuel reduction treatments in a pattern 

of strategically placed treatments in other areas of the forest so fires would burn into them and 

slow down and lessen their intensity to aid in suppression. The most flexibility to design effective 

fuel reduction treatments occurs in the wildland-urban intermix defense zone, closest to 

communities. Outside of the wildland-urban intermix defense zone, additional standards and 

guidelines apply to minimize or mitigate concerns for the effects of fuel reduction treatments on 

wildlife habitat. Some of those standards and guidelines are reduced or waived in the wildlandurban intermix threat zone to recognize the need for more effective treatments to reduce the 

potential for fires to burn from the threat zone into the defense zone and threaten communities. 

However, designing implementable and effective fuel reduction projects that comply with the 

standards and guidelines has been difficult in some areas, resulting in small, disconnected 

treatment units, or treated areas with residual fuels and vegetation that are not very effective at 

slowing fires down or that make prescribed burning more complex. 

Most fuel reduction treatments are designed as mechanical thinning or mechanical manipulation 

of fuels followed by prescribed burning of treated units or burning of piles of fuels. In many 

cases, thinning has occurred but restoring fire through prescribed burning has yet to occur 

resulting in a backlog of areas ready for prescribed burning. The opportunity to apply prescribed 

burning over large landscapes is limited given the pattern of heavy fuels and interspersed areas 

where fuel reduction treatments have occurred.

The ability to manage wildfires to meet resource objectives is allowed, but it is rarely done. On 

the Sequoia National Forest this approach has been successfully used because forest and fire 

managers have a high level of experience in this type of wildfire management. There is a risk that 

because plan direction allows but does not encourage this option, this practice may not continue 

when existing personnel leave. Plan direction does not emphasize additional fuel reduction

treatments in key locations such as along ridges and key roads that can serve as anchor points for 

larger landscape prescribed burning or serve as tactical locations to manage wildfires to meet 

resource objectives. The current pattern of small and disconnected fuel reduction treatments under 

alternative A would remain at the same low pace and scale of treatment due to constraints for 

other resources; this is reducing the potential to restore and maintain landscapes to a level where 

they are sustainable, resilient, and can recover from disturbance. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

103

Support Fire-adapted Communities

Managing Uncertainty: Under alternative A, the wildfire risk to communities and values are 

defined by the distance-based wildland-urban intermix defense and wildland-urban intermix 

threat zones, which were not created using a risk assessment. Although management activities in 

these zones are focused on protecting life and property, without a risk assessment management 

decisions in the general forest are likely to be less effective because managers don’t fully 

understand how risks are distributed across the landscape spatially and which highly valued 

resources and assets face the greatest loss or benefit. Important factors such as the type and 

distribution of fuels, terrain, winds, historic fire ignition locations, and the combinations of these 

factors are recognized as contributing to fire risk in the wildland-urban intermix, but they were 

not modeled to evaluate potential risk to communities in the wildland-urban intermix zones. 

Continued coordination with local partners and communities for protection and prevention in high 

wildfire risk areas exists to enhance the effectiveness of initial fire response.

Facilitating Wildland Fire Management: Although fuel reduction treatments are limited in 

alternative A, fire managers would continue to work with communities to be more fire adapted 

through collaborative efforts, supporting community wildfire protection plans, and conducting 

fuel reduction treatments in the wildland-urban intermix defense and threat zones. A priority is 

placed on fuel reduction in the two wildland-urban intermix zones. Alternative A does not account 

for the likelihood of fires to spread from adjacent areas in the “other” portions of the forests that 

contribute to the risk to communities or infrastructure. Managing wildfires to meet resource 

objectives is a decision option, although it is rarely used near fire-adapted communities due to 

public concerns and the challenge of managing risks. 

Improve Safe and Effective Fire Response

Managing Uncertainty: Under alternative A, risks have not been spatially identified outside the 

wildland-urban intermix defense and wildland-urban intermix threat zones. Without assessing risk 

upfront, pre-planning actions such as fuel reduction treatments and fire prevention actions would 

not be focused or prioritized on high risk locations. Wildfire response would continue to favor the 

current response of actively suppressing most fires. This would continue to make it difficult for 

fire managers to make on-the-fly decisions that consider the safety of fire responders and costs of 

the fire commensurate with values at risk because these risks to values are not evaluated upfront.

Facilitating Wildland Fire Management: The two wildland-urban intermix zones in alternative 

A do not provide the support for improving wildfire response to large, unwanted wildfires that 

could threaten communities, or identify where the potential damages and benefits are located to 

enhance wildfire response. The limited fuel reduction treatments are focused on slowing fire 

spread and reducing fuels in more easily treatable areas near roads and on flatter ground. The 

original intent to treat in a more geometric pattern so that wildfires would run into these areas like 

speedbumps has proven difficult to implement on the ground due to prescriptive and restrictive 

standards and guidelines that limit the type of treatment and the effectiveness of reducing fuels. 

Communities would continue to experience the risk of high-intensity fires that threaten structures 

and homes from fires that burn on national forest and move toward communities. Although the 

choice to manage wildfires to meet resource objectives exists, it is not the current management 

choice in most situations. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

104

Consequences Specific to Alternative B 

Under this alternative there are four risk-based strategic fire management zones that cover all 

national forest lands. The proportion of the total area of the Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National 

Forests within each zone are 11 percent in the community wildfire protection zone, 15 percent in 

the general wildfire protection zone, 30 percent in the wildfire restoration zone and 44 percent in 

the wildfire maintenance zone (Figure 17). 

.

Figure 17. Proportion of the Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests within each zone in 

alternatives B and D

In alternative B, fuel reduction treatments are more extensive than alternative A to improve 

vegetation desired conditions and to make more areas suitable for managing fires to meet 

resource objectives. Managing wildfire to meet resource objectives is highly encouraged in the 

maintenance and restoration zones and somewhat limited in the protection and general zones. 

Restore and Maintain Landscapes Through the Use of Wildfire

Managing Uncertainty: Under alternative B, fire management responses ranging from managing 

the fire to meet resource objectives to suppression is available across all the zones. Allowing the 

natural role of fire to occur under conditions that are conducive to meeting resource objectives

when it can be done in a safe manner would provide for ecological restoration and improved 

resilience within any of the zones. Having the flexibility to manage wildfire along the full range 

of the continuum can be useful if decisionmakers have the needed information to decide to use 

that flexibility. Knowing up front the potential outcomes of a fire before it happens aids in 

reducing uncertainty to fire management decisionmakers; in this alternative, the strategic fire 

management zone were designed with that in mind. The zones categorize the locations of where 

the values of highly valued resources and assets change positively or negatively for both assets 

and natural resources. These zones capture where benefits and damages are likely to happen 

under a wide range of fire conditions because the zones were developed using a modeled risk 

assessment. Important strategic locations are identified in relation to potential damages and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

105

benefits, most of which are along zone boundaries. The condition a fire burns under ultimately 

dictates the outcome of the fire but these zones aid in defining the location of likely outcomes. 

Alternative B and D have the same zones, which address uncertainty the best of any other 

alternatives. Managing uncertainty should result in more wildfire being managed in a way that 

restores and maintains landscapes; however, it is expected that this would occur the most often in 

the wildfire restoration and wildfire maintenance zones because these zones identify the areas 

with the lowest risk to highly valued resources and assets. 

Facilitating Wildland Fire Management: Wildfire management under alternative B provides an 

increased opportunity to manage larger wildfires due to the increased amounts of treatments that 

reduce fuel loading in strategic locations. In alternative B, there would be more opportunity for 

fuel reduction projects and wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. Treatments would be 

prioritized in strategic locations (roads, ridgetops, and other natural and manmade features) and in 

focus landscapes designed to treat primarily the dry forest patches to restore fuels toward the 

natural range of variation. These treatments would serve as anchor points for larger prescribed 

burns and they create areas of low fuel that can be used to manage future wildfires. All of these 

restoration activities would reduce potential smoke emissions from large, undesirable wildfires.

Support Fire-adapted Communities

Managing Uncertainty: The community and general wildfire protection zones capture a 

substantial portion of the high fire risk to communities and assets as shown by the large portion of 

red and orange in Figure 17 on page 104. Increased fuel reduction treatments in alternative B 

would assist in creating more fire-adapted communities with improved certainty of resource and 

asset locations in the community and general wildfire protection zones. The identification of fire 

risk would aid in coordination with State and local fire agencies.

Facilitating Wildland Fire Management: More fuel reduction treatments occur in alternative B 

than in alternative A. Fire managers would continue to work with communities to help them

become more fire adapted through collaborative efforts, such as supporting community wildfire 

protection plans and prioritizing fuel reduction treatments in the community and general wildfire 

protection zones. Managers would continue to coordinate with local partners and communities for 

protection and prevention in the high wildfire risk areas to enhance the effectiveness of initial 

response to fires. Although the use of wildfire to meet resource objectives would likely be limited 

initially in the wildfire protection zones, more fuel reductions treatment would lower the risk over 

time and increase the potential to reduce fire suppression costs by managing at least portions of 

wildfires to meet resource objectives.

Improve Safe and Effective Fire Response

Managing Uncertainty: In alternative B, risks are better identified than in alternative A by the 

creation of the four strategic fire management zones based upon with wildfire risk assessment. 

The zones reduce uncertainty by categorizing risk and allow for fires to be managed on a 

continuum between meeting protection objectives and resource objectives within these zones, 

while using risk-based responses. Categorizing the potential benefits along with the residual risks 

to resources reduces uncertainty in the wildfire restoration and maintenance zone as shown by the 

gradation of red to blue in those two zones as shown in Figure 17 on page 104. 

Facilitating Wildland Fire Management: In this alternative, more treatments would occur 

within larger focus landscapes to have a greater likelihood of interrupting the spread of wildfire 

and reduce the intensity of fires as they burn into treated areas. Additionally, treatments would be 

designed along strategic roads, ridgetops, and other natural and manmade features that would 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

106

create more opportunities to conduct larger prescribed burns and provide tactical locations to 

manage future wildfires. This alternative allows for wildfires to be managed to meet resource 

objectives as areas on the landscape (zones) shift toward the wildfire maintenance zones. The 

additional recommended wilderness areas in the community and protection zones could limit use 

of mechanized equipment during wildfire response and limit fuel reduction treatments, but use of 

prescribed fire could occur under some circumstances when it is for restoring fire toward the 

natural range of variation and to meet wilderness desired conditions. In the community wildfire 

protection zone, community buffers are identified in close proximity to structures where fuel 

conditions and snags are treated to allow for safer conditions for firefighters. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative C 

Mechanical fuel reduction treatments are focused around structures and limited in other areas in

alternative C. Managing wildfire to meet resource objectives is limited in the wildland-urban 

intermix defense zone (2 percent) and highly encouraged in the general wildfire and wildfire 

maintenance zones (52 percent and 46 percent, respectively; Figure 18). 

Figure 18. Proportion of the Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests within each zone in

Alternative C

Restore and Maintain Landscapes Through the Use of Wildfire

Managing Uncertainty: Under alternative C, fire management responses ranging from managing 

the fire to meeting resource objectives to conducting full suppression exists across all the zones. 

Similar to alternative A, fires would be managed to meet resource objectives when conditions 

allow and it is safe to do so; however, with much uncertainty in the general wildfire zone. The

wildfire maintenance zone was created using the risk assessment and generally occurs in the 

higher elevations and wilderness areas. The wildland-urban intermix defense zone was defined by 

proximity to communities and is primarily at the lower elevations along the national forest 

boundary, but it also surrounds smaller communities and developments within the national 

forests. This leaves a large area between these two zones, which became the general wildfire zone 

with a wide range of highly valued resources and assets potentially changing value from high 

damage shown in the red and orange in the upper left, to low benefit shown in blue and green in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

107

the bottom right. This wide range in risk in the general wildfire zone provides decisionmakers 

little information to aid in choosing an appropriate management strategy for a wildfire.

Facilitating Wildland Fire Management: Mechanical fuel reduction treatments in this 

alternative would be more restricted than in alternative A, but strategically placed as in alternative 

B. Mechanical treatments would be limited primarily to only removing small-diameter material 

within large portions of the landscape where spotted owl or fisher habitat exists. The costs of 

removing only small material would limit the amount of area that can be accomplished due to the 

need to use appropriated funding where projects cannot offset costs with timber harvest and 

stewardship funding. This would leave more fuels to be removed by prescribed burning, which 

may require multiple prescribed burns over time to effectively reduce fuels. Prescribed burning 

would be encouraged and would likely initially focus on burning areas previously treated 

mechanically and expanding treated and burned areas to larger landscapes. Prescribed burns may 

be more complex compared to if fuels were reduced mechanically; this would require additional 

fire resources to complete the burn and more careful planning for weather and fuel conditions to 

safely meet burn objectives. When conditions allow and it is safe to do so, wildfires would be 

managed to meet resource objectives under this alternative, but this is mostly limited to the 

wildlife maintenance zone due to the more limited areas of effective fuel reduction treatment in 

the other zones. 

Support Fire-adapted Communities

Managing Uncertainty: The wildland-urban intermix defense zone captures much of the risk 

closest to communities but does not account for the likelihood of fires to spread from high risk 

areas in the adjacent general wildfire zone to the wildland-urban intermix defense zone, which 

would threaten communities or infrastructure (as shown by the large area of red and orange in the 

general wildfire zone in Figure 18). In this alternative, fuel reduction and preparedness in the 

communities are relied upon more to manage risk on the lands closest to the structures.

Facilitating Wildland Fire Management: In alternative C, continued coordination with local 

partners and communities for protection and prevention in high wildfire risk areas would enhance 

the effectiveness of initial response. Mechanical fuel reduction treatments would be more limited 

in alternative C than in alternatives B and D as limitations on mechanical treatments to provide 

for habitat for the California spotted owl and Pacific fisher apply even within the wildland-urban 

intermix defense zone. However, fire managers would continue to assist communities in being 

more fire adapted through collaborative efforts such as community wildfire protection plans and 

an increased focus on fuel reduction treatments where possible in the wildland-urban intermix 

defense zone. There is the least amount of mechanical treatment and it is limited to primarily 

small-diameter tree removal. This would make it more costly and take longer to conduct some 

prescribed burns where fuels are heavier and multiple prescribed burns may be needed to achieve 

effective fuel reduction. Prescribed burning is encouraged in lieu of mechanically removing 

medium and larger trees but where the costs of prescribed burning is higher due to heavier fuels 

and where it takes multiple prescribed burns to reduce fuels, there would be fewer acres with 

effective fuel reduction compared to the other alternatives. There is more uncertainty in 

completing prescribed burning as the primary method to reduce fuels because of the increased 

complexity to plan and implement prescribed burns in areas with high fuels. The management 

opportunity to manage wildfires to meet resource objectives exists under this alternative in all 

zones but is not likely to be used in the wildland-urban intermix defense zone or general wildfire 

zone. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

108

Improve Safe and Effective Fire Response

Managing Uncertainty: Under alternative C, risks have been identified outside of the wildlandurban intermix defense zone. Similar to alternatives B and D, the wildfire maintenance zone 

reduces the uncertainties of where potential resource benefits can be obtained by managing 

wildfire to meet resource objectives in the higher elevation areas. However, similar to alternative 

A, there is a large portion of the forest with little improvement in reducing the uncertainty for 

potential risks and benefits to highly valued resources and assets as shown by the large area with 

red and orange in the general wildfire zone shown in Figure 18. This large uncertainty in the 

general wildfire zone makes it difficult to make fire management decisions that consider safety to 

firefighters and the public in relation to risks to highly valued resources and assets. 

Facilitating Wildland Fire Management: In this alternative, there would be the fewest areas 

where fuels are reduced mechanically prior to prescribed burning of all alternatives. Fuel 

reduction treatments would primarily be with mechanical removal of small-diameter trees, mostly 

in the wildland-urban intermix defense zone and generally avoiding habitats for California 

spotted owl and Pacific fisher elsewhere. Some strategic treatments along key roads and ridges 

may occur, but treatments would be more limited to reduce the short-term impacts to wildlife 

habitat. This may facilitate some large prescribed burning but with heavier initial fuels, it may 

make it more difficult to conduct prescribed burns due to an increased complexity of the burns 

and more limited timing when weather and fuels conditions would allow prescribed burns to be 

safely conducted and meet burn objectives. In areas where prescribed burning has occurred, there 

would be greater opportunities to manage future wildfires. Where fuels are heavier or fuel 

reduction treatments are less effective, the primary response to wildfire ignitions would likely 

continue to favor suppression. The opportunity to manage wildfires to meet resource objectives 

exists under this alternative in all strategic fire management zones; however, with the uncertainty 

of risks to structures and assets, the possibility of this management response may be limited 

except in the wildfire maintenance zone. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

Alternative D uses the same strategic fire management zones as described for alternative B above

(see Figure 17 on page 104). 

In alternative D, fuel reduction treatments would be applied more widely. Fuel reduction 

treatments would be more effective within focus landscapes and more strategic areas would be 

treated. Fuel reduction treatments would be applied in all strategic fire management zones 

dependent on vegetation conditions, with fewer funding and resource limitations than any other 

alternative. Like alternative B, managing wildfire to meet resource objectives is highly 

encouraged in the wildfire maintenance and restoration zones and somewhat limited in the 

community wildfire protection and general wildfire protection zones.

Restore and Maintain Landscapes Through the Use of Wildfire

Managing Uncertainty: In alternative D, the management uncertainty would be the same as 

described previously for alternative B.

Facilitating Wildland Fire Management: This alternative allows for an increase in the amount 

of strategic treatments along ridgetops, roads, and other natural and manmade features to support 

large landscape prescribed burns or as an opportunity to manage wildfires to meet resource 

objectives. As with alternative B, important strategic locations are identified in relation to 

potential damages or benefits, most of which are along the boundaries between zones. The 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

109

increase in fuel reduction treatments would result in larger areas of reduced fuels and restoring 

vegetation toward its natural fire regime, which has the greatest benefit for restoring fire in the 

wildfire restoration and maintenance zones. Under alternative D, there would be more 

opportunity than alternative B for fuel reduction projects, which increases the potential for 

wildfires managed to meet resource objectives in all zones. There would be more potential to 

manage wildfires to meet resource objectives if there are more areas with fuel reduction and more 

strategic areas that can be used to control or contain fires. All of these restoration activities would 

reduce fuels and potential smoke emissions compared to large, undesirable wildfires.

Support Fire-adapted Communities

Managing Uncertainty: In alternative D, there would be more opportunity for coordination with 

local partners and communities for fire protection and prevention in high wildfire risk areas, 

which would enhance the effectiveness of initial fire response to the extent there is more 

collaborative fuel reduction projects in the community and general protection zones.

Facilitating Wildland Fire Management: There would be more fuel reduction treatment 

opportunities in alternative D than in the other alternatives. Fire managers would continue to 

assist communities to become more fire adapted through continued collaborative efforts such as 

community wildfire protection plans and fuel reduction treatments. An increase in the amount of 

fuel reduction under this alternative includes more mechanical treatment and prescribed burning 

within the two wildfire protection zones. Fuel reduction in the wildfire restoration zone would 

further reduce the risk of large high-intensity wildfires starting further away on the national 

forests that may threaten communities.

Improve Safe and Effective Fire Response

Managing Uncertainty: In alternative D, risks are better identified than in alternatives A and C 

by the creation of the four strategic fire management zones. Fires are managed on a continuum 

between meeting protection objectives and resource objectives within these zones, while using 

risk-based responses. This alternative would reduce fuels on more of the landscape, which would 

reduce risks over time and should tend to shift areas toward less risk in future risk assessments.

Facilitating Wildland Fire Management: Alternative D has the least treatment restrictions and 

the highest possibility of generating revenue from treatments with timber harvest that can be 

invested in reducing fuels on more areas. These two factors would allow for more strategic 

treatments, mostly along roads, ridgetops, and other natural and manmade features and treatments 

in larger focus landscapes to support large landscape prescribed burns or as an opportunity to 

manage wildfires to meet resource objectives. These applications would allow areas on the 

landscape to shift toward the wildfire restoration and wildfire maintenance zones as more areas 

with vegetation density move toward the natural range of variation, allowing fire to burn at lower 

intensity overall and with more variable patches of low, moderate, and high severity. This would 

give fire managers more options to provide for the safety of firefighters and the public while 

managing costs of fire suppression and risks and benefits to highly valued resources and assets. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

110

Cumulative Effects

Under all alternatives, fire management is coordinated with neighboring units (National Park 

Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the State fire agencies) on whether the decision is to 

suppress or manage the fire to meet resource objectives. All agencies work together across 

jurisdictions and boundaries to manage the fire to meet resource objectives in the wildfire 

maintenance zones in alternatives B, C, and D or in some cases in the rest of the forest area in 

alternative A. Suppression efforts to protect life and property in coordination with the State or 

other Federal agencies would continue under all alternatives. The community protection and 

general wildfire protection zones in alternatives B, C, and D align with State objectives to protect 

life and property. 

Analytical Conclusions

Alternative A does not proactively analyze risk with a spatial risk assessment, which highly limits 

the restoration and maintenance of landscapes through managing wildfire to meet resource 

objectives, and the safe and effective fire responses due to the uncertainty of the location of assets 

and resource at risk. The lack of risk-informed fuel reduction treatments also limits the restoration 

and maintenance of landscapes through the use of wildfire, both with strategically located 

prescribed burning and wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. Alternative A relies 

heavily on ignition risk assessments after the fire has started and local fire manager knowledge to 

manage wildfire to meet resource objectives, but is not as reliable since it is more reactionary and 

depends primarily on experienced fire managers knowledgeable of the local conditions. 

The strategic management zones created by the wildfire risk analysis for alternatives B and D 

identify areas of risk more accurately than the wildland-urban intermix defense and threat zones 

in alternative A. By using the spatial wildfire risk assessment, alternatives B and D allow 

identifying areas on the landscape where strategic fuels and vegetation treatment might be costeffective in managing wildfire. These alternatives also identify where fire may play a beneficial 

role and can be managed to meet resource objectives rather than taking suppression actions.

Alternatives A and C do not account for the likelihood of fires to spread from adjacent areas, 

which could potentially contribute to the risk to communities or infrastructure. Outside of the 

wildland-urban intermix defense and threat zones in alternative A, there is little specific direction 

that encompasses a risk management-based approach to wildfires. In alternative C, a risk 

management-based approach is applied in the wildfire maintenance zone, but there are fewer fuel 

reduction treatments planned along strategic fire management features (such as along ridgetops, 

roads, or other natural or man-made features) that facilitate safely conducting more cost-effective, 

larger prescribed fires or that provide more opportunities to manage wildfires to meet resource 

objectives. Forest and fire managers would continue to work with communities and stakeholders 

to support fire-adapted communities under all alternatives, having the most restrictions under 

alternatives A and C.

In alternatives B, C, and D, the risk assessment provides information that reduces uncertainties 

and allows forest and fire managers to have more latitude to proactively plan and restore the 

landscape by managing wildfire to meet resource objectives and using prescribed fire, partially 

due to the awareness of where the assets are located, thereby reducing risk. Alternative C 

emphasizes the use of prescribed fire and limits mechanical treatment to small-diameter trees. 

Alternatives B and D apply risk management the most explicitly and have the greatest amount of 

restoration that reduces risk and provides resource benefits. The zones in alternatives B and D 

provide the most efficient and effective way to prioritize fuel reduction treatments around 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

111

communities and other values at risk, prioritize ecological restoration to increase the potential to 

safely manage wildfires to reduce landscape fuels and benefit resources. The greater amount of

ecological restoration projects and the enhancement of strategic fire management features would 

provide the greatest likelihood of implementing large prescribed fires or managing wildfires to 

meet resource objectives. This provides a safer work environment for firefighters, lowers the 

likelihood for fire that escapes control, and allows a greater window of opportunity to manage

wildfire.

The graphs below are a comparison of the results for location and source from the risk assessment 

for all the alternatives. The location identifies where on the landscape fire ignitions result in 

negative versus positive outcomes. The source identifies where the fire was ignited to identify 

spatial patterns on the landscape.

Figure 19 on page 112 shows the amount of potential damage and benefits to assets and resources 

at the location of where these potential changes occur based on modeled outputs. The pie charts 

on the left represent the percentage of the forests that reside in the different strategic fire 

management zones. The bar charts on the right show the percentage of benefit or damage to 

highly valued resources and assets. 

A graph with higher values on the damage side leads to managing for protection objectives while 

those with higher values on the benefit side would result in managing primarily for resource value 

objectives. It is also important to know what is possibly going to be affected; zones that have a 

large proportion of either resource or assets helps in the wildfire management decisions. 

Alternatives B and D categorize risk location and can aid in managing uncertainty. For these 

reasons, alternatives B and D are more effective, because the protection zones have a higher 

damage-to-benefit ratio while the maintenance zones have a higher benefit-to-damage ratio, 

leading to less uncertainty in management decisions.

The amount of potential damage and benefits to assets and resources at the source (where 

wildfires start) that cause these changes based on modeled outputs are shown in Figure 20 on 

page 113. As before, the risk location of any strategic fire management zone with nearly equal 

potential for damage and benefits has a high level of uncertainty and adds little information for 

forest and fire managers in their wildfire management decisions. Also graphs that have a large 

proportion on one side or the other help manage uncertainty and aid in management decisions. A 

graph that has a larger proportion on the damage side leads to managing for protection objectives 

while those that have a larger proportion on the benefit side leads to primarily managing wildfire 

for resource value objectives. It is important to know what value is possibly going to be affected. 

Since these graphs capture changes from the source, most zones show both resource and assets 

affected because wildfires start in those zones and move into adjacent zones where resource and 

assets exist. However, alternatives B and D are more effective in categorizing risk and can aid in 

managing uncertainty because the majority of the asset damage is in the protection zones.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

112

Figure 19. Risk location by alternative or comparison of the magnitude of net value change by strategic fire 

management zone

WUI = wildland-urban intermix
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

113

Figure 20. Risk source by alternative or comparison of the magnitude of net value change by 

strategic fire management zone

WUI = wildland-urban intermix
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

114

The four alternatives are ranked by the measures (managing uncertainty and facilitating fire 

management) for each indicator (Table 24). All indicators were measured to rate how well each 

alternative addresses them. These measures were given a numerical rating based on how well 

they managed uncertainty and how well they addressed facilitating wildfire management. Note 

that the lower the number, the better the alternative in regard to meeting the fire management 

indicator. In this ranking indicators were equally weighted.

Table 24. Comparative ranking of alternatives by fire management indicators and measures

Alternative Indicator

Managing 

uncertainty

Facilitating fire 

management Total

A Restore and maintain landscapes 4 3 7 

A Fire-adapted communities 3 3 6 

A Wildfire response 3 3 6 

B Restore and maintain landscapes 1 2 3 

B Fire-adapted communities 1 2 3 

B Wildfire response 1 2 3 

C Restore and maintain landscapes 3 4 7 

C Fire-adapted communities 4 4 8 

C Wildfire response 4 4 8 

D Restore and maintain landscapes 1 1 2 

D Fire-adapted communities 1 1 2 

D Wildfire response 1 1 2 

Wildfire Risk Management

The individual indicators shown in Table 24 can be summarized as an overall assessment of risk 

management for each alternative.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Managing Uncertainty: Fire management decisions in alternative A are not guided by risk-based 

strategic fire management zones. The two zones: wildland-urban intermix defense and wildlandurban intermix threat zones, and the general forest (which contains the areas outside of the other 

land allocations on the national forest) were generated for the forest plan as shown in Figure 13

on page 97. Although these areas were not created using a wildfire risk assessment, due to the 

proximity to assets, potential damages to highly valued resources and assets in the wildland-urban 

intermix defense and threat zones are moderately captured. These two zones do not account for 

potential damages to infrastructure such as powerlines outside communities or the negative 

wildfire impacts to community ecosystem services such as water supplies. In regard to 

categorizing risk to aid management decisions, these two zones are not adequate, leaving the 

general forest with a wide range of risk ranging from a high potential for damage to a moderate 

potential for benefits. There are many uncertainties for location and source of risk under this 

alternative. Risk management is difficult when values at risk are not pre-identified.

Facilitating Wildland Fire Management: Implementing effective strategic fire management by 

managing wildfire to meet resource objectives and accomplishing fuel reduction treatments that 

improve safety during fire management practices would be limited to the current plan constraints. 

The level of safe and effective fire management to facilitate the appropriate management response 

to wildfire would remain the same. This would continue to allow the accumulation of fuels that 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

115

contribute to large, unwanted wildfires that damage forests and wildlife habitat, negatively affect 

stream and watershed quality, reduce air quality with increased smoke, and threaten homes and 

communities in the wildland-urban intermix. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

Managing Uncertainty: Alternative B is composed of four zones: community wildfire 

protection, general wildfire protection, wildfire restoration and wildfire maintenance as shown in 

Figure 14 on page 98. These four zones were designed to categorize risk and reduce many of the 

uncertainties on the location and source of potential damages and benefit to highly valued 

resources and assets. They facilitate fire management decisions by reducing the uncertainty of 

where and under what conditions wildfires are more likely to have positive outcomes and be 

suitable to consider for managing to meet resource objectives.

Facilitating wildland fire management: An increase in implementing effective strategic fire 

management through fuel reduction treatments and managing wildfire to meet resource objectives 

would be more attainable. The risk-based strategic fire management zones would help prioritize 

fuel reduction in areas based upon the location and source of potential damages and benefits to 

highly valued resources and assets. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Managing Uncertainty: Alternative C has three zones: the wildland-urban intermix defense

zone, general wildfire zone, and wildfire maintenance zone as shown in Figure 15 on page 100, 

making it more difficult to manage fire compared to the other alternatives. This is due to the 

higher uncertainty of where risk resides combined with less fuel reduction treatments that 

primarily rely on prescribed fire and much less mechanical thinning of fuels. The wildland-urban 

intermix defense zone is to the same as alternative A and does not account for potential damages 

to infrastructure and assets. The wildfire maintenance zone is the same as alternative B and the 

risk is low in this zone. The general wildfire zone does not categorize risk well because it consists 

of the remaining area and the risk ranges from a high potential of damages and moderate potential 

for benefits, thus resource objectives assigned to this zone cannot be safely used to make fire 

management decisions due to the wide range of uncertainty of risk.

Facilitating Wildland Fire Management: Managing wildfire to meet resource objectives in 

alternative C would be similar to the decision to manage wildfire for resource benefit in the 

wildland-urban intermix defense zone in alternative A; somewhat limited in the general wildfire 

zone; and highly encouraged in the wildfire maintenance zone. Prioritizing fuel reduction 

treatments would be similar to alternative A, based upon project planning due to the uncertainty 

of the risk to values and resources conveyed by the general wildfire zone. This will continue to 

allow the accumulation of fuels that contribute to large, unwanted wildfires that damage forests 

and wildlife habitat, negatively affect stream and watershed quality, reduce air quality with 

increased smoke, and threaten homes and communities in the wildland-urban intermix. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

Managing Uncertainty: Alternative D is composed of the same four zones as alternative B: 

community wildfire protection, general wildfire protection, wildfire restoration and wildfire 

maintenance as shown in Figure 14 on page 98. These four zones were designed to categorize risk 

and remove many of the uncertainties on the location and source of potential damages and benefit 

to highly valued resources and assets. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

116

Facilitating Wildland Fire Management: Fire management practices in alternative D would 

provide firefighter safety in all zones while providing asset protection (structures, powerlines, 

etc.) in the Community Wildfire Protection and General Wildfire Protection Zones. 

Summary

The four alternatives are ranked by the measures (managing uncertainty and facilitating fire 

management) for how they overall address risk management (Table 25). As with Table 24 on page 

114, these measures were given a numerical rating based on how well they managed uncertainty 

and how well they addressed facilitating wildfire management. Note that the lower the number, 

the better the alternative in regard to addressing risk management.

Table 25. Summary of approach to wildfire risk management by alternative, all three national forests

Alternative Indicator

Managing 

Uncertainty

Facilitating Fire 

Management Total

A Risk Management 3 3 6 

B Risk Management 1 2 3 

C Risk Management 4 4 8 

D Risk Management 1 1 2 

Alternative D has the highest rank (lowest total) because it uses a set of strategic fire management 

zones that help inform fire management decisions across the fire continuum. There is more 

certainty about managing fire for protection objectives in the community and general wildfire 

protection zones and more certainty about managing fires for resource objectives in the wildfire 

maintenance zone. Alternative D includes direction to strategically treat areas in the wildfire 

restoration zone to encourage restoring fire as an ecosystem process and lower fire risk over time. 

Alternative B has the same fire management zone and the same classification of fire risk as 

alternative D, but it reduces fuels and restores fire on fewer acres so fire risk remains higher in 

more areas. Alternative A classifies fire risk in the wildland-urban intermix defense zone and 

threat zone but doesn’t encourage or prepare the landscape for greater management of wildfires to 

meet resource objectives so the fire risk would remain high on many areas. Alternative C has the 

lowest rank (highest total) because it classifies fire risk in only the smaller wildland-urban 

intermix defense zone and in the wildfire maintenance zone but poorly classifies risk in the larger 

general wildfire zone. Combined with fewer strategic fuel reduction treatments due to plan 

components for other resource, the fire risk would remain high across most of the national forests 

in the general wildfire zone but might be reduced similar to alternatives D and B in the wildfire 

maintenance zone. 

Air Quality

Background

Air quality is important to human health, forest visitor experience, vegetation health, soil quality, 

water quality and visibility. The planning area air quality is influenced by external and internal 

sources of air pollution that can be affected by the management direction in the forest plans. 

Some air pollutants (external) are generated primarily in urban areas and are transported to 

national forests. Ozone and nitrogen oxides are examples of pollutants that are generally 

transported from urban areas and are significant agents of change in the southern Sierra. Some air 

pollutants are generated by national forest management activities and may influence local and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

117

distant air quality. Smoke from prescribed burning or managing wildfires to meet resource 

objectives is an example of a source of air pollution emitted as a result of national forest 

management. 

The emphasis in this section is on smoke from prescribed burning and wildfire managed to meet 

resource objectives since these management actions contribute to air pollution on National Forest 

System lands but can also influence short- and long-term smoke emissions from unplanned 

wildfires. The overwhelming source of other air pollutants is from lands adjacent to the national 

forests, especially in the San Joaquin Valley and wind-blown dust from Mono Lake and the 

Owens Valley. For more details on other air pollutants see the Science Synthesis (Bytnerowitz et 

al. 2014) and the assessments (USDA FS 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, and 2013d).

Air quality is regulated at three levels: Federal, State, and local air pollution control districts. 

Federal agencies, such as the Forest Service, must meet all regulations put forth at each level. The 

three national forests fall within four different air pollution control districts: San Joaquin Valley 

Unified, Great Basin Unified, Eastern Kern, and Mariposa County Air Pollution Control Districts 

(Figure 21). 

Figure 21. Map of air management districts in California
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

118

Air quality standards are based upon the Clean Air Act. The standards include regulating 

emissions such as ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

and lead. Smoke is one of the sources of particulate matter. Dust is also a type of particulate 

matter. Although most of these air pollutants originate outside of the national forests, some of 

them (in particular, ozone) can have a negative impact on forest health. Trees and other plants can 

become less healthy and even die from high ozone exposure. Management on national forests 

cannot control ozone levels but management of forests, in particular reducing forest density, can 

make forests more resilient to ozone damage (Byternowitz et al. 2014). See the “Terrestrial 

Ecosystems” section for more information on forest responses to ozone. 

Air quality on National Forest System lands are regulated in a few ways. All lands are designated 

as in “attainment” or “non-attainment” based upon whether they meet the standards or not. If 

there is insufficient data, areas can be designated as “nonclassified.” When an area’s air quality 

exceeds the regulatory guidelines it is designated as “nonattainment.” These statuses are 

designated at the Federal level by the Environmental Protection Agency and additional 

requirements are designated at the state level by the California Air Resources Board. The status of 

each area is reevaluated periodically, and the current status is described under the “Affected 

Environment” section below. The Forest Service is also required by the Regional Haze Rule of 

1999 to monitor air quality in class I airsheds (wilderness areas). The goal of this law is to return 

haze levels to natural background conditions by the year 2064. 

Analysis and Methods

This analysis examines the potential air quality impacts from implementation of the proposed 

forest plan and the alternatives. The proposed action is programmatic covering the broad pattern 

of potential projects and wildfires that can influence air quality. Specific air quality impacts from 

individual projects would be analyzed prior to implementation in project-based analysis. 

The assessment of air quality impacts is both quantitative and qualitative. The primary approach 

compares the tradeoffs between potential smoke emissions from the restoration treatments that 

reduce the potential wildfire emissions and the wildfire emissions that would occur without the 

restoration. For more detail on the emissions analysis see the Fire-climate supplemental report 

and the Smoke and Air Quality supplemental report. Forest carbon storage and effects are 

discussed in the Carbon Stability supplemental report. This section focuses on regulated air 

pollutants. 

Assumptions

There are many uncertainties about when or where wildfires occur and what potential other 

sources of smoke may be and how great the emissions. We made several assumptions for this 

analysis, mostly to address these uncertainties.

• It is unknown exactly, when, where or how much wildfire will occur but the trend of 

increasing large wildfires and associated high smoke emissions is expected to continue 

(Hurteau et al. 2014).

• The amount of emissions released by combustion of vegetation will vary depending on the 

amount of vegetation present and the completeness of combustion. For example, 

combustion of a stand of Douglas-fir produces more emissions than a sparsely vegetated 

acre of pinyon-juniper with identical combustion efficiency. Thus, vegetation type is an 

important factor in quantifying emissions. See the Smoke and Air Quality supplemental 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

119

report for assumptions of vegetation types under each alternative and corresponding 

emissions factors.

• Restoration actions that follow the proposed plan and alternatives would result in reduced 

emissions from wildfires that burn across those areas (Hurteau and North 2009, North 

2010, Tarnay and Lutz 2011, Vaillant et al. 2013). Restoration treatments would “offset” 

future large wildfire emissions. The amount of the reduction depends upon the type and 

intensity of treatments. See below for a summary of the research on the amount of 

emissions reductions with forest thinning, biomass removal, mastication, and prescribed 

fire.

• Smoke management would be practiced actively with all prescribed fire and wildfires 

managed to meet resource objectives. This would include smoke prediction modeling, 

smoke monitoring, and close coordination with the local air districts. 

Mechanical Thinning, Biomass Removal, and Mastication 

Mechanical treatments include thinning trees, removing biomass (smaller trees, shrubs or larger 

tree branches), and mastication (where small trees and shrubs are shredded or crushed). Thinning 

can result in substantially lower emissions during large wildfires (Hurteau and North 2009) and 

local examples indicate by as much as 90 percent or more (Hurteau et al. 2008). During large 

wildfires woody biomass burns resulting in a release of carbon and smoke. Thinning can reduce 

these emissions by removing some woody biomass from the forest and we assumed it would

occur in each alternative where it is allowed. Machinery use would generate emissions; however, 

these would be minimal at the planning area level. Emissions from machinery use would be 

analyzed at the project level.

Smoke from Prescribed Fires

and Wildfires Managed to Meet Resource Objectives

All fires produce smoke emissions. The amount of smoke emitted and the area it impacts varies 

with the size of the fire, type of fire, vegetation density, and location. Smoke management is a 

key aspect of prescribed fires and wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. Prescribed fire 

activities generally occur under favorable atmospheric conditions for smoke dispersion to limit 

human health impacts. Wildfires managed to meet resource objectives offer long-term benefits by 

reducing future wildfire emissions. Research indicates that prescribed burning results in an 18 to 

25 percent reduction in wildfire emissions, with examples as high as 60 percent (Wiedinmyer and 

Hurteau 2010). Long-term reductions in emissions from implementation of these activities were 

modeled by Hurteau et al. 2014. The degree to which emissions are reduced depends on the 

amount of restoration that occurs. 

Smoke from Wildfires

In general, large wildfires produce 100 to 1,000 tons of fine particles in smoke per day, 

moderately sized fires 10 to 100 tons, and small fires less than 10 tons per day (Tarnay and Lutz 

2011). Emissions from wildfires are generally much larger than prescribed fire (Vaillant et al. 

2013). Larger fires have regional impacts, whereas smaller fires have local impacts. Restoration 

treatments such as mechanical thinning, prescribed fire, and wildfires managed to meet resource 

objectives can reduce long-term wildfire emissions. Research indicates that smoke emissions 

from large fires will double during the next half century due to trends in vegetation conditions, 

climate, and fire ignitions (Hurteau et al. 2014). Increasing smoke emissions identified by 

Hurteau et al. is a baseline in this analysis.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

120

Indicators and Measures

Three indicators describe the indirect and cumulative effects of each alternative to air quality. A 

short-term (present to 10 years) or long-term (10 years to mid-century) category describes the 

timeline of effects to each indicator. The selected indicators consist of smoke effects from 

alternative implementation on: air quality, recreation, and visibility. The following section 

presents each indicator and measure used in further detail.

Smoke Effects on Air Quality

The potential effects of smoke on air quality indicators was measured quantitatively. Emissions 

produced by alternative A serves as a baseline to compare emissions produced by actions under 

alternatives B, C, and D. The pollutants analyzed are the criteria pollutants of total organic gases 

(TOG), reactive organic gases (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur 

oxides (SOx), particulate matter (PM), particulate matter less than 10 micrometers (PM10), and 

particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). Long-term, indirect, and cumulative effects 

from implementation is analyzed using modeled future emissions from Hurteau et al. (2014). This 

indicator is comprised of two categories of emissions: wildfires and restoration treatments. 

Restoration treatments include the following activities: mechanical treatments, prescribed fire, 

and managing wildfire to meet resource objectives.

Smoke Effects to Recreation

This indicator will be measured qualitatively. Smoke obscures visibility and impacts recreation 

through visitor avoidance of smoke impacted areas. Long-term, indirect, and cumulative effects 

from implementation is analyzed using modeling information from Hurteau et al. (2014). 

Smoke Effects to Visibility in Class I Airsheds (Wilderness)

The Forest Service, along with other agencies, monitors class I wilderness areas through the 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network. There are three 

sites within the southern Sierra Nevada in the Kaiser Wilderness, Hoover Wilderness, and Dome 

Lands Wilderness. This monitoring network measures pollutant concentration as well as visibility, 

a measurement of how clearly distant objects can be seen. Indirect and cumulative effects are

qualitatively assessed. Current trends are compared to long-term modeled impacts from Hurteau 

et al. (2014). 

Affected Environment

The Central Valley of California with the surrounding mountain ranges acts as a basin trapping 

pollution in the valley. The Sierra and Sequoia National Forests form part of the eastern boundary 

of the Central Valley bowl and overall have moderate to poor air quality (Bytnerowicz et al. 

2014). The air quality on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada, including the Inyo National 

Forest, is good except when wildfire smoke is present. At this time, the eastern side of the 

national forests are in attainment of State and Federal standards. Although the eastern Sierra 

meets air quality standards, smoke is frequently present. On the west side, the Sierra and Sequoia 

National Forests exceed State and Federal ozone standards, and are therefore in nonattainment 

status. Ecosystem impacts from air pollution have been identified as a threat to ecological 

integrity in the analysis area. Examples of impacts include: ozone damage, excessive nutrient 

nitrogen, and pesticide drift. High concentrations of ozone harm forest health, making trees more 

susceptible to drought, insects and pathogens. See the Bio-Regional Assessment (USDA FS
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

121

2013a), forest assessments (USDA FS 2013b, 2013c, 2013d), and Science Synthesis (Long et al. 

2014) for more information.

Overall air quality within the region is largely outside of the control of the Forest Service except 

for smoke management for activities on National Forest System lands. Smoke management 

opportunities are limited during large wildfires. There has been a trend in increased large 

wildfires and associated heavy smoke emissions. The level of smoke emissions from large 

wildfires is expected to double over the next 50 years, given current vegetation conditions and 

trends in climate and fire ignitions (Hurteau et al. 2014). There have been a limited number of 

prescribed fires in the last decade (see “Fire Management” section). Multiple wildfires managed 

to meet resource objectives have occurred in the eastern portion of the Sequoia National Forest in 

the Kern River drainage.

Environmental Consequences to Air Quality

Consequences Common to all Alternatives

The alternatives each vary in the amount of treatments analyzed. Current conditions under 

alternative A are used as a baseline to analyze impacts to the indicators and measures of: air 

quality, recreation, and visibility. In addition, information gathered during the forest plan 

assessment phase is used in the analysis.

In the fire-climate study conducted for the southern Sierra Nevada, reductions in projected 

wildfire emissions from different levels of restoration were analyzed (see the “Fire Trends” 

section on page 58). Figure 22 shows the reductions in projected wildfire smoke emissions with 

four different restoration scenarios. This graph was based upon a climate projection called the 

GFDL (Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory) A2 climate scenario and it assumed that the 

fires burn with high severity and high emissions. Figure 22 shows that with climate projections, 

smoke emissions are predicted to double from the model’s point of reference level from 1961 to 

1990. The first bar represents the current trend and is labeled “Baseline.” The second bar 

represents current management activities projected to the mid-century, resulting in large increases 

in emissions from wildfires. The remaining bars indicate future wildfire emission reduction 

comparing total particulate emissions measured in kilograms per hectare (kg/ha) from different 

treatment levels. The same relationships were applied to the indirect and cumulative effects of 

each alternative.

In general, alternative A is represented by the historic scenario, with restoration rates remaining 

the same at 5 to 10 percent of the landscape. Alternative B is represented by the range of 

conditions between the 15 and 30 percent restoration scenarios. Alternative C is represented by 

the range of conditions between the historic and 15 percent restoration scenarios. Alternative D is 

represented by the range of conditions between the 30 and 60 percent scenarios. 

Based on the fire-climate simulations, wildfire emissions would continue to increase and double 

from current conditions by mid-century with some limited exceptions (Hurteau et al. 2014). All 

alternatives would have beneficial reductions in potential wildfire smoke emissions where 

restoration treatments occur; however, the degree of long-term improvement depends on the level 

of restoration (Figure 22). Uncertainty of analysis exists when considering when, where, and how 

much of a large wildfire will overlap with restoration treatments. Potential long-term reduction in 

emissions from restoration was analyzed. For additional information see the “Analysis and 

Methods” section. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

122

Figure 22. Graph displaying modeling results of particulate matter 

emissions from wildfires

(Data was modeled by Hurteau et al. 2014)

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Under alternative A, there would continue to be limited restoration treatments (such as prescribed 

burning and mechanical treatments) that would reduce fuels and potentially reduce emissions 

during large wildfires. This alternative represents current management and resulting emissions. 

The primary impact from alternative A would be a continuation of current trends in large 

wildfires that produce large smoke emissions. The exception may be in the Kern River drainage 

on the Sequoia National Forest due to prior management actions that have restored fire to much 

of that area and where some wildfires are managed to meet resource objectives. 

Smoke Effects on Air Quality

In alternative A, there would be a continuation of current trends in large uncharacteristic wildfires 

that contribute to reduced sustainability of air quality as modeled by Hurteau et al. (2014). 

Because emissions from wildfires are largely uncontrollable and can be large in scale, they result

in large air quality impacts. In addition, wildfires may occur during times of unfavorable 

atmospheric conditions resulting in a compounded air quality effect. Smoke from wildfires tends 

to be of higher intensity than prescribed fires and managers have little control to limit emissions.

For example, typically high ozone concentrations are present during summer months and air 

quality effects would be compounded by the smoke from wildfire. Consequences include adverse 

effects on human health, particularly for residents of communities in that path of smoke events.

Alternative A would not contribute to altering current trends or improve the sustainability of air 

quality benefits to people. While alternative A is considered “no action,” emissions would be 

generated by continuing current management and indirectly through wildfires. See Table 26 for 

an estimate of annual emissions from alternative A. Under this alternative, emissions would be 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

123

generated by continuing current management activities such as prescribed fire and limited 

wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. Alternative A shows emissions in tons per year 

and modeled mid-century emissions with no change in management from today. The annualized

increase in emissions is primarily due to increased amounts of wildfire in this alternative at midcentury. This alternative serves as a baseline for comparison of each alternative. Emissions 

figures represent the most recent reported annual emissions (2013) from the Great Basin and San 

Joaquin Air Basin (CARB 2013). These two basins cover the vast majority of the emissions 

within the analysis area. Table 26 shows no data for most of the pollutants at mid-century because 

Hurteau et al. (2014) only modeled particulate matter and not other pollutants.

There would be a moderate to substantial intensity of the associated short- and long-term effects 

to air quality across a large geographic area from alternative A. Air quality would continue to be 

impacted through increased wildfire emissions in the long term (mid-century). In the short term, 

treatments would cause a sporadic reduction (as treatments occur) of impacts to air quality from 

wildfires but would have pulses of impact associated with prescribed burning. 

Table 26. Table displaying baseline annual emissions in tons per year under alternative A compared 

to the modeled mid-century emissions with no change in management

Reference Period

Total Organic GasesCarbon MonoxideNitrogen OxidesSulfur OxidesParticulate Matter Particulate Matter PM10Particulate Matter PM2.5

Baseline annual emission 

(Combined San Joaquin and 

Great Basin Air Basins) and 

current forest management

650,669 380,140 120,587 4,231 222,504 124,490 33,456

Annualized increase in 

emissions at mid-century

No data No data No data No data 45,283 No data No data

PM10 and PM2.5 refer to particulates that are 10 or 2.5 micrometers in size. Those are sizes used in standard 

measurements of particulate matter for compliance with air quality regulations.

Smoke Effects to Recreation

There would be no change in the current trends of those forest conditions that result in smoke due 

to wildfire effects, which reduce recreational visitation on the national forests. Such smoke events 

have potential adverse short- and long-term effects on local communities. There is also additional 

loss of benefits to the recreational users who must find other settings for their recreational 

activities. The substitute recreation site may offer less opportunities or lower quality of the 

experience. In addition, substitute sites may be located farther away than the preferred site, thus 

increasing costs of recreating.

There is an economic contribution provided by recreation to both local communities through 

visitation and to recreational users through the recreational experience that contributes to quality 

of life. Rural communities located along access routes to the national forests have a strong tie to 

the economic contributions that recreational visitors provide. This includes the spending that 

supports jobs and also contributions to local tax revenues through the sales tax and lodging tax 

collected. These local tax revenues support important public services that improve the quality of 

life in these communities. The connection between recreation visitation and local economies is 

especially true for the Inyo National Forest and the context of recreational based service-oriented 

businesses within Inyo and Mono Counties. Alternative A does not contribute to altering current 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

124

trends or improve the sustainability of these recreational benefits to people. Alternative A could 

result in increased wildfire and reduced recreational facility availability.

There would be a moderate to substantial intensity of smoke that would affect recreation across a 

large geographic area from the associated short- and long-term effects of implementing 

alternative A. 

Smoke Effects to Visibility in Class I Airsheds (Wilderness)

In general, data from the three IMPROVE sites show that visibility is currently increasing within 

the planning area (see Assessment). However, modeling indicates that wildfire emissions will 

significantly increase by mid-century (Hurteau et al. 2014). Increasing emissions is expected to 

reduce visibility throughout the planning area. 

Visibility in class I airsheds is regulated under the Regional Haze Rule and the Forest Service is 

responsible for meeting goals set-forth by the Environmental Protection Agency. Implementation 

of alternative A would make attaining these goals unlikely as wildfires increase.

Impacts to visibility is expected to be low to moderate in the short term and would increase to 

high in the long term. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

Alternative B would result in restoration treatments in up to 30 percent or more of many 

landscapes in the foothill, montane, and sagebrush/pinyon-juniper areas. In the fire-climate 

scenario, there would continue to be an increase in large fires and heavy smoke emissions but a 

little more than half of what could potentially occur without any restoration. There would be more 

prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, and in some areas wildfires managed to meet resource 

objectives. All of these restoration activities would reduce potential emissions from large, 

undesirable wildfires. There would be increased smoke emissions from prescribed fires but levels 

of smoke would be substantially lower (45 percent less) than during wildfires and result in 

immediate post-fire reductions in potential wildfire smoke emissions (Vaillant et al. 2013). 

Smoke Effects on Air Quality

Alternative B would contribute to reducing current trends in large uncharacteristic wildfires that 

adversely affect the long-term sustainability of air quality. The prescribed burning in this 

alternative would have a potential short-term adverse effect on air quality but these activities tend 

to be conducted under favorable atmospheric conditions and thus these effects can be mitigated to 

some extent. Wildfires managed to meet resource objectives similarly consider the impacts of 

smoke as management actions are taken, although there is less control than for prescribed fires.

The mechanical thinning proposed in the alternative would reduce the quantity of smoke that 

would occur during prescribed fire activities and for wildfires managed to meet resource 

objectives by reducing the amount of fuels available to burn. 

Air pollution resulting from agricultural and industrial activities is a concern for the national 

forests adjacent to California’s Central Valley. The Forest Service does not have direct control 

over this pollution but can contribute to air quality enhancement by limiting the smoke from 

wildfires that add to this pollution. In the long term, implementation of alternative B would 

indirectly improve air quality compared to alternative A by reducing the potential for large 

wildfires, and therefore reducing emissions. Alternative B contributes to altering current trends 

and improving the sustainability of air quality benefits to people. Under alternative B, emissions 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

125

would be generated by increasing current prescribed fire and wildfires managed to meet resource 

objectives. Indirect emissions would occur from wildfires. Emissions estimates were 

conservatively modeled and report the highest amount of emissions possible. During actual 

implementation, emissions would be reduced from the reported amounts by pre-thinning 

vegetation. See Table 27 for a conservative estimate of emissions. Actual emissions and smoke 

impacts depend on additional factors such as: seasonality of implementation, meteorology, and 

combustion efficiency. In the short term, alternative B would directly increase emissions. By midcentury, alternative B is projected to decrease emissions.

Table 27. Emissions from treatments under alternative B in tons per year compared to the baseline 

established in alternative A

Reference Period

Total Organic GasesCarbon MonoxideNitrogen OxidesSulfur OxidesParticulate Matter Particulate Matter PM10Particulate Matter PM2.5

Baseline emissions 

from alternative A

650,669 380,140 120,587 4,231 222,504 124,490 33,456

Annualized increase in 

emissions at midcentury under 

alternative B 

32,687 695,647 6,326 4,256 123,745 66,530 56,411

Annualized percent of 

increased emissions 

under alternative B 

5 65 5 50 36 35 63

PM10 and PM2.5 refer to particulates that are 10 or 2.5 micrometers in size. Those are sizes used in standard 

measurements of particulate matter for compliance with air quality regulations.

There would be a moderate intensity of the associated short- and long-term effects to air quality 

across a large geographic area. Air quality would improve through wildfire emissions reduction in 

the long term (mid-century). In the short term, treatments would cause a sporadic reduction (as 

treatments occur) of impacts to air quality from wildfires but would have pulses of impact 

associated with prescribed burning and wildfires managed to meet resource objectives.

Smoke Effects to Recreation

Alternative B would contribute to reducing current trends in those forest conditions that result in 

smoke due to wildfire effects. Reductions in smoke events have potential beneficial short- and 

long-term effects on local communities due to reductions in interruptions to visitation. There is a 

corresponding potential for short-term reductions in air quality due to increases in prescribed 

burning. However, the net-effect of air quality on recreational visitation is expected to be 

mitigated to some extent given the level of mechanical thinning occurring before any prescribed 

burning occurs. In addition, mitigation measures would control when and where prescribed 

burning can occur to reduce smoke events and most prescribed burning occurs in the late fall 

through spring, outside of the peak recreation season. There is also additional benefit to the 

recreational users who are able to enjoy recreational activities in the national forests when 

wildfires would otherwise prevent visitor use.

As described in alternative A, there is an economic contribution provided by recreation to both 

local communities through visitation and to recreational users through the recreational experience 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

126

that contributes to quality of life. Alternative B would contribute to a decrease of current trends of 

smoke to improve the sustainability of recreational benefits to people. 

There would be a moderate to substantial intensity of smoke that would affect recreation across a 

large geographic area from the associated short- and long-term effects of implementing 

alternative B. 

Smoke Effects to Visibility in Class I Airsheds (Wilderness)

Effects to the visibility in class I airsheds under alternative B represent a trade-off. In the short 

term, increased emissions would directly reduce visibility in the class I airsheds within the 

analysis areas. In the long term, treatments under alternative B would reduce emissions and thus 

indirectly improve visibility in class I airsheds by mid-century. In general, data from three 

IMPROVE sites show that visibility is currently increasing within the planning area (see 

Assessment). However, modeling indicates that wildfire emissions would significantly increase 

by mid-century (Hurteau et al. 2014). Increasing emissions is expected to reduce visibility 

throughout the planning area. Restoration treatments can improve visibility through the reduction 

of emissions in the long term. Less smoke would be produced in the analysis area under this 

alternative compared to alternatives A and C due to mechanical thinning in stands outside of 

wilderness areas, as well as increasing restoration treatments such as wildfires managed to meet 

resource objectives.

Visibility in class I airsheds is regulated under the Regional Haze Rule and the Forest Service is 

responsible for meeting goals set-forth by the Environmental Protection Agency. Implementation 

of alternative B would make attaining these goals less likely in the short term due to the increase 

of emissions from prescribed burning and wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. This

effect would decrease after implementation is complete. In the long term, a more resilient 

landscape would increase the likelihood of attainment in class I airsheds by the mid-century. 

In the short term, moderate to substantial intensity impacts resulting in decreases in visibility 

would occur in class I airsheds when implementation is occurring. In the long term, moderate to 

substantial intensity impacts resulting in improved visibility in class I airsheds would occur 

through reduced wildfire emissions. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Alternative C increases the amount of treatment compared to alternative A. This would result in 

short-term smoke emissions but potentially substantial reductions in potential large wildfire 

smoke emissions in areas where large prescribed burns occur. The prescribed fires are conducted 

under controlled conditions for smoke management and dispersal allowing the effects to be 

mitigated as opposed to wildfires. There is uncertainty about how much of the prescribed fire and 

wildfires managed to meet resource objectives would be implemented because there are more 

limitations on mechanical treatments. There would be less treatment of strategic areas along roads 

and ridgetops so there is less likelihood of treatments reducing current trends in large wildfires 

emissions that adversely affect the long-term sustainability of air quality.

Smoke Effects on Air Quality

Alternative C would contribute to reducing current trends in large uncharacteristic wildfires that 

adversely affect the long-term sustainability of air quality to the extent that larger landscape 

prescribed burning occurs. The prescribed burning would have a potential short-term negative 

effect on air quality but these activities tend to occur under favorable atmospheric conditions and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

127

thus effects can be mitigated to some extent. There is less mechanical thinning proposed than in 

alternatives B and D and therefore these prescribed fires and wildfires managed to meet resource 

objectives would have a greater quantity of smoke associated with restoration activities as more 

fuels are available to burn.

Air pollution resulting from agricultural and industrial activities is a concern for the national 

forests adjacent to California’s Central Valley. The Forest Service does not have direct control 

over this pollution but can contribute to air quality by controlling the smoke from wildfires that 

add to this pollution. Alternative C would contribute to altering current trends and improving the 

sustainability of air quality benefits to people. Emissions would be generated by increasing 

current prescribed fire and wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. Indirect emissions 

would occur from wildfires. The emissions estimates were conservatively modeled and no 

reduction techniques, such as pre-treatment thinning of vegetation, were modeled. See Table 28

for an estimate of emissions. Actual emissions and smoke impacts depend on additional factors 

such as seasonality of implementation, meteorology, and combustion efficiency. In the short term, 

alternative C would directly increase emissions. By mid-century, alternative C is projected to 

limit some wildfire emissions.

There would be a moderate intensity of the associated long-term effects to air quality across a

large geographic area and a moderate to substantial intensity of associated short-term effects. Air 

quality would improve through reduced wildfire emissions in the long term (mid-century) where 

prescribed burning occurs and where wildfires are managed to meet resource objectives. In the 

short term, treatments would cause a sporadic reduction (as treatments occur) of air quality

impacts from wildfires. There would be pulses of impact associated with prescribed burning and 

wildfires managed to meet resource objectives that would be larger than alternatives B and D due 

to less fuel reduction with mechanical methods and more fuels to burn. 

Table 28. Emissions from treatments under alternative C measured in tons per year and compared to 

the baseline established in alternative A

Reference Period

Total Organic GasesCarbon MonoxideNitrogen OxidesSulfur OxidesParticulate Matter Particulate Matter PM10Particulate Matter PM2.5

Baseline emissions 

from alternative A

650,669 380,140 120,587 4,231 222,504 124,490 33,456

Annualized increase in 

emissions under 

alternative C at midcentury

29,248 623,397 5,387 3,732 110,482 59,399 50,369

Annualized percent of 

increased emissions 

under alternative C

4 62 4 47 33 32 60

PM10 and PM2.5 refer to particulates that are 10 microns or 2.5 microns in size. Those are sizes used in standard 

measurements of particulate matter for compliance with air quality regulations.

Smoke Effects to Recreation

Alternative C contributes to reversing current trends in those forest conditions that result in 

smoke due to wildfire effects. Reductions in smoke events have potential beneficial short- and 

long-term effects on local communities due to reductions in interruptions to visitation. There is a 

corresponding potential for short-term reductions in air quality due to increases in prescribed 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

128

burning and wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. The net-effect on air quality is more 

uncertain under alterative C than under alternatives B and D given there is less mechanical 

thinning occurring before any prescribed burning. There would be mitigation measures used to 

control when and where prescribed burning can occur in order to reduce smoke exposure, and 

smoke impacts would be considered when managing wildfires to meet resource objectives. There 

is also additional benefit to the recreational users who are able to enjoy recreational activities in 

the national forests when wildfires would otherwise prevent visitor use.

Like alternatives A and B, there is an economic contribution provided by recreation to both local 

communities through visitation and to recreational users through the recreational experience that 

contributes to quality of life. Alternative C would also contribute to altering current trends to 

improve the sustainability of recreational benefits to people. 

There would be a moderate to substantial intensity of smoke that would affect recreation across a 

large geographic area from the associated short- and long-term effects of implementing 

alternative C. 

Smoke Effects to Visibility in Class I Airsheds (Wilderness)

Effects to the visibility in class I airsheds under alternative C represent a trade-off. In the shortterm, if fully implemented increased emissions from prescribed fire and wildfires managed to 

meet resource objectives would reduce visibility in the class I airsheds within the analysis areas. 

In the long-term, treatments under alternative C would reduce emissions from wildfires and thus 

indirectly improve visibility in class I airsheds by mid-century. In general, data from three 

IMPROVE sites show that visibility is currently increasing within the planning area (see 

Assessment). However, modeling indicates that wildfire emissions would significantly increase 

by mid-century (Hurteau et al. 2014). Increasing emissions is expected to reduce visibility 

throughout the planning area. Restoration treatments can improve visibility through the reduction 

of emissions in the long term. In the short term, treatments from this alternative would result in 

greater quantities of visibility-reducing smoke in nearby class I airsheds as compared to 

alternative B because fewer acres would have reduced fuels from mechanical treatment prior to 

prescribed burning or wildfire managed to meet resource objectives. 

Visibility in class I airsheds is regulated under the Regional Haze Rule and the Forest Service is 

responsible for meeting goals set-forth by the Environmental Protection Agency. Due to the 

limited potential amount of mechanical fuel reduction treatments, implementation of alternative C 

would make attaining these goals unlikely.

In the short term, moderate to substantial intensity impacts resulting in decreases in visibility 

would occur in class I airsheds when implementation is occurring. In the long term, moderate to 

substantial intensity impacts resulting in improved visibility in class I airsheds is expected.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

Alternative D would have the greatest amount of restoration activities, including prescribed fire, 

mechanical thinning, and wildfire managed to meet resource objectives. Thirty to 50 percent of 

many montane and foothill landscapes would have restoration treatments. Based on the fireclimate scenarios (see “Fire Trends” section) this would result in a substantial reduction in 

potential wildfire emissions. At mid-century there would still be an increase in emissions over 

current levels but far less than the projected doubling of smoke emissions under alternative A. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

129

Smoke Effects on Air Quality

Alternative D contributes to reducing current trends in large uncharacteristic wildfires that 

adversely affect the long-term sustainability of air quality. The prescribed burning in this 

alternative would have a potential short-term adverse effect on air quality, but these activities 

tend to be conducted under favorable atmospheric conditions and thus effects can be mitigated to 

some extent. The mechanical thinning proposed in the alternative would also help to reduce the 

quantity of smoke that would occur during these prescribed fire activities and when areas are 

burned in wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. 

Like the other alternatives, air pollution resulting from agricultural and industrial activities is a 

concern for the national forests adjacent to California’s Central Valley. Alternative D contributes 

to altering current trends and improving the sustainability of air quality benefits to people. Under 

alternative D emissions would be generated by increasing current prescribed fire and wildfires 

managed to meet resource objectives. Additional indirect emissions would occur from wildfires. 

The emissions were conservatively modeled, meaning the figures represent maximum emissions 

and may be lower when restoration activities are implemented. See Table 29 for an estimate of 

annual emissions. 

Table 29. Emissions under alternative D in tons per year compared to the baseline established in 

Alternative A

Reference Period

Total Organic GasesCarbon MonoxideNitrogen OxidesSulfur OxidesParticulate Matter Particulate Matter PM10Particulate Matter PM2.5

Baseline emissions 

from alternative A

650,669 380,140 120,587 4,231 222,504 124,490 33,456

Annualized increase in 

emissions under 

alternative D at midcentury

36,657 779,723 7,214 4,809 138,880 74,667 63,311

Annualized percent of 

increased emissions 

under alternative D 

5 67 6 53 38 37 65

PM10 and PM2.5 refer to particulates that are 10 microns or 2.5 microns in size. Those are sizes used in standard 

measurements of particulate matter for compliance with air quality regulations.

Actual emissions and smoke impacts depend on additional factors such as seasonality of 

implementation, meteorology, and combustion efficiency. Under this alternative, emissions would 

be generated through continuation of current management activities. In the short term, alternative 

D would directly increase emissions. By mid-century, alternative D is projected to decrease 

emissions.

There would be a moderate to substantial intensity of the associated short- and long-term effects 

of alternative D to air quality across a large geographic area. Air quality would improve more 

than any other alternative through reduced wildfire emissions in the long term (mid-century). In 

the short term, treatments would cause a sporadic reduction (as treatments occur) of air quality

impacts from wildfires but would have pulses of impact associated with prescribed burning and 

increased use of wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

130

Smoke Effects to Recreation

Like alternative B, alternative D would contribute to reducing current trends in those forest 

conditions that result in smoke due to wildfire effects. Reductions in smoke events have potential 

beneficial short- and long-term effects on local communities due to reductions in interruptions to 

visitation. There is a corresponding potential for short-term reductions in air quality due to 

increases in prescribed burning and wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. However, the 

net-effect of air quality on recreational visitation is expected to be mitigated to some extent given 

the level of mechanical thinning occurring before any burning occurs as well as the mitigation 

measures in place to control when and where prescribed burning can occur in order to reduce 

smoke events. There is also additional benefit to the recreational users who are able to enjoy 

recreational activities on the national forests.

As with the other alternatives, there is an economic contribution provided by recreation to both 

local communities through visitation and to recreational users through the recreational experience 

that contributes to quality of life. Alternative D would contribute to altering current trends in air 

quality to improve the sustainability of recreational benefits to people. 

However, there would be a moderate to substantial intensity of the associated short- and longterm effects of alternative D to air quality across a large geographic area.

Smoke Effects to Visibility in Class I Airsheds (Wilderness)

Like the other alternatives, increased emissions from prescribed fire and mechanical treatments in 

alternative D would directly reduce visibility in the class I airsheds within the analysis areas in 

the short term. In the long term, treatments under alternative D would reduce wildfire emissions 

and thus indirectly improve visibility in class I airsheds by mid-century. Restoration treatments 

can improve visibility through the reduction of emissions in the long-term.

With the increased amounts of restoration and reduction in smoke from future wildfire, 

implementing alternative D increases the likelihood of attainment in class I airsheds by the midcentury. In the short term, moderate to substantial intensity impacts resulting in decreases in 

visibility to class I airsheds would occur during implementation of prescribed burning. In the long 

term, moderate to substantial intensity impacts resulting in improved visibility in class I airsheds 

is expected.

Cumulative Effects

In the short term, increased smoke production from prescribed burning and managing more 

wildfires to meet resource objectives in alternatives B, C, and D would result in a reduction in air 

quality, recreational opportunities, and visibility. In the long-term, alternatives B, C, and D would 

result in a cumulative reduction in air quality impacts from wildfires by mid-century compared to 

alternative A (Figure 22). The cumulative impacts of these alternatives by mid-century would 

result in increased air quality, recreational opportunities, and visibility due to a reduction in 

smoke from wildfires and increased ecosystem resilience. The degree of positive impact depends 

on the level of restoration selected for implementation. In the short term, alternative A would 

result in fewer cumulative impacts to air quality, recreation, and visibility than the other 

alternatives because there would be less prescribed burning and little wildfire managed to meet 

resource objectives. In the long term, cumulative effects from alternative A would result in an 

increase of negative impacts by mid-century due to increased wildfire emissions (Hurteau et al 

2014).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

131

The approach to increasing the amount of areas where fire is restored as a process is consistent 

with approaches of the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management in wilderness and 

remote areas. Cumulative effects of smoke from these management actions by the different 

agencies are managed by ensuring close coordination. Daily cumulative smoke impacts from 

agricultural and forest burning throughout the state of California are addressed on a daily 

interagency coordination call. Frequent attendees include representatives from the Sierra, 

Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Districts, Great Basin Valleys Air Pollution Control District, 

and others. This daily call limits the amount of smoke produced within the airsheds of the 

planning area. 

Analytical Conclusions 

Effects to air resource indicators from each alternative is categorized by timeframes of short-term 

(present to 10 years) and long-term (10 years to mid-century). Effects to air resource indicators 

are categorized by emissions source-type of either wildfire or restoration treatments (prescribed 

fire, wildfire managed for resource benefit, and mechanical thinning) as shown in Table 30. No 

alternative offers both short-term and long-term improvements to air resource indicators. Models 

indicate wildfire emissions will increase through time and are considerably greater than 

restoration emissions. Restoration treatments would slow the progress of increasing wildfire 

emissions. The degree of slowing wildfire emissions growth through time depends on the level of 

treatments.

Restoration activities would increase emissions and affect air quality in the short term but the 

degree of increase is dependent on the amount of treatment. Alternative D has the highest shortterm emissions from treatments followed by alternatives B and C. In the long term, alternative D 

would result in the greatest reduction in emissions from wildfires followed by alternatives C, B, 

and lastly, A. Short-term effects to air resource indicators from restoration activities can be 

moderated through smoke management best practices.

There would be potential adverse short- and long-term effects on the benefits to people that are 

obtained from the resulting decline in recreational visitation. Prescribed fire and managed 

wildfire smoke may impact recreational opportunities on the three national forests. In the short 

term, current trends of increasing impacts to recreation would continue in alternative A from 

smoke from wildfires that burn during the summer recreation season. There would be less smoke 

in the short-term in alternatives B and D where wildfires burn into areas where treatments 

occurred with less benefit in alternative C due to the lower amounts of treatment. In the long 

term, impacts to recreation are expected to increase with increasing wildfire emissions in 

alternative A, but to a lesser degree in alternative B and slightly lesser degree in alternative C. 

Only alternative D would decrease the long-term smoke from wildfires in the summer recreation 

season due to the greater amount of fuels reduced. 

Increases in emissions and other cumulative effects would make long-term attainment of visibility 

goals unlikely under alternative A. Restoration treatments under alternatives B and D would result 

in a direct effect of reduced smoke emissions by mid-century. Reduction in wildfire emissions 

would make long-term attainment of visibility goals more likely under alternatives B and D than 

under alternative A (Figure 22). The prescribed burning restoration treatments under alternative C 

would result in reduced smoke emissions by mid-century and, to the extent that prescribed 

burning and wildfires managed to meet resource objectives occur, a reduction in wildfire smoke 

would make long-term attainment of visibility goals more likely than under alternative A but less 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

132

likely than under alternatives B and D. Short-term impacts would lessen throughout time as fuels 

are reduced and would increase visibility in the long term.

Table 30. Summary of air quality indicators and effects by alternative

Smoke effects 

indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Air quality Short-term, 

emissions stay the

same

Long-term, 

emissions increase

Short-term, 

emissions increase

Long-term, 

emissions reduced

Short-term, 

emissions increase

Long-term, 

emissions reduced

Short-term, emissions 

increase the most

Long-term, emissions 

reduced the most

Recreation Short-term effects 

stay the same

Long-term, more

smoke effects

Short-term, more 

smoke effects

Long-term, slightly 

less smoke effects

Short-term effects 

stay the same

Long-term, more

smoke effects

Short-term, more 

smoke effects

Long-term, less

smoke effects

Visibility in 

class I airsheds

Attainment unlikely Attainment more 

likely

Attainment likely Attainment most likely
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

133

Revision Topic 2: 

Ecological Integrity

Background

The topic of ecological integrity is very broad and spans from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems. It 

includes the organisms that live in these ecosystems as well as the functions of the ecosystems 

themselves. To address this revision topic, the analysis is divided into three sections: terrestrial 

ecosystems; aquatic and riparian ecosystems; and wildlife, fish and plants. This topic also relies 

heavily upon the information provided in the “Agents of Change” section. The major vegetation 

types are discussed in the “Terrestrial Ecosystems” section and that discussion is referred to by 

other sections in this document.

Terrestrial Ecosystems

The terrestrial ecosystems analysis is presented in three subsections: terrestrial vegetation 

ecology, terrestrial ecosystem process and function, and climate vulnerabilities and adaptations.

Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology

Background

This section summarizes current terrestrial ecosystem conditions of dominant vegetation types on 

the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests, and the consequences of implementing the draft 

forest plans or the alternatives. It includes an analysis of the alternatives’ effects on vegetation 

ecology including composition, structure, and resilience to fire, climate, drought, insects, and 

pathogens by major ecological and elevational zone and vegetation type. Building upon the 

“Agents of Change, Climate, Fire, Insects and Pathogens” section, there are more specifics about 

fire regime integrity and effects by vegetation type.

Much of the analysis is based upon the premise that the natural range of variation provides 

important background for evaluating ecological integrity and sustainability (Wiens et al. 2012). It 

was used to develop plan direction and select indicators and measures for the analysis. Also 

important in the analysis of ecological integrity and sustainability of vegetation was consideration 

of climate and associated fire trends that may be creating a combination of conditions that are 

outside of what occurred in the natural range of variation (Safford et al. 2012a, Millar et al. 

2015). 

Natural range of variation is a concept that focuses on the dynamic nature of ecosystems, 

recognizing they are not static (Landres 1999). It recognizes that disturbances, such as fire or 

insect attacks, and responses to those are part of the natural processes. This includes changes to 

vegetation composition, structure, and function (which influence habitat). Natural range of 

variation is typically characterized as the ecosystem conditions and processes that have occurred 

over long time periods (Morgan et al. 1994). While processes such as fire are naturally occurring 

and part of the ecosystem, it is recognized that human actions have changed vegetation and the 

type and effects of fire. Because of these changes, the natural range of variation is typically 

analyzed for the time period prior to European settlement. A premise is that ecosystems are more 

sustainable if their conditions fall within the natural range of variation (Safford et al. 2012b).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

134

Application of natural range of variation concepts also recognize that native cultures managed 

and influenced ecosystem conditions and processes (Jackson and Hobbs 2009). For example, in 

the analysis area, Native American tribes actively used fire to manage resources (such as 

vegetation and game) of tribal importance (Lake and Long 2014).

Although the concept of natural range of variation and its use in sustainable ecosystem 

management is well developed from a theoretical standpoint, its application in resource 

management is not always straightforward. For example, sometimes an important measure of 

vegetation structure used to characterize wildlife habitat, such as canopy cover, is not directly or 

easily reconstructed historically. Or, quantitative information on historic conditions, such as tree 

densities, may only be available for a short period of time just before or at the onset of European 

settlement. Despite these limitations, it is still considered a useful way to evaluate the very 

important but complex concept of ecological sustainability. It is also increasingly recognized that 

human presence and needs may result in desired ecological conditions that are different than the 

natural range of variation (Higgs et al. 2014). Vegetation desired conditions for the proposed plan 

take into account not only natural range of variation, but also current societal desires for 

supporting recovery of endangered species and reducing fire near communities. 

During the assessment phase, the terrestrial ecosystems were classified into broad ecological 

zones, based upon similarities in dominant vegetation types, climate, and fire patterns at a 

landscape scale. These broad ecological zones were used to analyze and summarize conditions 

and impacts of the alternatives to vegetation ecology and terrestrial function in the following 

subsection. The ecological zones include the westside foothill, montane, upper montane, 

subalpine and alpine zones, and pinyon-juniper ecological zones on the Sequoia and Sierra 

National Forests as shown in Figure 23 (see the maps in volume 3 to see ecological zones for 

each national forest by alternative). On the Inyo National Forest there are the pinyon-juniper and 

sagebrush, Jeffrey pine, upper montane, subalpine and alpine, and desert zones as shown in 

Figure 24. Two other vegetation types are described but not shown on these maps due to their 

small and localized distribution: red fir and mountain mahogany. The area in acres in each 

ecological zone by national forest is shown in Table 31. 

Table 31. Area in acres by ecological zone or dominant vegetation type across each national forest, 

rounded to the nearest thousand acres

Ecological Zone/

Vegetation Type 

Inyo National Forest

(acres)

Sequoia National 

Forest (acres)

Sierra National 

Forest (acres)

Foothill 0 123,000 263,000

Montane 0 374,000 431,000

Upper Montane 163,000 204,000 369,000

Subalpine/Alpine 592,000 16,000 228,000

Jeffrey Pine 174,000 0 0 

Pinyon-Juniper/Sagebrush 835,000 94,000 0 

Desert 209,000 0 0 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

135

Figure 23. Ecological/elevational zones for the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

136

Figure 24.Ecological/vegetation zones on the Inyo National Forest
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

137

Analysis and Methods

The overarching approach we used in this analysis was to evaluate the similarity of current and 

estimated future conditions under each alternative to the desired conditions for each vegetation 

type. We used a combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis. For both types of 

evaluations, we identified the specific indicators, measures, thresholds for levels of similarity 

between desired conditions and current or future conditions, and associated assumptions. These 

are described in more detail in the Vegetation Ecology and Fire Ecology supplemental reports. 

The desired conditions for vegetation and other terrestrial ecosystems are all directly related to 

the natural range of variation. For each major vegetation type, we developed desired conditions 

for vegetation structure, composition and function that were specific and quantitative where 

possible. For example, there has been extensive research on how forest density has changed over 

the last 100 or more years (Stephens et al. 2015, Collins et al. 2011, 2015) and other research on 

how forests differ between areas in national parks that have had little direct management except 

fire suppression and where over the past 40 years, fires have been restored (Lydersen and North 

2012, Lydersen et al. 2013). This research includes information on dominant species, tree 

densities of different tree sizes, variation in tree spacing or heterogeneity, and evidence of high 

fire severity. There are some desired conditions that strive for a balance between habitat needs for 

at-risk species and the natural range of variation. That includes having more areas of somewhat 

higher canopy cover in westside montane forests than in the natural range of variation for 

California spotted owl and Pacific fisher and more areas of sagebrush cover for greater-sage 

grouse. 

The choice of specific measures used in the desired conditions depends on a combination of what 

conditions are used to characterize suitable wildlife habitat, what is important for ecological 

integrity and sustainability, what is most departed from the natural range of variation, and what is 

most useful to apply to restoration projects. Canopy cover is an example that is important to 

wildlife habitat, is known to be departed from the natural range of variation and can be used to 

apply to restoration projects. Tree density is more difficult to relate to habitat and sustainability 

because it varies so widely from site to site. Basal area is a measure of forest density that 

incorporates aspects of tree density and tree sizes, and is available from the natural range of 

variation research and is very useful in restoration project design. Because of these 

considerations, desired conditions were developed for canopy cover at the landscape scale and 

within patches, and basal area was used to measure forest density.

Indicators and Measures

There are several main aspects to vegetation ecology that were used for this analysis.

Composition. Composition includes the mix of plant species. The analysis looks at predicted 

changes to overstory and understory composition. For the overstory, we considered the primary 

tree species, such as black oak mixed with ponderosa pine trees (westside) and amount of pinyonjuniper in sagebrush areas (eastside). For the understory, we considered the mix of native 

flowering plants, shrubs and grasses and presence and extent of non-native, invasive plants.

Structure. Structure includes the type of plants (trees or shrubs), how big individual plants or 

trees are, how dense they occur, and how they are arranged, such as uniformly or in a clumpy or 

heterogeneous pattern. Vegetation structure at the landscape scale was characterized by the 

amount of vegetation in the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships classes (Mayer and 

Laudenslayer 1988). At the patch scale, we analyzed forest density, represented by canopy cover 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

138

and basal area. We used heterogeneity (variability in tree spacing, sizes and openings) to analyze 

within-patch structure.

Vegetation types as described by California Wildlife Habitat Relationships classes are useful in 

comparing the proportion of the landscape in forested versus nonforested areas, and the amount 

of open versus close-canopied, or small- versus large-tree-dominated patches. While they are 

sometimes equated to seral stages (stages of forest development), there is not necessarily a oneto-one correspondence. For example, very open small-tree-dominated woodland at high 

elevations may be a very old subalpine forest. The stand size characteristic is based upon the 

average stand diameter. When forests consist of mixtures of tree sizes or diameters, this can make 

it difficult to distinguish younger from older forests. The California Wildlife Habitat 

Relationships classification does not reflect aspects of structure that are important to many 

wildlife species, such as large trees and snags (North and Manley 2012). The analysis of old 

forest characteristics, including the proportion of the landscape in old forest and large tree density 

are described in greater detail in the Old Forest supplemental report. Despite the short-comings of 

the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships classification, it is what has been applied for 

multiple decades. It is still used in part to characterize wildlife habitat suitability for some of the 

species of conservation concern analyzed in this plan, including the California spotted owl and 

Pacific fisher. Because of its continued use in wildlife models, it was analyzed here.

Resilience to Fire, Climate, Drought, Air Pollutants, Insects and Pathogens. Resilience is a 

measure of the elasticity of an ecosystem; that is, its ability to absorb disturbances or stressors 

such as severe droughts and insect outbreaks and to maintain or quickly recover its intrinsic 

ecological characteristics (composition, structure, and function) and ecosystem services (such as 

provide habitat or soil protection). For this analysis, the ability of terrestrial ecosystems, 

especially vegetation, to withstand drought, warmer temperatures, high-intensity fires and insect 

and pathogen outbreaks was analyzed. In the previous section on climate, the broader capacity of 

ecosystems to respond to climate change was covered. Resilience to fire was addressed in the 

context of the natural range of variation of fire regimes.

Two different measures were used to reflect ecological fire resilience. In forested ecosystems, we 

used the intensity and type of fire, such as surface or crown fire. In nonforest and woodland 

ecosystems, we used fire return interval departure and presence of non-native annual grasses to 

analyze resilience. For both of these measures, the analysis was at a landscape scale, since fires 

and vegetation responses can vary from site to site. The aggregate of all of those effects and 

resilience to fire is most important for ecological impacts.

Analysis Methods and Data Sources

We used a combination of scientific summaries, scientific research, and existing and available 

vegetation information for the analysis. This included Forest Inventory and Analysis plot data and 

remote sensing, satellite data. Most of the information included in the “Affected Environment” 

section was based upon the bio-regional and forest assessments (USDA FS 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 

2013d). These included information from the “Living Assessment” (USDA FS 2013e, 2013f, 

2013g, 2013h), published scientific literature, the “Scientific Synthesis” (Long et al. 2014), and 

the “Natural Range of Variability Assessments” (Safford 2013; Estes 2013a, 2013b; Merriam 

2013; Meyer 2013a, 2013b; Sawyer 2013; Slaton and Stone 2013a, 2013b. This information was 

used to evaluate the conditions of the indicators relative to desired conditions and analysis 

thresholds. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

139

For each indicator and vegetation type or ecological zone, we evaluated potential effects on 

composition, structure, and resilience at the programmatic level for each alternative. This entails 

identifying plan direction relevant to the vegetation type for each alternative and making 

projections about the potential effects of future implementation of that plan direction. The 

specific timing and location of potential restoration projects is not known but the types of effects 

associated with implementation can be discussed. The evaluation of potential effects to 

composition, structure, and resilience associated with plan implementation is based on scientific 

literature (and professional experience) that has examined the effects of treatments similar to 

those that would be implemented under alternatives B, C, and D using fire-climate modeling (see 

“Fire Trends” section, Westerling et al. 2015), and ecological fire resilience modeling (USDA FS

2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2013d).

Most of the literature on restoration of montane forests has focused on fuels treatments. More 

recently, there has been an increase in ecological restoration for vegetation composition, 

structure, and ecological function. Much of the associated research on ecological restoration for 

westside and yellow pine (ponderosa and Jeffrey pine) forests has been summarized in two recent 

technical reports, GTR 220 and 237 (North et al. 2009a, North 2012), and the recent “Science 

Synthesis for the Sierra Nevada Bioregion” (Long et al. 2014). Red fir restoration is also 

addressed in the Science Synthesis to some degree. Restoration management strategies and 

treatments proposed and described in those documents are the basis for management direction 

contained in alternative B, C, and D. 

For sagebrush and pinyon-juniper ecosystems, we examined several recent comprehensive 

scientific literature reviews and management strategies directed at restoration of greater sagegrouse habitat (Chambers et al. 2007, Wisdom and Chambers 2009, Arkle et al. 2014, Chambers 

et al. 2013, Chambers et al. 2014). This includes reducing conifer density in sagebrush areas, 

prevention and restoration of areas with non-native, invasive annual grasses, and restoration of 

perennial grasses.

For some vegetation types there are multiple applicable research papers, and for readability only 

key ones were cited here. Additional scientific research on the effects of different restoration 

management activities specific to different vegetation types are summarized in the Vegetation 

Ecology supplemental report.

The analysis is displayed in two ways. First, there is a narrative for each indicator by major

vegetation type that explains the potential consequences of implementing the different type, 

amount, and location of restoration activities. Second, there is an overall rating of whether the 

indicator has a low, moderate, or high similarity to desired conditions. This rating is based upon 

the degree of departure (and especially the proportion of the landscape with departure of current 

or expected future conditions) from the desired conditions and natural range of variation. The 

criteria and thresholds for the ratings were identified for each major vegetation type and indicator 

and are displayed in the Vegetation Ecology supplemental report. The tables for westside montane 

mixed conifer (Table 32) and eastside sagebrush and pinyon-juniper (Table 33) are included 

below because these are the primary vegetation types that would be managed.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

140

Table 32. The indicators, measures and criteria for evaluating the current condition and 

consequences for westside montane ecological/elevational zone (ponderosa pine, black oak, moist 

and dry mixed conifer) composition

Ecological Zone 

Vegetation Type Indicator Measure Criteria

Black oak, and 

Black oakPonderosa pine

Composition 

and

structure 

Similarity to desired 

conditions. Black oak cover 

and density, mature black oak 

are common with high acorn 

production

High – black oak is dominant or codominant in the overstory and 

understory over >60% area

Moderate – same as above but 40-

60% area

Low –same as above but for <40% 

area

Black oak, and 

Black oakPonderosa pine

Composition 

understory

Understory – native plant 

composition, abundance and 

condition (improved with 

openings and fire restoration)

High – open canopy (similar to 

desired conditions) dominant, with 

restoration of fire common: >60% 

area

Moderate – same as above but 30-

60% area

Low – same as above but <30% 

area

Ponderosa pine 

and dry mixed 

conifer

Overstory 

composition

Similarity of dominant 

overstory tree composition to 

desired conditions (>60% 

pine in mixed conifer and 

>90% pine in ponderosa pine, 

except where black oak is 

common) 

High: meet conditions on most 

(>60% of area) of the landscape 

Moderate: meet conditions on some 

(40-60% of area) of the landscape 

Low: meet conditions on limited 

(<40% of the area) of the landscape

Ponderosa pine 

and dry mixed 

conifer

Understory 

composition

Understory – native plant 

composition, abundance and 

condition (improved with 

openings and fire restoration)

High – open canopy (similar to 

desired conditions) dominant, with 

restoration of fire common: >60% 

area

Moderate – same as above but 30-

60% area

Low – same as above but <30% 

area

Moist mixed 

conifer

Overstory 

composition

Similarity of dominant 

overstory tree composition to 

desired conditions (is >60% 

pine on dry sites and 40-60% 

on moist sites. Black oak 

common and healthy)

High: meet conditions on most 

(>60% of area) of the landscape 

Moderate: meet conditions on some 

(40-60% of area) of the landscape 

Low: meet conditions on limited 

(<40% of the area) of the landscape

Moist mixed 

conifer

Understory 

composition

Similarity of understory 

composition and condition to 

desired condition 

(heterogeneity- see belowand amount of low and 

moderate intensity fire 

restored)

High: high heterogeneity and 

extensive (>60% area) low and 

moderate intensity fire restoration

Moderate: moderate heterogeneity 

and moderate low and some fire 

restoration (40-60% area)

Low: low heterogeneity and limited 

fire restoration (<40% area)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

141

Table 33. The indicators, measures and criteria for evaluating the current condition and 

consequences for eastside ecological zones and vegetation types

Ecological Zone 

Vegetation Type Indicator Measure Criteria

Sagebrush Composition Similarity of understory 

composition and condition to 

desired condition (areas of 

native perennial grasses and 

flowering plants thriving and 

increasing, native shrubs 

healthy)

High: meet conditions on many areas 

(>40% area);

Moderate: meet conditions on some 

(20-40% ) of the area; 

Low: meet conditions on limited (<20%) 

of the area; 

Sagebrush Composition Presence of conifer trees 

(pinyon, juniper, Jeffrey 

pine) in historically tree free 

areas

High: less than 10% of sagebrush area 

invaded by conifers

Moderate: 10 to 30% of sagebrush 

areas invaded by conifers 

Low: more than 30% of sagebrush 

areas invaded by conifers

Sagebrush Structure Similarity of seral stage 

mosaic to desired condition 

(within the natural range of 

variation; areas of sage 

grouse nesting and 

brooding/rearing habitat 

within desired conditions

High: meet conditions on most (>60% 

of area) of the landscape 

Moderate: meet conditions on some 

(40-60% of area) of the landscape 

Low: meet conditions on limited (<40% 

of the area) of the landscape

Sagebrush Structure Age structure and condition 

of shrubs (decadence)

High: shrub age structure diverse and 

within the natural range of variation on 

most of landscape (>60% of area)

Moderate: same as above for some of 

area (40 to 60% area)

Low: same as above for little of the area 

(<40% area)

Pinyon-juniper Composition Similarity of species 

composition to desired 

condition (limited non-native

invasive grasses or plants, 

primarily cheatgrass)

High: few to no invasive plants 

Moderate: limited frequency of 

occurrence and slow rates of spread

Low: moderate to high frequency of 

occurrence and rates of spread

Pinyon-juniper Structure Pinyon pine regeneration, 

mature trees and pinyon nut 

production

High: most (>60%) of the area within 

desired condition 

Moderate: some (40-60%) of the area 

within desired condition

Low: limited (<40%) area within desired 

condition

Xeric Shrub-black 

brush

Composition Native species composition; 

invasive species 

(occurrence, density and 

number of species); native 

soil crusts are intact

High: few to no invasive plants; native 

plants and soil crusts in good condition 

over most (>98% of the area)

Moderate: limited frequency of 

occurrence and slow rates of spread of 

invasive plants and/or disruption of soil 

crusts (<5% area)

Low: moderate to high frequency of 

occurrence and rates of spread; and 

disruption of soil crusts over increased 

area (>5% area)

Xeric Shrub-black 

brush

Structure 

and 

resilience

Presence of non-native

plants, especially annual 

grasses

See above
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

142

Thresholds for evaluating condition of vegetation indicators were based upon scientific literature 

where available and, where not available, on general ecological theory (that is, percolation theory, 

Turner et al. 1989), research on landscape vegetation conditions and changes in fire patterns 

(Parisien et al. 2007, 10, 12; Westerling et al. 2015), and logical categories. There is limited

scientific literature that specifies what proportion of a landscape needs to be in a certain condition 

to have ecological integrity. Landscape ecology theory provided an overall basis for setting the 

high and low ecological condition thresholds (Turner et al. 1989). Percolation theory 

distinguishes changes in landscape processes and functions when less than 40 percent of a 

landscape is in a different condition. This could include fragmentation of habitat, movement of 

wildlife, or movement of fire. Research on fire probabilities (extent, large fire size and severity) 

suggest that landscapes with at least 40 percent in a condition that is more consistent with the 

natural range of variation have a reduced likelihood of fire probability and large fire size, and 

areas with more than 60 to 75 percent have a substantially reduced likelihood (Parisien et al. 

2007, 10, 12; Westerling et al. 2015). 

We made reasonable assumptions that:

• the majority (greater than 60 to greater than 75 percent) of a landscape in condition within 

the natural range of variation or similar to desired conditions would have high ecological 

integrity;

• nearly half (greater than 40 to greater than 50 percent) of a landscape in condition within 

the natural range of variation or similar to desired condition would have moderate 

ecological integrity; and

• less than that would have low ecological integrity (less than 20 to less than 40 percent)

Affected Environment

Current conditions are first summarized overall and then later described by ecological/elevation 

zone and vegetation type. The distribution and area in major vegetation types by national forest 

are shown in Figure 25, Figure 26 and Figure 27, and Table 34 and Table 35. Note that the 

vegetation map for the Inyo National Forest is based upon the Terrestrial Ecological Unit 

Inventory while the maps for the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests use the existing vegetation 

data mapped by the Forest Service Remote Sensing Laboratory. For the Sequoia and Sierra 

National Forests, the area of wetland and riparian vegetation types are not included because they 

are not mapped comprehensively in this data set, only the larger, most visible areas. See the 

aquatic and riparian ecosystem section for more detail on the meadow, wetland, and riparian 

vegetation types. For the Inyo National Forest, some of the smaller patches were merged with 

adjacent larger patches to more closely match the maps for the other two national forests. For all 

three national forests, the information has not been updated for recent fires including the Aspen, 

French, Rough or Cabin Fires and other fires since 2009. (However, updates for vegetation 

changes since the large, recent fires before 2015 were made to the underlying fuels layers used to 

model ecological fire resilience). In addition, vegetation on the ground would show more detail 

and smaller patches of varying vegetation types than represented in these figures.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

143

Figure 25. Major vegetation types from the Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory, Inyo National Forest
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

144

Figure 26. Major terrestrial vegetation types based on the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships 

classification, Sequoia National Forest 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

145

Figure 27. Major terrestrial vegetation types based on the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships 

classification, Sierra National Forest
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

146

Table 34. Acres of major vegetation types, Inyo National Forest1

Vegetation Type Acres2

Pinyon-juniper 561,000

Subalpine conifer forest 383,000 

Sagebrush 308,000

Xeric shrub and blackbrush 214,000

Jeffrey pine 135,000

Alpine 130,000

Red fir 118,000

Mountain mahogany 82,000

Mixed conifer 46,000

1. Vegetation types based on the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships classification and the Inyo 

National Forest Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit Inventory classification. 

2. Rounded to the nearest thousand acres.

Table 35. Acres of major vegetation types, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests1

Vegetation Types

Sequoia National Forest

(Acres) 2

Sierra National Forest

(Acres) 2

Alpine 1,000 42,000

Rock, Sparse Vegetation 29,000 140,000

Chaparral 225,000 134,000

Desert 2,600 0 

Grassland 52,000 0 

Hardwood 118,000 263,000

Mixed Conifer 125,000 250,000

Pinyon Juniper 58,000 0 

Red Fir 70,000 140,000

Sagebrush 25,000 0 

Subalpine 14,000 212,000

Yellow Pine 66,000 95,000

1. Vegetation types based on the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships classification. 

2. Rounded to the nearest thousand acres.

Hardwood types are important for wildlife species and some of the species of conservation 

concern. These were broken out by dominance of the primary species such as black oak, live oak, 

or blue oak. Table 36 below shows the area of vegetation dominated by different hardwood 

species. These types occur mostly in the foothill zone but also in the montane zones. The quaking 

aspen type is likely underestimated for the Sierra and especially the Sequoia National Forests in 

this map data.

Summary of Similarity of Current Conditions to Desired Conditions

Based on the assessments for individual major vegetation types, the current conditions show a 

high similarity with desired conditions for only a few types, particularly the alpine and subalpine 

types. For the majority of vegetation types, especially those in the montane and Great Basin 

ecological zones, the vegetation characteristics exhibit a low to moderate similarity with the 

desired conditions. A summary of the current condition compared to the desired conditions are 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

147

shown in Table 37 for westside vegetation types and ecological zones and Table 38 for eastside 

vegetation types and ecological zones.

Table 36. Area in acres in different hardwood vegetation types by national forest, rounded to the 

nearest hundred acres

Regional Dominance Type* 

Inyo National 

Forest

Sequoia 

National Forest

Sierra National 

Forest

Interior Live Oak 0 16,000 38,000

Interior Mixed Hardwood 0 4,900 6,000

Black Oak 250 9,000 11,000

Canyon Live Oak 4,000 30,000 55,000

Blue Oak 0 12,000 21,000

Valley Oak 0 10 35

California Buckeye 0 800 230

Quaking Aspen 15,000 Not mapped 

completely

Not mapped 

completely

Defined by California Wildlife Habitat Relationships classifications

Table 37. Comparison of current conditions to desired conditions, westside vegetation types and 

ecological zones

Zone

Vegetation 

Type

Vegetation 

Composition

Overstory

Vegetation 

Composition

Understory

Vegetation 

Structure 

Density

Vegetation 

Structure 

Heterogeneity

Drought, 

Climate, 

Pollution

Resilience

Fire 

Resilience

Foothill Chaparral high moderate not 

applicable

not 

applicable

moderate moderate

Foothill Oak 

woodland

high low moderate moderate lowmoderatemoderate

Montane Black oak high moderate moderate moderate moderate moderate

Montane Ponderosa 

pine

low low low low low very low

Montane Dry mixed 

conifer

low lowmoderatelow low low very low

Montane Moist mixed 

conifer

moderate low low low low very low

Upper 

montane

Red fir moderate moderate moderate moderate low moderatelow

Upper 

montane

Lodgepole 

pine-moist

high moderate moderate moderate moderate moderate

Upper 

montane

Lodgepole 

pine-dry

high moderate moderate moderate moderate moderate

Upper 

montane

Jeffrey pine moderate moderate moderate moderate moderate moderate

Upper 

montane

Chaparral moderate moderate not 

applicable

not 

applicable

moderate moderate

Subalpine Subalpine high high high high low moderatehigh

Alpine Alpine high high high high low moderatehigh
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

148

Table 38. Comparison of current conditions to desired conditions, eastside vegetation types and 

ecological zones

Vegetation Type

Vegetation 

Composition

Overstory

Vegetation 

Composition

Understory

Vegetation 

Structure 

Density

Vegetation 

Structure 

Heterogeneity

Drought, 

Climate 

Resilience

Fire 

Resilience

Sagebrush not 

applicable

low moderate low moderate moderate

Pinyon-juniper high moderate moderate lowmoderatemoderate lowmoderate

Mountain 

mahogany

not 

applicable

moderate moderate moderate moderate moderate

Eastside, Jeffrey 

Pine 

moderate low low low low low

Dry mixed conifer low low low low low very low

Red fir-Moist 

Lodgepole pine

high moderate low lowmoderate low low

Desert 

Shrub/Blackbrush

not 

applicable

moderatehigh lownot 

applicable

not 

applicable

moderate low

Vegetation in the Kern River drainage is covered separately in Table 39 because the current 

condition of all vegetation types that occur differs substantially from the rest of the forests. This is 

because of the extensive restoration of wildfire managed to meet resource objectives in this more 

remote area over the last 15 years (Fites-Kaufman et al. 2003, Ewell et al. 2012, Meyer 2015). 

This area also has a substantially different current condition and similarity to desired conditions. 

It spans westside to eastside vegetation, but is mostly similar to the westside conditions. It is 

described at the end of the westside vegetation section.

Table 39. Comparison of current conditions to desired conditions, vegetation types and ecological 

zones in the Kern River drainage

Vegetation Type

Vegetation 

Composition

Overstory

Vegetation 

Composition

Understory

Vegetation 

Structure 

Density

Vegetation 

Structure 

Heterogeneity

Drought, 

Climate 

Resilience

Fire 

Resilience

Montane moderate to 

high

moderate to 

high

moderate 

to high

moderate 

to high

moderate 

to high

moderate 

to high

Upper Montane high high moderate 

to high

moderate 

to high

moderate 

to high

moderate 

to high

Subalpine/Alpine high moderatehighmoderate 

to high

moderate 

to high

moderate moderate 

to high

Westside Vegetation Types

Westside Foothill Vegetation: Blue Oak Woodlands, Chaparral/Live Oak

The foothill ecological zone occurs at the lowest elevations on the western slopes of the Sierra 

Nevada, bordered by the San Joaquin Valley on the lower edges. A mosaic of chaparral, blue oak 

savannahs, live oak woodlands and forests, narrow riparian stringers along rivers and streams, 

seeps, and scattered gray pine occur at the lower elevations. At the higher reaches of the foothill 

zone, patches of ponderosa pine and black oak occur and gradually transition into the mixed 

conifer forests in the montane zone above. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

149

Blue Oak Woodland

Overall, the vegetation and fire patterns in the blue oak woodlands are somewhat outside of the 

natural range of variation and resilience is low to moderate (Merriam 2013, and Sawyer 2013). 

Understory vegetation is dominated by non-native grasses and annuals that arrived with early 

European settlement. There are low levels of oak seedlings, saplings, and small trees necessary to 

perpetuate the oak woodlands. The frequency and intensity of fires are outside their natural range 

of variation and changed fire regimes may cause a permanent change (type change) in vegetation 

type from oak woodlands to grasslands (Rodriquez-Buritica and Suding 2013). The low levels of 

seedlings, saplings, and small trees make this vegetation type vulnerable to climate change and 

drought, which is expected to be severe in these low elevation areas. The blue oak woodlands in 

the foothill zone is among the most altered and fragmented vegetation type from urbanization and 

agriculture, and lies mostly below the western boundaries of national forests (Franklin and FitesKaufman 1996, USDA FS 2001). Because of the combination of these factors, the small amount 

of this vegetation type under public land management is disproportionately important for 

ecological integrity. Blue oak woodlands in the western Sierra Nevada display considerable 

fragmentation, increasing vulnerability to climate change because there is limited area for blue 

oak to migrate.

Overall, the blue oak woodlands are moderately similar to desired conditions. Although it is 

desirable to increase the proportion of native understory plants and area dominated by them, 

restoration of large areas to native plant dominance is not realistic with current forest budgets and 

climate warming that increases non-native plant invasion and dominance. There is less blue oak 

regeneration and recruitment than desired (Merriam 2013). 

Chaparral/Live Oak

Evergreen shrubs and live oaks dominate the steep, lower slopes on the westside foothills of the 

western Sierra Nevada Mountains on the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests, and Piute 

Mountains of the Sequoia National Forest. Evergreen chamise, California lilac, manzanita and 

interior live oak dominate the vegetation but there are numerous other less common species 

including the uncommon yellow-flowering flannelbush and knobcone pine. Most of the trees and 

shrubs are highly adapted to fire. Most shrubs and oaks sprout after top-kill in fires. Other shrubs 

and many annual flowering plants have seeds that are stimulated to sprout after heat or smoke, 

creating carpets of flowers. Knobcone pines have serotinous cones that open when exposed to 

high heat. 

Overall, chaparral is similar to desired conditions but is at the high end of the natural range in 

some aspects, with some areas never having burned in over a century (Estes 2013a, Keeley and 

Davis 2007). Where fire has been frequent, and near developed areas, non-native, grasses have 

invaded small areas, hindering native plant regrowth. Several recent fires have burned large areas 

in chaparral within the analysis area and vicinity. The Aspen Fire burned large areas of chaparral 

in the San Joaquin River drainage and more recently, the Rough Fire has burned extensive areas 

of chaparral in the Kings River Canyon. These fires burned under hot and dry conditions, 

following drought. The chaparral burned at very high and high intensity, with little variation in 

severity. This is within the natural range of variation for fire in chaparral (Keeley et al. 2005, 

Estes 2013a).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

150

Black Oak/Ponderosa Pine

At the upper elevations of the foothill zone, patches of black oak, sometimes with scattered or 

clumped ponderosa pine occur. These patches transition broadly into mixed conifer that occurs at 

higher elevations. Black oak and ponderosa pine vegetation types are covered in the next section.

Westside Montane Forests: Ponderosa Pine/Black Oak, Mixed-conifer Forests

The montane zone has large areas of forests dominated by varied mixtures of ponderosa pine or 

Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, incense cedar, white fir, and at higher elevations some red fir (Safford 

2013, Fites-Kaufman et al. 2007). These are the most productive areas, where a combination of 

climate and soils provide ideal growing conditions. On the Kern Plateau, Jeffrey pine replaces 

ponderosa pine and conditions are drier. The southern reaches of the Sequoia National Forest are 

also drier, with white fir replacing red fir at higher elevations and Jeffrey pine replacing 

ponderosa pine. Historically, these productive forests had the most frequent fire, averaging 5 to 

20 years (Safford 2013, van Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman 2006). Frequent fires swept through 

the understory, keeping understory tree densities and surface fuels low. There was thought to be a 

high level of structural variation, with varied tree sizes, densities, spacing, and arrangements, 

collectively called “heterogeneity” (North 2009).

Current vegetation composition, structure and resilience are highly dissimilar to desired 

conditions, except in the Kern Plateau and Kern River drainage. Conditions have changed 

considerably since before European settlement (van Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman 2006, FitesKaufman et al. 2007, Van de Water and Safford 2011, Collins et al. 2011, Lydersen and North 

2012, Safford and Van de Water 2014, Collins et al. 2015, Stephens et al. 2015), and are largely 

outside the natural range of variation in most of the montane zone (Safford 2013, Merriam 2013).

Composition of the overstory and understory has changed substantially. Pines and oaks have 

decreased substantially and shade-tolerant species, such as cedar and fir, have increased (North 

2009). Large black oaks are being shaded out by conifers in many areas, causing unhealthy 

crowns, reduced acorn production, and reduced oak regeneration and recruitment (Merriam 

2013). Increases in tree density, and decreases in frequent, low- and moderate-intensity fires have 

impacted understory shrubs, grasses and flowering plants (van Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman 

2006, Fites-Kaufman et al. 2007, Wayman and North 2007, Webster and Halpern 2010). These 

plants have evolved with fire and some of them have adaptations, such as the ability to sprout 

from bulbs or roots, or fire-stimulated seed germination that enables them to thrive with fire. 

Other plants, such as ponderosa pine, need bare soil to germinate and survive. As a result, in the 

absence of frequent fire, the understory flora of shrubs, flowering plants, and grasses, is less 

diverse and in poor condition.

Forest structure has changed in several ways. Forest density is higher, canopy cover of trees more 

uniformly higher, small and medium tree density is higher, and large tree density is lower (Collins 

et al. 2011, Collins et al. 2015, Stephens et al. 2015). Within-stand variation in tree size and 

density has decreased substantially (Lydersen et al. 2013). Large tree densities and distribution 

across the landscape is substantially lower in most places than historically (USDA FS 2001, 

Franklin and Fites-Kaufman 2006, Fites-Kaufman et al. 2007, Stephens et al. 2015). Until 

recently, the low levels of large trees were due to past harvest from the European settlement 

period to the 1980s (McKelvey and Johnston 1992). 

More recently, water stress, climate change, and possibly air pollutants have weakened large trees 

(Panek et al. 2013; Byternowitz et al. 2014). Outside of fires, large tree mortality has doubled in 

the last two to three decades across the western United States (van Mantgem et al. 2009). This 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

151

pattern is associated with increases in temperature and droughts. There are also high levels of air 

pollutants, primarily ozone and possibly nitrogen that are impacting forest health and contributing 

to increased tree mortality to an unknown degree (USDA FS 2013a). Ozone weakens trees and 

makes them more susceptible to drought and insects (see “Air Quality” section). These stresses 

are compounded by the competition for water from the dense, younger trees that surround many 

old trees (McDowell et al. 2008, Franklin and Johnson 2012). 

Resilience of montane forests to high-intensity fire, drought, insects, pathogens, climate change, 

and air pollution is very low in most areas (Safford 2013, North 2012, Collins and Skinner 2014). 

Dense vegetation contributes to higher intensity fire and increased tree mortality from fires. 

Dense forests are more vulnerable to stress brought on by drought, insects, pathogens, and air 

pollution. Currently, in lower elevation pine and mixed conifer forests there has been and 

continues to be extensive tree mortality. In some areas more than 80 percent of the ponderosa 

pine trees are dead or dying (see “Insects and Pathogens” in the previous section and Figure 28). 

Mortality is extending up into the higher elevations in mixed conifer forests, particularly in sugar 

pine based upon aerial surveys conducted by the USDA Forest Service State and Private Forestry

program (see Figure 8 in the “Insects and Pathogens” section). The mortality is from a 

combination of drought and insects. There may also be a contribution from ozone weakening the 

trees. This not only reflects decreased resilience but is also resulting in decreased forest diversity.

Figure 28. Recently dead sugar pine in mixed conifer forests on the Sequoia National Forest

Fires are less frequent but evidence is strong that they are on average larger and more severe in 

large uniform areas, than before European settlement (Collins and Skinner 2014, Safford 2013). 

Changes in fire have contributed to shrinking chaparral patches scattered within forests (Estes 

2013a), and black oak patches and trees (Merriam 2013). Most of the montane area is likely to 

burn as crown fires during peak fire weather conditions. The mix of fire types (crown and surface 

fires), and resulting severity (high to moderate or low) is difficult to predict precisely. There are 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

152

many conditions that influence the type and effects of fires including the time of day, condition of 

the vegetation, and dryness of the vegetation and fuels. Overall, the more continuously dense 

vegetation is and dry, the more likely large areas of crown fire will occur. Recent trends in fires 

have been increased proportions of crown fire and high severity effects to forests, especially 

montane pine and mixed conifer forests (Miller and Safford 2012, Steel et al. 2015). 

Moist Mixed Conifer Compared to Dry Mixed Conifer Forests

Historically and currently, there are differences in the composition and structure of forests in drier 

sites compared to moister parts of the landscape (Lydersen and North 2012). South and westfacing slopes are drier and more dominated by pines, whereas forests on north and east-facing 

slopes, with less sun, have a greater fir component (Fites-Kaufman et al. 2007). The slope 

location also affects the moisture level for plants (Lydersen and North 2012). Drainages and 

lower slopes are moister. Ridges and upper slopes are drier. Differences in forests and vegetation 

were more prevalent prior to fire suppression and historic logging. Now forests are more 

uniformly dense and have a higher proportion of shade-tolerant firs and incense cedar. 

Historically, under a frequent fire regime, both the moist and dry mixed conifer had higher levels 

of heterogeneity (Lydersen et al. 2013). It is unknown if there were differences in heterogeneity 

between dry and moist mixed conifer forests. Reconstructions of historic forest patterns suggest 

that moist forests were more dense than dry. The desired conditions for moist mixed conifer 

compared to dry mixed conifer reflect these differences. 

Both moist and dry mixed conifer forests are dissimilar to desired conditions. Current dry mixed 

conifer forests are probably more dissimilar to desired conditions than moist mixed conifer 

forests. They are both considerably more dense and with lower heterogeneity and understory 

plant diversity and cover. However, the dry mixed conifer forests have increased the most in 

density and had the greatest shift in composition from dominance of pines that are more fire and 

drought tolerant to more white fir and incense cedar that are less fire and drought tolerant 

(Lydersen and North 2012). Compared to dry mixed conifer, moist mixed conifer forests have had 

fewer changes since historic conditions; the end result of fire suppression and past harvest 

practices is a similar low resilience to drought, climate change, insects and pathogens, and highintensity fire. Both are highly likely to experience high levels of crown fire during hot and dry 

fire weather conditions. 

Upper Montane Forests

The primary vegetation types in this zone include red fir forest, Jeffrey pine forest, and lodgepole 

pine forest, and montane chaparral (Potter 1998). These vegetation types and others (such as wet 

meadows) occur in a patchy mosaic across the upper montane landscape, depending on changes 

in elevation, topography, soils, climate, and prior disturbance history (like fire and insects). Fire is 

an important ecological process in the upper montane zone, influencing successional pathways 

and forest structural patterns, such as canopy patch-gap dynamics (van Wagtendonk and FitesKaufman 2006). However, decades of fire exclusion, timber harvest, and patterns of increasing 

high-severity fire in many upper montane forests have resulted in decreased heterogeneity and 

increased vegetation uniformity across the landscape (Meyer 2013a, Kane et al. 2014). Increased 

high-severity fire has also resulted in greater degrees of forest fragmentation and reduced forest 

connectivity in upper montane forests (Kane et al. 2014). These patterns of increasing 

fragmentation resulting from stand-replacing fire are often linked to warming climate and, in fireexcluded forests characterized with a frequent fire regime (such as Jeffrey pine forests), increased 

fuel loading (Miller and Safford 2012, Safford 2013).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

153

Red Fir Forests

Red fir forests are common in westside, upper montane landscapes of the southern Sierra Nevada. 

This forest type is dominated by red fir and typically occurs on deeper, more productive soils on 

most slope positions except ridgetops. Mixed red fir stands may also contain white fir at lower 

elevations and lodgepole pine, Jeffrey pine, western white pine, or mountain hemlock at higher 

elevations (Potter 1998). The understory may include several species of shrubs or herbaceous 

plants, including pinemat manzanita, greenleaf manzanita, huckleberry oak, chinquapin, 

snowberry, Utah serviceberry, mountain whitethorn, pine-woods lousewort, and Brewer’s golden 

aster.

Tree species composition is generally similar to the desired conditions, but understory species 

cover and diversity in fire-excluded stands is at the lower end of the desired conditions and the 

natural range of variation (Meyer 2013a).

Current stand structure conditions in red fir forests are dissimilar to desired conditions. There has 

been a considerable shift in the tree size class distribution to smaller diameters. Forest structure at 

the stand and landscape scales is more uniform and less heterogeneous. There has been a decrease 

in the density of large-diameter red fir trees in many areas (Meyer 2013a). Younger and 

intermediate-sized trees are denser than the desired condition, and there is a deficit of opencanopy mature and old forests in most of the planning area. 

Resilience of red fir forests to drought, insects, pathogens, climate change and high-intensity fire 

is moderate but declining. Tree mortality rates associated with pathogens and moisture stress in 

red fir forests is increasing at a rate that will soon exceed the desired conditions and natural range 

of variation. Climate vulnerability of red fir forests is relatively high compared to other 

vegetation types. Because red fir is associated with colder winters and snow, it is particularly

vulnerable to climate change. Resilience to high-intensity fire is moderate. Higher stand density, 

more uniform forests have resulted in increased high severity areas. Although some areas of high 

severity are within the natural range of variation (van Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman 2006), 

larger patches of high severity are becoming more common with drought and hot and dry 

weather.

Jeffrey Pine Forests

Jeffrey pine forests typically occupy more xeric, or very dry, locations in the upper montane zone 

of the southern Sierra Nevada. This forest type generally occurs on shallow, less productive soils 

on middle to upper slope positions. Jeffrey pine forests are dominated by Jeffrey pine but may be 

mixed with shade-tolerant white fir at lower elevations and red fir at higher elevations (Potter 

1998). 

There is a moderate difference between current species composition and the desired conditions. 

Because Jeffrey pine occurs on very dry sites, most often on shallow, rocky soils, vegetation is 

slow to change. Because of fire suppression, there has been an increase in shade-intolerant white 

fir and red fir trees. 

Current stand structure conditions in Jeffrey pine forests are also different from desired 

conditions; however, there has been less change than with the red fir, lodgepole pine, or mixed 

conifer forests due to slower ingrowth of other species. There has been a shift in the tree size 

class distribution to smaller diameters, which has resulted in more uniform and less 

heterogeneous forest structure at stand and landscape scales. Overall canopy cover has increased, 

there are fewer canopy gaps or openings, and there has been a decrease in the density of large-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

154

diameter Jeffrey pine trees (Safford 2013). There is a deficit of open-canopy mature forests 

throughout the planning area, compared to the desired conditions. Surface fuels and small trees 

that serve as ladder fuels are greater than the desired condition. 

Resilience is moderate in Jeffrey pine forests. Climate vulnerability of Jeffrey pine forests is 

relatively low compared to other forest types in the upper montane and subalpine zones (Schwartz 

et al. 2013) and Jeffrey pine may exhibit greater resilience to projected increases in temperature 

and fire frequency in the Sierra Nevada (Monleon and Lintz 2015, Stephens et al. 2010). This is 

because Jeffrey pine is a very drought- and fire-tolerant species. Where forest density has 

increased more, these stands have moderate resilience. These areas are more likely to experience 

stress from drought, insects, pathogens, or fire-related mortality. Fire resilience is moderate to 

high. Fire is moderated in areas where Jeffrey pine is low density and has not increased, 

especially on very rocky sites.

Montane Chaparral 

Montane chaparral occurs in various sized patches in the upper montane zone, varying from one 

to hundreds of acres. It occurs on two types of areas. First it occupies the rockiest and driest 

locations in the southern Sierra Nevada. Chaparral patches are often interspersed with Jeffrey 

pine forests. It may also occur on previously forested sites that burned at high severity once or 

several times. Montane chaparral is mostly a temporary vegetation type, or early seral stage of 

forest, and is invaded and replaced by forest over time in the absence of recurrent fire. In the 

upper montane zone, forests are slow to recolonize chaparral, so it can persist for tens or hundreds 

of years on potentially forested areas (Estes 2013a). 

The diversity and composition of current montane chaparral is similar to the desired conditions. 

However, the density of advanced tree regeneration in some areas of montane chaparral may 

exceed the natural range of variation where fire has been excluded for more than a century. Fire 

favors chaparral shrub species, most of which sprout following a fire that kills most of the shrub 

above ground, or have seeds that are stimulated to germinate from heat. Most small conifers are 

killed during fires in chaparral because these fires burn at moderate to high intensity. 

Current structural conditions in montane chaparral are similar to the desired conditions. Climate 

vulnerability of montane chaparral is relatively low compared to other vegetation types in the 

upper montane and subalpine zones because the shrub species are very drought and temperature 

tolerant. However, in some locations of the planning area, montane chaparral is currently 

threatened by the combination of invasive plant species (such as invasive annual grasses) and lack 

of fire. Lack of fire results in vegetation succession or shift to forests, mostly fir dominated. As 

the trees grow larger, they shade out the shrubs. Historically, fire returned on average every 30 to 

50 years, which killed the young, growing conifers in many areas. Other areas would change to 

forests, and some forest patches would burn at high severity and change to chaparral. This has 

occurred less in the last 50 years, but recent fires have restored the pattern to some degree. More 

recent fires may have resulted in larger patches of chaparral because there may be a trend toward

larger area burned at high fire severity, but there is uncertainty in this trend because of little 

information on historic patterns of fire severity in upper montane forests and chaparral.

Subalpine and Alpine Vegetation

The subalpine and alpine zone of the southern Sierra Nevada is characterized by mostly steep 

slopes, poorly-developed granitic-based soils, and a very high percentage of precipitation that 

falls as snow (van Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman 2006). The primary vegetation types in this 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

155

zone include subalpine and alpine forest (Potter 1998). Warming climate trends in the planning 

area are likely to lead to increased fragmentation and reduced connectivity of subalpine and 

alpine vegetation, especially in the latter half of the 21st century (Lenihan et al. 2008, Schwartz et 

al. 2013). These broad-scale changes have important implications for a wide array of species 

dependent on subalpine and alpine environments, especially southern Sierra Nevada endemics 

such as foxtail pine (subspecies austrina), alpine chipmunk, granite draba, Sierra Nevada 

leptosiphon, and sweet-smelling monardella (Meyer 2013a, Rundel 2011).

Subalpine Woodlands and Forests

Subalpine vegetation occurs near the highest elevations of the planning area. Subalpine treedominated areas form woodlands when trees are sparse or low density. Most subalpine treedominated areas are woodlands. In other areas, trees are moderate to high density, more often in 

smaller patches. These areas comprise subalpine forests. The subalpine vegetation type typically 

occurs on shallow, less productive soils on most slope positions including ridgetops and steep 

slopes. 

Current overstory and understory species composition is similar to the desired conditions. Current 

subalpine woodland and forest structure is also mostly similar to desired conditions, although 

there is a recent increase in the density of small-diameter subalpine trees and a decrease in the 

density of large-diameter trees. This has been attributed to climatic warming trends, which has 

increased favorable growing conditions in this harsh environment (Meyer 2013b, Safford et al. 

2012a).

Resilience of subalpine woodlands and forests was high until recently but is undergoing rapid 

changes due to climate warming. Climate vulnerability of subalpine forests is among the highest 

of all vegetation types in the planning area (Meyer 2013b, Safford et al. 2012a). Tree mortality 

rates associated with moisture stress and insects in subalpine forests dominated by high-elevation 

white pines is increasing at a rate that may soon exceed the desired conditions and natural range 

of variation. Resilience to fire is generally high (Meyer 2013b) 

Alpine Vegetation 

Alpine vegetation occurs at the highest elevations of the planning area (greater than 10,000 feet 

elevation). This vegetation type typically occurs on very shallow, low productivity soils on most 

slope positions including ridgetops and steep slopes. Alpine vegetation in the planning area is

dominated by perennial herbaceous plants (like Mason’s sky pilot) or dwarf shrubs (such as white 

heather), but may also contain small, isolated subalpine tree islands and krummholz (stunted) 

whitebark pine stands. Shallow bedrock may dominate much of the cover in many alpine 

landscapes of the planning area.

Current species composition and structure of alpine vegetation is very similar to the desired 

conditions. Resilience is low to moderate. The vegetation in the alpine areas establishes and

grows very slowly. Climate vulnerability of alpine vegetation is among the highest of all 

vegetation types in the planning area (Lenihan et al. 2008, Safford et al. 2012a), and some alpine 

plant and animal species have recently shifted their geographic ranges to higher elevations in the 

planning area (Kopp and Cleland 2014, Moritz et al. 2008). With no other area to go to at higher 

elevations for cooler temperatures, these plants may decline in numbers or locations.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

156

Kern River Drainage

The Kern River drainage includes the Kern Plateau, located east of the Kern River, which 

dominates the center of the Sequoia National Forest and a small area on the southwest portion of 

the Inyo National Forest. The canyon where the Kern River drains is also included in the Kern 

River drainage, especially in the north and middle sections of the watershed. Much of this area is 

remote and steep and as a result there have been multiple wildfires that have been managed to 

meet resource objectives in this area over the past 15 years (Meyer 2015). Most of the area is 

within the montane zone followed by the upper montane zone. There are smaller subalpine and 

foothill areas that are included. Some of the fires in the area have been very large, and mostly 

high intensity and severity, including the McNalley Fire. This was in the western portion, partly 

outside of the Kern River drainage. Most of the McNalley Fire was not beneficial because it had 

very large patches of high-severity fire, but the majority of the fires have been beneficial and have 

resulted in substantial movement toward desired conditions (Fites-Kaufman et al. 2003, Ewell et 

al. 2012, Meyer 2015). 

On the Kern Plateau, extensive fires have occurred over the last 15 years in a range of weather 

conditions. Because the area is very dry, increases in forest density have been less dramatic than 

other mixed conifer areas. There has been less ingrowth of white fir. Because of these more 

moderate changes in forest density and composition, the effects of the fires in the last 15 years 

have been less severe in many areas. For many of these fires, there has been a greater proportion 

of moderate- and low-intensity fire and resulting low- and mixed-severity effects. As a result, 

large areas have had reductions in forest density toward the desired conditions. There has been an 

increase in heterogeneity at the landscape, patch and within-patch scales in forests and chaparral. 

These fires have restored understory plant composition and condition, since the majority of the 

species are adapted to and many benefit from fire. This includes the riparian areas. Examples 

include lupines, aspen, grasses and other sprouting plants. Overall, the montane and upper 

montane forests and chaparral in much of the Kern Plateau have a moderate to high similarity to 

desired conditions. The area has a moderate to high resilience to drought, insects, pathogens, 

climate change, and high-intensity fire. This is apparent in lower levels of tree mortality and 

increasingly restricted sizes of large fires. This has happened multiple times, mostly recently on 

the Rough and Cabin Fires on the Sequoia National Forest in 2015 (Reiner et al. 2016).

Eastside Vegetation Types

Arid shrublands and woodlands dominate the lower elevation, eastside landscapes in the planning 

area, primarily on the Inyo National Forest and some on the southeastern portions of the Sequoia 

National Forest. The primary vegetation types include pinyon-juniper, mountain mahogany, 

sagebrush, and xeric shrub/blackbrush. These vegetation types occur in an area of convergence 

among three biogeographic provinces: the Sierra Nevada, Great Basin, and Mojave Desert and as 

a result have high plant diversity and some unusual plant combinations. Changes in climate, and 

fire and grazing regimes in the late 19th and 20th centuries have been particularly important factors 

influencing the composition, structure and distribution of the different vegetation types within the 

planning area (Slaton and Stone 2013a, 2013b). These changes include an expansion of trees into 

open shrublands, and changes in vegetation successional patterns associated with modern 

livestock grazing and fire exclusion, although these patterns depend on several additional factors 

(such as vegetation type or climate). Invasive plants like cheatgrass and red brome have also 

significantly expanded their range in many arid shrublands and woodlands in recent years on the 

eastside of the planning area (Slaton and Stone 2013a, 2013b). In some cases this has led to type 

conversion from native shrub or woodland vegetation to non-native grasslands. This rate of 

invasion is expected to continue or increase in the future, although projected changes in climate 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

157

will alter the geographic distribution of these invasions in the later 21st century (Bradley 2009, 

Finch 2012). 

Eastside montane and upper montane landscapes contain a patchy mosaic of forest, shrub, and 

herb-dominated (meadow) vegetation types that change with elevation, topography, soils, climate, 

and prior disturbance history. Jeffrey pine, red fir, lodgepole pine, mountain mahogany, and 

chaparral are the primary upland vegetation types. Extensive meadows also occur in many areas, 

especially on the Kern Plateau that occurs on both the Inyo and Sequoia National Forests. Fire is 

an especially important ecological process in the eastside montane and upper montane zones, 

influencing composition, structure, and resilience (van Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman 2006). 

Decades of fire exclusion, timber harvest prior to the 1990s, and patterns of increasing highseverity fire in many of these landscapes have resulted in changes at the landscape scale (Meyer 

2013a, Safford 2013). Most forest areas have become more dense and uniform in structure. 

Increased high-severity fire has also resulted in greater degrees of forest fragmentation and 

reduced forest connectivity.

The conditions and trends in red fir and mixed conifer forests are similar to those described for 

the westside. Refer to these sections for more details. For the mixed conifer, refer to the dry 

mixed conifer type, since most of the mixed conifer forests on the eastside are similar to the dry 

type more than the moist type. 

Sagebrush

This vegetation type occurs in the Great Basin portions of the planning area, mostly the Inyo 

National Forest but also small portions of the eastern Sequoia National Forest. The distribution of 

different sagebrush species are strongly correlated to temperature and precipitation regimes. 

Dominant species include all subspecies of big sagebrush, low sagebrush, bitterbrush, and black 

sagebrush (Slaton and Stone 2013a). Big sagebrush and black sagebrush are generally restricted 

to moist and frigid soils, with low sagebrush occurring on some cryic (cold) soils.

The condition of sagebrush areas depends upon the location and environment. The current 

composition and structure of sagebrush on some more productive substrates are different from the 

desired conditions for this vegetation type. The composition and structure on less productive, 

harsher (colder, drier, shallow and rocky) soils is mostly similar to desired conditions.

The extent of sagebrush has decreased substantially. On the Inyo National Forest, an estimated 

25,000 acres of sagebrush has had encroachment of several trees per acre or more (Slaton 2013). 

These areas were historically dominated by sagebrush but pinyon-juniper, and in some cases 

Jeffrey pine and limber pine, have encroached into these shrublands due to a combination of fire 

suppression, livestock grazing, and climate change (Slaton and Stone 2013a). Projected changes 

in climate suggest that the geographic distribution of sagebrush will largely shift northward and to 

higher elevations due to increased summer moisture stress (Finch 2012). Resilience to invasion 

by pinyon and juniper or Jeffrey pine is low to moderate. 

Overall, resilience of sagebrush is low to moderate depending upon the type of sagebrush, amount 

of non-native annual grasses and proximity to risk factors for fire and non-native grass invasion. 

Non-native invasive plant species are increasing in number and extent in sagebrush. Most notably 

the invasive annual grasses of cheatgrass and red brome have increased. The map in Figure 29

depicts the pattern of invasion of cheatgrass and red brome on the Inyo National Forest. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

158

Figure 29. Occurrences of cheatgrass in vegetation plots, Inyo National Forest
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

159

Information is combined from the Forest Inventory and Analysis plots and Terrestrial Ecological 

Unit Inventory plots and vegetation maps. This map does not represent a complete distribution of 

these invasive grasses but shows the extent of their invasion. Where these invasive grasses have 

been detected at survey plots, they are shown as red and orange dots and plots with no detections 

are shown as purple dots. Higher elevation sagebrush areas, with colder soils and moderate to 

high native perennial grass cover are more resilient. These areas are more likely to resist type 

conversion to annual grasses, including after fire (Chambers et al. 2007). 

In the eastside vegetation types, there are large sagebrush and pinyon-juniper areas that have 

decreased fire resilience because of non-native annual grasses (such as cheatgrass and red brome) 

that make them susceptible to more frequent fires that disrupt native vegetation composition and 

structure (Chambers et al. 2014). 

Pinyon-juniper

Pinyon-juniper is extensive in the planning area, mostly on the Inyo National Forest. This 

vegetation type dominates mid-elevations on the eastside planning area, especially on the east 

slope of the Sierra Nevada, Great Basin, Mojave Desert, and portions of the Kern Plateau. 

Pinyon-juniper is dominated by single leaf pinyon and Utah juniper, although many stands in the 

planning area are dominated exclusively by single leaf pinyon (Slaton and Stone 2013a). Pinyonjuniper types may also be mixed with or located in close proximity to sagebrush, mountain 

mahogany, and xeric shrublands. 

The condition of structure in pinyon-juniper compared to desired conditions varies with location 

and environment. Where pinyon-juniper grows on harsher sites (steep rocky slopes and ridges or 

sites with shallow and rocky soils), structure is generally similar to desired conditions (Slaton and 

Stone 2013a). On more productive sites, structure of pinyon-juniper is moderately dissimilar to 

desired conditions. Tree density is higher. 

Resilience also varies with location and environment. On the harsher sites, the vegetation is 

generally resilient because the structure has remained more open and there is low understory 

vegetation cover. On the more productive sites, resilience is low to moderate. Higher tree density, 

accumulated fuels around the base of the trees, and higher and more decadent shrub, grass, and 

herb cover result in higher intensity fire and less resilience to drought, insects, and pathogens. 

There have been elevated levels of tree mortality in pinyon-juniper (see “Insects and Pathogen” 

section).

Mountain Mahogany

Mountain mahogany generally occurs on steep, rocky, and variable terrain and is frequently 

mixed with other types, such as Jeffrey pine forest, pinyon-juniper, and sagebrush. The current 

composition, structure, and resilience of mountain mahogany vegetation is broadly similar to the 

desired conditions and natural range of variation in the planning area. However, mineral 

development, roads, and dispersed recreation may be negatively impacting this vegetation type at 

localized scales. Here there have been changes to composition, structure and spatial pattern. In 

these localized areas, there has been a decrease in native plants and an increase in non-native 

annual grasses. The primary change has been increased fragmentation in small areas. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

160

Xeric Shrub-Blackbrush (Desert)

Xeric shrub and blackbrush occupies the lowest elevations of the planning area. This type is 

dominated by one or more desert shrub species, including but not limited to blackbrush, saltbush, 

goldenbush, and horsebrush.

The current composition, structure, and function of most xeric shrub and blackbrush ecosystems 

are consistent with the desired conditions for this vegetation type. However, portions of these arid 

shrublands have been negatively impacted by too-frequent fire (post-fire recovery of blackbrush 

is typically more than 50 to 75 years; Brooks and Minnich 2006), mining, off-highway vehicle

activity, livestock grazing, and invasive plants. In particular, non-native annual grasses, red brome 

and cheatgrass, are increasing in frequency in many xeric shrub and blackbrush communities. 

There is a corresponding decrease in native plants, away from the desired conditions. The 

increase in non-native annual grasses decreases resilience to fire dramatically. Non-native grasses 

increase the likelihood of fire, which is naturally rare in these sparsely vegetated areas. Projected 

changes in climate suggest that some xeric shrub ecosystems will expand in the planning area in 

the coming decades, and Mojave Desert associated species (such as creosote bush and Joshua 

tree) will shift northward into the lower elevations of the Great Basin (Finch 2012).

Eastside Jeffrey Pine Forest

Jeffrey pine forests are scattered along the escarpment of the Sierra Nevada, on the Kern Plateau, 

Glass Mountains, Mono Valley, and Upper Owens River area. This forest type generally occurs 

on shallow, less productive soils on middle to upper slope positions. Eastside Jeffrey pine forests 

typically occur in “pure” stands dominated by Jeffrey pine. In some areas it may be mixed with 

pinyon pine, white fir, red fir, lodgepole pine, western white pine, or limber pine. The understory 

usually consists of a low cover of herbaceous plants or shrubs such as sagebrush or bitterbrush. 

Composition is low to moderate in its similarity to desired conditions. The overstory has had less 

fire and therefore an increasing proportion of white fir, red fir, and lodgepole pine. But in most 

areas, Jeffrey pine remains the dominant tree species. The understory has had more changes and 

has a low similarity to desired conditions. This is due to an increase in non-native, annual grasses 

that displace native understory plants. Fire suppression and grazing have also resulted in changes 

in understory composition. 

Current stand structure conditions in eastside Jeffrey pine forests are different from desired 

conditions. There have been increased tree densities, a considerable shift in the tree size class 

distribution to smaller diameters, a decrease in heterogeneity and greater uniformity of forest 

structure at patch and landscape scales, increased canopy cover, and a general decrease in the 

density of large-diameter Jeffrey pine trees (Safford 2013). There is a deficit of open-canopy 

mature and old forests throughout the planning area. Surface fuels and small trees that serve as 

ladder fuels are greater than the desired condition.

Resilience of Jeffrey pine forests is low to very low. Increased density has made them more 

susceptible to drought, insects and pathogens, climate change, and high-intensity fire-related 

mortality. Climate projections of eastside Jeffrey pine forests suggest this forest type will shift 

upwards to the higher elevations on the eastside Sierra Nevada (Finch 2012, Schwartz et al. 

2013). 

Red Fir Forest

See “Westside Vegetation Types” section.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

161

Mixed-conifer Forest

See “Westside Vegetation Types” section. 

Subalpine and Alpine Vegetation

Subalpine forests on the east side of the Sierra Nevada crest are primarily covered in the 

“Westside Vegetation Types” section. However, eastside Sierra Nevada subalpine landscapes 

contain a number of species that are absent or rare on the westside, such as limber pine. There are 

other species that are limited to other areas in the eastside and Great Basin, notably the 

bristlecone pine. The White, Inyo, and Glass Mountains contain other subalpine and alpine 

species not found in the eastside of the Sierra Nevada, such as the bristlecone cryptantha, July 

Gold, White Mountains draba, and White Mountains wild buckwheat. Eastside elevation 

gradients tend to be more dramatic than on the west side, including in many subalpine landscapes, 

leading to rapid changes in species composition and structure of eastside, high-elevation 

ecosystems. 

As with westside subalpine and alpine ecosystems, the current composition and structure of

eastside subalpine and alpine ecosystems are mostly similar to desired conditions, with a few 

exceptions already noted in the “Westside Vegetation” section (Meyer 2013b). Resilience is 

similar as well. Climate vulnerability of eastside subalpine forests is also among the highest of all

vegetation types in the planning area. The impacts of climate change will affect connectivity of 

subalpine forests, especially in the latter half of the 21st century.

Environmental Consequences to

Vegetation Composition, Structure, and Resilience 

This analysis focuses on vegetation types most departed from the natural range of variation and 

vegetation desired conditions in the draft forest plans. These vegetation types are also the focus of 

restoration actions (mechanical and prescribed fire treatments and managing wildfire to meet 

resource objectives) and where the greatest potential consequences will occur. This includes 

ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, eastside Jeffrey pine, black oak, pinyon-juniper, and sagebrush 

vegetation types. There will be some increased emphasis on restoration actions in upper montane 

red fir and lodgepole pine forests in some alternatives and on the eastside around developed areas. 

There will be some management of chaparral in westside foothills near developed areas. For other 

vegetation types, there will likely be little management activity and as a result, little to no 

expected consequences. This includes blue oak woodlands, subalpine, alpine, desert (xeric 

shrub/blackbrush) and mountain mahogany vegetation types. 

Consequences Common to all Alternatives

Alternatives B, C, and D share most of the same vegetation desired condition plan components 

(Table 40). The differences are in some of the overlapping desired conditions for some wideranging wildlife species, namely the California spotted owl and Pacific fisher. Below is a 

discussion of the general nature and environmental consequences of the large number of shared 

vegetation desired conditions. 

The vegetation desired conditions for these alternatives are specific to each major vegetation type 

and include desired ranges and often median levels of seral stages and canopy cover, basal area, 

snags, and large tree densities (Table 41). These are based on a combination of best available 

scientific information that reflects the natural range of variation (Safford 2013, Meyer 2013a, 

Slaton and Stone 2013b) and habitat requirements for wide-ranging federally-listed species or 

species of conservation concern (greater sage-grouse, California spotted owl, Pacific fisher; see 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

162

Vegetation Desired Condition supplementary report). There are more general desired conditions 

that are important, but there is no specific best scientific information to base them on. This 

includes forest heterogeneity (North et al. 2009, North 2012).

Table 40. Draft forest plan desired conditions for vegetation across all vegetation types

Vegetation Function Desired Conditions

Mosaic providing ecosystem integrity and diversity. Provides habitat for 

native and desirable non-native plant and animal species.

TERR-FW-DC-01; 

SPEC-FW-DC 1

Resilience to climate change, drought, insects and pathogens TERR-FW-DC-02

Conditions contribute to recovery and persistence of threatened and 

endangered species and species of conservation concern 

TERR-FW-DC-03; 

SPEC-FW-DC-02 

Provides landscape connectivity for wide-ranging habitat generalist (deer) 

and habitat specialist (old forest and sagebrush) species

TERR-FW-DC-04; 

SPEC-SG-DC 04;

Carbon carrying capacity is stable or improving TERR-FW-DC-05

Fire occurs within ecologically appropriate regime and enhances 

ecosystem heterogeneity, habitat and species diversity. Vegetation 

conditions help reduce the threat of undesirable wildfires to local 

communities, ecosystems and scenic character.

TERR-FW-DC-06,7

Landscape sustainability provides a variety of benefits to people TERR-FW-DC-08

Vegetation supports continued use by tribes TERR-FW-DC-09

Table 41. Draft forest plan desired conditions by ecological zone and major vegetation types 

Ecological Zone Vegetation Types Desired Conditions

Westside Foothill Blue Oak Woodlands; Live 

oak/chaparral

TERR-BLU-DC 01-03;

TERR-CHAP-DC 01-02 

Montane Zone Ponderosa Pine, Black Oak, Dry 

Mixed Conifer, Moist Mixed Conifer

TERR-MONT-DC 01-07; 

TERR-BLCK-DC: 01-03 

TERR-POND-DC 01-05; 

TERR-DMC-DC 01-06; 

TERR-MMC-DC 01-06 

Upper Montane Zone Red fir, Jeffrey pine, Moist 

lodgepole pine, Dry lodgepole pine; 

Montane chaparral

TERR-UPPR-DC 01-03;

TERR-RFIR-DC 01-07;

TERR-UMJF-DC 01-07;

TERR-MCHP-DC 01-02; 

Subalpine/Alpine Subalpine conifer, Alpine dwarf 

shrub

TERR-ALPN-DC 01-04 

Pinyon-Juniper/Sagebrush Sagebrush, Pinyon Juniper, 

Mountain Mahogany

TERR-SAGE-DC 01-04;

TERR-PINY-DC 01-05;

TERR-MOMA-DC 01-02;

SPEC-SG-DC 08 

Desert Xeric Shrub/Blackbrush TERR-XER-DC 01-04 

Eastside Montane and Upper 

Montane

Eastside Jeffrey Pine Inyo: TERR-OAK-DC 01;

TERR-MJF-DC 01-07 

For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that when vegetation treatments move vegetation 

toward the vegetation desired conditions, the vegetation moves toward the natural range of 

variation and has associated benefits of moving toward ecological integrity and sustainability. The 

landscape amount and intensity of the treatments affect how much the vegetation moves toward

desired conditions. Low-intensity treatments, where little area is treated or slight changes are 

made, would have a slight improvement in vegetation conditions (Schmidt et al. 2006, Stephens 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

163

et al. 2015). When more area is treated, particularly at the landscape scale, there is a greater 

positive impact on ecological integrity and sustainability. For example, in the “Fire Trends” 

section, the effect of restoring between 40 and 60 percent of the landscape was sufficient to result 

in reduced trends in large fires and associated large, high-severity patches that are considered 

outside the natural range of variation (van Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman 2006, Collins and 

Skinner 2014, Stephens et al. 2015).

The same treatment means are available across each of the alternatives but will be used to varying 

degrees. Treatments would include mechanical thinning (various prescriptions, understory, varied 

diameter), salvage, mastication, prescribed fire (small and landscape, by itself or with mechanical 

treatment) and wildfire managed for resource objectives. The environmental consequences 

depend upon the extent and intensity of the treatment, and the vegetation type it is applied in. 

Below is a brief description of the array of restoration treatments that will be used and a summary 

of the overall consequences for the major vegetation types they will be applied to. This includes 

the more recent and relevant best available scientific information. A more detailed discussion of 

the best available science is found in the Vegetation Ecology supplemental report.

Mechanical Treatments: Westside Montane Forests

Restoration treatments (mechanical, prescribed fire) can be highly effective at restoring forest 

structural features (canopy cover, tree density, heterogeneity) and overstory tree species 

composition in lower and upper montane forests (Larson et al. 2012, North 2012, 2014; North et 

al. 2007, 2009). However, the type and intensity of treatment can result in varying levels of 

change in forest structure.

In long-term monitoring plots on Forest Service study sites in California, both overstory and polesized tree densities were effectively reduced following mechanical treatment but fuels levels 

increased 8 years following treatment due to vegetation re-growth and dead fuel accumulation 

(Vaillant et al. 2015). Similarly, research fuel treatment plots also resulted in decreases in tree 

density (Stephens and Moghaddas 2005). There are two types of thinning that would occur in 

alternatives B, C, and D. One is thinning from below where smaller diameter trees are removed. 

The second is variable diameter thinning where smaller diameter understory trees and some larger 

diameter midstory or overstory trees are removed. There is no specific research to compare the 

effects of these two approaches on moving vegetation toward the desired conditions. However, in 

many stands that have densities exceeding the desired conditions, thinning from below will 

remove fewer trees and have a limited effect of moving stands toward desired conditions for 

canopy cover, basal area, or heterogeneity. This is especially likely where there are large numbers 

of mid-sized trees dominating a stand, such as following railroad logging. 

Prescribed Fire and

Wildfire Managed for Resource Objectives: Westside Montane Forests

Prescribed fire can restore understory species composition (Wayman and North 2007, Webster 

and Halpern 2010), and reduce tree density (Stephens and Moghaddas 2005, Valliant et al. 2015). 

The amount of reduction in overstory tree density depends on the intensity and size of the fire. 

Low-intensity fires have little to no effect on overstory tree density and composition, but 

moderate-intensity fire has been found to reduce forest density by up to 70 percent and basal area 

by 20 percent (Schmidt et al. 2006). There is little research on the effects of prescribed fire on 

heterogeneity, but the prevailing view is that prescribed fire can increase heterogeneity if it is 

incorporated into the burn prescription (Collins and Skinner 2014), especially if it is moderate 

intensity (Schmidt et al. 2006). Larger landscape prescribed fire or wildfire managed for resource 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

164

objectives are likely to restore heterogeneity at multiple spatial scales (Collins et al. 2011, Kane et 

al. 2013, 2014, Meyer 2015). This may be due in part to more varying fire intensity with larger 

burn areas, across a wider range of conditions (burning day and night, on different days). 

Mechanical and Prescribed Fire Treatments: Westside Montane Forests

Many studies show that the combination of mechanical thinning and prescribed or wildfire 

managed to meet resource objectives are the most effective in reducing vegetation density, 

restoring understory and overstory composition, and increasing heterogeneity (North et al. 2007, 

Collins et al. 2007, Collins et al. 2014). This is especially the case for understory composition. 

Many plants in the analysis area in areas that had frequent fire historically, are fire adapted (FitesKaufman et al. 2006, van Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman 2006).

The longevity of restoration treatments depends largely on the growth rates of the plants that have 

been affected by the treatments. For understory trees and shrubs, reduced density only lasts 8 to 

15 years because they grow back rapidly (Stephens et al. 2012, Chiono et al. 2012, and Vaillant et 

al. 2015). On the other hand, fire-induced reductions in tree density took up to 8 years to be 

realized in one prescribed fire study in the analysis area (van Mantgem et al. 2011).

Mechanical and

Prescribed Fire Treatments: Westside and Eastside Upper Montane Forests

Most of the literature on the ecological restoration of upper montane forests is partially covered 

and summarized in the technical reports also devoted to lower montane forests (North et al. 2009, 

North 2012, Long et al. 2014, and Safford 2013). This overlap is especially evident for Jeffrey 

pine forests on the east and west sides of the Sierra Nevada crest. Consequently, information 

pertaining to the restoration of Jeffrey pine and some other upper montane forests are presented in 

the Westside Montane sections above. 

The best information pertaining to the effectiveness of mechanical treatments at restoring

structural heterogeneity in red fir stands comes from research conducted at the Teakettle 

Experimental Forest. Understory thinning in red fir-mixed conifer stands at Teakettle resulted in 

reduced stem density and a residual spatial tree pattern that was closest to historic conditions (that 

is, reduced tree clustering at smaller spatial scales; North et al. 2007). Consequently, understory 

thinning increased structural heterogeneity at smaller spatial scales. At the Teakettle 

Experimental Forest, prescribed burning decreased red fir-mixed conifer stand densities but had 

no effect on canopy cover. In contrast, stands at Teakettle treated with mechanical thinning 

followed by prescribed burning had substantially lower densities and canopy cover than untreated 

stands or those treated with prescribed burning alone (North et al. 2007). Consequently, posttreatment stand structure in the combined understory-thin and burn treatment was closer to the 

historic conditions and resulted in generally greater stand structural heterogeneity than found in 

stands treated with a single restoration treatment (mechanical thinning or prescribed burning 

alone). The combination of mechanical and prescribed fire treatments were most effective at 

restoring stand structure, but only in cases where the mechanical treatments retained the largestdiameter trees in the stand (North et al. 2007, 2009).

In red fir forests, low severity fire is especially conducive to increasing forest structural 

heterogeneity at multiple spatial scales (Kane et al. 2013). In addition, surface fuel loading tended 

to be two times higher in unburned than twice-burned red fir stands of Yosemite National Park, 

with high variation in fuel loading among burned and unburned sites (Meyer et al. 2015). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

165

Mechanical and Prescribed Fire Treatments: Eastside Shrublands and Woodlands

There are three general purposes for treatments that will occur in eastside shrublands and 

woodlands. First, there is reduction of fire hazard around communities and developed areas where 

intensive treatments such as mechanical mowing or crushing will occur. Second, there is removal 

or reduction in density of conifers in sagebrush habitat. This generally includes thinning but the 

treatment of slash can vary from removal, to piling or scattering. Third, there are treatments to 

restore heterogeneity, age and size diversity, and understory in sagebrush areas.

Woody vegetation reduction by any means, either prescribed fire or burning can result in higher 

herbaceous cover (McIver et al. 2014). Where slash is removed there can be benefits to plant 

species richness and diversity (Brockway et al. 2002). Prescribed fire can be effective at 

removing woody vegetation but may result in a greater risk of invasion by non-native annual 

plants (Chambers et al. 2014, Miller et al. 2014a, and Pyke et al. 2014). Mechanical treatments 

can more directly target individual trees that are desired to be removed but also can lead to 

increased non-native plant invasion (Chambers et al. 2014, Miller et al. 2014a, and Pyke et al. 

2014).

Treatment of shrub vegetation with mowing and prescribed fire have varying effects on the 

understory but different effects on the shrub layer. Some researchers found increases in native 

herbaceous and perennial grass species with prescribed fire or mowing (Bourne and Bunting 

2011, Chambers et al. 2014, Miller et al. 2014a, McIver et al. 2014), whereas others found 

decreases (Pyke et al. 2014). Shrub cover responses varied with decreases reported after 

prescribed fire (Roundy et al. 2014) or mowing (Bourne and Bunting 2011). In some cases, shrub 

cover decreased for the first year (Bourne and Bunting 2011) but then cover and seedling density 

rebounded or increased by year three (Miller et al. 2014a). Miller et al. (2014a) summarized the 

shrub changes in terms of greater sage-grouse habitat and reported an increase of three times in 

shrub cover for prescribed fire and two times pre-treatment levels for mechanical treatments.

Mechanical treatments in eastside pinyon-juniper and sagebrush ecosystems may include the 

cutting and falling of encroaching conifers, followed by the piling or scattering of slash or 

removal of slash offsite. Mastication treatments can be applied to mow and mulch shrubs and 

small trees. Slash may be chipped to alter and redistribute surface fuels. Conifer removal and 

mastication treatments are generally effective at restoring ecosystem structure and are considered 

low to moderate intensity methods with less impact on biological soil crusts and invasive species 

spread than high intensity mechanical methods (e.g., chaining, bulldozing, plowing; Chambers et 

al. 2014, Miller et al. 2014a). Mechanical treatments of encroached conifers in sagebrush 

ecosystems generally result in increased native herbaceous plant cover and diversity (including 

native forbs and perennial grasses), increased native shrub abundance, reduced canopy and ladder 

fuel loading, and increased fine surface fuel loading (Roundy et al. 2014). Mechanical treatments 

are most effective in promoting native herbaceous plant and sagebrush cover and inhibiting 

cheatgrass cover with the application of post-treatment management approaches, such as delayed 

grazing coupled with post-treatment monitoring (Chambers et al. 2014, Miller et al. 2014a). 

Cheatgrass abundance may actually increase following mechanical treatments in the absence of 

these post-treatment measures (Chambers et al. 2007, Miller et al. 2014b).

Prescribed fire is often applied in pinyon-juniper and sagebrush ecosystems to restore ecosystem 

structure and composition (Chambers et al. 2014, Miller et al. 2014a, 2014b). Applied alone or in 

combination with mechanical treatments, prescribed fire can be effective at reducing the densities 

of encroaching conifers, increasing sagebrush seedling density, increasing native forb and grass 

cover, reducing ladder and surface fuel loading, and decreasing overall biomass (Miller et al. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

166

2012-2, Rau et al. 2010). Prescribed fire is particularly effective at restoring ecosystem 

composition and mitigating cheatgrass invisibility within sagebrush ecosystems with relatively 

high ecological integrity (in the early to mid-phase of pinyon or juniper expansion; Chambers et 

al. 2014). In contrast, the application of prescribed fire can exacerbate cheatgrass invisibility in 

sagebrush ecosystems lacking sufficient pre-fire cover or seed banks of residual native grasses 

and forbs (as in the late-phase of pinyon or juniper invasion; Jones et al. 2015, Miller et al. 

2014b). Additionally, prescribed fire (especially at higher burn intensities) can reduce the 

abundance of biological soil crusts (Miller et al. 2014b), which reduces the resistance of 

sagebrush ecosystems to cheatgrass invasion (Chambers et al. 2007). However, proper pre-fire 

fuel mitigation such as mechanical treatments and post-fire management (like grazing 

management) may help reduce some of the impacts of prescribed fire to biological soil crusts 

(Miller et al. 2014a).

Invasive Plant Treatments All Areas

Alternatives B, C, and D include similar measures to mitigate the invasion and spread of nonnative species such as risk assessment and rapid identification and control where possible.

Ecological Fire Resilience

Ecological fire resilience is most important at the landscape scale. Individual small patches of 

high fire severity are within the natural range of variation (van Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman 

2006). The consequences of large areas of high severity and proportions exceeding the natural 

range of variation are important. To analyze these consequences, ecological fire resilience was 

analyzed using “benchmark” or generalized landscape restoration levels of 15, 30, 60 and 100 

percent of the landscape (see “Fire Trends” section, scenario modeling discussion). The specific 

locations of restoration treatments are not identified in the draft programmatic plans or 

alternatives. These results were used to make inferences on the consequences of the different 

levels and spatial patterns of restoration among the alternatives. See discussion in the “Fire 

Trends” section for more detail on the effects of landscape changes in vegetation and effects on 

fire and potential for large, high-intensity fires.

The changes in ecological fire resilience for the scenarios are shown in Figure 30. For the primary 

forest types where restoration would occur (ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, black oak-ponderosa 

pine, red fir, Jeffrey pine) high resilience is where less than 25 percent of the area would burn as 

crown fire. Low resilience is where more than 75 percent of these areas would burn as crown fire. 

While the scenarios were not developed specifically for the alternatives, alternative A would be 

most similar to the current condition or 15 percent restoration scenarios, alternative B would be 

most similar to the 15 percent or 30 percent scenarios, alternative C would be similar to the 15 

percent scenario, and alternative D would be most similar to the 30 percent to 60 percent 

scenarios.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

167

Figure 30. Landscape ecological fire resilience by restoration scenarios

Note: Areas in dark red are very low resilience, orange are low resilience, yellow is moderate resilience, and green is high 

resilience. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

168

Comparison of Composition and Structure by Alternative

Table 42 through Table 47 show how similar vegetation composition and structure would be to 

desired conditions by ecological zone and vegetation type for each alternative. Table 42 shows 

westside foothill vegetation, Table 43 and Table 44 show westside montane vegetation, Table 45

shows upper montane vegetation, Table 46 shows eastside arid shrub and woodland vegetation 

(sagebrush, pinyon-juniper, and xeric shrub and blackbrush), and Table 47 shows the Kern River 

drainage (Jeffrey pine, mixed conifer, upper montane and subalpine forests and woodlands). This 

area is intermediate between westside and eastside vegetation. A discussion of the consequences 

by alternative follows.

Table 42. Similarity to vegetation composition and structure desired conditions for westside foothill 

vegetation by alternative

Characteristic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Composition Low to moderate Moderate Same as B Same as B

Composition

(Invasive plants) 

Low Low-moderate

(restoration 

areas)

Low Same as B, or 

slightly lower

Structure Low to moderate Moderate 

(restoration 

areas)

Low to moderate Slightly greater 

than B

Table 43. Similarity to vegetation composition and structure desired conditions for westside 

montane vegetation by alternative

Characteristic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Composition Low (limited 

restoration)

Low-moderate 

(restoration areas 

in focus 

landscapes)

Low (limited 

restoration)

Somewhat greater 

than B (more 

restoration)

Composition

(Invasive plants) 

Moderate Moderate, slightly 

greater than A

(restoration areas

in focus 

landscapes) 

Moderate Slightly less than B

Structure Low (limited 

restoration)

Somewhat 

greater than A; 

Low (outside 

focus 

landscapes) 

moderate 

(restoration areas 

in focus 

landscapes 

within fire 

protection zones)

Low (limited 

restoration)

Somewhat greater 

than B (more 

restoration)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

169

Table 44. Similarity to vegetation composition and structure desired conditions for westside 

montane vegetation by alternative and location relative to the fire protection zones and focus 

landscapes

Characteristic

Inside fire 

protection zones, 

outside focus 

landscapes

Inside fire 

protection 

zones and focus 

landscapes

Outside fire 

protection 

zones, inside 

focus 

landscapes

Outside fire 

protection zones, 

and focus 

landscapes

Composition Low (limited 

restoration, slightly 

greater than A)

Moderate Low to moderate 

(less in stands 

originating from 

railroad logging)

Low, similar to A

Composition

(Invasive Plants)

Low (limited 

restoration, slightly 

greater than A)

Low to moderate

(restoration areas

in focus 

landscapes)

Low to moderate 

(less in stands 

originating from 

railroad logging)

Low, similar to A

Structure Low (limited 

restoration, slightly 

greater than A)

Moderate Low to moderate 

(less in stands 

originating from 

railroad logging)

Low, similar to A

Table 45. Similarity to vegetation composition and structure desired conditions for upper montane 

vegetation by alternative

Characteristic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Composition Low-moderate 

(Jeffrey pine) to 

Moderate (Red fir 

and lodgepole 

pine)

Increase 

Moderate (some 

restoration and 

increased 

managed fire)

Slight increase 

Low-moderate 

(increased 

managed fire)

Increase Slightly 

more than B

Composition

(Invasive plants) 

Moderate Slight increase 

from A

(restoration 

areas)

Moderate Slightly greater 

than B (restoration 

areas)

Structure Low (limited 

restoration)

Low-moderate 

(restoration 

areas, mainly 

increased 

managed fire)

Slight increase over 

A (increased 

managed fire)

More than B (more 

restoration)

Table 46. Similarity to vegetation composition and structure desired conditions for eastside pinyonjuniper ad sagebrush by alternative 

Characteristic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Composition Low (limited 

restoration)

Low to moderate 

(restoration 

areas) 

Same as B More than B (more 

restoration)

Composition

(Invasive plants) 

Low to moderate 

(low in low 

elevations) 

Slight increase 

from A

(restoration 

areas)

Slight increase in 

similarity to desired 

conditions from A 

(restoration areas)

Less similarity to 

desired condition 

as compared to B 

(and similar to A)

Structure Low (limited 

restoration)

Low to moderate 

(restoration 

areas)

Moderate

(more similar to 

desired conditions 

because more 

treatments in 

sagebrush)

More than B (more 

restoration)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

170

Table 47. Similarity to vegetation composition and structure desired conditions for eastside Jeffrey 

pine, mixed conifer, upper montane and subalpine forests and woodlands by alternative

Characteristic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Composition Low (limited 

restoration)

Low to moderate 

(restoration 

areas)

Same as B More than B (more 

restoration)

Composition

(Invasive plants) 

Low to moderate 

(low in low 

elevations) 

Slight increase 

from A

(restoration 

areas)

Slight increase in 

similarity to desired 

conditions from A 

(restoration areas)

Less similarity to 

desired conditions 

as compared to B 

(and similar to A)

Structure Low (limited 

restoration)

Low-moderate 

(restoration 

areas)

Less than B More than B (more 

restoration)

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Although the current plans aspire to treat 20 to 30 percent of the forest to reduce fuels, this has 

not been achieved. It is estimated that 5 to 10 percent of the montane and eastside sagebrush and 

pinyon-juniper areas have been treated since 2001. Most of the treatment would occur in the 

wildland-urban intermix and in the montane zone on the west side and in the sagebrush, pinyonjuniper and wildland-urban intermix area on the east side.

Westside Foothills Vegetation

There is limited treatment in alternative A in the foothills. Most will occur in the wildland-urban 

intermix defense and threat zones, near communities and key infrastructure (like communication 

towers). These treatments will be oriented toward fire protection and will move chaparral toward

fire desired conditions. Blue oak woodlands will continue to be managed primarily for grazing. 

There may be occasional restoration projects in coordination with local tribes in areas of tribal 

importance. These will be limited in scale and number. 

Composition. There would continue to be some areas that are similar to desired conditions that 

have been treated previously. But this is primarily from areas treated for fuel hazard reduction in 

wildland-urban intermix defense and threat zones. Ground-disturbing treatments in this zone 

could increase the amount and extent of annual invasive grasses, especially cheatgrass. There is 

plan direction to minimize the spread of invasive plants but it is difficult to keep out of restored 

areas because it is so prevalent in the foothill zone.

Structure. Treatment of chaparral in the wildland-urban intermix defense and threat zones would 

result in more uniformly younger seral stages. Outside of the wildland-urban intermix defense 

and threat zones, much of the chaparral is very old but not outside the natural range of variation. 

Increases in large, high-intensity fire may lead to large uniformly younger and fewer areas that 

are old. The Rough Fire in 2015 that burned in the Kings River Canyon burned at high intensity 

in old chaparral. While fires of these intensities are natural in chaparral because of the fuel 

conditions and typical locations in steep canyons, the size of the fire may have been larger than 

would have occurred historically. 

Blue oak woodlands will continue to remain in the same condition they are now, but may worsen 

because of the stress of warmer climate (Rodriquez-Buritica and Suding 2013). This includes 

further reductions in regeneration and increases in overstory mortality rates. Little to no 

restoration occurs in blue oak woodlands and this trend would be expected to continue. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

171

Resilience to Fire, Drought, Air Pollutants, Climate Change, Insects, and Pathogens.

Resilience to drought, air pollutants, climate change, insects and pathogens is declining and will 

continue to worsen in the near future (Sydoriak et al. 20130). The low levels of restoration 

treatments in the foothills would not substantially increase resilience in this vegetation zone.

Westside Montane Forests

Overall treatment rates are limited in alternative A. Generally, less than 5 to 10 percent of the 

landscape has been restored over the last 10 years. On most of the landscape, there is limited 

flexibility to restore composition and structure because of management direction for the 

California spotted owl that emphasizes retaining tree cover. The treatments in these forest types 

are usually low intensity due to restrictions on the amount of canopy cover that can be reduced. 

As a result, composition, structure, and resilience would remain dissimilar to vegetation desired 

conditions. 

Composition. There would continue to be a high proportion of shade-tolerant and fire-intolerant 

trees in the overstory and understory. There would be limited opportunities to restore dominance 

or codominance of ponderosa or Jeffrey pine due to diameter limits that restrict removal of 

competing shade-tolerant species such as white fir and incense cedar that have grown quickly 

during a century of fire suppression. This is particularly a challenge in the nearly 100,000 acres 

(primarily on the Sierra National Forest) that were harvested in the early 1900s by railroad 

logging. In these stands, the trees are now mostly greater than 30 inches in diameter, but are 

growing densely and with a structure and composition that are moving away from the desired 

condition. Similarly, there would be limited opportunity to restore black oak overstory and 

understory primarily due to diameter limits and canopy cover requirements. There would be little 

opportunity to provide sufficient light for ponderosa or Jeffrey pine regeneration due to the 

direction to retain canopy cover and diameter limits that make it difficult to create sunny 

openings of sufficient size where pine seedlings and saplings can grow. Limited amounts of 

prescribed fire would result in little restoration of understory plants that are adapted to fire. 

Structure. There could be restoration to increase heterogeneity, but restrictions on changing 

canopy cover in California spotted owl and Pacific fisher habitat limit how much change would 

occur. While treatments primarily reduce understory trees, there would continue to be a high 

dissimilarity to vegetation desired conditions in most of the landscape. 

Resilience to Fire, Drought, Air Pollutants, Climate Change, Insects, and Pathogens. The 

low proportion of the landscape that would be restored and the low intensity of treatments make it 

highly likely most of the area would continue to have a low resilience to drought, climate change, 

insects, pathogens, and large, high-intensity fire.

Westside Upper Montane Forests

There would continue to be limited mechanical treatment and prescribed fire restoration in upper 

montane forests in alternative A. There would be some wildfire managed to meet resource 

objectives, especially in the Kern River drainage and some wilderness areas. These managed fires 

would generally move upper montane forests toward vegetation desired conditions. Composition, 

structure and resilience of montane chaparral and upper montane Jeffrey pine would benefit from 

fire.

Composition. Restoration treatments would move understory tree composition toward desired 

conditions in Jeffrey pine forests. Shade- and fire-intolerant white fir would be removed up to the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

172

diameter limit. Mechanical treatments and fire would have a similar beneficial effect. There 

would be little change in composition of red fir forests and lodgepole pine forests because they 

tend to be the dominant species, with or without restoration. Understory composition would 

continue to improve with restoration, especially where it includes fire (Wayman and North 2007). 

Where wildfire is managed to meet resource objectives, it would improve montane chaparral 

composition. Many of these species in montane chaparral are adapted to fire.

Structure. Restoration treatments would move some areas slightly toward desired conditions and 

others substantially. Mechanical treatments would move areas slightly toward desired conditions 

because of restrictions on changes in canopy cover and diameter limit for California spotted owl. 

There would be limited ability to reduce forest density and most importantly in the upper 

montane forests, increase heterogeneity. Where large areas have wildfire managed to meet 

resource objectives there would be increased heterogeneity and a decreased vegetation density. 

Chaparral would have more of a mosaic of age structure. Jeffrey pine and red fir forests would

have increased heterogeneity, reduced and patchier surface fuels and increased resilience.

Resilience to Fire, Drought, Air Pollutants, Climate Change, Insects, and Pathogens.

Restoration treatments would continue to be at a very low level, except for more remote areas 

(like the Kern River drainage and wilderness areas) that have had and will likely continue to have 

wildfire managed to meet resource objectives. The more remote areas have a moderate level of 

resilience and the Kern River drainage would likely increase to a high level of resilience over the 

period of the plan. The other areas would likely remain at a low level of resilience.

Westside Subalpine and Alpine Vegetation

There is little direct management of subalpine and alpine vegetation in alternative A. Most of this 

vegetation is in wilderness areas, where natural processes are the dominant management 

approach. Exceptions are in limited locations where recreation use is concentrated.

Composition. Alternative A would continue to minimize the spread of invasive plants in 

subalpine and alpine environments where restoration treatment activities are supported (like ski 

areas).

Structure and Resilience. Subalpine and alpine vegetation are among the most vulnerable to 

climate change (Meyer 2013b, Sydoriak et al. 2013). Management in the remote areas, mostly 

wilderness where these vegetation types occur, would continue to be very limited. With changing 

climate, in the absence of restoration, mortality of some subalpine trees (like whitebark pine) 

would continue to increase.

Sagebrush

Restoration of sagebrush habitats would continue to implement the “Sage-Grouse Interim

Management Policy” for greater sage-grouse; however, there is the least amount of restoration in 

sagebrush vegetation in alternative A. Restoration of composition and structure would be limited 

to small areas and a very small proportion of the extent that this vegetation type occurs, especially 

on the Inyo National Forest. 

Composition. There would be limited areas that will move vegetation toward desired conditions. 

There would be fewer opportunities to remove conifers encroaching in sagebrush vegetation. 

Alternative A would continue to minimize the spread of invasive plants in arid shrublands and 

woodlands because there would be fewer restoration treatments. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

173

Structure. There would continue to be many areas that are dissimilar to desired conditions for a 

mosaic of ages of sagebrush. There would continue to be large areas where many of the shrubs 

are older and decadent (lack new growth). 

Resilience to Fire, Drought, Air Pollutants, Climate Change, Insects, and Pathogens. There 

would continue to be a low resilience to large, high-intensity fire and climate change. Low 

structural diversity and limited reduction of invasive plants would make it likely that resilience 

will decline further. There would continue to be a high dissimilarity to desired conditions. 

Pinyon-Juniper Forests

Treatments in pinyon-juniper and arid shrublands are limited in alternative A. Most of it would 

continue to occur in the wildland-urban intermix defense and threat zones. 

Composition. There would be limited opportunities to reduce or eradicate non-native invasive 

plants. These areas would continue to remain dissimilar to desired conditions for understory 

species composition. Targeted treatments to reduce or eradicate non-native invasive plants would

continue to occur. However, there would likely continue to be an increase in the area occupied by 

non-native invasive plants.

Structure. Limited restoration would leave many areas with higher pinyon and juniper density 

where they exceed desired conditions. This is only a portion of the pinyon and juniper vegetation. 

Areas on very harsh sites would remain similar to desired conditions.

Resilience to Fire, Drought, Air Pollutants, Climate Change, Insects, and Pathogens. There 

would continue to be large areas that are dissimilar to desired conditions and have high levels of 

insect-related mortality. Current trends of elevated insect and drought-related mortality are likely 

to increase. There would continue to be areas with low resilience to drought, climate change, 

insects and pathogens, and large, high-intensity fire.

Eastside Jeffrey Pine Forests

There would continue to be limited treatments to restore Jeffrey pine forests in alternative A. The 

treatments would continue to be focused on reductions in forest density with associated fuel wood 

production and prescribed fire. 

Composition. Most areas would continue to remain dissimilar to desired conditions because of 

the limited levels of restoration. There are some areas with white fir ingrowth that would benefit 

from increased thinning. The greatest benefit of restoration on composition is to the native 

understory plants. Limited prescribed fire and thinning would result in many areas continuing to 

be dissimilar to desired conditions. Many of the plants in eastside Jeffrey pine forest are adapted 

to frequent fire.

Structure. Treatments to reduce forest density, increase forest heterogeneity, reduce surface fuels 

and restore fire would be limited in area.

Resilience to Fire, Drought, Air Pollutants, Climate Change, Insects, and Pathogens.

Restoration treatments would increase resilience to drought, climate change, insects, and 

pathogens in these treated areas but the negative effects of the stressors would outpace the 

restoration. There would be little to no increase in resilience to large, high-intensity fire because 

the area restored would be small and the intensity of treatments low. Resilience to large, highintensity fire, drought, climate change, insects, and pathogens would remain very low to low. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

174

Eastside Upper Montane Forests

There would continue to be limited treatments in red fir and lodgepole pine forests, except in the 

wildland-urban intermix. This is primarily in the Mammoth Lakes area. These treatments 

emphasize thinning of small trees (which contribute ladder fuels) and reducing surface fuels (by 

piling and burning). 

Composition. These treatments can move the vegetation slightly toward the vegetation desired 

conditions for composition but the effect is minor. Pile burning tends to heat the soil in 

concentrated areas and decrease native seed and underground structures (such as tubers), while 

increasing the likelihood of establishment of non-native invasive plants.

Structure. The removal of small trees would decrease some tree density but fuel treatments tend 

to make vegetation more uniform and do not increase heterogeneity. 

Resilience to Fire, Drought, Air Pollutants, Climate Change, Insects, and Pathogens. There 

would be some limited benefits to resilience. Reductions in tree density would increase resilience 

in the localized area but not provide for landscape resilience that is needed for large, highintensity fires.

Eastside Subalpine and Alpine Vegetation

See “Westside Subalpine and Alpine Vegetation” subsection on page 172. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative A

There would continue to be effects of warming and drier climate into the foreseeable future. The 

effects of climate change would be more prominent than the restoration benefits because of the 

low amount, small scale, and limited intensity of restoration in alternative A (see “Climate” 

section). There would continue to be restoration on adjacent Federal, State and local agency lands 

(such as Los Angeles Department of Water and Power) that are similar to those on National 

Forest System lands. Restoration on these other lands would also be limited. There would 

continue to be urbanized development adjacent to national forest lands and increased recreational 

visitor use. There would likely be related increases in human-ignited fires and spread of invasive 

plants as a result of the combination of increased human presence and climate change. The size 

and area of large, high-intensity fires would continue to increase (see “Fire Trends” section). 

Overall, vegetation composition, structure, and resilience would become more dissimilar to 

desired conditions.

Consequences Specific to Alternative B 

In this alternative, plan direction for vegetation management would change desired conditions, 

objectives, standards and guides, management approaches, and goals that would affect vegetation 

composition, structure and resilience. The degree of change varies by vegetation type and 

location. The most overarching changes are described here and the remainder in specific 

vegetation types and locations as relevant. 

All Areas

Throughout all of the analysis area, there are two fire-related management areas that have 

different vegetation-related plan direction and each would have different impacts. They are the 

strategic fire management zones and the community buffers.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

175

Community buffers are linear areas surrounding communities and, on the Inyo National Forest, 

they surround developed recreation sites at high fire risk. The widths are based on expected fire 

behavior. The desired conditions for vegetation may be different in the community protection 

zone, with lower canopy cover, snag densities, log densities, and surface fuels (MA-CWPZ-GDL01). Otherwise, management direction for fire-oriented treatments is consistent with desired 

conditions for terrestrial vegetation (MA-CWPZ-GDL-02).

There are several differences in plan components in the two wildfire protection zones compared 

to the other strategic fire management zones that would affect the mix and intensity of vegetation 

treatments and thus vegetation consequences. The direction on large-diameter trees differs as 

shown in Table 48. 

Table 48. Application of large tree plan components across strategic fire management zones, 

alternative B

Plan Direction

Inside Wildfire 

Protection Zones

Outside Wildfire 

Protection Zones

TERR-FW-STD-01 

(30-inch diameter limit)

Does not apply Applies, same as 

alterative A

TERR-OLD-DC-07

(desired densities of large trees by forest type) 

Applies Applies

Although there are desired conditions for old forest, in the two wildfire protection zones there are 

no diameter limits on large trees that can be removed mechanically. This may result in more 

intensive thinning in some areas. It is not known how much. Outside of the two wildfire 

protection zones, the standard restricting removal of 30-inch diameter trees is retained (TERRFW-STD-01). This may have consequences for old forests and is discussed in the following 

subsection on “Terrestrial Ecosystem Processes and Function.” There would also be more use of 

wildfire managed to meet resource objectives, primarily outside of the wildfire protection zones. 

This would result in more restoration of vegetation using this treatment. This would most likely 

occur in upper montane and subalpine vegetation types.

Westside Areas

Focus landscapes are areas that have different suites of standards and guides in them. They may 

occur in both alternatives B and D. Focus landscapes are large areas where ecological restoration 

would be emphasized. Plan direction (by management approach) prioritizes these areas for 

restoration: 

Emphasize vegetation treatments in focus landscapes (10,000-80,000 acres in size) to 

move terrestrial ecosystems toward desired conditions and increase resilience of old 

forest habitat, while limiting impacts to the Pacific fisher and California spotted owl. 

This is a tool we think will help us move toward our desired conditions faster and more 

effectively because of the additional flexibility in meeting both resource protection values and 

addressing our vegetation needs for resilience and reducing high-severity fire risk. In these areas, 

different management direction for old forest species applies, specifically for the California 

spotted owl and Pacific fisher. They are designed to improve landscape resilience because small, 

isolated and independent treatment areas will not adequately restore ecosystem functions across 

landscapes, such as fire resilience (FIRE-FW-GDL-02). They may overlap with the fire protection 

zones but may also occur outside of them. The plans do not specify the particular locations. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

176

Figure 31 shows an example of two possible focus landscapes. The example on the left is

centered on the community wildfire protection zone and the example on the right is more focused 

on restoration of dry patch types. The blue lines represent example boundaries around focus 

landscapes. The yellow, linear areas are where treatments focused on strategic roads or ridges 

would be placed. The purple patches are representative, example patches that might be priorities 

for restoration. These occur near roads and are mostly on dry sites (tan color) but some are on 

moist sites (green color). The red areas are in the community fire protection zone. Although not 

shown in the examples, there would also be large prescribed fire patches between the purple 

areas. In these examples, at least 40 percent of the area would be treated. 

Figure 31. Example illustrating potential treatments in two possible focus landscapes

The plan direction for these species in the focus landscapes is less restrictive with an emphasis on 

restoration of habitat conditions relative to the natural range of variation. Vegetation structure and 

composition would be restored but within some constraints in California spotted owl protected 

activity centers and suitable fisher target cells. There are a different suite of standards and 

guidelines that apply to fisher and owl habitat in focus landscapes (and community buffers). 

Mechanical treatment would be allowed in protected activity centers (SPEC-CSO-STD-01), and 

the cumulative amount of mechanical treatment allowed in protected activity centers is 

increased from 5 to 10 percent per year and from 10 to 30 percent per decade (SPEC-CSO-GDL07). For Pacific fisher limitations on mechanical treatments are increased from 13 percent of 

target cells over 5 years to up to 50 percent of target cells in focus landscapes or in community 

buffers (SPEC-PF-STD-02). These changes would increase opportunities to treat vegetation in 

more areas and with greater intensity making it more likely that vegetation will move toward

desired conditions in the focus landscapes.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

177

It is more likely that the mechanical treatment would result in more reduction in forest density 

and restoration of pine and oak-dominated composition on ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer 

sites. There is also a waiver of limited operating periods for prescribed fire in fisher denning 

habitat in focus landscapes that would increase the likelihood of prescribed fire. The increased 

opportunity for mechanical treatment and prescribed fire would increase the amount of 

contiguous landscape areas that meet vegetation desired conditions that are resilient to fire. The 

concentration of treatments within contiguous landscape areas would provide greater reductions 

in potential high fire severity than when the treatments are spread out (see the “Fire Trends” 

section).

Three types of treatment arrangements would occur in alternative B. One is in patches across 

slopes. These would be emphasized in areas with road access where vegetation is most departed 

from the desired conditions. Many of these areas would be on drier ponderosa pine, black oak, 

and dry mixed conifer-dominated areas but not always. Another treatment arrangement would be 

along major roads and ridges that would increase the ability to conduct large, landscape 

prescribed fires or to manage wildfires. Most of these would also occur on dry sites. Both of these 

locations would result in movement of vegetation toward desired conditions. The third treatment 

arrangement would be in large, less accessible drainages or landscapes where large landscapes 

prescribed fires are the primary means of restoring vegetation and reducing potential fire severity. 

These may occur across all vegetation types and sites from the foothills to the upper montane 

zones. 

Figure 32 shows another focus landscape in a representative area to illustrate how treatment areas 

would consider plan direction for wildlife. The focus landscape is bounded by the blue dotted 

line. Possible treatment patches are shown outlined with purple. The yellow lines are potential 

treatment areas along strategically located ridges and major roads. The light blue patches are 

California spotted owl protected activity centers. The green hexagon shapes surround suitable 

fisher habitat (suitable target cells). The red areas are the community wildfire protection zone 

management area. The tan patches are dry patch types, where the dry mixed conifer desired 

conditions would apply. The green patches are the mesic or moist patch types, where the moist 

mixed conifer desired conditions would apply. The black lines are roads. 

Mechanical and prescribed fire treatments would help make vegetation conditions more similar to 

desired conditions (TERR-FW-GDL-01 to 02; TERR-BLCK-GDL-01 to 02; Old Forest; TERROLD-GDL-01 to 02; TERR-SH-STD-01; INV-FW-GDL-01 to 02; FIRE-FW-GDL-09; MAGWPZ-GDL-01; SPEC-CSO-GDL-01, SPEC-PF-GDL-01). Exceptions would be in portions or 

all of the California spotted owl protected activity centers and suitable fisher habitat. Up to half of 

the fisher target cells, and at least two-thirds of the protected activity centers would retain more 

canopy cover when overlapping with the dry patches. 

Treatments would primarily be variable density thinning and burning to restore heterogeneity, 

decrease overall forest density, decrease surface fuel continuity, and increase understory cover, 

density, and vigor, particularly of sun-loving plants. The approach would be as described in GTR 

220 and 237 (North et al. 2009 and North 2012), emphasizing restoration of heterogeneity. There 

would be variable spacing in thinning and burning. Some areas would be thinned more and some 

areas less or not at all. There would be thinning across a range of diameters, between small- to 

medium-diameter trees. Some small openings would be created while clumps of trees would be 

retained in some areas. There would be retention and creation of heterogeneity in the understory 

as well, as described in the desired conditions. Some patches of high surface fuel would occur, 

and other areas would have little to none.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

178

Figure 32. Example illustrating potential treatments in a possible focus landscape considering 

direction for wildlife

PAC = protected activity center
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

179

Figure 33 shows how the landscape would look after desired conditions were reached for an 

example area. The changes are based upon desired conditions for tree canopy cover that varies for 

dry (TERR-DMC-DC-01 to 06) and moist (TERR-MMC-DC-01 to 06) mixed conifer forests. 

The top left panel of the figure shows the ridges and dry patches would have dry mixed conifer 

desired conditions applied. The mesic patches would have the moist mixed conifer desired 

conditions applied. The intermediate patches would have a combination of the moist and dry 

mixed conifer patches, depending on the soil moisture and presence of understory plants 

indicating moisture conditions (as described in the introduction to the montane section of the 

plan). The top right panel of the figure shows the average forest canopy cover across the example 

area, as measured by remote sensing in the existing vegetation. The lower left panel shows how 

restoration toward desired conditions of heterogeneity and canopy cover might look. This shows 

that even dry patches would have some clumps of trees with higher canopy cover but that they 

would be less common than on the moist patches. This example does not show the type of 

additional clumping that would occur in owl protected activity centers, where mechanical 

treatments would be limited to one-third of individual protected activity centers, where at least 

half of the protected activity center falls into dry patches (SPEC-CSO-STD-02). This would leave 

multiple large patches of higher canopy cover in many areas since protected activity centers are 

well distributed in most areas (Figure 32) and prescribed fire in the montane areas would tend to 

be lower intensity and would have a slight change to overstory tree cover if at all (Schmidt et al. 

2006, Vaillant et al. 2015).

There are no set number of focus landscapes or areas that would fall into focus landscapes. For 

purposes of this analysis, estimates of the amount of focus landscapes and encompassed area 

were developed. This was done by taking the proposed area (percent or acres) in the objectives 

and separating out how much might be treated outside of the community buffers. Although there 

are multiple community buffers on each national forest, the extent of the area is relatively small. 

Similarly, the extent of likely roads and ridges restored for tactical fire purposes (MA-GWPZGDL-01) are limited. It is reasonable to assume that at least half of the areas for restoration in the 

objectives would occur in the focus landscapes. At least one-third of these areas would overlap 

with the fire protection zones and achieve dual benefits of restoring habitat and old forest that is 

highly departed from desired conditions and at risk (management approaches: Pacific Fisher 01; 

Terrestrial Ecosystems 01, 02; Timber 02 and 03), and reduce fire risk to communities (MAGWPZ-GOAL-02).

To protect old forest components from uncharacteristic fire, prioritize restoration in key 

old forest areas. Methods of protecting existing old forest components on the landscape 

may include thinning or selective harvest, prescribed fire, and wildfires managed to meet 

resource objectives.

Prioritize ecological restoration in landscapes around key linkage areas and areas with 

suitable habitat at highest fire risk.

Develop landscape scale projects to increase the pace and scale of ecological restoration, 

ecosystem resilience, and fire resilience and to protect the carbon carrying capacity of the 

forest.

Plan vegetation, fuels, and other restoration projects across large landscape areas (e.g., 

greater than 5,000 to 10,000 acres), when it can increase efficiency in planning and 

support partnership-based approaches, such as stewardship contracts.

Based on these assumptions, there could be three to six focus landscapes on the Sierra National 

Forest and two to four on the Sequoia National Forest. There is a smaller number on the Sequoia 

National Forest because over one-third of the area is wilderness and more remote areas where 

managed fire has been the primary management tool in the last 15 years.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

180

Figure 33. Changes in tree canopy cover from current to modeled desired conditions for a

representative area

Note: The random pixels represent “heterogeneity” and the median by patch, the average across patches. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

181

Westside Foothills Vegetation

There would be some increase in restoration in the foothill zone in alternative B because of 

management direction including desired conditions and goals to reduce fire risk to communities 

(MA-CWPZ-DC-01 to 02; MA-CWPZ-01 to 02; MA-GWPZ-DC-01 to 02) and the management 

approach “Prioritize fuel treatments in areas that pose the greatest threat to communities and 

highly valued resources. 

The fire protection zones are larger than the current wildland-urban intermix threat zones and 

may result in increased treatments. This includes but is not limited to treatments in community 

buffers, ecological restoration along ridges and roads that would be used for evacuation routes 

and as anchors for fire operations during large prescribed fires or wildfires, and treatments in 

focus landscapes. Other areas may be restored in areas of tribal importance where multiple sites 

are planned for restoration (Sequoia: TERR-FW-OBJ-04), especially oak woodlands that are 

traditional gathering sites (Lake and Long 2014).

There may be restoration near developed recreation sites, a number of which are in foothills 

areas, and there are objectives to restore some of these areas (REC-FW-OBJ-01; SCEN-FW-OBJ01). There is additional management direction specific to blue oak woodlands and chaparral that 

is more specific than management direction in the current forest plans (alternative A). This 

includes desired conditions that were absent before (TERR-BLU-DC-01 to 03; TERR-CHAPDC-01 to 02). Other management direction limiting livestock browsing of oak and removal of 

large live oaks and snags remains the same (RANG-FW-STD-01; TERR-FW-GDL-04). There are 

new guidelines that direct management toward heterogeneous mosaics of chaparral and avoid 

type conversion to annual grasslands (TERR-CHAP-GDL-01 to 02).

There are specific objectives to restore vegetation composition on 600 acres of areas with nonnative plant invasions on each of the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests (INV-FW-OBJ-01). 

Most of this area will be in the foothill zone where non-native invasive plants are most prevalent.

Composition. There would be a slight increase in the area that is similar to desired conditions in 

alternative B because of some restoration in community buffers, along ridges and roads in the fire 

protection zones and because of work with tribes on cultural, ecological restoration. These would 

include projects targeted to reduce non-native plants. There is plan direction to incorporate best 

practices to reduce the further spread of non-native plants in all projects (INV-FW-GDL 01 to 05). 

These improvements may be offset to an unknown degree by non-native invasive plant 

expansions in restoration areas, despite best management practices, since climate change 

enhances invasive species. Direction to retain mature blue oak remains but there is increased 

emphasis on maintenance and restoration of blue oak regeneration (seedlings) and recruitment 

(saplings and poles; TERR-BLCK-GDL-01 to 02). Current livestock grazing management 

through allotment management plans would continue to improve conditions in blue oak 

woodlands (RANG-FW-DC-02). There is also specific management direction to increase and 

emphasize ecological restoration for vegetation types or in areas of tribal interest, including 

specific restoration objectives on the Sequoia National Forest (TERR-FW-OBJ-04), and goals 

(TRIB-FW-GOAL-01) on both the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. Some of this would be 

focused in blue oak woodlands and some in chaparral. This restoration would likely involve 

improvements in hardwood stands, reducing fire threats to sites of tribal cultural value, and 

improving the quality and quantity of important gathering sites. Treatments that involve 

reductions in non-native annual grasses and other plants and restoration of native understory 

plants would also benefit tribal resources and gathering.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

182

Structure. There would be a slight improvement in vegetation structure in the foothill zone due 

to ecological restoration, mostly in blue oak woodlands. In the community buffers and fire 

protection zones there may be changes in chaparral that are toward the lower end of the natural 

range of variation by shifting older vegetation successional stages toward more early-stage 

(younger growth) patches because of the emphasis on community and infrastructure fire 

protection. These changes would be limited to a small proportion of these areas, and mainly occur 

along ridges and roads or directly surrounding communities at high fire risk. Most of the 

chaparral would remain in an older condition outside of recent fire areas. There might be some 

prescribed fires that restore a mosaic of ages in steeper more inaccessible areas where highintensity fire would threaten communities. 

Ecological Resilience to Drought, Air Pollutants, Climate Change, Insects, and Pathogens.

There would be a slight increase in ecological resilience overall and a moderate increase at sites 

where restoration occurs. Restoration of blue oak woodlands is very difficult (Rodriquez-Buritica

and Suding 2013), particularly restoration of the native understory plant community that is more 

resilient and, as a result, the increase in resilience would be slight.

Westside Montane Forests

Alternative B would increase the amount of vegetation restoration in the montane zone through 

several objectives (Table 49).

Table 49. Vegetation restoration objectives that include most or all of the westside montane zone, 

Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, Alternative B

TERR-FW-OBJ Sequoia National Forest Sierra National Forest

1. Restore composition, 

structure, and heterogeneity

9,000 to 15,000 acres of the 

montane, upper montane and 

portions of foothill landscape

10 to 20 percent of mixed 

conifer, ponderosa pine and 

portions of foothill landscape

2. Restore beneficial low and 

moderate severity prescribed fire

5,000 to 15,000 acres 50,000 to 60,000 acres

3. Manage wildland fire, as 

safety allows

83,000 acres 170,000 acres

4. Restore areas of tribal 

importance

3 to 10 areas 3 to 10 areas

The area with restoration treatments could potentially double from current levels (alternative A), 

including mechanical treatment and prescribed fire individually but mostly together. Between 15 

to 25 percent of the montane landscape is expected to be restored under this alternative, except 

for the Kern River drainage where up to 50 to 90 percent of the landscape is expected to be 

restored. The Kern River drainage already has more than 40 percent of the area restored and 

would increase by at least 20 percent. Although wildfires managed to meet resource objectives 

has occurred extensively in the Kern Drainage, the new plan direction that provides for managing 

wildfires to meet resource objectives would make this more likely to continue to occur or increase 

(MA-WRZ-GOAL-01, MA-WRZ-STD-01, MA-WMZ-DC-02, and MA-WMZ-STD-01 to 02).

Most of the restoration would occur within focus landscapes, an estimated one-half to two-thirds 

of the planned treatment area in the plan objectives. This would be an estimated 20,000 to 50,000 

acres of treatment areas within a combined focus landscape area of at least 50,000 to 125,000 

acres on the Sierra National Forest based on the objectives (TERR-FW-OBJ-01 to 02). On the 

Sequoia National Forest there would be an estimated 9,000 to 20,000 acres of treatment areas 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

183

within a combined focus landscape area of at least 22,000 to 50,000 acres (TERR-FW-OBJ-01 to 

02). On the Sequoia, there would also be large landscape areas (40,000 to 100,000 acres) that 

would be restored or maintained in a restored condition in the more remote portions of the Kern 

Drainage (TERR-FW-OBJ 03).

Restoration in these areas would move at least 40 percent of these landscapes toward desired 

conditions, including both vegetation and fisher and owl habitat plan direction (SPEC-CSO-DC01, SPEC-PF-DC-01 to 02; SPEC-PF-DC-07). Although much of the restoration would be 

focused on the dry sites that have the greatest departure from desired conditions (SPEC-CSO-DC03), some would also occur in moist patches and riparian areas to provide more effective change 

in future landscape fire behavior or to facilitate larger prescribed burns. There would be some 

restoration of California spotted owl protected activity centers that occur primarily on dry sites, 

allowing mechanical treatment in up to one-third of a protected activity center per decade (SPECCSO-STD-02). Restoration in focus landscape areas would result in a higher likelihood that these 

areas would burn at lower intensities during wildfires (see “Fire Trends” section) and retain 

mature forest.

There are large areas on the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests that were railroad logged in the

late 1800s and particularly the early 1900s (Laudenslayer and Darr 1990). These areas are now 

dominated by uniform stands of mostly medium and large-diameter young trees (less than 110 

years old) trees. Outside of the fire protection zones but within the focus landscapes, the large tree 

diameter limit may result in very little movement toward desired conditions for structure in the 

railroad logged areas because many of the trees are at or slightly above 30 inches in diameter. 

This condition is estimated to extend across 95,000 acres for the northern portion of the Sierra 

National Forest alone.

Outside of the focus landscapes, the emphasis would be on retaining California spotted owl and 

Pacific fisher habitat in protected activity centers and denning habitat in the short term (SPECCSO-DC 02; SPEC-PF-DC 05). Canopy cover retention would be emphasized in these areas 

toward the upper end of the desired conditions, such as greater than 60 percent cover in half of 

each target fisher cell and across all individual owl protected activity centers. At least one-third 

and up to one-half of these sites fall on dry patches with a median desired canopy cover level of 

40 percent. Restoration treatments would be less intense, with fewer pole and medium-sized trees 

removed (Roberts 2015; Fry et al. 2015) and less opportunity to create heterogeneity. There 

would be less ability to create small openings or variable spacing of overstory, mid-sized trees to 

increase heterogeneity because of canopy retention requirements and limits on removing larger 

trees outside of the two wildfire protection zones. 

Where areas are outside of focus landscapes and in the fire restoration and maintenance zones, the 

direction for large trees changes, but the canopy cover retention direction for fisher and owl 

habitat remains the same. Here, there is no limit on the diameter of large trees that can be 

removed and instead desired conditions for large tree densities apply (TERR-OLD-DC-03 to 04). 

In most of the montane likely treatment areas, the greatest limitations on implementation to reach 

vegetation and old forest desired conditions is the plan direction limiting removal of canopy cover 

and treatment amount in spotted owl and fisher habitat (SPEC-CSO-DC-02, -04; SPEC-PF-DC05; SPEC-PF-STD-02 to 03; SPEC-CSO-GDL-06). In these areas, there would be a limited 

movement toward vegetation and old forest desired conditions because relatively few trees could 

be removed. Because of these limitations, it is assumed that restoration treatments would cost 

more outside of the focus landscapes. This would result in less total area treated, since it would 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

184

cost more per acre to treat and no timber or biomass receipts would be available to treat nearby 

areas in the landscape. 

There is a moderate level of uncertainty about how seasonal restrictions would impact the ability 

to meet the restoration objectives (see Table 49) in alternative B because of the limited operating 

periods for the California spotted owl in and outside of focus landscapes (SPEC-CSO-GDL-03) 

and for Pacific fisher outside of focus landscapes (SPEC-PF-GDL-04). There is a high 

concentration of California spotted owl protected activity centers in much of the montane 

landscape. With drought and increasingly more severe fire conditions during the summer, 

mechanical operations in the forests are often restricted on high fire danger days. This limits the 

number of days for mechanical restoration and can create a backlog of work that result in 

economic hardships on contractors and can make restoration projects less economically feasible. 

Similar limitations to prescribed fire are discussed below.

The amount of prescribed fire and wildfire managed to meet resource objectives could increase in 

alternative B (TERR-FW-OBJ-02; TERR-FW-DC-06; TERR-MONT-DC-04), although there are 

some uncertainties about the amount of increase. The amount could double that in alternative A. 

The increase would be due to the greater amount of mechanical restoration which would facilitate 

more prescribed burning both in and outside of mechanically treated areas. Larger prescribed fires 

would be more feasible because the prioritized restoration along ridges and roads would provide 

“anchors” for burn operations (MA-CWPZ-GDL-02; MA-GWPZ-GDL-01). In the focus 

landscapes vegetation would be less dense, making desired fire effects and fire control more 

achievable (MA-GWPZ-GOAL-02; MA-WRZ-GOAL-01; MA-WRZ-DC-01). There would 

likely be more prescribed fire within treated areas and to connect treated areas into larger 

landscape scale burns. Wildfires managed to meet resource objectives would still be very limited 

in most montane areas due to concerns that wildfires could become uncontrollable in the dense 

forests if they burn into these areas (except for in the Kern Drainage). 

In alternative B, there is a moderate level of uncertainty in how much prescribed fire could occur 

in montane areas. There is uncertainty that there would be sufficient time periods or “windows” 

to conduct prescribed burning because of recent drought, longer fire seasons, limited operating 

periods for California spotted owl, mitigations for other wildlife, and air quality regulations. 

Within focus landscapes, there is no limited operating periods for Pacific fisher for prescribed fire 

but there is a limited operating period for California spotted owls (SPEC-CSO-GDL-03). This 

limited operating period can be waived on up to 5 percent of the protected activity centers in any 

year to allow early season prescribed burning. This waiver may not be sufficient in many areas 

where there is a high concentration of protected activity centers and there would be limitations on 

the amount of prescribed fire. There is a backlog of areas previously mechanically treated that 

have not had follow-up prescribed burning or are in need of maintenance prescribed burning. 

Alternative B emphasizes designing larger landscape prescribed burns where feasible to 

incorporate these backlogged areas. The fire management strategy emphasizes restoration along 

ridges and roads to increase capacity to conduct large prescribed burns: 

During ecological restoration treatments, reduce fuels along ridges, roads, or other natural 

or man-made features to aid in the use of large prescribed fires and in managing wildfire, 

including wildfires managed to meet resource objectives.

Restoring prescribed fire in mechanically treated areas is needed to best achieve some of the 

vegetation desired conditions because mechanical treatments cannot fully mimic the ecological 

function of fire (TERR-MONT-DC-04), including beneficial effects to fire-adapted plants (see 

next section on “Terrestrial Ecosystem Processes and Function”). Prescribed fire can reduce and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

185

maintain desired conditions by reducing understory vegetation density (like tree seedlings and 

saplings), reducing and creating shrub decadence (dead branches), and reducing surface fuels and 

creating patchy distributions of fuels that would result in improved fire resilience. If the backlog 

of prescribed burning continues, there would be less positive response of fire-adapted understory 

plants.

Composition. Restoration treatments would move vegetation toward desired conditions 

substantially in treated areas (TERR-MONT-DC-03; TERR-POND-DC-01; DMC-DC-01; TERRMMC-DC-01). Treatments would increase the dominance and codominance of ponderosa and 

Jeffrey pine, and black oak (where it occurs), especially on dry sites within the two wildfire 

protection zones. Desired conditions and direction to increase open mature forest patches (TERRMONT-DC-01; TERR-POND-DC-02, -03; TERR-DMC-DC-03, -04; TERR-MMC-DC-02 to 03) 

tree density (cover and basal area), and increase heterogeneity (TERR-FW-GDL-01) would favor 

the shade-intolerant pine and oaks. The health and resilience of large pines and black oaks would 

be improved by reducing stand density around them, although clumps and groups of large and old 

trees would be retained. This would increase the likelihood that the current pine and black oak 

trees survive stresses from drought, air pollutants, and climate change (temperature increases). 

Restoration of heterogeneity through mechanical thinning, and especially prescribed fire would

move the composition, condition, and diversity of native understory plants toward desired 

conditions. Shrubs, flowering plants, and grasses that are adapted to fire would have more 

vigorous and dense foliage, increased flowering and fruiting, and increased density in a patchy 

pattern (Fites-Kaufman et al. 2006, Wayman and North 2007, Webster and Halpern 2010).

There would be less restoration toward desired conditions for composition in areas outside of 

focus landscapes, and in focus landscapes outside of the two wildfire protection zones. In these 

areas, canopy cover desired conditions and retention guidelines in California spotted owl and 

Pacific Fisher habitat would result in limited changes in overstory canopy cover. This is 

especially true in the areas that overlap with old railroad logging sites where most trees, including 

the younger trees are now greater than 30 inches in diameter.

Structure. In alternative B, it is expected that over the life of the plans between 15 and 25 

percent of the montane landscape would move toward desired conditions, particularly in the focus 

landscapes. Tree density would be lower and heterogeneity considerably higher in treated patches 

and across large areas of the landscape. Landscape forest structure would be most changed in the 

treated portions of focus landscapes and other areas with large prescribed fires. This would move 

some of the landscape toward desired conditions, including heterogeneity at the landscape, patch, 

and within-patch scales. The greatest changes toward desired conditions would occur within the 

focus landscapes, except areas outside of the fire protection zones that overlap with younger, 

even-aged stands or larger trees originating from railroad logging. This might include one-half of 

the potential focus landscape areas on the Sierra National Forest.

Ecological Resilience to Fire, Drought, Air Pollutants, Climate Change, Insects, and 

Pathogens. In montane forests, alternative B would promote the resilience to fire, climate 

change, drought, air pollutants, insects, and pathogens in treated patches, (TERR-FW-DC-02; 

TERR-MONT-DC-01, -05) especially in the focus landscapes where restrictions on the amount 

and intensity of restoration in California spotted owl and Pacific fisher habitat are reduced. The 

elevated restoration treatment rates would build greater adaptive capacity in montane landscapes. 

Decreased tree density and increased heterogeneity at the landscape and site scales would 

improve resilience to the multiple stressors (North 2012). Restoration of more vegetation species 

resilient to drought, climate and fire (especially ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, and black oak) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

186

would improve overall forest resilience. Increased fire resilience will be most effective in the 

focus landscapes and in the Kern Drainage where managed fires have been prevalent (Meyer 

2015) because a sufficient proportion of the landscape would be restored to result in changed fire 

intensity at the landscape scale (the scale of fires; see the “Fire Trends” section).

Figure 34 shows potential changes in ecological fire resilience based on restoration of 

representative focus landscapes and treatments in the community wildfire protection zones. This 

example shows changes from mechanical thinning only and does not incorporate additional large 

prescribed fires or wildfires managed to meet resource objectives that could occur, especially at 

higher elevations. Ecological fire resilience is the same as defined in the forest assessments. In 

general, it is based upon the proportion of crown fire that would occur in a landscape area under 

97th percentile weather conditions. High resilience is defined as less than 25 percent of the area 

would burn as crown fire; moderate resilience is defined as 25 to 50 percent; low resilience as 50 

to 75 percent; and very low resilience as greater than 75 percent crown fire.

Figure 34. Illustration of potential changes in ecological fire resilience under alternative B

Note: This does not include improvements in resilience from wildfire managed for resource objectives. There 

would be further improvements from these managed fires, primarily in the Kern Drainage.

In Figure 34, representative focus landscapes show how treatments might result in an 

improvement from low or very low resilience to moderate fire resilience. This means that in the 

15 to 25 percent of the montane zone restored in focus landscapes, overall fire intensity would 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

187

change to lower amounts of crown fire during the hot and dry parts of a typical fire season. 

Crown fire would decrease from covering more than 50 to 75 percent of the area to between 25 

and 50 percent of the area, more a mixed fire regime. This is a substantial movement toward 

desired conditions.

There is uncertainty in how much resilience would change in the portions of the focus landscape 

that are outside of the two wildfire protection zones and overlap with even-aged, young stands or 

large trees that originated from railroad logging. In these stands, the diameter limit for large trees 

may result in a limited ability to reduce tree density and restore heterogeneity.

Upper Montane Forests

There would be an increased amount of some kinds of restoration in upper montane forests in 

alternative B compared to alternative A. Restoration using mechanical treatment would be similar 

to alternative A and limited, except around communities at high fire risk (MA-CWPZ-DC-01 to 

02). There may be other areas that are restored outside of the focus landscapes and community 

buffers that are in priority areas for the forest where treatments occur in the upper montane zone, 

such as near developed recreation sites (Sequoia: REC-FW-OBJ-01). Most of the increase in 

restoration would be from wildfire managed to meet resource objectives (Sequoia: TERR-FWOBJ-03 and FIRE-FW-GOAL-06). Much of the upper montane landscape is in the wildfire 

maintenance zone, where there is the greatest opportunity for wildfire managed to meet resource 

objectives (MA-WMZ-GOAL-01; MA-WMZ-DC-01 to 02; MA-WMZ-STD-01 to 02). There 

would be improvements in the effects to composition, structure, and resilience from alternative B 

because of the greater emphasis on detailed, ecologically based desired conditions (see Table 49

at beginning of alternative B consequences section above). Similar treatments and management 

direction (including focus landscapes) would occur in the lower elevation upper montane forests 

as in the montane forests (see above). This is where red fir and Jeffrey pine are codominant with 

white fir.

Composition. Alternative B would result in limited changes in tree composition in red fir and 

lodgepole pine forests because these forests tend to be single species dominated and are not 

highly departed from desired conditions (Meyer 2013a). Restoration would promote or sustain the 

dominance of Jeffrey pine forests through ecological restoration treatments toward desired 

conditions. Most of the treatments would be focused at lower elevations and not in Jeffrey pine 

forests, but some would occur. In these areas, younger white fir and red fir would be reduced 

through restoration treatments. This is particularly true in the Kern River drainage where large 

areas have already been restored with fire managed to meet resource objectives and more is 

expected to occur in these remote areas. In areas with restoration treatments there would be some

enhancement of the cover and composition of native understory vegetation. 

Structure. Alternative B would improve structural conditions in upper montane forest patches

through ecological restoration treatments (especially the restoration of fire) that are based on 

principles described in North et al. (2009) and North (2012). Alternative B would also promote 

greater structural heterogeneity at a landscape scale through the broader application of wildfire 

managed to meet resource objectives in some upper montane landscapes, especially in the 

wildfire maintenance zone. 

Ecological Resilience to Drought, Climate Change, Insects, and Pathogens, and Fire. In 

upper montane forests, alternative B would promote resilience because restoration would 

decrease forest density and increase heterogeneity. In restored areas, this would increase 

resilience to drought, and build greater adaptive capacity to climate change. There may be 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

188

increased fire resilience where large landscape areas are restored. This would depend upon the 

amount of wildfire restored to meet resource objectives because most of the restoration in upper 

montane vegetation would occur in these fires.

Subalpine and Alpine Vegetation

There would be slight increases in the amount of restoration in subalpine and alpine vegetation. 

This would be from increased opportunities for wildfire managed to meet resource objectives and 

potentially from restoration of whitebark pine to reduce damage from white pine blister rust 

(TERR-ALPN-DC-03; Sequoia: TERR-FW-GOAL-01). In general, most subalpine and alpine 

vegetation occurs within wilderness areas where natural processes are the primary emphasis of 

maintenance and restoration (Sequoia: MA-OC1-DC-02; MA-WILD-DC-02 to 03). Little 

restoration would occur and where it does, it would primarily be limited to small areas in need of 

rehabilitation from concentrated recreation impacts or invasive species (MA-WILD-GDL-01 to 

02).

Composition and Structure. Alternative B would improve composition in subalpine and alpine 

areas through targeted restoration in highly impacted areas (Sequoia: MA-OC1-DC-02 and MAOC2-DC-02) and wildfire managed to meet resource objectives. There might be some limited 

restoration treatments involving control or eradication of non-native invasive species (like 

cheatgrass) that would benefit native vegetation, but most of this would occur in foothill or 

montane areas where they are more impacted. Although fire is naturally infrequent in subalpine 

and alpine areas, it is an important natural process. More opportunities to manage wildfire to meet 

resource objectives would restore the effects of this natural process on subalpine and alpine 

composition and structure.

Ecological Resilience to Drought, Air Pollutants, Climate Change, Insects, and Pathogens. In

most subalpine forests, alternatives B would promote increased resilience to fire, climate change, 

drought, insects, and diseases because of higher restoration treatment rates (specifically the 

restoration of fire). Wildfire would increase resilience primarily through the reduction of stand 

densities, increased heterogeneity, and promotion of seral class diversity and tree regeneration. In 

addition, whitebark pine forests located in recreation areas (like ski areas) would be more 

ecologically resilient under alternative B. Alternative B would likely have greater treatment rates 

in recreation areas based on a regional whitebark pine restoration strategy. Despite differences 

among alternatives, many whitebark pine and other subalpine forests would be heavily impacted 

by insects and diseases associated with increased moisture stress and warming climate conditions 

under all alternatives (Meyer 2013b, Schwartz et al. 2013). 

Sagebrush (Eastside)

There would be substantially more restoration of sagebrush in alternative B compared to 

alternative A especially on the Inyo National Forest (TERR-FW-OBJ-01 to 02). This would be to 

maintain and restore habitat for the greater sage-grouse (SPEC-SG-OBJ-01), reduce fire risk to 

communities and developed recreation sites, and restore resilience to forests, woodlands and 

riparian areas (MA-RCA-OBJ-01; FIRE-FW-GOAL-01,-03 to 04). Most of the restoration would 

be to treat areas with conifer invasion (SPEC-SG-DC-05). There would be more mechanical 

restoration, primarily thinning or removal of juniper that has invaded historic sagebrush areas. 

There would be some increases in prescribed fire (TERR-FW-OBJ-02), but it would be limited to 

smaller areas and carefully applied to avoid invasion and expansion of non-native annual grasses 

(like cheatgrass and red brome). There would be restoration of some areas to reduce and eradicate 

non-native annual grasses (SPEC-SG-DC-06; INV-FW-OBJ-01) and measures to minimize the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

189

spread of noxious weeds (SPEC-SG-GDL-04) and non-native invasive plants (INV-FW-GDL-01 

to 05). Vegetation treatments and post-soil or other disturbance activities in sage-grouse habitat 

would be followed by seeding or replanting of sage brush where appropriate (SPEC-SG-GDL-05 

to 06). The restoration would occur around communities, in greater sage-grouse habitat that is in 

poor condition, and in areas of tribal importance (TERR-FW-OBJ-03).

In sagebrush, pinyon-juniper and Jeffrey pine areas, management approaches would be applied 

that minimize the invasion and spread of non-native plant species and restore vegetation 

composition, structure, and resilience. These include:

Projects in sagebrush should prioritize restoration treatment to remove trees from 

shrublands, which include recent expansion areas of pinyon and juniper into sagebrush 

ecosystems and other adjacent shrublands.

Prevention of unwanted fire in priority habitat can be accomplished through managing 

sagebrush systems to be resilient, implementing proactive fire prevention and limiting

cheatgrass expansion.

An adaptive management strategy shall be used when conducting vegetation treatments 

within sage-grouse habitat. Treatment methods and intensities will be determined based 

on the results of past treatments as information from those past treatments becomes 

available. If the results of past treatments show that those treatments have caused an 

increase in non-native annual grasses and poor sagebrush recruitment, further treatments 

within sage-grouse habitat will not adhere to the same prescription.

Where sage-grouse habitat is being degraded due to wild horse and burro use, determine 

site-specific measures to improve or restore sage-grouse habitat.

Work with tribes to determine priority areas for weed prevention and control, especially 

focused on traditional gathering areas that are threatened by weed infestations. Consult 

with tribes before using pesticides or herbicides that may affect traditional gathering. 

Coordinate with research and other organizations to evaluate the potential effects of 

climate change on the spread of invasive, non-native species.

Integrate terrestrial ecosystem desired conditions into spatial patterns for fuel reduction 

treatments. Incorporate heterogeneity by increasing variation in tree spacing, enhancing 

tree clumps, creating canopy gaps, promoting fire resilient tree species, increasing the 

ratio of large to small trees, and using topographic variation (e.g. slope, aspect, and 

position) to guide treatment prescriptions.

Develop landscape scale projects to increase the pace and scale of ecological restoration, 

ecosystem resilience and fire resilience, and to protect the carbon carrying capacity of the 

forest.

Plan vegetation, fuels, and other restoration projects across large landscape areas (e.g., 

greater than 5,000 to 10,000 acres), when it can increase efficiency in planning and 

support partnership-based approaches, such as stewardship contracts.

Composition. Alternative B, would promote or sustain the dominance of sagebrush and perennial 

herbaceous plants in these arid landscapes through ecological restoration treatments. There are 

specific desired conditions and direction for implementing treatments that would reduce conifer 

encroachment into sagebrush areas and restore native perennial grasses. Management direction 

for sage-grouse habitat restoration emphasizes maintenance and enhancement of native plant 

communities and movement toward vegetation desired conditions (SPEC-SG-DC-05 to 06; 

SPEC-SG-STD-01, -03, -09). Composition would move toward desired conditions in these areas. 

However, control and eradication efforts are unlikely to keep up with the proposed increase in 

treatment rates. Increases in invasive plants are one of the negative effects that the management 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

190

direction tries to minimize, knowing that the benefits of restoration treatment outweigh this 

negative effect. Restoration treatment does not eliminate the effect. Where prescribed fire is 

applied, there would be primarily positive changes in species composition. This is because fire 

would be applied in areas with little to no existing cheatgrass, and projects would be designed to 

benefit native perennial grasses and other native species. Fire would be applied in a mosaic 

pattern that would be beneficial to fire-tolerant species and have limited impacts on fire-intolerant 

species (Brooks and Minnich 2006).

Structure. Alternative B would improve structure in sagebrush vegetation. Removal of juniper, 

pinyon pine or Jeffrey pine from sagebrush areas would be the primary means (SPEC-SG-DC05). Where prescribed fire is restored in sagebrush areas there would be an improvement in 

structural and age diversity toward the desired conditions. 

Ecological Resilience to Fire, Drought, Climate Change, Insects, and Pathogens. Alternative

B would improve resilience to fire, and climate change in sagebrush, because the elevated 

restoration treatment rates under these alternatives build greater adaptive capacity in arid 

ecosystems than alternative A. Reduced numbers of pinyon and juniper trees, reduced or 

minimized non-native annual grass introduction and spread, promotion of native perennial 

grasses, and increased age and structural diversity of sagebrush would improve resilience to 

climate and reduce the likelihood of large, high-intensity fires, high-severity fire effects, and poor 

recovery from fire.

Pinyon-Juniper Forests

Alternative B would have increased vegetation restoration over current levels (TERR-FW-OBJ01 to 02). There would be more mechanical restoration, primarily thinning or removal of juniper 

that has invaded historic sagebrush areas. There would also be some restoration of pinyon-juniper 

to meet desired conditions in areas of tribal importance and in community buffers (TERR-FWDC-09; TRIB-FW-DC-03 to 05; TERR-FW-OBJ-03). There would be restoration of some areas 

to reduce and eradicate non-native annual grasses.

Composition. Alternative B restoration would include actions to control or eradicate invasive 

plant species in arid landscapes, as described above for sagebrush areas. This would move 

composition more toward desired conditions. However, as described in the “Sagebrush” section, 

control and eradication efforts are unlikely to keep up with the proposed increase in treatment 

rates. There would also be additional restoration in areas of tribal interest that would benefit 

understory composition, in part through restoring fire with prescribed fire. This would be a result 

of the relatively greater restoration treatment rates under this alternative compared to alternative 

A. Where prescribed fire is applied, it would be aimed at primarily positive changes in species 

composition. This is because fire would be applied in areas with little to no existing cheatgrass 

and fire prescriptions would be designed to benefit native perennial grasses and other native 

species. Fire would be applied in a mosaic pattern that would be beneficial to fire-tolerant species 

and have limited impacts on fire-intolerant species (Brooks and Minnich 2006). 

Structure. Alternative B would improve structure in restoration areas. Removal of juniper from 

sagebrush areas would be the primary means. In other areas, trees would be thinned and 

heterogeneity increased. There might be some pruning of lower branches where prescribed fire or 

hand treatments are applied. In restoration areas, vegetation would move toward desired 

conditions. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

191

Ecological Resilience to Fire, Drought, Climate Change, Insects, and Pathogens. Alternative

B would improve resilience to fire, drought, insects, and pathogens to some degree, because of 

the elevated restoration treatment rates. Restoration would build greater adaptive capacity to 

climate change than alternative A. Thinning and control and minimization of non-native invasive 

grasses would be the primary changes that would increase resilience. There would continue to be 

elevated levels of insect-related tree mortality in large areas because trees would remain at higher 

densities in untreated areas. This would especially be the situation on lower elevation sites and 

more productive sites that have high tree density due to the fire suppression effect. 

Eastside Pine, Jeffrey Pine Forests

There would be a substantial increase in restoration treatments in alternative B compared to A. 

More areas of Jeffrey pine forests would move toward desired conditions. A large portion of the 

planned mechanical treatment and prescribed fire restoration would occur in Jeffrey pine forests 

(TERR-FW-OBJ-01 to 02) on the Inyo National Forest, and wildfire managed for resource 

objectives on the Kern Plateau on the Sequoia National Forest (Sequoia: TERR-FW-OBJ-03). 

Restoration would emphasize reducing density, increasing heterogeneity, increasing the 

proportion of large trees (TERR-FW-GDL-01 to 02), and retaining large trees (greater than 30 

inches diameter; TERR-FW-STD-01; TERR-OLD-GDL-02). The same management direction to 

minimize the establishment and spread of non-native plants described for sagebrush and pinyonjuniper types above, applies to Jeffrey pine areas.

Composition. Composition would move toward desired conditions in areas treated for 

restoration. Restoration would improve composition by thinning that will increase light to the 

forest floor, reducing litter, and improving conditions for fire-adapted species. Increased 

overstory heterogeneity would create more small openings that would improve habitat for some 

understory plants that may have been suppressed where overstory trees currently are more 

uniformly spaced and denser than historically. 

Structure. In large areas of Jeffrey pine forests, structure would improve because there would be 

an increase in heterogeneity, reduced overall forest density, and a shift in size and age structure 

toward larger and older trees. With decreased density, and especially where prescribed fire is 

used, there would be an increase in seedlings and saplings in healthy condition because they 

benefit from sunlight and access to mineral soil. In addition to changes in forest structure, 

reductions in surface and ladder fuels would reduce the impacts from a return to more frequent 

fire.

Ecological Resilience to Fire, Drought, Climate Change, Insects, and Pathogens. There

would be an increase in ecological resilience in areas treated. Decreased forest density, increased 

heterogeneity, and decreased surface fuels (where there is prescribed fire) would contribute 

movement toward desired conditions for resilience. Fire resilience would be increased the most 

when landscape areas are treated, with at least 40 percent of the area restored (see “Fire Trends” 

section). Many areas of Jeffrey pine are already in this landscape condition on the Kern Plateau 

(Fites-Kaufman et al. 2003; Vaillant 2009; Meyer 2015) and this would continue to increase. 

Eastside Upper Montane Forests

Many of the consequences for upper montane forests in the eastside are similar to those described 

for the westside. The primary difference is that there would be more treatments in the red fir and 

lodgepole pine forests on the Inyo National Forest in community buffers and areas around major 

developed recreation sites (REC-FW-OBJ-01), such as in the upper montane forests in the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

192

Mammoth and June Lakes areas. The restoration in these areas would move composition, 

structure and resilience toward vegetation and old forest desired conditions overall or would 

minimize adverse effects, such as at developed recreation sites (REC-FW-GDL-02 to 03). There 

may be some areas that are restored more toward the lower end of the desired conditions for basal 

area, tree density, and snag and log density in these areas compared to the majority of eastside 

upper montane forests. Management approaches would integrate terrestrial ecosystem desired 

conditions into fuel reduction treatments:

Integrate terrestrial ecosystem desired conditions into spatial patterns for fuel reduction 

treatments. Incorporate heterogeneity by increasing variation in tree spacing, enhancing 

tree clumps, creating canopy gaps, promoting fire resilient tree species, increasing the 

ratio of large to small trees, and using topographic variation (e.g. slope, aspect, and 

position) to guide treatment prescriptions.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B

There would continue to be effects of warming and drier climate into the foreseeable future. In 

some areas, where there is less restoration, the effects of climate change would be more 

prominent than the restoration benefits because of the low amount, small scale, and limited 

intensity of restoration (see “Climate” subsection). Areas where there are substantial treatments 

that would result in improved climate resilience and adaptation are the westside montane and 

foothill areas in focus landscapes, the Kern River drainage, and restored eastside Jeffrey pine, 

sagebrush and pinyon-juniper. 

There would continue to be restoration on adjacent Federal, State and local agency lands (like Los 

Angeles Department of Water and Power) that are similar to those on National Forest System 

lands. Restoration on these other lands would also be limited. There would continue to be 

urbanized developed adjacent to national forest lands and increased recreational visitor use. There 

would likely be related increases in human-ignited fires and spread of invasive plants as a result 

of the combination of increased human presence and climate change. The size and area of large, 

high-intensity fires would continue to increase (see “Fire Trends” section). Overall, vegetation 

composition, structure, and resilience would become more dissimilar to desired conditions 

outside of areas with concentrated restoration. This represents between 15 to 25 percent of the 

low and mid-elevation areas. Higher elevation areas would mostly remain moderately similar to 

desired conditions. Vegetation in the Kern River drainage would potentially increase to high 

similarity to desired conditions with increased fire because the landscape is moderately resilient 

to fire and more fire would increase overall resilience.

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

There is a goal of increased prescribed fire and wildfire managed to meet resource objectives in 

alternative C. There is a moderate to high uncertainty that increased prescribed and wildfire 

managed to meet resource objectives would occur in alternative C. One reason is that there would 

be less mechanical treatment and less opportunity to restore vegetation along ridges and roads 

that would be used to “anchor” prescribed fire and wildfire managed to meet resource objectives. 

This is especially a limitation at lower and mid-elevations in the foothills, montane, Jeffrey pine, 

pinyon-juniper and sagebrush areas where there are fewer natural features (like rock outcrops) 

that could be used to burn from or contain fires. Another uncertainty comes from less intense 

reduction of vegetation density, particularly in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests. This 

makes prescribing or managing wildfires more difficult because fuel conditions are greater and 

the risks of managing fires safely and within adequate management control become higher. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

193

Westside Foothills Vegetation

There would be a slight increase in composition, structure and ecological resilience in foothill 

vegetation in alternative C. The rate of restoration would be limited, similarly to alternative A but 

otherwise, most of the management direction for blue oak woodlands and chaparral would be the 

same as in alternatives B and D. There would be specific management direction to increase and 

enhance collaboration with tribes on ecological restoration. This would move vegetation toward

desired conditions.

Westside Montane Forests

Alternative C would provide some restoration in montane forests but less than in alternatives B 

and D, at a level similar to alternative A, assuming the rate of prescribed burning compensates for 

the reduction in mechanical thinning. Most of the mechanical thinning would occur in the 

wildland-urban intermix defense zone which is managed similar to alternative A, but with 

additional direction to retain habitat for Pacific fisher and additional restrictions on treatment in 

designated habitats for the California spotted owl. There would be some restoration along ridges 

and roads but it would be of lower intensity because of limitations on treatment in California 

spotted owl and Pacific fisher habitat. There would be little reduction in forest density and little to 

moderate increases in heterogeneity in areas treated mechanically. This is because of management 

direction for protection of fisher and owl habitat that limits canopy reductions at the landscape 

scale and limits the size of trees removed. The entire montane zone is occupied by Pacific fisher 

and California spotted owl. There is an increased emphasis on prescribed fire but there is a 

moderate to high uncertainty that much prescribed fire or wildfire managed to meet resource 

objectives would occur due to most areas continuing to have high fuel levels and conditions that 

favor high-intensity fire. There is additional direction for management of fisher habitat during 

wildfires that may increase the beneficial effects of fire during wildfires. But there is a higher 

likelihood of very large, high-intensity fires in alternative C, according to the fire-climate 

scenario predictions (see “Fire Trends” section).

Composition. The effects of alternative C on composition would be similar to alternative A. Most 

areas would continue to have a high dissimilarity with desired conditions. There is a potential for 

more prescribed fire that would improve the condition of understory plants that benefit from fire, 

but there is a high to moderate uncertainty that this would occur. There would continue to be large 

areas with higher canopy cover at levels outside the natural range of variation and would result in 

large areas where shade-intolerant pines and hardwoods are in poor condition. There would be 

less restoration of overstory composition toward desired conditions. Less mechanical restoration 

and limitations on restoration in California spotted owl and Pacific fisher habitat would result in 

less reduction in tree density that shades out a large portion of the understory plants. Where 

prescribed fire is used in place of mechanical thinning, it could result in less reduction of high 

density of understory seedlings and saplings, especially of shade- and fire-intolerant species such 

as incense cedar and white fir because the fires may have to be designed to burn with lower 

intensity to balance damaging larger trees that are desired to be protected. By burning at lower 

intensity, it may require several re-burn entries over time to achieve the same desired change in 

composition as achieved in alternatives B and D.

Structure. The effects of alternative C on structure would be similar to alternative A because of 

the restrictions on canopy cover reductions in Pacific fisher and California spotted owl habitat. 

There would continue to be large areas that are highly dissimilar to desired conditions. There is 

the potential for restoration of forest structure toward desired conditions with fire but there is a 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

194

high uncertainty that prescribed fire and wildfires managed to meet resource objectives would 

occur to a great extent.

Ecological Resilience to Drought, Air Pollutants, Climate Change, Insects, and Pathogens.

The effects of alternative C on ecological resilience would be similar to alternative A. Resilience 

would continue to be very low to low across most of the landscape because vegetation density 

would remain high and heterogeneity low. Denser vegetation is more susceptible to any additional 

stress because plants compete more for water, nutrients and light. Wildfire could potentially 

restore resilience but there is a moderate to high uncertainty that it would occur. 

Upper Montane Forests

Alternatives C provides moderate support to maintain or restore upper montane vegetation toward 

desired conditions. Mechanical treatments are limited in most areas but large areas of upper 

montane Jeffrey pine, red fir, and chaparral in the Kern River drainage would continue to be 

maintained and restored toward desired conditions with wildfire managed to meet resource 

objectives as described in alternative B above.

Composition. Similar to alternative A, there would be limited restoration in upper montane 

vegetation in alternative C using mechanical treatment. Alternative C would provide less benefit 

to native understory plant cover and composition and result in decreased potential to remove or 

control invasive plants due to the limited treatment rates under this alternative compared to 

alternatives D and B.

Structure. Alternatives C provides moderate support for the restoration of structural conditions 

due to the limited treatment rates with both mechanical thinning and prescribed fire. 

Ecological Resilience to Fire, Drought, Air Pollutants, Climate Change, Insects, and 

Pathogens. Alternative C results in relatively lower climate change resilience compared to 

alternatives B and D due to the lower treatment rates under this alternative. In the short term there 

may be similar levels of wildfire to meet resource objectives in upper montane vegetation in 

alternative C compared to the other alternatives. This would provide increased resilience to fire, 

drought, climate change and possibly insects and pathogens because fire would increase 

heterogeneity and decrease density and surface and ladder fuels in some areas. There is a 

moderate level of uncertainty about how much wildfire managed to meet resource objectives 

would occur over the long term because of less ecological restoration of ridges and roads that 

could be used to “anchor” fire actions when decisions are made on how to best manage a wildfire.

Subalpine and Alpine Vegetation

Alternative C would have similar effects in subalpine and alpine vegetation as Alternative B 

because management direction in higher elevation and wilderness areas are similar. Although 

there is more wilderness in alternative C, the additional wilderness is primarily in lower 

elevations and not in subalpine and alpine vegetation. 

Eastside Vegetation

Overall, there is substantially less vegetation restoration in alternative C in the eastside. The 

consequences of the reduced restoration is that most areas would remain at the same level of 

dissimilarity to desired conditions as they are now, or decline because of continued effects of fire, 

spread of non-native invasive plants, recreation use, and warming climate. Invasive plant 

treatments would be conducted similarly to other alternatives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

195

Sagebrush

Areas with restoration treatments would move toward desired conditions for composition, 

structure, and resilience similar to alternative B. Most of the restoration would involve removal of 

invading conifers from sagebrush that provides habitat for the greater sage-grouse. Many 

untreated areas would continue to have a low similarity to desired conditions. There is slightly 

less restoration treatments than in alternatives B and D due to some stewardship opportunity from 

mechanical thinning in montane vegetation but more than alternative A. 

Pinyon-Juniper and Arid Shrublands

Similar to sagebrush, there would be an increase in restoration of pinyon-juniper areas in 

alternative C compared to alternative A. There would be movement toward desired conditions of 

composition, structure, and resilience similar to alternative B in the restored areas. Similar to 

sagebrush, the amount of restored area would be slightly lower than in alternatives B and D. The 

result is that overall, there would continue to be large areas that have a low to moderate 

dissimilarity with desired conditions.

There would be very limited restoration of xeric shrub/blackbrush and mountain mahogany, 

associated primarily with treatment in community buffers. The net effect would be that there 

would be a limited and negligible movement toward desired conditions of composition, structure, 

and resilience in these vegetation types.

Eastside Jeffrey Pine Forests

There would be some restoration in Jeffrey pine in alternative C, but at a lower intensity than in 

alternatives B and D. There would be less reduction in density and less restoration of 

heterogeneity because of the emphasis on thinning small trees and not multiple diameters (small 

to medium). There would be similar levels of restoration to alternative A and substantially less 

restoration than in alternatives B and D. Although there is the potential for more restoration using 

wildfire to meet resource objectives, there is a high uncertainty that this would occur because of 

the limited amount of mechanical treatment and proximity of most eastside Jeffrey pine areas to 

communities and developed recreation areas. Mechanical treatments make it more likely that 

ladder and fuel conditions allow controlled and safe fire management. The result is that there 

would be limited movement toward desired conditions at the landscape scale for composition, 

structure, and resilience.

Eastside Upper Montane Forests

There would be limited treatment in eastside upper montane areas in alternative C. Much of this 

vegetation occurs around communities and developed recreation areas (like Mammoth Lakes). 

There would be fewer areas treated near communities and recreation sites on the Inyo National 

Forest in alternative C than alternatives B and D. The consequences of the treatments would be 

similar to those described for alternative B. Overall, composition would remain moderately 

similar to desired conditions. Composition is expected to continue to be dominated by red fir, 

Jeffrey pine, and lodgepole pine. There would be a slight increase in the similarity to desired 

conditions for non-native invasive plants because of additional direction to eradicate and control 

these plants during all types of restoration. There would be a slight movement toward desired 

conditions for structure, because there would be more of an emphasis on thinning small diameter 

trees, and not a range of diameters (except large trees) that would reduce density and increase 

heterogeneity. Resilience would show a slight increase. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

196

Eastside Subalpine and Alpine Vegetation

Consequences of alternative C on subalpine and alpine vegetation would be similar to alternative 

B.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative C

There would continue to be effects of warming and drier climate into the foreseeable future. The 

effects of climate change would be more prominent than the restoration benefits because of the 

low amount, small scale, and limited intensity of restoration in alternative C (see “Climate” 

subsection). Like other alternatives, there would continue to be restoration on adjacent Federal, 

State and local agency lands that are similar to those on national forest lands. Restoration on these 

other lands would also be limited. There would continue to be urbanized developed adjacent to 

national forest lands and increased recreational visitor use. There would likely be related 

increases in human fire ignitions and spread of invasive plants as a result of the combination of 

increased human presence and climate change. The size and area of large, high-intensity fires 

would continue to increase (see “Fire Trends” section). Overall, vegetation composition, 

structure, and resilience would become more dissimilar to desired conditions. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative D 

The greatest amount of restoration would occur in alternative D (chapter 2, Table 6 through Table 

8). It could be double what is in alternative B, which is potentially double the amount in 

alternative A. The increased restoration would include mechanical treatment, prescribed fire, and 

wildfire managed to meet resource objectives. On the Inyo National Forest, the combined area of 

restoration increases from an estimated 48,000 acres in alternative A, to between 90,000 and 

100,000 acres in alternative B, to 140,000 acres in alternative D. On the Sequoia National Forest 

the combined area of restoration is 48,000 acres in alternative A, 97,000 to 113,000 acres in 

alternative B, and 175,000 to 190,000 acres in alternative D. On the Sierra National Forest the 

combined area of restoration increases from 55,000 acres in alternative A, to 225,000 to 290,000 

acres in alternative B, to up to 447,000 acres in alternative D. Some of these may include areas 

that are overlapping treatments, meaning some of the areas may be treated with both mechanical 

treatment and prescribed fire or mechanical treatment and managed fire.

Most of the increased restoration would occur in the montane ponderosa pine and mixed conifer 

forests on the westside and in the Jeffrey pine and pinyon-juniper and sagebrush types on the 

eastside. Overall, alternative D emphasizes more rapidly restoring vegetation resilience

recognizing there may be short-term consequences. There are fewer wildlife-related restrictions 

on vegetation restoration in alternative D, especially more flexibility in limited operating periods 

and an increase in the amount of habitat that can be restored in the short term to achieve greater 

long-term benefits.

The greater flexibility in limited operating periods in westside montane and upper montane 

forests comes from an earlier end date to California spotted owl limited operating periods, a 

smaller avoidance area for California spotted owls, and a doubling of the area in focus landscapes 

where the Pacific fisher limited operating periods are waived (SPEC-PF-GDL-04). In the focus 

landscapes, there are fewer limitations on restoration in California spotted owl habitat. More 

protected activity centers can be treated (SPEC-CSO-GDL-07) and more protected activity 

centers can be restored using mechanical treatments because they are allowed in focus landscapes 

and the area in focus landscapes would double (SPEC-CSO-STD-01). The amount of fisher target 

habitat cells that can be restored remains at 50 percent (SPEC-PF-STD-02) but with double the 

focus landscapes, this level would more likely be reached. Areas in focus landscapes would be 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

197

more likely to move vegetation toward desired conditions to a large degree. The total amount of 

focus landscape could reach 40 percent or more of the entire montane landscape area. This 

reaches a level of restoration across the landscape that achieves widespread landscape resilience, 

not just resilience in the restored locations.

Restoration in alternative D would include the same management direction as alternative B 

described above to limit the introduction and spread of non-native invasive plants. Any associated 

improvements to native plant composition may be offset to an unknown degree by non-native 

invasive plant expansions in restoration areas, despite best management practices since climate 

change can favor the growth and spread of invasive species.

On the west side, the restoration would primarily occur in three different locations. First, 

treatments would be prioritized in community buffers and along ridges and roads in the 

community and general fire protection zones. Second, the treatments would be prioritized in the 

focus landscapes. The number of focus landscapes would be double that in alternative B. Third, 

there would be other areas restored for resilience to fire, drought, climate change, insects, and 

pathogens in the ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and some of the upper montane forests.

On the east side, the restoration would be similar to alternative B in location but the area restored 

would increase substantially. This includes areas around communities and developed recreation 

sites, sagebrush areas with encroaching conifers, Jeffrey pine departed from the desired 

conditions, dense pinyon-juniper woodlands, and some other areas with non-native plant 

invasions.

Westside Foothills Vegetation

There are similar trends toward desired conditions for vegetation in the foothills in alternative D 

as in alternative B but there is a substantially greater area that would benefit.

Composition. There would be an increase in the area that is similar to desired conditions in 

alternative D due to an emphasis on restoration in the two wildfire protection zones, where most 

of the foothill vegetation occurs, and work with tribes on cultural, ecological restoration. These 

improvements may be offset to an unknown degree by non-native invasive plant expansions in 

restoration areas, despite best management practices since climate change can favor the growth 

and spread of invasive species.

Structure. There would be a moderate improvement in vegetation structure in the foothill zone 

due to ecological restoration. There may be changes in chaparral that move toward the lower end 

of the natural range of variation, by treating more late seral patches and move them to early seral 

patches because of the emphasis on community and infrastructure fire protection.

Ecological Resilience to Drought, Air Pollutants, Climate Change, Insects, and Pathogens.

There would a moderate increase in ecological resilience overall and a moderate increase at sites 

where restoration occurs. Increased mechanical restoration and more flexible management of 

wildlife habitat, including more flexible limited operating periods would provide more 

opportunities for large prescribed fires. Much of the foothill landscape includes steep, 

inaccessible areas that are not forested, where large prescribed burns are the primary restoration 

option. This type of restoration would move chaparral/live oak vegetation toward more of a finescale mosaic of different age and size structure. This would increase resilience to fire and reduce 

the likelihood of development of large high-intensity fires that create uniformly young chaparral 

over large areas and threaten communities and adjacent forests. Restoration of blue oak 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

198

woodlands is very difficult, particularly restoration of the native understory plant community that 

is more resilient.

Westside Montane Forests

Alternatives D would have the greatest amount of vegetation restoration in the montane zone. 

Between 40 to 60 percent of the montane landscape in many places is expected to be restored 

over the life of the plan. Alternative D would have the greatest amount of restoration with much 

of the restoration within focus landscapes. Restoration in these areas would move at least 40 

percent of these landscapes toward desired conditions that are based largely on the natural range 

of variation. Restoration would include both dry and moist mixed conifer, and nearby riparian 

areas where needed. There would be restoration of California spotted owl protected activity 

centers that occur primarily on dry sites. The concentration of restoration in landscape areas 

would result in a higher likelihood that these areas would burn at lower intensities during 

wildfires and retain mature forest. Within the focus landscapes, projects would be larger and more 

effectively thin vegetation and restore more fire to the landscape to move toward desired 

conditions. Mechanical thinning would remove some larger trees and more mid-sized and small 

trees which would increase the economy of scale and enable more area in the landscape to be 

treated, especially with a variety of stewardship opportunities. 

The amount of prescribed fire and wildfire managed to meet resource objectives would be 

greatest in alternative D. The amount would be up to double that in alternative A. The increase 

would be due to the greater amount of mechanical restoration and emphasis on increasing the use 

of fire as a restoration tool and to restore it as an ecosystem process to these frequent fire adapted 

and fire deficit ecosystems. The mechanical restoration would focus first on strategically placed 

areas on ridges and along major roads, in addition to patches in the focus landscapes. The purpose 

of these strategic areas is to improve the ability to safely and effectively conduct large prescribed 

fires, suppress fires, and to manage wildfires in a manner that results in lower intensity and a 

mosaic of severity that enhances protection of communities and restores ecosystems. There would 

also be more prescribed fire in and between areas restored mechanically. Larger prescribed fires 

would be more feasible because vegetation would be less dense, making desired fire effects and 

fire control more achievable. There would be a lower likelihood of sustained crown fire. There is 

a moderate level of uncertainty that the planned amount of prescribed fire would not occur 

because of air quality constraints.

Composition. Restoration treatments would substantially increase the dominance and 

codominance of ponderosa and Jeffrey pine, and black oak (where it occurs), especially on dry 

sites. Desired conditions and direction to achieve them include decreased tree density (cover and 

basal area) and increased heterogeneity. These will favor the shade-intolerant pine and oaks. The 

health and resilience of large pines and black oaks will be improved by reducing stand density 

around them, although clumps and groups of large and old trees would be retained. This would 

increase the likelihood that the current pine and black oak trees survive stresses from drought, air 

pollutants, and temperature increases related to climate change.

Restoration of heterogeneity through mechanical thinning, and especially prescribed fire and fire 

managed to meet resource objectives would improve the composition, condition and diversity of 

native understory plants. Shrubs, flowering plants, and grasses that are adapted to fire would have 

more vigorous and dense foliage, increased flowering and fruiting, and increased density in a 

patchy pattern. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

199

Structure. In alternative D, it is expected that between 40 and 60 percent of the montane 

landscape would move toward desired conditions. Tree density would be lower and heterogeneity 

considerably higher across large areas of the landscape. The landscapes would be most changed 

in the protection zones, but also in the restoration zones accessible by road and equipment and 

feasible for large landscape prescribed fire. This would move substantial portions of the 

landscape toward desired conditions. 

Ecological Resilience to Drought, Air Pollutants, Climate Change, Insects, and Pathogens. 

In montane forests, alternative D promotes the greatest resilience to climate change, drought, air 

pollutants, insects, and pathogens because the elevated restoration treatment rates under this 

alternative builds greater adaptive capacity in montane landscapes than other alternatives. 

Decreased tree density and increased heterogeneity at the landscape and site scales would 

improve resilience to these multiple stressors. Higher levels of prescribed fire associated with 

increased mechanical treatments and large prescribed fires in other areas would decrease surface 

fuels and increase resilience to large, high-intensity fire more than other alternatives.

Figure 35 shows potential changes in ecological fire resilience based on restoration of 

representative focus landscapes and treatments in the community wildfire protection zones. This 

does not incorporate additional large prescribed fires or wildfires managed to meet resource 

objectives that could occur, especially at higher elevations. 

Figure 35. Potential changes in ecological fire resilience, alternative D

Note: This does not include improvements in resilience from wildfire managed for resource objectives. There 

would be further improvements from these managed fires, primarily in the Kern Drainage.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

200

Upper Montane Forests

Ecological fire resilience is the same as defined in the forest assessments. In general, it is based 

upon the proportion of crown fire that would occur in a landscape area under 97th percentile 

weather conditions. High resilience is where less than 25 percent of the area would burn as crown 

fire; moderate resilience as 25 to 50 percent; low resilience as 50 to 75 percent; and very low 

resilience as greater than 75 percent crown fire.

The consequences of alternative D on upper montane vegetation would be similar to alternative 

B. Most of the restoration would be through wildfire managed to meet resource objectives. There 

would also be increased amounts of mechanical and prescribed fire restoration in upper montane 

forests that are highly departed from desired conditions and have low resilience to insects and 

pathogens. Overall resilience would increase and move toward desired conditions.

Subalpine and Alpine Vegetation (Eastside and Westside)

Overall, alternative D would have similar consequences to alternative B and C in subalpine and 

alpine vegetation. Wildfire managed to meet resource objectives would increase resilience fire, 

drought, climate change, and to insects and diseases primarily through the reduction of stand 

densities and promotion of diversity of species, and structures, and tree regeneration. Whitebark 

pine forests located in recreation areas (like ski areas) would potentially be more resilient to 

insects and diseases under alternatives D. Alternative D would have greater treatment rates in 

recreation areas based on a regional whitebark pine restoration strategy.

Despite differences among alternatives, many whitebark pine and other subalpine forests would 

be heavily impacted by insects and diseases associated with increased moisture stress and 

warming climate conditions under all alternatives.

Eastside Vegetation

The dominant eastside vegetation types (sagebrush, Jeffrey pine, and pinyon-juniper) would all 

move toward desired conditions with restoration treatments, similarly to alternative B. There 

would be substantially more area restored in the middle and low elevations in alternative D that 

would result in movement toward desired conditions for composition, structure, and especially 

resilience at the landscape scale. There would be more removal of invading conifers in sagebrush 

areas, along with control and eradication of non-native invasive plants. There would be larger 

areas of Jeffrey pine where tree density is reduced, heterogeneity is increased, surface fuels 

reduced, and understory composition restored. There would be substantially more area of pinyonjuniper with reduced density and non-native invasive plants eradicated or controlled.

Alternative D promotes the greatest resilience to climate change in arid shrublands and 

woodlands, because the elevated restoration treatment rates under these alternatives build greater 

adaptive capacity in these arid ecosystems than alternative A. A substantial portion of the 

landscape would have increased resilience to large, high-intensity fire and lower risk of nonnative invasive plants spreading in burned areas, especially cheatgrass and other highly 

flammable grasses. Decreased non-native plant spread would have an additional positive effect of 

further reducing the likelihood of large, high-intensity fires. These long-term improvements may 

be offset to an unknown degree by non-native invasive plant expansions in restoration areas, 

despite best management practices since climate change and treatment activities themselves can 

favor the growth and spread of invasive species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

201

Cumulative Effects of Alternative D

There would continue to be effects of warming and drier climate into the foreseeable future. The 

effects of climate change would be somewhat reduced because of the increased climate resilience 

that results from the substantial amounts, scale, and intensity of restoration treatments in 

alternative D (see “Climate Change” section). Restoration and development on adjacent agency 

and private lands, as well as urbanization and increased human use would be the same as 

described for the other alternatives, with increased fire ignitions and invasive plant spread 

occurring. The size and area of large, high-intensity fires may decrease near the end of the 

restoration period because the amount of landscape restored would exceed 40 to 60 percent in 

substantial portions of the low and mid-elevation areas (see “Fire Trends” section). Overall, 

vegetation composition, structure, and resilience would become more similar to desired 

conditions.

Analytical Conclusions

Westside Foothills Vegetation

Both alternatives B and D would move the most area toward and closest to the desired conditions 

for vegetation ecology. The most restoration would occur in alternative D, up to double the 

amount in alternative B. There would be more opportunities for restoration, including work with 

tribes that would benefit vegetation composition, especially understory plants. There would be 

increased restoration of native plants and eradication of non-native, invasive plants to some 

extent, especially annual grasses. However, it is difficult to completely eradicate invasive annual 

grasses across large areas and no alternative is expected to achieve this. Alternative C would have 

similar levels of restoration as alternative A, which are low in the foothill zone. Overall, 

alternative D would result in the most area moved toward desired conditions in the foothill zone, 

followed by alternative B. 

Montane Forests

Alternative D followed by alternative B would move the most area toward and closest to the 

desired conditions for vegetation ecology. The higher rates of treatment and emphasis on treating 

across larger areas would be more likely to result in entire landscapes that are restored within the 

next 10 to 15 years. This increases the likelihood that large landscape areas are not only restored 

but that they can withstand fires of all intensities and still maintain much of their forest structure 

and composition with moderate or mixed severity and limited large patches of high-severity fires. 

While small, distributed pockets of high-severity fire can provide heterogeneity and special 

habitats (see “Complex Early Seral Forests” in the following section), very large fires are outside 

of the desired condition. 

The beneficial effects of alternative D are substantially greater than in alternative B. In alternative 

D, over half of the landscape is likely to be restored fully to desired conditions. This would result 

in a high level of resilience across large landscape areas that would improve the resilience of 

adjacent areas. In alternative B, there are some areas that would have landscape treatments, but 

only some of these landscapes would have intense enough treatment to move substantially toward 

desired conditions. Outside of the fire protection zones and in areas that originated from railroad 

logging in the early 19th century, there would be limited ability to thin sufficiently to restore 

heterogeneity and reduce density to achieve desired conditions or resilience. This may represent 

half to two-thirds of the potential focus landscape areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

202

Alternatives A and C are both likely to result in low levels of restoration treatments. Vegetation is 

likely to remain highly dissimilar to desired condition for structure, composition and resilience 

across most of the landscape. The increased emphasis in alternative C on prescribed fire and 

wildfire managed to meet resource objectives may result in some increases in areas restored by 

fire. But these may be more limited than intended because of the low levels of accompanying 

mechanical treatment in strategic locations that would aid in conducting more large prescribed 

burns or benefiting from wildfires. 

There is a relative difference among the alternatives in the cumulative environmental 

consequences. This is especially the case with the overlaid consequences of climate warming and 

increased probability of large, high-intensity fires on top of the restoration treatments. The trend 

for increasing large, high-intensity fire is highly likely to continue in all alternatives, but there 

will be a substantially lower probability in alternative D and a slightly lower probability in 

alternative B based on the fire-climate restoration scenario research (Westerling et al. 2015).

Upper Montane Forests

Alternative D followed by B would move the greatest amount of upper montane vegetation 

toward the desired conditions. The higher treatment rates and emphasis on a landscape-scale 

approach would more likely result in landscape-scale restoration within the next 10 to 15 years, 

especially for forest ecosystems. These greater restoration treatment rates in upper montane 

landscapes increases the capacity of ecosystems to resist undesirable fire effects (such as large, 

high-severity patches that exceed the desired conditions), recover from insect and pathogens, and 

maintain much of their desired structure and composition despite climate change. Alternative A 

followed by alternative C would likely result in lower restoration treatment rates than alternatives 

D and B. Consequently under alternative A, vegetation would likely remain dissimilar to the 

desired condition in structure, composition, and resilience across many upper montane 

landscapes.

Alternatives D, B, and C would likely result in increased opportunities in the use of fire for 

restoration in many upper montane landscapes, especially in areas more conducive to wildfires 

managed to meet resource objectives. However, fewer of these opportunities may be available 

under alternative C, because this alternative provides fewer strategically-placed mechanical 

treatments that support more opportunities in the use of prescribed fire and wildfire managed to 

meet resource objectives. These strategically placed mechanical treatments would often be critical 

to ensure that high valued resources and assets are sufficiently protected from undesirable fire 

effects following planned and unplanned ignitions. 

The trend for increasing large, high-intensity fire is highly likely to continue in all alternatives as 

described for montane forests above. Due to the increased amounts of restoration treatments, 

there would be a substantially lower probability in alternative D and a somewhat lower 

probability in alternative B based on the fire-climate restoration scenarios (Westerling et al. 

2015).

Subalpine and Alpine Vegetation

Alternatives B, C, and D would move the greatest amount of subalpine and alpine vegetation 

toward the desired conditions. The higher restoration treatment rates under these alternatives 

build greater adaptive capacity in many subalpine landscapes than alternative A. Alternative A 

will likely support the slowest rate of return to desired conditions and promote the least long-term 

resilience to stressors. This is a consequence of the lower treatment rates under alternative A, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

203

especially the use of wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. Alternative A is also the only 

alternative that does not involve the creation of an interagency whitebark pine conservation and 

restoration strategy. Under alternatives B, C, and D, this strategy would enhance the success of 

whitebark pine and other subalpine forest restoration efforts in the southern Sierra Nevada. This 

would be particularly evident in recreation areas where increased treatment rates would build 

greater adaptive capacity.

Under all alternatives, alpine vegetation would have low resilience to climate change, because 

these high-elevation vegetation types have high exposure to the effects of climate change and low 

adaptive capacity to changing climate under all climate scenarios (Safford et al. 2012a; Lenihan et 

al. 2003, 2008). Active management is also similarly limited in alpine environments in all 

alternatives, which further limits the adaptive capacity of alpine ecosystems under any one 

alternative. Consequently, there are no differences among alternatives with respect to the 

maintenance of desired conditions in alpine ecosystems.

Eastside Sagebrush

Alternative D followed by alternative B would move the greatest amount of sagebrush shrublands 

toward the desired conditions. The higher treatment rates in these alternatives would more likely 

result in landscape-scale restoration in the next 10 to 15 years. The greater restoration treatment 

rates in sagebrush landscapes increases the capacity of component ecosystems to resist non-native 

plant invasions and maintain much of their desired structure and composition despite climate 

change. Alternative A would likely result in lower restoration treatment rates than other 

alternatives. Consequently under alternative A, vegetation would likely remain dissimilar to the 

desired condition in structure, composition and resilience across many arid landscapes. 

Alternative C would have only slighter greater restoration treatment levels than alternative A, 

resulting in continued dissimilarity of sagebrush vegetation to desired conditions in most areas.

Eastside Pinyon-Juniper and Arid Shrublands

Similar to sagebrush vegetation, alternative D followed by alternative B would move the greatest 

amount of pinyon-juniper vegetation toward desired conditions. Increased treatment rates and 

intensity would restore less dense and more heterogeneous structure, and reduce non-native 

invasive plants. These changes would increase the resilience to drought, insects and pathogens, 

climate change, and fire. Alternative A would have the least restoration of all alternatives, but 

alternative C would have only slightly more restoration treatments. Under both alternatives A and 

C, most of the pinyon-juniper vegetation would remain dissimilar to vegetation desired 

conditions. 

Under all alternatives, there would be a similar, low amount of restoration in xeric 

shrub/blackbrush and mountain mahogany vegetation types. These vegetation types would remain 

moderately dissimilar to desired conditions. There would be beneficial effects of all alternatives 

on these arid shrublands, through eradication or control of non-native invasive plants on adjacent 

sagebrush, pinyon-juniper and Jeffrey pine vegetation. This would reduce the likelihood of spread 

of non-native invasive plants into the arid shrublands.

Eastside Jeffrey Pine Forests

Alternative D followed by alternative B would move the greatest amount of Jeffrey pine forests 

toward desired conditions. These alternatives would have substantial amounts of mechanical 

thinning and associated prescribed burning in Jeffrey pine forests that would decrease forest 

density, increase heterogeneity, decrease surface fuels, restore understory composition, and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

204

increase resilience. Alternative D would restore landscape level resilience more than alternative B 

because at least 40 percent of the area would be restored. Alternatives A and C restore the least 

amount of Jeffrey pine area and the treatments are lower intensity, limited to small-diameter trees.

Terrestrial Ecosystem Processes and Functions

Background

Functions of terrestrial ecosystems can refer to many things. Here the primary functions 

considered include how vegetation and terrestrial ecosystems provide for carbon cycling and 

regulation, fire regimes as an ecological process, special habitats, and connectivity for species 

across landscapes. Special habitats include old forests, complex early seral forests, habitat for 

pollinators and tree cavity excavators (like woodpeckers).

This section also contains an integrated analysis of varied aspects of biodiversity and ecological 

sustainability from other sections and multiple supplemental reports. This includes an integrated 

analysis of ecosystem condition in relation to tribal uses, fire regime and fire effects information, 

and special habitats. Tribes have lived with and relied upon terrestrial (and aquatic and riparian) 

ecosystems in the analysis area for thousands of years. In this section, the condition of plants, 

animals, and overall terrestrial ecosystems in relation to tribal uses is analyzed. Overall 

sustainability will draw upon broad measures of ecological integrity identified in the National 

Ecological Sustainability Frameworks (2004, 2010) including vegetation condition, air pollutant 

exposure, insect and pathogen levels, and fire regimes. All of these aspects of terrestrial 

ecosystem function are described below.

Analysis Methods and Data Sources

The overall approach in this analysis was to evaluate the similarity of current and estimated future 

conditions to the desired conditions where possible. The desired conditions for most of these 

indicators are broadly defined because there is less specific best available scientific information 

and other sources on which to base them, or there is more uncertainty as to what desired 

conditions should be. Therefore, the evaluation is mostly a qualitative evaluation of relative 

differences in trends toward the desired conditions. In some cases there was quantitative 

information available to make the evaluation, such as aspects of old forest and complex early 

seral forests. For both types of evaluations, the specific indicators, measures, thresholds for levels 

of similarity between desired conditions and current or future conditions, and associated 

assumptions were identified.

Indicators and Measures

Fire Regimes and Fire as an Ecological Process

Fire is a “keystone” ecosystem process in most of the analysis area (McKelvey et al. 1996, van 

Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman 2006, Brooks and Minnich 2006; Wills 2006). This means that it 

has important and often dominant influences on ecosystem composition, structure, and function. 

Fire shaped most of the ecosystems. Deserts and alpine ecosystems are two exceptions. 

Fire Regimes 

The fire regime is the pattern of frequency, intensity, severity, seasonal timing, and spatial pattern 

of fires (Sugihara et al. 2006a). Three measures of fire regimes were used here: (1) the frequency 

of fire, (2) the fire regime condition class, and (3) a qualitative analysis of fire regime integrity. 

Fire regime integrity refers to the similarity of all aspects of fire regimes compared to the historic 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

205

patterns (prior to European settlement). Additional analysis and discussion of fire regimes by 

individual major vegetation types is addressed in the “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section. 

This includes fire severity and spatial patterns.

Fire Effects

Ecological fire effects refer to how vegetation is affected by fire (for example, whether it is 

invigorated and sprouts, or killed). Many plants in the analysis area are adapted to fire and can 

respond positively to it, depending upon the intensity and duration of the fire and the extent 

(Fites-Kaufman et al. 2006). Here a broad analysis was conducted. Specific effects to different 

vegetation types are described in the “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” and “Aquatic and Riparian 

Ecosystems” sections.

Carbon Stocks, Sequestration, and Stability

The primary criteria used to analyze carbon stocks, sequestration, and stability were the resilience 

to fire, climate, and insects and pathogens. In dry forest systems, there can be dramatic changes in 

carbon stocks and sequestration capacity with one large, high-intensity fire (North 2014). Carbon 

stability was a focus of analysis because managing for long-term carbon stability, within a carbon 

carrying capacity, is a forestwide desired condition. Carbon stocks and sequestration are both 

dependent on the carbon carrying capacity, and, consequently, highly related to the carbon 

stability of an ecosystem. In arid, eastside shrublands and woodlands, soil carbon was 

emphasized.

Connectivity

The ability for species to move throughout a landscape is important for ecological integrity 

(Rudnick et al. 2012). Species that are wide ranging are able to maintain genetic diversity and 

sustainability in the face of changes to their population or environment (Gilbert-Norton 2010). 

Connected landscapes allow other species to migrate in the face of climate change or other 

pressures (Heller and Zaveleta 2009). Despite its ecological importance, in practice connectivity 

is a very difficult concept to apply because it depends on the species and its associated life history 

and dispersal characteristics (Cushman and Landguth 2012). Connectivity for wide-ranging 

habitat specialists (like the greater sage-grouse or Pacific fisher) are different than for generalists 

(like bears) or short-dispersal specialists (like plants growing on certain rock types). For this 

analysis, the emphasis was on broad patterns of vegetation structure or landscape arrangement of 

vegetation and some aspects of connectivity function. Functional aspects included existing and 

predicted habitat fragmentation for vegetation types and specialized habitat (like old forest) and 

landscape patterns of broad management intensities including less managed areas (such as 

wilderness), varying road densities (Cushman and Landguth 2012), and different large fire 

probabilities. 

Terrestrial ecosystem connectivity was analyzed at multiple spatial scales. These are all related 

but focus on different aspects of terrestrial ecosystem connectivity. Most of the analysis was 

qualitative, based upon key sources of connectivity presented in the assessments (such as the

State of California Essential Habitat Connectivity project, fisher conservation strategy, Sierra 

Nevada Ecosystem Project Areas of Late Successional Emphasis) and maps of broad management 

regimes (like wilderness) by alternative. Connectivity of special habitats, especially old forest and 

complex early seral habitats are described in more depth in the supplemental reports on that topic.

Thresholds were based upon general connectivity theory, especially for wide-ranging wildlife. 

There are many different ways to measure connectivity but for a general view, percolation theory 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

206

is useful. Percolation theory suggests that when the majority of a landscape has conditions 

suitable for movement, then movement is more likely to occur (Turner 1989, Metzger and 

Decamps 1997, Kindlemann and Burel 2008). It matters less how habitat is arranged when there 

is more of it. The thresholds vary by species habitat requirements and mobility. For this analysis, 

we assumed that landscapes with greater than 60 percent habitat suitable for movement provided 

high connectivity. Some research suggests that the threshold is greater than 40 percent. For this 

analysis we assumed that 40 to 60 percent provided moderate levels of habitat connectivity. In 

addition to the amount and distribution of habitat, areas that block or constrict movement, such as 

large reservoirs or major highways can influence connectivity. Since this is a general landscape 

view of connectivity, we assumed that relative differences in the number of major barriers 

provided relative differences in the ability of wide-ranging species to move through the 

landscape.

Criteria and thresholds for environmental analysis of landscape connectivity across vegetation 

types within ecological zones in westside foothill, montane and upper montane ecological zones 

are shown below. 

Indicator: Connectivity for wide-ranging forest species (bear, deer, fisher; see also old forest 

below in special habitats)

Criteria:

9. Major barriers and connecting habitat with hiding cover (overhead shrub and/or tree 

cover).

10. Location of and amount of barriers (such as large reservoirs, developed areas, major 

roads, high road density) 

Thresholds and Evaluation Approach: 

• High: No major barriers preventing dispersal of sensitive species; greater than 60 percent

of the landscape with hiding cover.

• Medium: Pinch points or barriers exist in limited places; 30-60 percent of the landscape 

with hiding cover. 

• Low: Multiple pinch points or barriers; less than 30 percent of the landscape with hiding 

cover

Criteria and thresholds for environmental analysis of landscape connectivity across vegetation 

types across eastside landscapes (sagebrush and pinyon-juniper) are shown below: 

Indicator: Connectivity for sage grouse and other sagebrush dependent species.

Criteria:

1. Major barriers and, amount and distribution of connecting sagebrush habitat 

2. Location and amount of barriers (such as large reservoirs, developed areas, major roads, 

high road density). 

3. Extent of area with moderate sagebrush cover without encroaching conifers (like juniper) 

Thresholds and Evaluation Approach: 

• High: No major barriers preventing dispersal of sagebrush species, greater than 60 

percent of landscape with sagebrush cover.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

207

• Moderate: Pinch points or barriers exist in limited places, 30-60 percent of the landscape 

with sagebrush cover.

• Low: Multiple pinch points or barriers exist. Less than 30 percent of the landscape with 

sagebrush cover.

Terrestrial Biodiversity

The analysis of special habitats and keystone species groups adds to the course filter vegetation 

analysis above. These are important aspects of biodiversity and support the fine-filter analysis of 

biodiversity by individual species in the “At risk Terrestrial Wildlife Species” section. It provides 

an evaluation of the extent to which plan components that provide ecosystem diversity will also 

provide the ecological conditions necessary to support species of conservation concern. 

Special Habitats

Taking a broad ecosystem approach, the vegetation analysis emphasized dominant vegetation 

types. There are plant communities or habitats that are less common and contain specialized or 

more uncommon plant and animal species (Table 52). Some are uncommon because they occur in 

scattered locations, such as marble rock outcrops but they are important for ecological integrity 

because they are “hotspots” of biodiversity. In some cases, though not always, special habitats 

support species of conservation concern or federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed 

species. Others are uncommon because of extensive periods of past management that differs from 

what is commonly practiced today. This includes old forest (Table 50) and complex early seral 

forests (Table 51).

Old forest was analyzed by comparing conditions and trends with similarity to desired conditions 

for large tree densities and landscape proportions of old forest (Table 50). These desired 

conditions recognize a “gradient” approach to defining old forest (Franklin and Fites-Kaufman 

1996; Spies 2004). That means that there are different degrees of what is considered old growth. 

Areas that have high densities of large trees relative to the natural range of variation (the median 

and high range of desired conditions) are at one end of the old forest spectrum, and areas with 

low densities of large trees (the low range) are at the other end of the spectrum. Because of the 

long history of selective removal of large, old trees in the analysis area (McKelvey and Johnston 

1992), areas that have low densities are more common (Franklin and Fites-Kaufman 1996). While 

even single large, old trees can be ecologically important given this history and current patterns, 

old forest is still focused on large, old trees within an area. The analysis reflects this gradient 

approach and wide range in current conditions in large tree densities.

Table 50. Indicators, criteria and thresholds used to analyze environmental consequences for the old 

forest special forest habitat

Characteristic Criteria

Thresholds for Qualitative 

Evaluation of Trends

Large trees Densities compared to desired 

conditions

Relative trends (increase, decrease, 

stay the same)

Amount of old forest Proportion of landscape with large 

trees (size varies by species, see 

desired conditions) 

high = more than 60% of landscape

moderate = 40-60% of landscape

low = less than 40% of landscape

Large snags (larger than 20

inches diameter at breast 

height; montane and upper 

montane forests only)

Density (per 10 acres) and 

variability (range in densities) 

compared to desired condition

high = 20-40 per 10 acres 

moderate = 5-20 per 10 acres; 

low = less than 5 per 10 acres
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

208

Table 51. Indicators, criteria and thresholds used to analyze environmental consequences for 

complex early seral habitat special forest habitat

Characteristic Criteria

Qualitative Evaluation of 

Consequences

Amount of landscape Proportion of area (across forest) that 

occurs in complex early seral in the 

landscape

Relative evaluation of the trends in 

amount

Spatial Pattern Evenness in distribution across 

landscape, and grain (size of patches) 

relative to natural range of variation

Relative evaluation of pattern 

compared to desired conditions

Table 52. Indicators, criteria and thresholds used to analyze environmental consequences for limited 

habitat types special forest habitats

Special Habitat Indicator Criteria

Alkali Flats and

Pumice Flats

Plant habitat and plant condition Amount of ground disturbance 

(equipment or trampling)

Rock Outcrops 

(especially marble 

and limestone, slate)

Plant habitat and disturbance. Amount of ground disturbance or 

plant trampling. 

Caves Condition and access to wildlife Amount of disturbance and types of 

entrance closure structures.

Cliffs Condition and disturbance Amount of human or equipment 

disturbance and presence

Meadow edges Condition and disturbance Moisture status of the meadow and 

amount of trampling (from people or 

grazing animals)

Keystone Groups (Pollinators and Cavity Excavators) 

Some plants, animals, insects, and fungi stand out in their role in ecosystem function. Pollinators 

are one such group. They include mostly insects, including butterflies and bees, but also other 

animals, like hummingbirds. Without these pollinators, many flowering plants would fail to 

persist or be rare on the landscape. This would then have repercussions on other insects and 

animals that use these plants for food and shelter. 

Another standout group are woodpeckers and other primary cavity excavators (such as nuthatches 

and sapsuckers) because they make cavities that are used by many other birds and mammals. For 

this analysis, these two keystone groups were selected as important, but it is not meant to imply 

that there might not be other ones. These are two groups that might be impacted by treatments. 

The analysis of consequences to pollinators and cavity excavators was qualitative. Findings on 

climate, fire, insects, pathogens, vegetation, special habitats, and at-risk species were synthesized.

For pollinators, three recent management strategies were used to identify measures and practices 

to analyze. These all incorporate summaries of research key elements of pollinator habitat and 

management approaches. These include the “Pollinator Research Action Plan” by USDA and EPA 

(2015), “Region 5 Draft Pollinator Best Management Practices” (Van Zuuk 2014), and “Pollinator 

Friendly Best Management Practices for Federal Lands” (USDA and USDI 2015). The key 

element of pollinator habitat is the abundance, condition, and spacing of flowering plants in the 

landscape. Openings in forests and sunny areas are identified as important, and dense forests a 

concern. Also important are nearby water sources, and nesting habitat that is widely varied and 

can include holes in the ground, logs, hollow or pithy shrub stems, and snags. Continuously 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

209

burned areas can be detrimental but fire can also improve understory plant flowering. Any 

activity or management action that removes or reduces flowering can have impacts including 

intensive grazing, recreation use, mowing, or herbicides. For this analysis, changes to forest 

heterogeneity that create openings, and restoration of low and moderate-intensity fire were used 

to evaluate environmental consequences as described below.

Indicator: Understory plant composition, condition and distribution 

Criteria:

1. Amount of sunny openings or overstory heterogeneity in forests. 

2. Amount and type of fire relative to the natural fire regime (enhances native flowering 

plants).

Thresholds:

• High: Dominant vegetation is mostly (greater than 60 percent) within the desired 

conditions for structure and fire regimes. Fire is restored to many areas in historically 

frequent fire ecosystems. Non-native plants are limited in extent.

• Moderate: Dominant vegetation is somewhat (30 to 60 percent) within the desired 

conditions for structure and fire regimes. Fire is restored to some areas in historically 

frequent fire ecosystems. Non-native plants are present in some areas.

• Low: Dominant vegetation is mostly (less than 30 percent) outside of the desired 

conditions for structure and fire regimes. Fire is restored to limited areas in historically 

frequent fire ecosystems. Non-native plants are present in numerous areas, dominant in 

some larger areas.

For primary cavity excavators, primarily woodpeckers, snags are a primary habitat. Many species 

of woodpeckers use a variety of snag sizes in a variety of forest conditions. This includes small to 

large snags in young to old forests (used by white headed and pileated woodpeckers; Bull and 

Holthausen 1993, Morrison et al. 1987, Raphael and White 1984), or unburned to burned forests 

(used by black-backed woodpeckers; Saracco et al. 2011, Fogg et al. 2014 Siegel et al. 2014). The 

amount and distribution of snags in varied forest conditions was used to evaluate environmental 

consequences as described below.

Indicator: Amount and distribution of snags in both burned and unburned forests. Diversity of 

snag habitats. 

Criteria:

• Density and variation in size and age of snags compared to desired conditions. Spatial 

pattern (evenness across larger areas but clumpy patterns at smaller scales). Presence in 

multiple forest conditions and settings (young forests, old forests, burned forests, and 

unburned forests). 

Thresholds:

• High: Snag densities and distribution are within the desired conditions across most the 

landscape. These occur in a variety of forest ages and burned and unburned conditions. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

210

• Moderate: Snag densities and distribution are somewhat within the desired conditions 

across the landscape. These occur in a variety of forest ages and burned and unburned 

conditions but may be missing in some areas.

• Low: Snag densities and distribution are within the desired conditions across limited 

areas the landscape. These occur in some of forest ages and burned and unburned 

conditions but are missing across significant areas.

Tribal Uses and Biocultural Diversity

Native Americans have lived throughout the analysis area for thousands of years (Lake and Long 

2014). The people of various tribes have historically and are currently tied to different ecosystems 

across the area that provide for basic life needs of food, shelter, and culture. Plants, animals, 

springs, and seeps across all elevational zones and vegetation types are often important to tribes. 

There are strong ties between tribes and all components of ecosystems. The condition of 

biodiversity thus can impact cultural diversity, or the ability of tribes to maintain their culture. 

The condition and distribution of these culturally important aspects of ecosystems is the focus of 

this section. 

A qualitative analysis was conducted for tribal uses and biocultural diversity. This included a 

synthesis of the findings in the Vegetation Ecology, Fire Ecology, and Vegetation Resilience

supplemental reports, and discussions in numerous tribal forums over the last several years. 

Terrestrial Ecosystem Sustainability

The National Forest Sustainability Framework (USDA FS 2004, 2010) was used to evaluate

terrestrial ecosystem sustainability considering aspects of biodiversity and ecosystem processes

(Table 53). This includes ecosystem resilience, connectivity, vegetation condition, insect and 

pathogen processes, fire regimes, species diversity and at-risk species. This section draws upon 

findings in the sections discussing agents of change, terrestrial vegetation ecology, fire ecology, 

and at-risk species. 

Table 53. Characteristics from the National Forest Sustainability Framework used in the analysis

Characteristic Analysis

Area affected by insects and 

pathogens beyond natural range 

Summary from the “Insects and Pathogens” section in the “Agents 

of Change” section

Area affected by air pollutants that 

may cause negative effects 

Summary from the “Air Quality” section

Area affected by invasive species Summary from the “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section

Area with fire condition class 

outside of natural range 

Summary from the “Fire Regimes and Fire as an Ecological 

Process” section

Area with vegetation condition 

outside of natural range 

Summary from the “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section

Affected Environment

A summary of the current conditions of carbon, connectivity, old forest, complex early seral 

habitat, limited habitat types, and tribal uses are shown in Table 54. The conditions are described 

in broad terms in relation to the desired conditions by ecological and elevation zone or dominant 

vegetation types (see “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section for descriptions). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

211

Table 54. Summary of the similarity of current conditions to desired conditions for major indicators 

of terrestrial function by ecological/elevational zone

Ecological 

Zone

Fire 

Regimes 

and Fire 

as an 

Ecological 

Process 

Carbon 

Stability

Landscape 

Connectivity

Old 

Forest 

Condition 

and 

Amount

Complex 

Early 

Seral 

Forest

Limited 

habitat 

(marble rock 

outcrops, 

alkali flats)

Tribal Uses, 

Biocultural 

Diversity 

(Conditions)

Foothill Moderate Low Low Low Moderate Moderate Low

Montane Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low

Upper 

montane

Low to 

moderate

Low to 

moderate

High Moderate Moderate 

to high

Moderate Moderate

Subalpine High Moderate High High Na High Moderate

Alpine High Moderate High NA NA High High

Sagebrus

h 

Moderate Moderate Low To 

Moderate

NA NA Moderate Low

PinyonJuniperModerate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Eastside 

Jeffrey 

Pine 

Low Low Moderate Low Low to 

moderate

Moderate Low

Desert Moderate Moderate High NA NA High Moderate

NA = not applicable

Fire Regimes and Fire as an Ecological Process

Fire Return Interval Departure

Historically (before 1800), area that burned in the analysis area and California overall was 

estimated to be vastly greater than current patterns (Stephens et al. 2007). These changes have not 

been uniform. The frequency of fire has decreased the most in montane and eastside ponderosa 

pine, Jeffrey pine, and mixed conifer. These areas used to burn on average every 10 to 15 years. 

Higher elevation red fir forests have changed less, only missing one burn cycle on average. 

Subalpine and alpine areas have changed little if at all. Although lightning strikes often hit the 

crest where they occur, the sparse vegetation carries little fire. In eastside sagebrush, pinyonjuniper and desert types, the changes vary. Where there have been invasions of non-native, annual 

cheatgrass, fire is more frequent than historically. Other areas have had some declines in fires, but 

fires were more varied historically.

The fire return interval departure index is one way of showing the changes in fire frequency (van 

de Water and Safford 2011). The maps below show fire return interval departure for the Inyo 

(Figure 36), Sequoia (Figure 37), and Sierra (Figure 38) National Forests. These maps are based 

on van de Water and Safford (2011). The departure is based upon the difference between the 

current fire frequency (average years between fires) and historic fire frequency. High departure 

can represent a lack of fire (shown in red, minus 66 percent) or too frequent fire (shown in dark 

blue, plus 66 percent). A moderate departure, can represent a lack of fire (orange, minus 33 

percent) or too frequent return of fire (light blue, plus 33 percent). A low departure, shown in 

green and yellow, represent less than a 33 percent change in fire frequency. Recent fires are 

shown as transparent shaded areas. The fire return interval departure values are being updated but 

the process is not complete at this time.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

212

Figure 36. Map of fire return interval departure, Inyo National Forest
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

213

Figure 37. Map of fire return interval departure, Sequoia National Forest
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

214

Figure 38. Map of fire return interval departure, Sierra National Forest
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

215

Vegetation types where fires burned most frequently in the past, such as yellow pine or mixedconifer, have undergone the sharpest decline in condition. Yellow pine, mixed conifer, and 

hardwood forests and woodlands have generally experienced a two-thirds decrease in mean fire 

return interval. Historically they burned on average every 10 years; currently, the average is more 

than 100 years. In the Kern Plateau, across the southern Inyo National Forest into a broad expanse 

in the eastern portion of the Sequoia National Forest, there are large areas with low levels of 

departure (fire return intervals are closer to the natural range). This is because there have been 

extensive areas of wildfires managed to meet resource objectives (Meyer 2015).

Subalpine forests, where fires were historically less frequent due to the patchier and sparse 

vegetation and shorter fire season, have undergone fewer changes. Upper montane red fir and 

lodgepole pine forests have had some departure in fire frequency, but because fires were 

historically less frequent. Currently the departure is low in these areas but it is projected to be 

increasing in the near future.

The departure in eastside sagebrush and pinyon-juniper ecosystems is varied from low to 

moderate. Where cheatgrass has invaded, fires are more frequent than historically. Similar 

patterns are occurring in desert ecosystems.

Fire Regime Integrity

In addition to the occurrence and frequency of fire, the type and severity of fire are important 

aspects of fire regimes. Many factors influence how severe a fire affects vegetation. This includes 

the density, size, and species of vegetation as well as the intensity (heat level), speed (spread 

rate), and duration (length of time heat) of a fire. In much of the analysis area, decreased fire 

frequency as a result of aggressive fire suppression in combination with past forest management 

has led to denser, more uniform vegetation leading to higher severity fires and low to moderate 

fire regime integrity. Table 55 shows the current condition of fire regime integrity for the 

westside ecological zones and vegetation types, and Table 56 shows conditions for the eastside. 

Dense, uniform vegetation conditions are especially the case in montane ponderosa pine, Jeffrey 

pine and mixed conifer forests (Steel et al. 2015). In upper montane red fir forests, there has been 

less of a notable change. In eastside sagebrush and pinyon-juniper there has been a more complex 

change. Cheatgrass invasion has led to more frequent and larger fires than historically. 

Conversely, fire suppression has resulted in an ingrowth of conifers (pinyon pine, juniper, and 

Jeffrey pine) into sagebrush areas. Now, when sagebrush areas burn, they burn hotter because of 

the conifers. 

Table 55. Summary of current condition of fire regime integrity by ecological zone and vegetation 

type in westside areas of the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests

Ecological Zone Vegetation Type

Current Condition 

Fire Regime Integrity

Foothill Chaparral, Oak Woodland moderate

Montane Ponderosa pine-black oak, Dry 

mixed conifer, Moist mixed conifer

low

Upper Montane Red fir moderate

Upper Montane Jeffrey Pine low

Montane and Upper Montane Kern Plateau forests moderate

Subalpine and Alpine Subalpine and Alpine high
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

216

Table 56. Summary of current condition of fire regime integrity by vegetation type in eastside 

areas in the Inyo and some of Sequoia National Forests

Vegetation Type Current Condition Fire Regime Integrity

Sagebrush and Pinyon-juniper moderate

Eastside Jeffrey pine low

Mountain mahogany moderate

Desert (xeric shrub/black brush) moderate

Upper Montane Red fir and moist lodgepole pine moderate

Carbon Stocks, Sequestration, and Stability

The foothill, montane and eastside pine areas have low carbon stability because vegetation is 

dense and it is at a high risk of high-intensity fire (see “Fire Trends” and “Fire Management” 

sections). Subalpine, alpine, sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper landscapes have moderate carbon 

stability. They have less standing carbon and have a moderate to low risk of high-intensity fire. 

Upper montane forests (especially red fir forests) have low to moderate carbon stability. At the 

lower elevations in this zone, forest density and fire risk conditions are similar to montane forests 

and carbon stability is low. At higher elevations, near subalpine areas and on rockier sites within 

the upper montane zone, the carbon stability is moderate because fire risk is moderate.

Most of the landscape area on the eastside is dominated by nonforest vegetation, primarily 

sagebrush. In these areas, soil and belowground carbon are important (the stability of this carbon 

is described in the Assessment reports; USDA FS 2013b, 2013c, 2013d). Restoration of degraded 

arid shrublands and woodlands can also enhance carbon stocks and sequestration, including areas 

invaded by invasive grasses (Finch 2012). These restoration approaches may increase 

belowground carbon storage, especially in deep-rooted shrub and perennial grass species, and 

increase the resilience of arid ecosystems to future stressors. This increase in resilience supports a 

greater long-term carbon carrying capacity and provides for improved carbon stability in arid 

landscapes.

Landscape Connectivity

Landscape connectivity is moderate to high in all areas except for the foothill zone, where it is 

low. The foothill zone is low because it is fragmented by nearby and intermixed developed and 

urbanized areas. Connectivity is low to moderate in sagebrush landscapes because of the invasion 

of conifers and areas of large high-intensity fire where cheatgrass has invaded.

Special Habitats 

Old Forests

Old forests in the analysis area are highly varied and world-renowned from the ancient, gnarled, 

bristlecone pines in the White Mountains to the massive giant sequoia, towering ponderosa, sugar 

and Jeffrey pines, and sprawling old oaks. Across elevations and ecosystems, all old forests in the 

area share the presence of large, old trees, for their species and site productivity (Franklin and 

Fites-Kaufman 1996). The density of large old trees, size, arrangement, and density of the forests 

they are embedded in varies greatly by ecosystem. Old forests at the highest elevations often have 

trees that are several hundred to a thousand or more years old, but are open and scattered. Old 

forests at lower elevations contain trees that are much larger and are embedded in forests with a 

wide variety of densities and canopy covers. The majority of the giant sequoia old forests are 

found in the Giant Sequoia National Monument and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

217

Management of sequoia groves is covered in the Giant Sequoia National Monument management 

plan (USDA FS 2012-4) and is not included here. 

The current condition of old forests varies by location and ecosystem. At the highest elevations in 

the subalpine zone, old forests are similar to the desired condition and natural range of variation. 

Old forests in the upper montane zone, the red fir and Jeffrey pine forests described above, are 

more intact but have had some changes over the last 150 years. There has been some harvest of 

the largest trees and a decrease in the structural complexity or heterogeneity (the variation in tree 

spacing and sizes). Lack of fire has contributed to an increase in the density of smaller trees and 

has increased the understory live fuels, or “ladder fuels” (vegetation that helps carry ground fires 

into the crowns of trees). 

The condition and amount of old forest is low in montane forests and low to moderate in eastside 

pine and foothill areas. These areas were most impacted by preferential logging of large and old 

trees during European settlement and more recent forestry practices up until the early 1990s (See 

“Forest Products” section and Vegetation Ecology supplemental report). Large trees have been 

killed by large, high-intensity fires (such as the McNally fire on the Sequoia National Forest), and 

stress-related factors (van Mantgem et al. 2009). More recently, many trees are dying throughout 

ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests on the western slopes of the Sierra and Sequoia 

National Forests due to ongoing drought and related insect outbreaks (see the “Insects and 

Pathogens” section). The condition and amount of old forests in the upper montane and pinyonjuniper forests are moderate because they have had less of these impacts. Subalpine old forests 

are generally highly similar to desired conditions because they have had little management, 

although there are increasing levels of white pine blister rust and insect-related mortality in the 

white bark pines (see below and the “Insects and Pathogens” section). 

Among the subalpine conifer forest types, the Great Basin bristlecone pine is especially 

noteworthy. Known for being the oldest living trees on the planet, the bristlecone pines are 

afforded extra protection on the Inyo National Forest within the congressionally designated 

Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, a special interest area managed to protect the bristlecone pines 

for public enjoyment and scientific study. Whitebark pine has recently been listed as a candidate 

species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, indicating concern for the long-term viability of 

this keystone species. This is primarily because whitebark pines are dying across much of its 

range due to white pine blister rust and other causes, as well as projected trends in climate. White 

pine blister rust is a non-native pathogen killing whitebark pine in other parts of its range. 

Mountain pine beetle, a native insect, is currently affecting whitebark pine on the Inyo National 

Forest, likely driven by current, regional warming trends (Millar et al. 2012). Whitebark pine 

mortality currently occurring on the Inyo National Forest may continue to spread in the coming 

years, but ongoing monitoring indicates the trees have high resilience to initial attack (Meyer et 

al. 2014). There is a high climate vulnerability of subalpine conifer forests, including bristlecone 

and whitebark pine (Meyer 2013b). Movement of pinyon pine up into bristlecone pine forests has 

also been observed (Slaton and Stone 2013a).

Complex Early Seral Forests

Early successional forests represent an important ecological stage that supports diverse ecological 

processes, ecological communities, and structures (Swanson et al. 2011). The concept of complex 

early seral forests is based on ecological function and not just the age of the vegetation. This 

habitat type is created by stand-replacing disturbance events, including fires, insects, and wind 

throw. These disturbance events create clumps, patches, or larger areas of early successional 

(young) forest where overstory trees are temporarily absent or rare. Consequently, this forest 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

218

successional stage represents a transitory period immediately following a stand-replacement event 

and prior to the ensuing period of forest development and canopy reestablishment. 

Complex early seral forest is a type of early successional forest that contains structural, 

compositional, or functional elements of ecological complexity or integrity. This complexity and 

integrity in early seral forests often comes from the presence of elements created by the 

disturbance, such as snags, logs, isolated live trees (or tree clumps), young shrubs, herbaceous 

plants, regenerating trees, and sprouting hardwoods. Spatial heterogeneity (variation) in 

vegetation composition and structure during recovery after a disturbance is another important 

element of complexity in early seral forest (Swanson et al. 2011).

Lastly, increased adaptive capacity of early successional forests greatly contributes to the 

integrity of complex early seral forests. This increased adaptive capacity and integrity is 

supported by the presence of native vegetation (including trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants), 

mycorrhizae and other essential soil biota, nitrogen-fixing plant species (like bear clover), and 

keystone species (such as pollinators, cavity excavators).

The ecological importance of individual legacy structures following a disturbance like fire (such 

as large snags and logs, resprouting hardwoods, and understory plant diversity) has long been 

recognized. Recently there has been recognition that their combined presence provides a unique 

habitat condition that supports early-successional-associated species such as woodpeckers and 

arthropods (Betts et al. 2010, Swanson et al. 2011), and fire-dependent plants (like knobcone 

pine). Salvage and reforestation that removes some of elements such as snags and logs, or creates 

conditions like artificial reforestation may not provide the same level of complexity or habitat for 

associated species (Swanson et al. 2011, Noss et al. 2006). Some habitat elements like pine snags

often have limited longevity regardless of the level of management after a fire, such as salvage 

logging (Ritchie et al. 2013).

The condition of complex early seral forest is the most difficult to assess because of uncertainty 

in the existing amount and uncertainty of what the natural range of variation is for the amount and 

distribution of complex early seral forest. The condition of complex early seral forest habitats in 

the subalpine and upper montane forests is likely similar to the natural range of variation because 

these forests have missed the fewest fire cycles since fire suppression. However, in some upper 

montane forests, where fires have occurred, past practices included extensive salvage and 

reforestation practices. There are extensive areas in the Kern River drainage where recent 

wildfires managed to meet resource objectives have occurred and most of these areas are remote 

(in wilderness or inventoried roadless areas) and have not been salvaged or reforested. These 

provide large areas of complex early seral forest habitat. Most of these fires resulted in a complex

spatial pattern, with most of the high-severity fire occurring in a variety of patches and sizes, 

including many small and medium patches across extensive areas in multiple fires (Meyer 2015). 

Some of these fires occurred in montane mixed conifer and Jeffrey pine forests as well. 

In montane, foothill and eastside pine forests, there is a low similarity of complex early seral 

forest habitat condition compared to desired conditions. This is likely a result of extensive fire 

suppression for the last 100 years in addition to the long-term effects of post-fire management 

activities. There is evidence of more high-severity fire now compared to historic conditions, 

specifically within ponderosa pine and eastside yellow pine forests (Mallek et al. 2013, Safford 

2013). This is partially a consequence of increased fuel loading associated with long-term fire 

exclusion in these forests (Steel et al. 2015). Even more evident is the lack of low- to moderateseverity fire in nearly all forest ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada compared to the pre-European 

settlement period (Mallek et al. 2013). Scientific consensus is that there are larger patches of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

219

high-severity fire in yellow pine and mixed conifer forests (Safford 2013), but high-severity fire

patch size remains unchanged in most upper elevation forests (Meyer 2013a, 2013b). Where fire 

has been restored with prescribed fire or wildfires managed to meet resource objectives, it tends 

to result in more desirable fire effects dominated by patches of low- to moderate-severity fire (the 

exception are patches previously burned at high severity). While there is some uncertainty as to 

exactly how much high-severity fire occurred historically in montane and eastside pine forests, 

most evidence indicates this to be a smaller proportion of the burned area in these forest types 

(Safford 2013). It is also likely that high-severity fire patch sizes have increased considerably 

within these forests over the past few decades (Miller and Safford 2012, Westerling et al. 2016). 

Historically there were likely more frequent, small areas of high-severity fire, resulting from 

mortality of individual, clumped, or small groups of trees. Historically, fires were frequent in 

these types so while the amount in individual fires may have been low, cumulatively, they would 

have occurred throughout the landscape. Fires in the last 50 years in these forest types have had 

large patches of high-intensity fire and continuous tree mortality. This is a dramatic change in 

pattern of potential complex early seral forest. In addition, much of these areas have had salvage 

logging or reforestation of large fires prior to the early 1990s, reducing some or much of the 

characteristics of complex early seral forest. On recent large burned areas, only smaller 

proportions of the burned areas have been salvaged or reforested. 

Limited Special Habitats

There are several types of special habitats: (1) those limited to small areas with uncommon rock 

types and/or soils types, called “edaphic habitats;” (2) remnant plant communities (such as giant 

sequoia groves); and (3) communities of unusually high biodiversity, such as aspen. There is draft 

plan direction that specifically addresses special habitats. That direction is not limited to but 

includes these habitats described here.

Edaphic habitats. These include some uncommon plant communities that are limited to certain 

rock types and outcrops such as marble or a location that is at the junction of distinct bioregions 

such as the Mohave Desert, Tehachapi Mountains, the Great Basin, California Valley, and the 

Southern Sierra Nevada. Some of these areas are in designated botanical areas or special interest 

areas. Here the focus is on some of the primary types of these communities, but it is not meant to 

be comprehensive. Rather, the description is to encompass the range of conditions to enable an 

analysis of their contribution to ecological integrity and consequences of the alternatives on their 

conditions. This includes marble and limestone rock outcrops, pumice flats, and alkali flats. These 

tend to occupy small areas with unusual soils and sometimes provide habitat for plants only found 

there (endemic) that are often uncommon or rare (USDA FS 2013f, 2013g, 2013h, and “At-risk 

Species” and “Species of Conservation Concern” sections). Other related habitats include cliffs 

and caves where wildlife such as peregrine falcons and bats nest and roost.

Remnant Plant Communities. There are two giant sequoia groves to the north and outside of 

Giant Sequoia National Monument on the Sierra National Forest. These are isolated groves and 

are managed specifically for giant sequoia. These groves are currently impacted by fire exclusion, 

insects, pathogens, climate change, and other stressors (USDA FS 2013g). Increasing tree 

densities and fuel loading, and the removal of fire as a key ecological process have contributed to 

the degradation of giant sequoia health and sustainability, and have resulted in fewer regenerating 

trees and increased risk of uncharacteristic fire. Although grove boundaries have remained stable 

for the last several hundred years, climate change threatens the long-term persistence of small and 

isolated giant sequoia groves such as the Nelder and McKinley Groves. Climate projections 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

220

indicate that giant sequoia trees, especially the largest specimens, will be highly vulnerable to 

climate change in the 21st century (Sydioriak et al. 2013).

Aspen Communities of High Biodiversity. Aspen supports a high level of plant biodiversity, 

with many wildlife species using aspen stands during some stage of their life cycle (Kuhn et al. 

2011). Most aspen on the west side occurs in smaller, isolated patches within wet areas, around 

meadows or streams, or where subsurface water is shallow. On the east side, large areas of aspen 

occur in drier landscapes, particularly on the eastern slopes of the Sierra where the water source is 

not apparent but is present. Detailed condition information is only available for the Inyo National 

Forest. The life cycle of aspen is closely tied to fire and other natural disturbances. Based on 

surveys of aspen on the Inyo National Forest, over 40 percent are at moderate to high risk of loss. 

Poor aspen regeneration due to ingrowth of conifers, disease, lack of characteristic fire, and 

browsing by cattle and wildlife are the primary recorded factors. The ingrowth of conifers is due 

mostly to fire suppression, since fire favors the sprouting aspen and kills young conifer trees

(Estes 2013b). Climate change may also be a factor, as noted in the Rocky Mountains, and 

climate models indicate moderate climate vulnerability in the Sierra Nevada in the 21st century 

(Estes 2013b).

The condition of limited special habitats is generally moderate across all ecological zones and 

vegetation types. However, at some specific sites, there may be poor conditions because of 

unregulated ground disturbance (such as dispersed recreation).

Keystone Species Groups

The current condition of pollinators and cavity excavators (such as woodpeckers) is uncertain, 

and there is little direct information available. For pollinators, forests with dense vegetation 

conditions lacking characteristic fire have lower levels of flowering understory plants, especially 

those dependent on higher light environments (Webster and Halpern 2010, Wayman and North 

2007). These conditions are common for the majority of the montane forest areas (see “Terrestrial 

Vegetation Ecology” section). Restoration treatments, especially prescribed fire, increase the 

diversity of native pollinators, such as butterflies (Huntzinger 2003). Canopy arthropods also 

benefit from ecological restoration treatments, if the treatments also enhance tree, shrub, and 

herbaceous plant diversity within forest stands (Rambo et al. 2014). Invasive, non-native plants 

can reduce pollinator habitat, especially if the non-native plants are wind pollinated grasses such 

as cheatgrass. Large areas in the foothill zone and eastside lower elevation areas have had 

cheatgrass and other non-native annual grass invasions. Pollinator habitat is greatly reduced in 

these areas.

Habitat for cavity excavators (especially snags) is highly varied. In conifer forests, the average 

number of snags in an area are within the lower end of the desired conditions but are highly 

variable spatially and often within or above the natural range of variation (Safford et al. 2013, 

Meyer et al. 2013a). This high spatial variability means that there are many areas that have no 

snags and other areas that have more than the average number. Overall, large snag levels, 

especially very large snags (greater than 30 inches in diameter) may be limited in the forest 

landscape, especially within plantations, the wildland-urban intermix, and areas impacted by 

windstorms. There are fewer snags in oak woodlands than conifer-dominated areas. However, in 

oak woodlands, dead branches on live trees often provide suitable habitat for cavity excavators. 

Tribal Uses and Biocultural Diversity

As mentioned previously, the people of various tribes in the area are and have been tied to 

different ecosystems across the bio-region that provide basic life needs of food, shelter, and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

221

culture (See “Tribal Relations and Uses” section). This includes gathering and tending trees such 

as black oaks and pinyon pines for primary food sources, medicinal plants, basketry and shelter 

from plants, fish and game harvest (Anderson and Moratto 1996; Anderson 2006), and culturally 

important activities including cross-Sierra travel and trade trips, and sacred ceremonies.

There was and to a lesser degree currently is an interaction between Native American land uses 

and management and ecosystem condition and function. Native Americans often used fire or 

other means to improve basketry or food materials, to improve habitat conditions for game 

species such as deer, and to maintain meadow ecosystems. This use of fire included riparian 

areas, because a high proportion of plants that are important for basket weaving occur there. 

On the west side, plants such as willow, dogwood, or big-leaf maple sprout following top removal 

(Fites-Kaufman et al. 2006). The stems grow straighter, with fewer insect nests when they have 

been burned or cut (Anderson 2006). Although fire naturally occurred in riparian areas at different 

intervals throughout the bio-region, it is well documented that Native Americans supplemented 

lightning ignitions with targeted burning. Other species that require regular burning to maintain 

their viability and quality as weaving materials include beargrass, deer grass, redbud, 

Ceanothus species, giant chain fern, and white root. There are other examples as well.

On the east side, seed, root, and bulb gathering occurred, and in some cases, irrigation was used 

to encourage desirable species (Slaton and Stone 2013a, 2013b). Activity in sagebrush was 

concentrated near meadows. Fire was conducted in the spring and fall. The Paiute, Shoshone and 

Washoe used pinyon pine extensively and still collect products from the trees, including pine 

nuts, pitch, and wood products. Native Americans pruned the trees, raked away the litter, weeded 

around them, and burned to increase productivity and protect them from wildfire. Elder 

interviews attest to the fact that fire was used to foster growth of particular food groups such as 

wild onions, elderberries, and caterpillars. Fire was used to eliminate excess fuels that threatened 

favorite pinyon pine stands.

The condition of plants, animals, and insects that tribes use, as well as the ecosystems they occur 

in is low for low- and mid-elevation areas (foothill, montane, eastside pine, and sagebrush

vegetation types) and moderate for higher elevation areas (upper montane, subalpine, and alpine

vegetation types). This is related to the condition of vegetation and fire regimes relative to the 

natural range of variation. Dense vegetation, and limited low- and moderate-intensity fire are 

primary factors. Current vegetation conditions are denser and less diverse in the understory, and 

many important plants such as black oak, shrubs used for basketry, and other plants used for 

traditional foods or medicines are in poor condition. Traditional travel routes are covered in dense 

vegetation, impeding ease of travel, particularly for elders and young tribal members. 

Management for biodiversity, particularly through the use of beneficial fire, would help to 

maintain viable populations of the diverse plants and animals that are necessary for Native 

American traditionalists to continue their cultural practices.

Integrated Terrestrial Ecosystem Sustainability

The integrated terrestrial sustainability condition varies by the ecological and elevational zone. 

For details by each zone and major vegetation type, see the “Fire Trends,” “Terrestrial Vegetation 

Ecology,” and “Insects and Pathogens” sections. Here a synthesis of the overall findings from 

each of these sections is presented.

In most lower and mid-elevation areas, indicators of terrestrial ecosystem sustainability point to a 

low and moderate condition as shown in Table 57 for the west side and Table 58 for the east side 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

222

(USDA FS 2004, USDA FS 2011). The greatest contributors are vegetation and fire conditions 

that are outside of the natural range. On the east side, invasive plants are widespread, although 

still scattered in many locations. The ecosystems are still functioning but may be at a tipping 

point for large change. This would include a higher susceptibility to widespread drought and 

insect- and pathogen-related plant and tree mortality. It includes a susceptibility to widespread 

changes in connectivity, forest cover, and mature forest area from increasingly large, highintensity fires.

Table 57. Overall ecosystem sustainability conditions by characteristic from National Forest 

Sustainability Report* by major ecological and elevational zone for the west side

Characteristic Foothill Montane Upper Montane Subalpine/Alpine

Area affected by 

insects and 

pathogens beyond 

natural range 

Current, low to 

susceptibility high

Current moderate, 

susceptibility high

Current moderate, 

susceptibility 

moderate

Low 

Area affected by air 

pollutants that may 

cause negative 

effects 

High High Moderate Moderate to low

Area affected by 

invasive species 

High Moderate Moderate Low

Area with fire 

condition class 

outside of natural 

range 

Moderate High Moderate Low

Area with vegetation 

condition outside of 

natural range 

Moderate High Moderate Low

* USDA FS 2004, USDA FS 2011

Table 58. Overall ecosystem sustainability conditions by characteristic from National Forest 

Sustainability Report* by major vegetation types for the eastside

Characteristic

Sagebrush/

pinyon-juniper Jeffrey pine Red fir

Desert xeric 

shrub

Area affected by 

insects and pathogens 

beyond natural range 

Current, low to 

susceptibility 

moderate

Current moderate, 

susceptibility high

Current moderate, 

susceptibility 

moderate

low

Area affected by air 

pollutants that may 

cause negative effects 

Low, but some 

transport of ozone 

east of the San 

Joaquin River 

drainage

Low, but some 

transport of ozone 

east of the San 

Joaquin River 

drainage

Low, but some 

transport of ozone 

east of the San 

Joaquin River 

drainage

low

Area affected by 

invasive species 

Moderate, 

extensive areas of 

non-native grasses

moderate low moderate

Area with fire condition 

class outside of natural 

range 

moderate high moderate moderate

Area with vegetation 

condition outside of 

natural range 

moderate high moderate Low 

* USDA FS 2004, USDA FS 2011
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

223

Environmental Consequences to

Terrestrial Ecosystem Processes and Functions

Consequences Common to All Alternatives

Fire Regimes and Fire as an Ecological Process

Fire regimes would continue to be departed from the natural range of variation for much of the 

mid- and lower elevation areas in the analysis area, except where moderate to high levels of 

restoration occur across broader areas. Because fire operates at large scales, landscapes (areas 

greater than 10,000 acres) with at least 40 to 60 percent restoration are necessary to effect 

changes in large fire patterns (the amount of high-intensity or crown fire; see the “Fire Trends” 

section). The alternatives vary in the amount of the landscape that would have restoration of 

varied types (such as mechanical treatments, prescribed fire, or wildfire managed to meet 

resource objectives). The alternatives also vary in the intensity of the treatments, or degree of 

change in vegetation that affects fire type. Finally, the alternatives vary in the amount of fire that 

would be applied or managed on the landscape at intensities within the desired condition that 

would have beneficial effects to the vegetation, and would reduce fire regime interval departure.

In this section, the broader characterizations of the alternatives are described by the vegetation 

type actions would most likely occur in. The majority of the mechanical and prescribed fire 

restoration treatments are most likely to occur in the upper foothill ponderosa pine and montane 

mixed conifer forest types on the west side and in the pinyon-juniper and Jeffrey pine woodlands 

on the east side. Wildfire managed to meet resource objectives is most likely to occur in the upper 

montane and subalpine forests, particularly on the west side and in the Kern River drainage. 

Large areas of montane, mixed conifer forests and chaparral are highly likely to have fire 

managed to meet resource objectives. The greater amounts of mechanical treatments in 

alternatives B and D in strategic locations would increase the likelihood of larger prescribed fires 

and managed fires to meet resource objectives in montane areas. These characterizations by 

vegetation type are used to analyze the expected consequences of the alternatives below.

Table 59 and Table 60 below summarize the expected consequences of the alternatives by major

vegetation type.

Table 59. Fire regime integrity for westside vegetation types by alternative

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Chaparral Low to moderate Moderate Low to moderate Moderate 

Oak woodland Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Ponderosa pine-black 

oak

Low Moderate Low to moderate Moderate

Dry mixed conifer Low Moderate Low to moderate Moderate

Moist mixed conifer Low Moderate Low to moderate Moderate

Red fir Moderate Moderate to high Moderate Moderate to high

Jeffrey Pine Very low to low Moderate Low Moderate 

Kern Plateau forests Moderate Moderate to high Moderate Moderate to high

Subalpine and Alpine High High High High
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

224

Table 60. Fire regime integrity for eastside vegetation types by alternative

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

sagebrush Moderate Moderate to high Moderate to high Moderate to high

Pinyon-juniper Moderate Moderate to high Moderate to high Moderate to high

Eastside Jeffrey pine Very low Low to moderate Low Moderate

Dry mixed conifer Low Low Low Moderate 

Mountain mahogany Moderate Moderate to high Moderate to high Moderate to high

Desert shrub/black 

brush

Moderate Moderate to high Moderate to high Moderate to high

In all alternatives, there is little difference among the alternatives in consequences to the 

subalpine and alpine areas. Limited vegetation and harsh growing conditions result in slow 

changes in vegetation there. The majority of these areas are in wilderness or inaccessible 

locations. 

Westside Upper Montane Forests

In all alternatives, red fir and lodgepole pine forests have at least moderate integrity owing to the 

relatively longer fire return intervals in these forest types (median fire return interval of 

approximately 30 to 50 years). However, most red fir and lodgepole pine forests have missed one 

or two fire return intervals, resulting in a variety of ecological impacts associated with fire 

exclusion (such as increased fuel loading and tree densities). The upper montane areas are among 

the most vulnerable to climate change (North 2014, Meyer 2013a). This is because they are 

experiencing and will continue to experience the greatest relative change in type of precipitation 

and temperatures. Fires may become more frequent in these areas and disrupt the current 

moderate levels of fire regime integrity and resilience.

Current Jeffrey pine forests in the Sierra Nevada are moderately to highly departed from their 

historic fire regime, because of decades of fire exclusion in these frequent fire-regime forests. 

Under all alternatives, fire regimes in Jeffrey pine forests would be relatively intact on the Kern 

Plateau and neighboring upper montane landscapes (like the Golden Trout Wilderness), owing to 

the many wildfires that are managed to meet resource objectives in this portion of the Sequoia 

National Forest.

Westside Subalpine and Alpine Vegetation 

Alpine vegetation and many subalpine forests at higher elevations would have high fire regime 

integrity under all alternatives, because of the very long historic fire return intervals in these 

vegetation types that often exceed 150 to 200 years. This is greater than the current fire exclusion 

period of the 20th and early 21st centuries. As a result, they are within the natural range of 

variation with respect to fuel loading and fire regimes. All alternatives support at least moderately 

high resilience to fire.

Eastside Vegetation

Some eastside vegetation has fire regimes similar to the westside vegetation. This includes the 

upper montane, subalpine, and alpine vegetation types. The fire regimes for eastside Jeffrey pine 

and eastside mixed conifer are similar to that described for westside ponderosa pine and dry 

mixed conifer. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

225

Eastside Sagebrush, Pinyon-Juniper, Arid Shrublands

Although highly variable, the historic fire return intervals were relatively long in sagebrush (40 to 

450 years), pinyon-juniper woodlands (90 to 150 years), curl-leaf mountain mahogany (60 to 70 

years), and xeric shrub and blackbrush (more than 600 years). Under all alternatives, arid 

shrublands and woodlands would have at least moderate fire regime integrity, owing to the 

relatively long fire return intervals in these arid vegetation types. However, increasing and 

excessive wildfire activity in these vegetation types that exceed the natural range of variation 

(that is, too frequent fire compared to the historic fire regime) would result in reduced fire regime 

integrity. This reduced integrity is often associated with vegetation type conversion favoring nonnative annual grasses such as cheatgrass and red brome.

Ecological restoration treatments in some arid shrublands and woodlands (like sagebrush invaded 

by pinyon pine), could increase the resilience of these ecosystems to wildfires and reduce the 

probability of excessively frequent fire that exceeds the natural range of variation. However, all 

alternatives would support at least moderate fire regime integrity in many arid shrublands and 

woodlands (such as xeric shrub and blackbrush), because of the long historic fire return intervals 

in these vegetation types that often exceed 100 to 200 years. This is greater than the current fire 

exclusion period of the 20th and early 21st centuries.

Carbon Stocks, Sequestration, and Stability

Under all alternatives, there would be several conditions and trends that greatly influence current 

carbon stocks, sequestration, and especially stability. First, dense forests would continue to occur 

across much of the area, because there are no alternatives that restore more than 50 percent of 

most landscapes. This means that carbon storage and sequestration will continue in those areas. 

There may be increases in carbon sequestration in thinned forests, since individual trees would be 

less stressed and may have faster growth. At the same time, under all alternatives, there would 

continue to be large, high-intensity fires, especially within dense forests lacking restoration. 

When these fires occur, there will be large conversions of carbon stored in forests and soil litter, 

into carbon dioxide in the air. Climate change will also limit carbon sequestration and carbon 

stocks following these fires through increased evaporative demand that limits tree growth rates 

and regeneration. 

Tribal Uses and Biocultural Diversity

There would be continued use of forest lands, vegetation, insect, and animal materials by tribes in 

all alternatives, similar to what occurs now. More information on how these are determined and 

negotiated is covered in the later section on “Tribal Relations and Uses.” The condition of 

ecosystems, plants, insects, and animals used by tribes varies by alternatives. In addition, all but 

alternative A contains specific direction that would improve the condition and use by tribal 

members. The rate and type of ecological restoration that would result in improvements varies by 

alternative.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Fire Regimes and Fire as an Ecological Process

Westside Foothills Vegetation

Fire regime integrity would continue to be low in alternative A in most areas. There would

continue to be some restoration treatments in areas around communities, but the width of the 

defense zone and threat zone, is limited. The restoration may also increase the amount of non-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

226

native, annual grasses that can decrease resilience. Native plants can become crowded out and 

fires can burn more frequently than the natural fire regime. There would be some restoration 

aimed at non-native plant invasions and removals but it would be limited. 

Montane Forests

Fire regime integrity would continue to be low in montane forests in alternative A. This analysis 

assumes that a low amount of any type of treatment would occur in alternative A. It also assumes 

that most of the restoration treatments would result in limited to moderate changes in vegetation 

structure and composition that would influence fire type, fire severity, and effects. Most of the 

treatments would occur in montane mixed conifer and ponderosa pine vegetation. Fire regime 

integrity would continue to be low across most areas, with high proportions of crown fire and fire 

severity expected during peak fire season fires. The trend of increased fire severity would 

continue or worsen due to increased burned area and fire size (see the “Climate Change” and 

“Fire Trends” section). 

There is expected to be some restoration of wildfires used primarily to meet resource objectives 

but little to none of this would occur in montane forests except for in the Kern River drainage on 

the Sequoia National Forest. Large areas in the Kern River drainage have already had managed 

fire (greater than 30 percent) and would continue to in alternative A. Fire regime integrity would 

continue as moderate or shift to high in some of this area.

Beneficial effects of fire to understory flora would be limited because prescribed fires would be 

limited. Some plants and birds would benefit from large, higher severity fires, but overall, a 

deficit of low- and moderate-severity, frequent fire would have the most beneficial effects. This 

latter type of fire would be limited in alternative A.

Upper Montane Forests

As described above under all alternatives, upper montane forests would continue to have 

moderate fire regime integrity. There would be limited restoration treatments in this area. There 

would continue to be some ecologically beneficial fires where low and mixed severity fires occur. 

It is uncertain how many such fires will happen. The greatest likelihood is in the Kern River 

drainage, where remote areas have had extensive areas of wildfires managed to meet resource 

objectives.

Subalpine and Alpine Vegetation

Alternative A would support continued moderate to high fire regime integrity in subalpine forests 

as described under all alternatives. There would be limited restoration treatments in these areas. 

Similar to upper montane forests, there would continue to be some ecologically beneficial fires, 

especially in wilderness and in the Kern River drainage.

Eastside Arid Shrubs and Woodlands

The least amount of restoration treatment would occur in alternative A in arid shrubs and 

woodlands. There would be less restoration of sagebrush areas with conifer invasion, and in 

pinyon-juniper and Jeffrey pine forests. There would be less restoration of fire as an ecosystem 

process using prescribed fire. Invasive plant treatments would continue to minimize introductions 

of invasive species when possible, but invasive species would continue to expand and potentially 

alter fire regimes.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

227

Carbon Stocks, Sequestration, and Stability

Low levels of vegetation restoration would continue in alternative A, while the likelihood of 

large, high-intensity fires would increase (see “Fire Trends” section, Westerling et al. 2015). This 

would result in increased emissions of carbon to the atmosphere and decreases in carbon stocks 

and sequestration. Most of the carbon stocks and fires both occur in the montane and upper 

montane zones. Therefore, an individual very large fire can have large impacts on carbon stocks 

and emissions. There would be a negative impact of alternative A on carbon stability, carbon 

stocks, and sequestration rates.

Landscape Connectivity

Alternative A would result in few indirect effects to landscape connectivity because treatment 

levels would be low. The primary consequence would be the effect of treatments in reducing the 

likelihood of large high-intensity fires that can disrupt connectivity for many species, except 

those using early seral habitat. The extent of restoration treatments is very low (less than 10 to 15 

percent of the low and mid-elevation landscape area) and thus the likelihood of large, highintensity fires would increase in alternative A (See “Fire Trends” section, Westerling et al. 2015) 

and cause fragmentation of forested areas and areas of older and mid-aged chaparral. These fires 

can also fragment sagebrush habitat.

Special Habitats

Old Forest

The treatments in alternative A would have little to no impact on large trees and the proportion of 

area in old forest. There are diameter limits restricting the harvest of any trees greater than 30 

inches in diameter under almost all conditions. Treatment area is limited in alternative A and there 

are also limitations on the forest canopy cover changes that can occur in montane forests or other 

areas where the California spotted owl, northern goshawk, Pacific fisher, or Sierra marten occur. 

This would result in a continuation of large areas of high forest density that are susceptible to 

high-intensity fires (see “Fire Trends” section and Fire Ecology supplemental report). There is an 

increased likelihood of large, high-intensity fires under current treatment levels (see “Fire 

Trends” section; Westerling et al. 2015). Therefore, this analysis assumes there would be an 

increased likelihood of large, high-intensity fires in areas with old forests.

It is unknown what proportion of areas burned in future fires would be high severity and result in 

large tree mortality. Recent fires have ranged widely in large tree mortality levels and extent. 

Given the limited levels of current old forest and the long time it takes to redevelop (several 

hundred years), the impact of single, large, high-intensity fires may have negative impacts on old 

forests. The likelihood of very large “mega fires” (greater than 50,000 acres like the King Fire 

that had extensive areas burned in old forest in Rubicon River Canyon at extremely high 

intensity) is thought to be increasing because of climate warming, longer fire seasons, and drier 

fuel conditions (Millar and Stephenson 2015). It is unknown when or where these types of fires 

may occur, but the likelihood exists in the analysis area and the likelihood is increasing. 

Complex Early Seral Forest 

The impacts of alternative A on complex early seral forest are related to the consequences 

described above for old forest as well as likely salvage, reforestation, and other post-fire 

restoration treatments. The amount and distribution of complex early seral habitat would likely 

increase under alternative A because the amount of high-intensity fire is likely to increase. The 

spatial pattern of the complex early seral forest would likely continue to be mostly in large 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

228

patches from large high-intensity fires. The exception would be in the Kern River drainage, where 

extensive fire restoration in the last decade has resulted in a wide variety of small and medium 

size high-severity fire patches (Meyer 2015). Fires are starting to burn into previously burned 

areas, limiting the potential in this area especially on the Kern Plateau to develop large highseverity fire patches (Vaillant 2009, Ewell et al. 2012).

There is no specific management direction under alternative A directed at desired conditions, 

guidelines, or standards for complex early seral forest. There is direction to leave at least 10 

percent of burned areas unsalvaged. There is uncertainty how much of burned areas would be 

restored in ways that would decrease the ecological character of complex early seral forest 

habitat. However, at the project level, recent fires have had a wide range in the amounts proposed 

to be left unsalvaged or without reforestation. In the analysis area, between 76 and 90 percent of 

the burned forest areas have been left unsalvaged for a variety of reasons, including purposeful 

retention of areas to provide for complex early seral forests, excluding areas that are too steep or 

inaccessible, and excluding areas that would have little commercial value by the time projects are 

implemented (for example, the Aspen and French Fires on the Sierra National Forest). Only 9 to 

20 percent have had or are planned for reforestation. Therefore, while there is a high uncertainty 

level on the amount of complex early seral forest that would retain its ecological character after 

fires, currently the majority of burned areas are not treated and are left to provide these habitats.

Limited Special Habitats

There is no specific direction for special habitats with limited distribution in the current forest 

plans. There is species-specific direction for some species, such as bats, that use caves. There is 

direction to conduct surveys for sensitive species and for rare plants. In general, as a result of the 

surveys, there is protection of rare and sensitive plants. There are impacts that occur as a result of 

other activities such as recreational climbing on cliffs and rock outcrops or in caves that are not 

tracked directly. There are unknown consequences to these activities but there have been 

observations that in some areas it is concentrated.

Keystone Species Groups

Pollinators – Pollinators are positively impacted by restoration treatments that result in sunny 

openings and improve conditions on the forest floor. Many flowering plants benefit from fire, 

although in large fires where non-native, invasive plants expand, they have an opposing impact. 

In alternative A, treatments would be very limited that benefit pollinators. There would be limited 

amounts of treatments that generally retain moderate and high canopy cover, and limited amounts 

of prescribed fire. Overall, alternative A would continue to maintain dense forest conditions, with 

limited fire restoration, that retains poor flowering plant conditions that pollinators depend on. 

Primary Cavity Excavators – There would be increases in primary cavity exactor habitat

because limited restoration would perpetuate dense forest conditions, which would continue to 

have trees dying and increasing snag levels. However, there is the potential that they can be 

harvested outside of wildland-urban intermix areas for fuel or hazard. 

Tribal Uses and Biocultural Diversity

Alternative A has the least change in conditions of ecosystems, plants, insects and animals of 

interest to and used by tribes than any of the other alternatives. Conditions would continue to be 

poor in most areas, with only limited areas where restoration improves them. There would be 

limited projects that specifically address tribal member concerns and incorporate some traditional 

ecological practices, but in a limited way.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

229

Integrated Terrestrial Ecosystem Sustainability

With limited restoration levels, vegetation would continue to remain dense overall and outside the 

natural range of variation in most low and mid-elevation areas (see “Terrestrial Vegetation 

Ecology” section). There would continue to be a high susceptibility to insects, pathogens, and air 

pollution stress (on the west side especially).

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

Fire Regimes and Fire as an Ecosystem Process

Westside Vegetation

Three types of restoration treatments would occur in alternative B that would move the landscape 

toward desired conditions for fire regimes and restoration of fire as an ecosystem process (TERRFW-DC-06). The first are the vegetation restoration treatments (TERR-FW-OBJ-01 to 02), 

especially in focus landscapes or other large landscape areas as described in the management 

approaches below. 

Emphasize vegetation treatments in focus landscapes (10,000 to 80,000 acres in size) to 

move terrestrial ecosystems toward desired conditions and increase resilience of old 

forest habitat, while limiting impacts to the Pacific fisher and California spotted owl.

During ecological restoration treatments, reduce fuels along ridges, roads, or other natural 

or man-made features to aid in the use of large prescribed fires and in managing wildfire, 

including wildfires managed primarily for resource objectives.

Develop landscape scale projects to increase the pace and scale of ecological restoration, 

ecosystem resilience and fire resilience, and to protect the carbon carrying capacity of the 

forest.

Plan vegetation, fuels, and other restoration projects across large landscape areas (e.g., 

greater than 5,000 to 10,000 acres), when it can increase efficiency in planning and 

support partnership-based approaches, such as stewardship contracts.

Mechanical treatments and prescribed fire in patches throughout the focus landscapes would 

result in restoration of fire as a process in these areas and increase the likelihood that when large 

wildfires move through these areas, fire severity would be mixed or lower than adjacent 

unrestored areas (FIRE-FW-DC-03). Vegetation restoration along ridges and some roads (MAGWPZ-GDL-01) would increase the likelihood that large prescribed fires could be used to restore 

fire to landscape areas, especially where there is steep and inaccessible terrain. In alternative B, 

the focus landscapes and restoration along ridges and roads would occur mostly in the montane 

and foothill zones. 

At higher elevations in the upper montane and subalpine areas or in the Kern River drainage 

(Sequoia National Forest, TERR-FW-OBJ-03), there would be additional restoration emphasizing 

wildfire managed to meet resource objectives (MA-WRZ-GOAL-01; MA-WRZ-DC-01 to 03; 

Standards MA-WMZ-STD-01 to 02). There would be less restoration along ridges and roads 

because there are more natural features (like rock outcrops along ridges) and recent fires to use as 

fire management boundaries (MA-WRZ-STD-01). There would also be localized restoration of 

fire as part of restoring areas of tribal importance (TERR-FW-DC-09).

Additional specific management direction to restore fire as an ecological process is specific to 

individual vegetation types with associated consequences as described below.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

230

Westside Foothills Vegetation

There would be an increase in fire regime integrity in alternative B because of restoration 

treatments that would reduce effects of wildfires and restore fire as an ecosystem process in some 

areas. There would be an increase in restoration toward desired condition for vegetation and 

restoration of fire in alternative B as compared to alternative A. In the community wildfire 

protection zone, the treatments would emphasize restoration along ridges and roads and may have 

some (but less) ecological benefits for chaparral vegetation and fire ecology. Desired conditions 

and guidelines for chaparral areas are based on the natural range of variation for chaparral fire 

regimes and associated vegetation (TERR-CHAP-DC-01 to 02; TERR-CHAP-GDL-01 to 02) but 

along roads, ridges, and especially in community buffers, there would be a greater emphasis on 

larger areas of younger chaparral (MA-CWPZ-DC-01; MA-CWPZ-GDL-01 to 02). 

Desired conditions for blue oak woodlands include periodic fire to maintain lower dead grass and 

litter levels and low-severity fire effects (TERR-BLU-DC-02). There would be restoration 

treatments more oriented toward the ecological desired conditions for chaparral and blue oak 

woodland associated with restoration of areas of tribal interest (Sequoia National Forest, TERRFW-OBJ-04). Many foothill areas have vegetation and plants of importance to tribes. Much of 

this restoration would include prescribed fire and restoration of native plants. This would include 

reduction in non-native annual grasses, which would increase fire regime integrity and resilience. 

In blue oak woodlands, it is nearly impossible to replace all non-native annual grasses, but even a 

modest shift in some locations toward native perennial grasses would be an improvement in 

restoring favorable fire effects. These treatments would have beneficial fire effects to plants and 

animals and improve fire regime integrity.

Montane Forests

Similar to the foothill zone, there would be an increase in fire regime integrity in alternative B, 

but the increase would be greater because more treatments are focused in the ponderosa pine and 

mixed conifer forests of the montane zone. This is because there is an emphasis on restoration 

objectives of montane and other ecosystems that historically had frequent fire (Sequoia and Sierra 

National Forests: TERR-FW-OBJ-01) and on management approaches prioritizing restoration in 

these areas (see below).

Areas that historically supported more frequent fire, like ponderosa pine and Jeffrey pinedominated forests, and areas with high existing levels of understory fuels are prioritized 

for treatment.

There would be a moderate movement toward the desired fire regime in alternative B, primarily 

in the focus landscapes and in the Kern drainage (Sequoia and Sierra National Forests: TERRFW-OBJ-01 to 03).

Restoration of up to 40 percent of the area to a lower forest density and fuel condition would 

increase the likelihood that fires would be less severe (see “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology”

section). There would be fewer large areas of high-intensity fire, and instead fire effects would be 

more mixed severity (see “Fire Trends” section). There is a moderate level of uncertainty that 

these beneficial effects would occur because of restrictions on spring burning from limited 

operating periods for California spotted owl, and air quality limitations. Where there is prescribed 

burning, there would be considerable beneficial effects on the plants and animals that benefit 

from fire. This would especially occur when there is restoration of sunny openings and 

heterogeneity coinciding with the burned areas. Many of the plants that are adapted to fire are 

also adapted to sunlight. In alternative B, similar to the consequences described above for the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

231

foothill zone, there would be additional beneficial fire effects to plants and animals through 

increased emphasis on projects related to tribal interest.

Upper Montane Forests

The greater use of wildfire fire used to meet resource objectives in alternative B would 

substantially increase the integrity of fire regimes in red fir and lodgepole pine forests. Upper 

montane red fir, Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, and chaparral are departed from historic fire return 

intervals, but only moderately, compared to the high departure in montane forests. Recent 

wildfires and wildfires managed to meet resource objectives have resulted in fire severity levels 

in upper montane areas that are mostly mixed and increased fire regime integrity. There have 

been some larger patches of high-severity fire but overall there has been low and moderate 

severity fires that have decreased vegetation density, increased heterogeneity, and decreased 

surface fuels. This trend of increased fire regime integrity is expected to continue in upper 

montane forests.

Subalpine and Alpine Vegetation

The greater use of wildfire to meet resource objectives in alternative B, would increase the 

integrity of fire regimes in some subalpine forests. This is especially true in subalpine landscapes 

with relatively short fire return intervals (such as forests with spatially contiguous fuel loading, 

south-facing aspects, and at lower elevations).

Eastside Arid Shrubs and Woodlands

Alternative B would have increased levels of restoration in sagebrush and pinyon-juniper areas 

(Inyo National Forest: TERR-FW-OBJ-01 to 03; SPEC-SG-OBJ-01). The restoration would 

include removal of conifers in sagebrush areas and treatment aimed at reducing non-native annual 

grasses (INV-FW-OBJ-01). There would be some increases in prescribed fire. These restoration 

treatments would increase fire regime integrity and would improve habitat for greater sagegrouse. The fire-climate scenarios showed that restoration of 30 percent of the sagebrush and 

pinyon-juniper landscape was sufficient to decrease the likelihood of large fires and burned areas 

(Westerling et al. 2015). The combined effect of the ecological restoration and increased 

likelihood of large fires will be increased fire regime integrity.

There would be an increased emphasis on cooperation with tribes and restoration of areas of tribal 

interest in alternative B. This would include some use of prescribed fire and also some restoration 

of areas of tribal interest that are at risk of high-intensity fire. These types of restoration would

benefit plants, insects, and animals that are associated with natural fire regimes.

Carbon Stocks, Sequestration, and Stability

Under alternative B, there would be restoration treatments across substantial landscape areas (up 

to 30 percent or more). These treatments would move vegetation toward the desired conditions, 

increasing heterogeneity and reducing forest density. This would increase fire resilience and as a 

result carbon stability (TERR-FW-DC-02, -05). There may be short-term decreases in carbon 

storage where trees are removed by thinning, but a long-term increase through increased carbon 

stability. There would be short-term increases in carbon emissions where there are prescribed 

fires or wildfires managed to meet resource objectives but these would be offset by reductions in 

potential high-intensity wildfire emissions (see “Air Quality” section). The impact of restoration 

on carbon sequestration is more uncertain. There may be increases because vegetation in the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

232

thinned areas may have more optimal growing conditions. There may be decreases because trees 

are removed.

Landscape Connectivity

The impacts of alternative B on connectivity would be similar to alternative A, but with a lower 

likelihood of fragmentation of forested areas from large high-intensity fires. There is management 

direction specifically directed at connectivity for wide-ranging species and climate-related 

migrations (TERR-FW-DC-04; TERR-MONT-DC-02; SPEC-CSO-DC-01, SPEC-PF-DC-01; 

SPEC-PF-DC-08 to 10; SPEC-PF-STD-01, -03 to 04; Sequoia National Forest: TERR-FW-GDL01). This includes management approaches to prioritize ecological restoration in areas providing 

connectivity in areas where it is limited for forest species. This would provide connectivity for 

other species needing overhead cover. For example:

Pacific Fisher 

Prioritize ecological restoration in landscapes around key linkage areas and areas with 

suitable habitat at highest fire risk.

There would be lower likelihood of large high-intensity fires because of the increased area with 

restoration, especially at the low and mid-elevation areas (see “Fire Trends” section). The 

likelihood of large high-intensity fires would still increase because of climate warming, and these 

fires could result in fragmentation of forested areas. These fires could also increase connectivity 

of complex early seral habitat (see section in the following pages) but these habitats tend to be 

more dynamic in space and time limiting the need for true connectedness. There would be an 

increased emphasis in alternative B in restoration treatments in key forested linkage areas for 

fisher that would decrease the likelihood of fragmentation of key north-south forest connecting 

areas. There would be an increase in connectivity of open forest habitat because the restoration 

treatments would be directed toward desired conditions for forest heterogeneity and reduced 

overall forest density.

Special Habitats

Old Forest

Consequences to old forests varies between westside and eastside areas in the analysis area. This 

is because management direction for the California spotted owl and Pacific fisher apply to the 

westside portions and affects old forest direction. The consequences are discussed separately as a 

result.

Westside Old Forests: Alternative B would result in increased restoration and resilience of old 

forest, especially in montane ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and black oak forests. The approach 

to restoration in old forest would vary widely depending upon location, as shown in Table 61. The 

differences in approaches would affect potential large tree losses from wildfire, drought, insects, 

pathogens, safety issues, and excesses in densities over desired conditions.

Across all areas, management approaches to perpetuate, increase, and restore old forests would be 

applied including:

To perpetuate old forest components, encourage the development of old forest conditions 

in areas where old forest is lacking. Restore patchiness within stands and sustain large 

black oak trees, pine tree regeneration and snags, over time.

To protect old forest components from uncharacteristic fire, prioritize restoration in key 

old forest areas. Methods of protecting existing old forest components on the landscape 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

233

may include thinning, selective harvest, prescribed fire and wildfires managed to meet 

resource objectives.

Emphasize vegetation treatments in focus landscapes (10,000 to 80,000 acres in size) to 

move terrestrial ecosystems toward desired conditions and increase resilience of old 

forest habitat, while limiting impacts to the Pacific fisher and California spotted owl.

Table 61. Plan direction and effects on large tree densities by location in alternative B

Plan Direction

Inside fire 

protection zones, 

outside focus 

landscapes

Inside fire 

protection 

zones and focus 

landscapes

Outside fire 

protection 

zones, inside 

focus 

landscapes

Outside fire 

protection zones, 

outside focus 

landscapes

Large tree 

direction and 

consequences

Manage for desired 

densities

Manage for 

desired densities

30-inch tree 

diameter limit, 

operational 

exception

30-inch tree 

diameter limit, 

operational 

exception

Wildlife-related 

large tree 

direction

Retain and recruit 

den and nest trees, 

especially old and 

with decadence

same same same

Wildlife-related 

canopy cover 

direction

Limited reduction of 

canopy cover in 

fisher and owl 

habitat

Manage primarily 

for desired 

conditions; some 

limitations in 

protected activity 

centers

Manage primarily 

for desired 

conditions; some 

limitations in 

protected activity 

centers

Limited reduction of 

canopy cover in 

fisher and owl 

habitat

Potential harvest 

of large trees,

(safety issues, 

excess of desired 

conditions)

Limited, amount 

uncertain 

(similar to D)

Limited amount, 

uncertain

(similar to D)

Little to none 

(similar to A)

Little to none 

(similar to A)

Potential loss of 

large trees to 

drought, insects, 

pathogens and 

fire 

Low resilience 

(limited by canopy 

retention 

restrictions)

Moderate to high 

resilience

Low to moderate 

resilience (less in 

stands originating 

from railroad 

logging)

Low resilience, 

similar to A

Outside of the fire protection zones, there would be a strict 30-inch diameter limit (TERR-FWSTD-01) as in alternative A. There would be little to no reductions in large trees associated with 

restoration treatments within this area. Within the fire protection zones, there would be no 

diameter limit and instead there would be management of large trees using desired conditions for 

large tree densities and old forest area (TERR-OLD-DC-03 to 04). Across all areas, there would 

be old forest and wildlife-related desired conditions and guidelines to retain and restore large, and 

old trees that are important for nesting and denning (TERR-OLD-DC-02, -05; SPEC-CSO-STD01c; TERR-FW-GDL-01). 

The primary purposes for removing large trees within the fire protection zones would be to move 

stands toward desired conditions for heterogeneity, restore species composition, and improve 

forest resilience by reducing forest density. The removal of older and very large trees (greater 

than 35 inches diameter at breast height) would not occur, except in rare instances where human 

safety is imminently threatened (FIRE-FW-GDL 09; SPEC-FW-GDL-01).The consequences of 

wildlife related management direction on canopy cover and forest density on large tree densities 

would also vary by location. Where there is little to no restoration around large trees, there would 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

234

be a continued vulnerability to mortality from drought, insects, disease, and high-intensity 

wildfire. This would occur outside of restored areas that are dissimilar to desired conditions 

(TERR-POND-DC-02 to 04; TERR-DMC-DC 03 to 06; TERR-MMC-DC 02 to 06; TERR-RFIRDC 01, -03, -05 to 07; TERR-LDGP-DC-01, -04 to 11; TERR-UMJF-DC-01, -03 to 07). There 

may be some decrease in large tree densities as trees die where they are overcrowded. Some large 

trees may die during prescribed fires or wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. There is 

management direction to limit this mortality with best practices (FIRE-FW-GDL-09), but some is 

likely to occur because of the buildup of fuels around large and especially old trees. 

These impacts of increased likelihood of reductions in large tree densities from drought, insects, 

pathogens, and fire would occur most outside of the focus landscapes where California spotted 

owl and Pacific fisher habitat management direction limit opportunities to reduce forest densities 

(see “Montane Forests” section on page 230). Within the focus landscapes in areas outside of the 

fire protection zones that overlap with stands originating from railroad logging, there would also 

be continued vulnerability to mortality from drought, insects, disease, and wildfire. This is 

because these areas have a high proportion of younger, large trees (greater than 30 inches in

diameter) that cannot be removed (TERR-FW-STD-01). Otherwise, in focus landscapes there 

would be more substantial reductions in tree density in the stands around the large trees because 

more California spotted owl and Pacific fisher habitat can be restored toward the vegetation 

desired conditions.

Inside the focus landscapes, there is greater ability to restore forest heterogeneity and tree density 

to desired conditions. Treatments here would increase the resilience of large and old trees to 

drought, insects and pathogens, ozone, and fire. This would make it more likely (Fry et al. 2015) 

that the amount of large tree mortality (Mantgem et al. 2009) reverts to historic levels. The 

treatments would make it more likely that medium-sized trees will grow into larger trees, 

although they may not be old. Restoration of heterogeneity and fire as an ecological process 

would increase associated biodiversity and processes.

The amount of large, high-intensity fire would most likely have the greatest negative impact on 

the amount of old forests and large trees, except possibly in the focus landscapes. Similar to 

alternative A, there would continue to be an increased likelihood of large, high-intensity fires (see 

the “Fire Trends” section; Westerling et al. 2015). Within the focus landscapes, near the end of the 

analysis period (10 to 15 years) there may be large areas (greater than 10,000 acres) that have 

enough restoration treatments (greater than 40 to 60 percent) of sufficient intensity to reduce fire 

intensity and severity across most of the individual focus landscapes. There would be beneficial 

impact to old forest in these areas, reducing the likelihood of high-severity fire patches and large 

tree mortality during large, high-intensity fires. The remaining area would continue to have an 

increased likelihood of high-intensity fire. 

Where restoration occurs outside of the focus landscapes, the treatments would be lower intensity 

because of the restrictions on wildlife management direction limiting canopy cover removal and 

the amount of treatment allowed. As a result, outside of the focus landscapes, the consequences 

for old forest would be similar to alternative A. Additionally, areas within the focus landscapes 

but outside of the fire protection zones will also have similar consequences for old forest as 

alternative A, where those areas overlap with stands originating from railroad logging. These 

areas may comprise up to one-half to two-thirds of the potential focus landscape areas, especially 

on the Sierra National Forest. 

The consequences of wildfires managed to meet resource objectives on old forest are difficult to 

analyze. This is because they are difficult to predict. In the Kern River drainage, there would
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

235

continue to be positive impacts on old forests from these types of fires. Fires in the last 15 years 

in this area have killed some large and old trees but have substantially reduced the likelihood and 

extent of large, high-intensity fires (Meyer 2015), which have the greatest negative impact on old 

forests.

Overall, alternative B may have positive but limited impact on large trees and old forests, 

particularly in the focus landscapes, but this could be outweighed by continued increases in large, 

high-intensity fires outside of the focus landscapes and Kern Drainage to an unknown degree.

Eastside Old Forests: The consequences for eastside old forests would be based on management 

toward the desired conditions for large tree densities and landscape proportions of old forests. It is 

assumed that there would be very limited if any removal of large trees during restoration. The 

same restrictions on removing trees greater than 30 inches in diameter in westside forests applies 

to eastside forests (TERR-FW-STD-01). Because of the drier conditions, it is more likely that 

medium-diameter trees (greater than 20 inches diameter) are old and these could be removed, but

it is unlikely. Most thinning that does occur during restoration is used as fuelwood or for 

community protection. Restoration would result in increased resilience of old forests where it 

decreases forest density and increases heterogeneity. There would be limited amounts of 

restoration in alternative B but an increase over current levels (alternative A). There would be a 

slight increase in resilience. There would continue to be losses of large and old trees from 

drought, insects, pathogens, and climate change in unrestored areas. 

Complex Early Seral Forests 

There is specific management direction for complex early seral forests in alternative B including: 

desired conditions (TERR-CES-DC-01 to 03), standards (SPEC-CSO-STD-06), and guidelines 

(TERR-CES-GDL-01, -03). This includes retaining at least 10 percent of large contiguous blocks 

(1,000 acres or more) of areas burned at moderate and high severity with high snag densities for 

complex early seral habitat that is unsalvaged (TERR-CES-GDL-06). Management approaches 

include: 

During post-fire restoration projects, consider the availability of complex early-seral 

forests across the forest and region to provide for ecological conditions needed by 

complex early seral wildlife species. This includes retaining areas of: dense and 

connected patches of snags across a range of snag sizes; naturally regenerating 

vegetation, and adjacent or intermixed burned and unburned areas or areas with moderate 

to high tree survival.

Promote native vegetation (e.g., conifers, hardwoods, shrubs) in complex early-seral 

habitat that supports long term ecosystem integrity considering climate change, drought, 

insects, disease and fire.

Alternative B would result in some changes in the spatial pattern of complex early seral forest and 

some changes in the amount. There would be some shift toward a fine-grained, mosaic of 

complex early seral forest, especially in focus landscapes and in upper montane areas that have 

had wildfires in the last 15 years. Restoration aimed at increased forest heterogeneity would 

increase the likelihood of increased heterogeneity during fires of all kinds. Prescribed fires and 

wildfires managed to meet resource objectives, and desired conditions for fire severity mosaics 

(TERR-MONT-DC-05) would result in increased area with very small (less than 1 acre), small (1 

to 10 acres) and medium to large (10 to 200 acre) patches of mixed- and moderate-severity fires 

that would contribute to complex early seral habitat. Wildfires managed for resource objectives 

typically have high spatial complexity (Vaillant 2009; Meyer 2015). The guideline to retain at 

least 10 percent of areas burned at moderate and high severity unsalvaged would provide for 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

236

complex early seral habitats. In the past 5 years, salvage of dead trees has typically occurred on 

less than one-third of the burned area and is avoided in California spotted owl protected activity 

centers that are mostly unburned. Artificial reforestation would occur in some areas, but it is often 

limited in scope and area to locations where salvage occurs first to make it safe for workers and to 

prepare mineral soil seedbeds for planting trees. There would be increased consideration of 

natural regeneration in some areas burned in extensive large patches of high-severity fire, where

there are insufficient living seed trees to ensure enough seedlings will regenerate a forest. These 

changes, compared to current management, would result in an increased proportion of large fires 

contributing to complex early seral forest habitat. There would be a continued increase in the 

likelihood of large, high-intensity wildfires because the majority of the landscape outside of focus 

landscapes would have limited restoration. These high-intensity fires would provide large areas of 

complex early seral forest.

Limited Special Habitats

In alternative B, there is specific direction aimed at management and conservation of special 

habitats where federally-listed species and species of conservation concern occur (SPEC-FWGDL-03 to 05; SPEC-FW-DC-03), including those related to particular rock types and substrates 

(like marble or limestone). This direction would increase the consideration of special habitats in 

all projects and management of all sites (TERR-SH-STD-01) where activities including 

restoration, special uses, and dispersed recreation may occur. There would be a beneficial impact 

to edaphic habitats under alternative B.

Keystone Species Groups

Pollinators – In alternative B, there would be increased levels of restoration toward vegetation 

desired conditions, including increased heterogeneity that would benefit pollinator plants (TERRMONT-DC-06). There would be an emphasis on restoration toward desired conditions of 

vegetation that are based primarily on the natural range of variation. Restoration of native plants 

would support restoration of dependent pollinators. This would provide more openings and 

sunlight to the forest floor that would improve pollinator habitat. There would be more prescribed 

fire and wildfire managed to meet resource objectives that would improve conditions for fireassociated flowering plants (see “Fire Management” section).

In eastside shrublands and woodlands, restoration activities under alternative B would also 

improve pollinator habitat. Increased levels of restoration in sagebrush and pinyon-juniper are 

expected to generally favor annual flowering plants over perennials. This would potentially 

benefit some pollinators during spring blooms, but provide less benefit to pollinators dependent 

on greater canopy cover or on late-seral, summer perennials such as penstemons or mule ears. 

Benefits to pollinators would be highly dependent upon effective control of invasive species. 

Invasive, non-native annual grasses and other non-native plants displace native plants and their 

associated pollinators. Restoration treatments in these vegetation types would be especially 

effective at enhancing pollinator habitat when treatments also minimize invasive plant spread.

Cavity Excavators – There may be an increase in the amount of snags because snag retention 

levels are higher than currently (alternative A) in most areas (TERR-POND-DC-05; TERRDMC-DC-06; TERR-MMC-DC-05; TERR-RFIR-DC-07; TERR-LDGP-DC-06, 11; TERRUMJF-DC-07) except in the community buffers (MA-CWPZ-GDL-01c) in the community fire 

protection zone. There would be an increase in the diversity of plant communities or habitats that 

snags occur in because of increased restoration of vegetation into more heterogeneous conditions 

and retention of large trees with deformities and cavities for wildlife habitat (TERR-FW-GDL-01; 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

237

TERR-OLD-GDL-01). This would result in an increase in the diversity of cavity excavator 

habitat (TERR-FW-GDL-02). There would be an increase in the amount of open and moderately 

open forests in the pine and mixed conifer forests. There would be an increase in the amount of 

snags in small patches of burned forest because of the increase in prescribed fire and wildfire 

managed to meet resource objectives. This would increase habitat for cavity excavators and other 

species that rely upon intermixed or adjacent burned and green habitat. There would be increased 

snag retention levels and direction for complex early seral habitat that would provide more snag 

habitat in forests burned at high severity, including in owl nest habitat or in areas of large standreplacing bark beetle mortality events (SPEC-CSO-STD-06; TERR-CES-GDL-01d; see 

“Complex Early Seral Forests” section above).

Tribal Uses and Biocultural Diversity

In alternative B there is specific direction to improve conditions for plants and vegetation of tribal 

interest (TERR-FW-DC-09; TERR-BLCK-DC-04; Inyo: TERR-OAK-DC-01) and restore areas 

of tribal importance (Inyo National Forest: TERR-FW-OBJ-03; Sequoia National Forest: TERRFW-OBJ-04). There also would be a moderate level of restoration of ecosystem, plant, insect, and 

animal conditions (see “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section). Areas restored with mechanical 

thinning and prescribed fire together would result in improved conditions for plants and animals 

of tribal interest (Lake and Long 2014). This includes overcrowded black oaks, and shaded 

understory shrubs and plants currently growing in dense conifer forests (Merriam 2013, Safford 

2013). 

Areas with prescribed fire and fire managed to meet resource objectives would improve 

conditions for all understory plants (TERR-MONT-DC-04; TERR-DMC-DC-02; TERR-RFIRDC-02) including those used for food, basketry, and medicine (Anderson and Donatto 1996, 

Anderson 2006). Large landscape areas treated would improve conditions for bear, deer, and 

other important wide-ranging species (TERR-FW-DC-04). Alternative B would have an increase 

in fire managed to meet resource objectives, particularly at middle and higher elevations that 

would have benefits to large ecosystem areas. The ecological restoration projects specifically 

planned and coordinated with tribes would incorporate traditional ecological knowledge and 

practices and be focused on sites selected by tribal members (TERR-FW-GOA L-01; TRIB-FWDC-01).

Integrated Terrestrial Ecosystem Sustainability

Alternative B would result in increased integrated sustainability. The greater amount of the 

landscape area that would be restored under this alternative would increase the resilience of 

terrestrial ecosystems to uncharacteristic fire, insects, diseases, air pollution, or climate change. 

Sustainability would be most improved in terrestrial ecosystems targeted by restoration efforts, 

including lower montane forests, upper montane forests, eastside pine forests, and sagebrush 

ecosystems.

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Fire Regimes and Fire as an Ecosystem Process

Overall, there is an emphasis on fire as a restoration tool in Alternative C that would increase the 

use of fire as an ecosystem process. However, there is a higher level of uncertainty about how 

much prescribed fire would occur because there would be fewer associated mechanical treatments 

along ridges and roads that would prepare areas for conducting large prescribed fires. Similarly, 

although there is the intent to manage more wildfires to meet resource objectives, there may be 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

238

fewer opportunities because there would be fewer areas treated mechanically and with prescribed 

fire that could assist with better management of those fires. 

Westside Foothills Vegetation

Lower levels of restoration treatments are proposed for alternative C, similar to alternative A. 

However, there is more emphasis on restoration of native plants in areas with non-native plant 

invasions and prescribed fire. There is a similar emphasis on cooperation with tribes and 

restoration of areas of tribal interest as in alternatives B and D. Overall, there would be limited 

opportunities to increase fire regime integrity and beneficial fire effects.

Montane Forests

Overall, lower levels of treatments are proposed for alternative C in montane forests. Alternative 

C would have lower levels of prescribed fire on the Sequoia National Forest than in alternative A. 

On the Sierra National Forest, there would be more prescribed fire than in alternative A, but not 

much more. There are higher levels of wildfires used primarily to meet resource objectives but 

these would occur mostly in upper montane and subalpine areas. Overall, there would be a slight 

increase fire regime integrity compared to alternative A. The higher levels of prescribed fire and 

emphasis on cooperation with tribes and restoration of areas of tribal interest would result in 

increased beneficial fire effects to plants and animals in treated areas.

Upper Montane Forests

Overall, there would be less proposed treatment in alternative C in upper montane forests. 

However, there is direction that supports the use of wildfire used to meet resource objectives. 

This is most likely to occur in upper montane and subalpine areas. As a result, there would be an 

increase in fire regime integrity and beneficial fire effects in alternative C.

Subalpine and Alpine Vegetation

The consequences to subalpine and alpine vegetation would be the same as described for 

alternative A.

Eastside Sagebrush and Pinyon-Juniper

In eastside sagebrush and pinyon-juniper there would be slightly increased fire regime integrity 

and beneficial fire effects from restoration proposed in alternative C compared to alternative A.

Carbon Stocks, Sequestration, and Stability

Impacts of alternative C on carbon would be similar to alternative A, except that there may be 

more prescribed fire and wildfire managed to meet resource objectives. There is a high level of 

uncertainty on how much more fire may occur, because with fewer thinning projects, prescribed 

fires and wildfires managed to meet resource objectives may be more difficult to implement and 

could be less likely to occur. Therefore there is a high level of uncertainty on the impacts of 

alternative C on carbon. If more beneficial prescribed and managed fires occurred, then there 

would be short-term increases in carbon emissions but a long-term increase in carbon stability. 

Burned areas would have lower surface fuels, lower vegetation densities, and higher fire 

resilience, making the likelihood of large, high-intensity fires lower.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

239

Landscape Connectivity

Alternative C would result in similar impacts to connectivity as alternative B but with more 

recommended wilderness and an increased likelihood of large, high-intensity wildfires. There 

would be a similar emphasis on restoration of fire resilience of key fisher linkage areas. 

Restoration in the remaining area would be uncertain. There will be lower amounts of thinning, 

similar to alternative A, and the thinning will be lower intensity. The plan objectives for

prescribed fire and fire managed primarily to meet resource objectives is greater than the 

proposed action, but there is moderate to high uncertainty how much would occur over the plan 

period, because there would be less associated thinning in strategic areas. This could make it 

more difficult to implement prescribed burning because burns would be more risky to manage 

with higher fuel levels and would be more costly to implement.

There are more recommended wilderness areas in alternative C than the other alternatives. This 

may provide for increased landscape connectivity of species that are impacted by more intensive 

management (like mechanical treatment) or uses (such as developed recreation). See the “At-risk 

Terrestrial Wildlife Species” section for more information. 

Special Habitats

Old Forest

Management under alternative C in old forests would be similar to alternative A, but would 

include greater limitations on restoration from additional management direction in the fisher 

conservation strategy and the California spotted owl interim recommendations. There would be 

diameter limits restricting large tree harvest in all areas. There would be substantially more limits 

in the amount of mechanical restoration treatments in the fisher and owl habit areas. There would 

be no mechanical restoration allowed in owl foraging or nesting areas. Overall, there would be 

the least amount of area proposed for restoration treatment in old forest of all the alternatives. 

There would be an increased emphasis on prescribed fire and the use of wildfires managed to 

meet resource objectives, but it is uncertain how much of this would occur because dense forest 

conditions would continue that make burning difficult.

Alternative C would retain all large-diameter trees, with limited exceptions. There would be 

retention of old forest with denser trees and canopy cover. There would be an increased likelihood 

that large, old tree would die from drought, insects, pathogens, and warming climate (Van 

Mangtem et al. 2009). There would continue to be an increasing and high likelihood of large, 

high-intensity fires, similar to alternative A. This would have a negative impact on old forests in 

some areas, although there is uncertainty about the resulting fire severities and how they overlap 

with old forests. Although there would be an increased emphasis on restoration of fire, it is 

unlikely that this would occur across large areas because it is more difficult to accomplish in 

dense forest conditions.

Overall, there would be little to no change in large tree density from the restoration treatments, 

because there would be restrictions on harvest of large trees. There could be a positive impact on 

old forest structure, increased heterogeneity, and increased resilience from restoration treatments, 

including thinning, prescribed burning, and wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. There 

may be some low levels of large tree mortality from the fire treatments. The area that is proposed 

for restoration is lower than other alternatives and because of this there would continue to be an 

increased likelihood of large high-intensity wildfires. It is uncertain when and where large, highintensity fires might occur, but if they did there could be negative impacts if they burn large areas 

of old forest at high intensity and result in killing a lot of large trees.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

240

Complex Early Seral Forest 

In alternative C there would be more complex early seral forest than under all other alternatives. 

There would be very limited salvage, only associated with safety hazards and limited strategic 

fuel treatment areas. There would be little to no reforestation or herbicide use; instead natural 

regeneration would be emphasized to minimize disruption of natural processes. There would be 

the greatest increased likelihood of large, high-intensity wildfires, and overall burned area (see 

Fire-Climate supplemental report, Westerling et al. 2015). The spatial pattern of complex early 

seral forest is difficult to predict but there is a higher likelihood of large (100 to 1,000 acres), and 

very large (greater than 1,000 acre) patches of mixed- and especially high-severity (greater than 

75 percent basal area mortality) fires. There would also be an increased likelihood of very large 

(greater than 10,000 acre), very high-severity (greater than 90 percent basal area mortality) fire 

patches, based upon increases in fire-atmospheric interactions (from fire created weather, see the 

“Fire Trends” section). 

Limited Special Habitats

There would be similar impacts to limited special habitats in alternative C as in alternative B.

Keystone Species Groups

Pollinators – There would be similar impacts to pollinators in alternative C as in alternative A. 

There would be some increased emphasis on restoration of vegetation heterogeneity and fire 

restoration that could create sunny openings and improve pollinator habitat. However, canopy 

cover retention in montane forests would limit these areas. In shrublands, there would be similar 

impacts to pollinators in alternative C as in alternative B, with some benefits to pollinators 

resulting from increased annual cover in restoration areas, and some benefits to diversity 

maintained by the structural diversity of tree cover.

Cavity Excavators – There would be an increase in the amount of habitat for primary cavity 

excavators because there would be an emphasis on snag retention. This would occur mostly in 

denser canopied forests and complex early seral forest because there is less restoration proposed. 

Denser stands would have greater live tree mortality, creating more snags. There may be more 

habitat in areas burned at mixed severity since there would be more prescribed fire and fire 

managed to meet resource objectives. However, there is uncertainty how much fire restoration 

would occur because there would be fewer areas treated mechanically and with prescribed fire 

that could assist with better management of those fires. 

Tribal Uses and Biocultural Diversity

Similar to alternatives B and D, there would be an increased consideration of tribal interests in 

ecological restoration and coordination of some of the projects. Overall, there would be less 

ecological restoration across the landscape, providing fewer benefits to ecosystems, plants, 

insects, and animals of tribal interest.

Integrated Terrestrial Ecosystem Sustainability

There would be limited increases in integrated terrestrial ecosystem sustainability in alternative 

C, similar to alternative A. This is because there would be limited areas of restoration.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

241

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

Fire Regimes and Fire as an Ecosystem Process

Consequences for alternative D would be similar to alternative B in type but would differ in pace 

and scale. Therefore, the analysis is focused at larger landscape scale differences and not by 

specific vegetation types.

There would be double the amount of restoration treatments in alternative D that would have a 

substantial impact on fire regimes and fire as an ecosystem process in the landscapes where these 

treatments occur. This would occur most in large areas in the westside montane ponderosa pine, 

black oak, and mixed conifer vegetation types and in the eastside Jeffrey pine and sagebrush, the 

latter of which has been invaded by pinyon-juniper and Jeffrey pine. Since there would be double 

the amount of focus landscapes, there would be up to 40 percent or more of these areas that have 

landscape areas with reduced fire intensity and severity. There would be increased beneficial 

effects of restoring fire as an ecological process because there would be more prescribed fire and 

opportunities to manage wildfires to meet resource objectives. Alternatives D would have the 

greatest levels of restoration in sagebrush habitat for the greater sage-grouse. 

The consequences for subalpine and desert vegetation types would be similar to alternative B. 

There would be some additional restoration in westside foothill and upper montane red fir and 

lodgepole pine forests (both eastside and westside) that would reduce fire intensity and severity. 

Carbon Stocks, Sequestration, and Stability

The impacts of alternative D on carbon would be similar to alternative B but with beneficial 

impacts over a larger area. Under alternative D, the area proposed for thinning is the greatest. 

There would also be the greatest amount of prescribed fire and wildfire managed to meet resource 

objectives. The combined effect of these restoration treatments would be between 30 and 60 

percent of the low and mid-elevation areas with lower forest and vegetation densities and fuel 

loadings. This would substantially decrease the likelihood of large, high-intensity fires. This 

means that carbon stability would be substantially higher and large carbon emissions the lowest 

(see the “Air Quality” section).

Landscape Connectivity

Alternative D would result in similar impacts to landscape connectivity as alternative B but with 

less likelihood of large, high-intensity wildfires that could potentially interrupt habitat 

connectivity for forest-associated species. This is due to the increased restoration treatment rates 

under alternative D compared to other alternatives. There would be more prescribed fire and fire 

managed to meet resource objectives under alternative D, which could enhance overall long-term 

ecosystem resilience of fisher linkage areas and other critical habitat connections. However, there 

would be higher levels of mechanical thinning in alternative D than alternative B, including 

within fisher linkage areas. Consequently, alternative D would likely result in greater long-term 

connectivity but significantly lower near-future (next 10 to 20 years) habitat connectivity for 

fisher and other forest-associated species than other alternatives. 

Special Habitats

Old Forest

Alternative D would have similar environmental consequences to alternative B, but with more 

area restored there would be greater positive impacts of increased heterogeneity, decreased forest 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

242

density, and increased old forest resilience. Instead of restrictions on harvesting large trees of a 

certain diameter, alternative D emphasizes managing toward the desired conditions for large trees. 

This is the only alternative to result in a reversal of the trend in large, high-intensity fires.

Increased mechanical restoration treatments would result in lower levels of large and old tree 

mortality from both water stress and large, high-intensity fires. The higher levels of mechanical 

restoration would increase the likelihood that more prescribed fire and wildfire managed to meet 

resource objectives would occur and these would have a positive impact on old forests. The 

impact to large trees in alternative D across the entire analysis area (outside of wilderness or other 

areas with no or highly restricted mechanical treatment) would be the same as described for 

alternative B within the fire protection zones. 

The direction in alternative D for large trees focuses on desired conditions for large tree densities 

and guidelines to meet those desired conditions in vegetation management activities (such as 

restoration thinning or timber harvest) instead of the current diameter limits in alternative A. This 

may result in some removal of individual large trees, but it is expected to be very limited because 

large tree densities are lower than desired conditions in most landscape areas. The exception to 

this situation would be the same as that described under alternative C, consistent with the fisher 

conservation strategy, primarily to thin dense, uniform, young but large white fir to make them 

more resilient. The harvests of some large trees, even though limited, may result in a small 

reduction in large tree densities, greater than in alternatives A, B, or C. These reductions may be 

offset and lower than losses of large trees in alternatives A, B or C from mortality due to water 

stress and large, high-intensity fires. It is unknown how much of an offset would occur. 

The proposed levels of restoration in all forests in alternative D would result in numerous large 

landscape (greater than 10,000 acres) areas exceeding 40 percent and up to 60 percent or more of 

the area restored. The fire-climate scenarios show a substantially decreased likelihood of large, 

high-intensity fires with this level of restoration (see the “Fire Trends” section). Therefore, the 

likelihood of large, high-intensity fire that could result in killing a lot of large trees and 

converting large areas to early seral vegetation is decreased compared to current trends. This is 

the only alternative to result in a reversal of the trend in large, high-intensity fires. This would not 

likely be achieved until the middle and later parts of the planning analysis period (10 to 15 years) 

because of the time it takes to plan and implement projects. There may be large, high-intensity 

fires that occur in the early part of the analysis period. If large stewardship projects occur across 

very large landscapes (greater than 100,000 acres), then it is possible that the projects may occur 

more rapidly because there would be fewer limitations on the internal capacity to plan and 

implement the projects.

Complex Early Seral Forest 

There would be mixed impacts of alternative D on complex early seral forest. There would be 

more restoration treatments that would increase the likelihood that fires that would occur would 

have low or mixed fire-severity effects. This would include more prescribed fires and wildfires 

managed to meet resource objectives, which would increase the amount of distributed, fine and 

medium grained, or patches of complex early seral forest. There would be a reduction in the 

likelihood of large, high-intensity fires that would also reduce the potential for very large patches 

of complex early seral forest. There would be the greatest amount of salvage and reforestation. 

This would decrease the proportion of large, high-intensity fires that have high levels of complex 

early seral forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

243

Limited Special Habitats

There would be similar environmental consequences to limited special habits in alternative D as 

in alternative B.

Keystone Species Groups

Pollinators – Alternative D would have similar environmental consequences as alternative B but 

across more area.

Primary Cavity Excavators – Alternative D would have similar environmental consequences as 

alternative B for cavity excavators.

Tribal Uses and Biocultural Diversity

Alternative D would have similar environmental consequences as alternative B for tribal uses and 

biocultural diversity, but across more area.

Integrated Terrestrial Ecosystem Sustainability

Alternative D would have similar environmental consequences as alternative B for integrated 

terrestrial ecosystem sustainability but for considerably more area. The amount of landscape area 

that would be restored would provide for a higher level of overall integrated sustainability since 

many of the benefits increase with larger areas treated. For example, the “Fire Trends” section 

notes how the difference between restoring 60 percent of a landscape area results in a reduction in 

the increase in large fire size and area.

Cumulative Effects

Fire Regimes and Fire as an Ecosystem Process

Overall, climate change may accentuate the differences among alternatives. This is because fire 

frequency and intensity are projected to increase in many landscapes with rising temperatures, 

increasing fuel loading, and decreasing fuel moistures. In general, the cumulative effects 

described in the “Fire Trends” and “Climate Change” sections apply to fire ecology as well.

Carbon Stocks, Sequestration, and Stability

Cumulative effects for carbon are a complex topic, because of the interactions involved between 

vegetation in the forests, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that comes from many diverse 

sources outside of the national forests. Here the cumulative effects emphasize those aspects of 

carbon that are vegetation related, namely carbon stability, storage and sequestration. There is 

some reference to carbon release from vegetation but more detail can be found in the “Air 

Quality” section. 

Restoration treatments and wildfires on adjacent lands that can burn onto the national forests are 

the two primary influences on the cumulative effects on carbon and vegetation. Restoration 

treatments on adjacent national parks (Yosemite and Sequoia and Kings Canyon), and Bureau of 

Land Management-managed lands can result in areas of increased fire resilience and carbon 

stability. These areas of increased fire resilience would make it less likely for large, high-intensity 

fires to move from these lands onto national forest lands. However, in the Lake Isabella area, the 

lower elevation lands bordering the Sequoia National Forest are dominated by annual grasses and 

chaparral. These areas burn frequently because of the high human presence and source of fire 

starts.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

244

Landscape Connectivity

The cumulative effects of the alternatives combined with climate change, uncharacteristic fire, 

insects, and other stressors on landscape connectivity are complex and difficult to disentangle. 

However, it is anticipated that these stressors, irrespective of the alternatives, will likely have 

synergistic interactions that amplify their impact on habitat connectivity in the southern Sierra 

Nevada. Based on fire and climate model projections, it is anticipated that these synergistic 

interactions would have the greatest negative impact on habitat connectivity under alternative A, 

which promotes the fewest measures that protect or build adaptive capacity in habitat corridors or 

linkage areas. Alternatives B, C, and D would result in similar levels of cumulative impacts to 

connectivity, with greater reliance on minimizing short-term impacts in alternative C followed by 

alternative B.

Special Habitats

Old Forest

The cumulative effects of the alternatives on old forest are influenced by management on adjacent 

lands, factors that influence fire and status, and conservation plans for old forest-associated 

species (such as California spotted owl and Pacific fisher).

The combined effects of increased restoration of old forests and restoration on adjacent national 

park lands combine to move more total area in old forest toward desired conditions and the 

natural range of variation. There are extensive areas of old forest in the two national parks that 

share borders and are intermixed with the national forests in the analysis area. Yosemite National 

Park is to the north, bordering the Sierra National Forest and a small portion of the Inyo National 

Forest. Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park lies in between the Sierra and Sequoia National 

Forests. The western third of Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park has oak woodlands and 

chaparral at the lowest elevations and giant sequoia forests above. The very old giant sequoia 

forests in the national park and adjacent national forests were analyzed in the Giant Sequoia 

National Monument Plan Environmental Impact Statement and that information is not repeated 

here. 

At higher elevations, there are extensive areas of upper montane and subalpine old forests in 

Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park that occur adjacent to similar areas on the Inyo, Sequoia, 

and Sierra National Forests. This forms a large continuous block of old forest, most of it in 

wilderness. The large continuous area is the largest in the Sierra Nevada and the ecological value 

is great because of this. The National Park Service and Forest Service have coordinated multiple 

times on wildfires managed to meet resource objectives in these areas and would continue to do 

so under all alternatives. The fires cross boundaries often. The cumulative effect is that there are 

large areas in Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park that have been restored adjacent to the large 

areas that have been restored in the Kern River drainage. This restoration has improved the 

resilience of old forests to large, high-intensity fires and increased heterogeneity and restored 

species composition. All of the alternatives would continue this cooperative, beneficial 

management of fire across the boundaries.

There has been similar cooperation between the Sierra National Forest and Yosemite National 

Park, but there have been fewer opportunities for large prescribed fires or wildfires managed to 

meet resource objectives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

245

Complex Early Seral Forest 

Management of large fires and post-fire restoration in adjacent national parks, monuments and 

national forests to the north are the primary contributors to cumulative effects on complex early 

seral forest. Yosemite and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks do little post-fire restoration 

that is likely to reduce the amount of complex early seral forest. There is no post-fire salvage in 

national parks, except along major roads. Future projected trends in large, high-intensity fires 

from climate warming in national parks are similar to likely trends in national forests (Westerling 

et al. 2015). With increased likelihood of large, high-intensity fires and limited post-fire 

restoration, the cumulative effect would be to have an overall increased amount of complex early 

seral forest across the analysis area. The southern portion of the Stanislaus National Forest to the 

north has had repeated, large, high-intensity fires, most recently the very large Rim Fire. This 

resulted in several very large patches of complex early seral forest habitat and many moderate and 

small patches. There has been extensive roadside hazard salvage and planned salvage across large 

areas, but because of the very large burn perimeter, there still was a large cumulative increase in 

complex early seral forest habitat. Overall, with increased fire trends throughout and varying 

levels of salvage, the cumulative effect of all alternatives would have an increase in the amount of 

complex early seral forest.

Limited Special Habitats

The cumulative effects of the alternatives on specialized edaphic habitats would likely be 

influenced by stressors in some cases. Plant species limited primarily to limestone and other 

specific substrates may be impacted by the combined effects of climate change, uncharacteristic 

fire, and invasive species, potentially resulting in population declines within these specialized 

habitats. Species dependent on caves and cliffs (such as bats) may also experience these 

cumulative impacts but possibly to a lesser degree due to their greater mobility and ability to use 

existing variability in thermal features and other refugia within these environments. Soil biotic 

crusts in eastside arid shrublands and woodlands are also likely to be impacted by the cumulative 

effects of the alternatives with increasing stressors, especially invasive plant species and 

uncharacteristically frequent fire.

Keystone Species Groups

The cumulative effects of the alternatives and various stressors on keystone species groups are 

varied. In the near future (next 10 to 15 years), the synergistic effects of climate change, 

uncharacteristic fire, air pollution, invasive species, and insect and pathogen activity would likely 

benefit cavity excavators and pollinators under all alternatives, because these stressors would 

increase the amount and proportion of early successional habitat and tree mortality that benefits 

cavity excavators and pollinators (by providing increased foraging habitat). However, greater loss 

of “green forest” may have unknown impacts to other cavity excavators and pollinators that also 

depend on this habitat for nesting or foraging during some stage in their life cycle (like pileated 

woodpeckers, hairy woodpeckers, or Williamson’s sapsuckers). In the long-term (decades) the 

loss of forests due to increasing stressors (especially climate change) would reduce the habitat 

extent for these keystone species regardless of episodic increases in early seral habitats following 

fire and other ecological processes.

Tribal Uses and Biocultural Diversity

Cumulative effects for tribal uses are a combination of what is described in the sections 

discussing tribal interests, vegetation ecology, fire ecology, economic and social conditions, and 

fire and climate trends. Overall, the trends in ecosystem conditions that support tribal uses would 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

246

be improved from the restoration treatments and greater tribal cooperation and involvement. But 

the economic and social conditions for tribes outside of the national forests where they live can 

influence their ability to access and use the ecosystems. Better economic and social opportunities 

would provide a greater ability to use these ecosystems.

Integrated Terrestrial Ecosystem Sustainability

The varied aspects of integrated terrestrial ecosystem sustainability are complex when considered 

individually, as well as when considered together. However, the cumulative effects for each are 

similar. The effects of climate are the dominant overarching outside influence that affects all 

aspects, especially fire and non-native invasive plants.

Analytical Conclusions 

Fire Regimes and Fire as an Ecological Process

Westside Vegetation 

The alternatives vary in restoration of fire regime integrity and fire as an ecological process by 

ecological zone and location. Alternatives B, C, and D would increase fire regime integrity and 

fire as an ecological process in the upper montane, subalpine, and alpine vegetation types, and in

the Kern River drainage areas because of an increased potential to have wildfire managed to meet 

resource objectives. In the montane and foothill zones, both alternatives B and D would create 

increased fire regime integrity in the focus landscapes. Large, high-intensity fires are likely to 

have moderate behavior in these restored landscapes and would result in reduced fire severity and 

effects. Alternative D would have the greatest positive benefit to fire regime integrity across the 

national forests because at least half of the entire forest area would be restored. Alternative B 

would only have half of this area restored at most. Alternatives A and C would have little 

restoration. 

The alternatives differ in proposed restoration of fire as an ecosystem process, especially in the 

montane zone. Alternative B has prescribed fire objectives that would substantially increase the 

prescribed burning levels over alternative A, but there is a moderate uncertainty that this amount 

of prescribed fire would occur because of limited operating periods for California spotted owl and 

Pacific fisher. With warming climate, drought, and longer and drier fire seasons, spring burning is 

increasingly important to achieving prescribed fire objectives. There are fewer limited operating 

periods in alternative D and a higher likelihood that prescribed fire would occur, although there is 

uncertainty whether air quality conflicts would prevent burning at any time of the year. 

Eastside Vegetation

The increased restoration treatment rates in arid shrublands and woodland landscapes are greatest 

under alternatives D and B, and lowest under alternatives C and A. However, all alternatives 

would support at least moderate fire regime integrity in many arid shrublands and woodlands 

(such as xeric shrub and blackbrush), because of the long historic fire return intervals in these 

vegetation types that often exceed 100 to 200 years (greater than the current fire exclusion period 

of the 20th and early 21st centuries). These vegetation types are less departed from the desired 

conditions than other more productive vegetation types in the analysis area. Alternatives B and D 

would have the greatest levels of restoration in sagebrush habitat for the greater sage-grouse and 

the least amount of undesirable fire in landscapes where these treatments exceed 30 percent of the 

area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

247

Carbon Stocks, Sequestration, and Stability

Alternative D followed by B would have the greatest positive impact on carbon stability, and as a 

result, on carbon storage and sequestration. They have the greatest proportions of vegetation 

restoration that would decrease the likelihood of large, high-intensity fires and increase the 

resilience of vegetation to fires. This would result in less tree mortality maintenance of carbon 

storage. Carbon sequestration would be more stable and would likely increase because of less 

competition between trees for water, light, and openings that would improve understory shrub and 

plant vigor. Alternative D would have the greatest positive impact, because there is enough of the 

low and mid-elevation areas restored that could reduce the amount of large, high-intensity fires 

(see the “Fire Trends” section).

Alternatives A and C would likely result in a continued condition of high instability of carbon. 

There would be a continued increase in the likelihood of large, high-intensity fires and low 

climate adaptive capacity. There would continue to be large areas of the landscape with low 

ecological fire resilience and resilience to insects and pathogens (see “Insects and Pathogens” 

section). This means that there would likely be large areas burned as crown fires in large, highintensity fires or areas with widespread tree mortality due to moisture stress and insect and 

pathogen activity. While dead trees can store much of their carbon in the stems and branches, this 

is short term carbon storage, because decay and other ecological processes (like fire) release 

carbon to the atmosphere (North and Hurteau 2011). Carbon sequestration could increase because 

of more young vegetation actively growing after large fires. This increase in sequestration would 

likely be short term in both alternatives. In alternative C, there would be little to no reforestation 

and therefore, lower levels of sequestration in post-fire landscapes characterized by large highseverity fire patches with increased tree regeneration failure (Ritchie and Knapp 2014, Collins 

and Roller 2013). In alternative A, while there might be more reforestation, if it is extensive and 

densely planted, there is a moderate to high likelihood that the plantations would not survive 

additional large, high-intensity fires and climate change. There is often, but not always, a pattern 

of repeated fires in the same vicinity, that burn intensely through plantations. The most notable 

examples are on the Stanislaus National Forest, near and in the Rim Fire area, which were often 

established following earlier uncharacteristically severe wildfire events (like the 1987 Stanislaus 

Complex). 

Landscape Connectivity

Alternative B potentially provides for short- and long-term habitat connectivity, especially for 

forest-associated species such as Pacific fisher. Key linkage areas for fisher are prioritized for 

restoration but recent fires (the Aspen Fire in 2013 and Rough Fire in 2015) burned through key 

linkage areas before they could be restored. Alternative C provides the greatest short-term 

connectivity but at the cost of elevated exposure or sensitivity to uncharacteristically severe fire, 

climate change, and other stressors that reduce long-term habitat connectivity. Alternative D may 

support the greatest long-term habitat connectivity, but at the cost of significantly reduced shortterm habitat connectivity resulting from elevated mechanical and prescribed fire treatment rates in 

the next 10 to 20 years. Alternative A provides the lowest connectivity for forest-associated and 

other wildlife species under both short- and long-term horizons. Alternative A provides the lowest 

restoration treatment rates and lacks management approaches that are specifically focused on 

habitat linkage and dispersal corridor areas otherwise promoted under alternatives B, C, and D for 

wildlife species such as fisher. Consequently, alternative D would result in the greatest habitat 

connectivity for forest-associated and other species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

248

Special Habitats

Old Forest

Alternative D followed by B would result in the greatest restoration of old forests. There would 

be more old forests that have restoration of desired tree density, heterogeneity, tree canopy cover, 

fire regime integrity, and fire as an ecosystem process in these alternatives. This would restore old 

forests toward conditions reflecting the natural range of variation. There would be substantially 

increased resilience of large, old trees to moisture stress, drought, insects and pathogens, ozone, 

and large, high-intensity fires. There is potential for harvest of some large trees in alternative D 

and within the fire protection zones in alternative B because the direction to limit the size of trees 

removed is provided by desired conditions for old forests compared to fixed harvest diameter 

limits. It is unknown how much harvest of large trees would occur, but it is assumed that it would 

be low because many areas are below desired conditions levels for large trees. 

The greatest impact to old forests, aside from direct harvest of large trees, is trees dying from 

large, high-intensity fires and the combined effects of drought, insects and pathogens. Large, 

high-intensity fires can kill many large trees, across large areas at one time. The fire-climate 

research by UC Merced (Westerling et al. 2015) supports that there has been and will continue to 

be an increase in the size, number and area burned in large fires due in part to warming climate. 

In restoration scenarios, the trend did not change or reverse until 60 percent of the foothill and 

montane landscape was restored. Restoration levels of 15 and 30 percent showed less increase of 

large fires compared to no treatment but there would still be increases in large, high-intensity fires 

compared to today.

In all alternatives, the Kern River drainage would reach the 60 percent restoration level rapidly, 

because it is already near or exceeding 30 percent in many areas. For all other areas, alternative D 

is the only alternative that comes close to the 60 percent restoration level. This alternative is most 

likely to have the least loss of old forest from large, high-intensity fire. Alternative B would have 

a similar impact in some areas but not all. In all alternatives, there is uncertainty as to what 

proportion of large fires would be dominated by high severity, mixed severity or low severity 

effects, even though relative qualitative comparisons could be made among alternatives. Larger 

proportions of high-severity fire is likely under alternatives A and C and higher proportions of 

low and moderate severity fire are more likely under alternatives B and D. Even with the very 

large Rim and King Fires, there were significant portions of the fires that burned at moderate, 

mixed or low severity, especially within the upper montane zone. Similar patterns occurred with 

the Aspen and French Fires. These areas of low and moderate fire severity may result in some 

large trees dying, but overall would provide benefits of increased heterogeneity, desirable habitat 

features (such as snags), and resilience on some parts of fires but would have very severe effects 

for old forest in other parts of the fires that burn at high severity. 

Old forests can also be greatly impacted by drought, insects, and pathogen-related mortality. 

Where forest density is high, all trees are vulnerable to mortality, including the large trees. 

Current levels of mortality in ponderosa pine and some mixed conifer forests are very elevated. 

Mortality of younger and medium-sized trees from surrounding younger forests increases the 

likelihood that large trees will die because the elevated insect levels increase the extent and rate 

of infection. Alternative D would have the greatest reduction in vulnerability to future drought, 

insect, and pathogen-related large tree mortality because the greatest intensity of forest thinning 

across large areas would occur. Alternative B would have some increases in resilience in the focus 

landscapes, except for areas outside of the fire protection zones that overlap with railroad 

logging-originated stands. This could be half of the potential focus landscapes. The net result is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

249

that only a small portion of remnant large old trees would benefit from restoration treatments of 

intensity needed to increase resilience. This may be less than 10 percent of the areas with large, 

old trees. Alternatives A and C would have even lower levels of benefit from restoration because 

treatments would be less intense and less extensive.

Complex Early Seral Forest

The increase in complex early seral forest would be the most in alternatives C followed by 

alternative B and the least in alternatives A and D. There is a high level of uncertainty about the 

amount and spatial scale of the complex early seral forest patches that would occur because of the 

high uncertainties associated with fire. However, there is a high likelihood of increased fires 

under all four climate scenarios used to project large fires (Westerling et al. 2015).

Edaphic Habitats 

Alternatives B, C, and D all provide similar increases in protection for special habitats because 

there would be the same management direction for them. Alternative A would provide the least 

protection because it emphasizes management of individual species and not the habitat where 

multiple federally-listed or species of conservation concern occur. There is also increased 

emphasis and management direction in alternatives B, C, and D on sustainable recreation that can 

decrease trampling and disturbance impacts to these sensitive habitats. 

Keystone Species Groups

Pollinators – Alternatives B and D would provide the greatest restoration of habitat to support 

improved pollinator habitat in forested ecosystems. There would be the greatest amount of 

restoration, including prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, and wildfire managed to meet 

resource objectives, at an intensity and spatial pattern to create openings, more open canopy, and 

sunlight on the forest floor. Alternative C proposes increased prescribed fire compared to

alternative A, but it is uncertain how much would occur and mechanical restoration would retain 

more canopy cover. Alternative A would provide the least restoration of habitat conditions 

supporting pollinators. In woodlands and shrublands, alternatives B and D would provide greater 

benefit to pollinators dependent on annual plants, in areas where invasive species are not 

dominant. All alternatives would have very similar impacts for pollinators dependent on perennial 

flowers.

Primary Cavity Excavators – Alternative C would provide the most snag habitat because of the 

lower levels of mechanical restoration, increased levels of prescribed fire, and higher snag 

retention levels. Alternative B would provide slightly higher levels than alternatives A and D. 

Alternative D would provide the lowest levels of snags. It is uncertain for all alternatives what the 

distribution of snags would be on the landscape among different habitat types (for example young 

versus old, burned versus unburned forests). As described above in the complex early seral forest 

discussion, alternatives C followed by alternative B would have the most snag habitat in burned 

forests.

Tribal Uses and Biocultural Diversity

Alternative D, followed by alternative B would provide the greatest increase in ecosystem 

condition for tribal uses. More restoration would occur in these alternatives that would improve 

plant, animal, and insect habitat. Alternatives B, C, and D, all provide for increased tribal 

coordination and restoration of areas of tribal interest. These would all increase the amount and 

quality of restoration benefitting tribes. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

250

Integrated Terrestrial Ecosystem Sustainability

Table 62 provides an overall summary of conditions for characteristics of integrated sustainability

by alternative. Out of all of the alternatives, alternative A provides the least likelihood of 

sustainability. Alternative D followed by alternative B are the most likely to improve the 

likelihood of sustainability. Alternative C could improve sustainability but there is greater 

uncertainty because there is more reliance on fire restoration treatments with less ability to treat 

the areas prior to burning. 

Sustainability of old forest condition and extent is most influenced by the amount of restoration 

of the entire landscape it occurs within as well as the old forests themselves. Alternatives D 

followed by alternative B would have the greatest overall levels of restoration and would increase 

resilience to large fires. Alternative D would have the greatest amount of restoration in old forests 

outside of the forest protection zones. This would increase the resilience of old forests to drought, 

insects, pathogens, air pollution and high-intensity fire. However, some large trees might be 

harvested. Alternatives A and C would have the most restrictions on restoration of old forest and 

vegetation overall. This might provide short-term protection for old forests but also increase the 

susceptibility of mortality from drought, air pollution, insects and pathogens and high-intensity 

fire.

Table 62. Summary of conditions for characteristics of integrated sustainability by alternative

Characteristic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Terrestrial Ecosystem Condition Low Low to 

moderate 

(restored 

areas)

Low Moderate

Area outside of the natural range 

of variation (low and midelevations)

Very high Moderate

(restored 

areas) to high 

High Moderate 

Area and percent of forest 

affected by processes or agents 

beyond the range of historic 

variation (by insects, disease)

High 

vulnerability

Moderate to 

high 

vulnerability

High 

vulnerability

Moderate 

vulnerability

Area and percent of forest land 

subjected to levels of specific air 

pollutants (sulfates, nitrate, 

ozone) or ultraviolet that may 

cause negative impacts on the 

forest ecosystem

Moderate, 

pine and 

mixed conifer 

vulnerable

Moderate, 

pine and 

mixed conifer 

less 

vulnerable 

than A

Moderate, 

pine and 

mixed conifer 

vulnerable

Moderate, pine 

and mixed 

conifer less 

vulnerable 

than A or B

Special Habitats Low Moderate Low Moderate

Old Forest Condition and Extent Low, high 

vulnerability

Low, moderate 

to high 

vulnerable

Low, high 

vulnerability 

Low, moderate 

vulnerability

Complex Early Seral Habitat 

Amount and Extent

Moderate, 

more large 

patches

Moderate, 

more small 

patches

High, more 

large patches

Similar to B 

but less 

extensive

Limited Plant Community 

Condition

Mixed, low to 

high

Moderate to 

high

Moderate to 

high

Moderate to 

high
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

251

Climate, Ecological Vulnerability and Adaptation

Background

This section summarizes ecological vulnerabilities to climate changes and effects of adaptation 

strategies and plan direction addressing ecological impacts of climate change. This section 

examines the overarching effects of climate change on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. It adds 

detail to the general discussions in the vegetation ecology section above on individual vegetation 

types.

Analysis and Methods

This section summarizes the more detailed analysis of climate, ecological vulnerability and 

adaptation found in the bio-regional and forest assessments (USDA FS 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 

2013d) and the snapshots of the “Living Assessment” used to develop the final assessments 

(USDA FS 2013e, 2013f, 2013g, 2013h). Additional information from several recent climate 

change vulnerability and adaptation assessments is also incorporated (Schwartz et al. 2013, 

Kershner 2014). 

Indicators and Measures

Ecological vulnerability indicators include tree mortality, distribution of species (elevational 

distribution of plants and animals), presence of non-native invasive species, and changes in fire 

regime (that is, changes to frequency, size, and severity).

Adaptation strategies can increase the resilience of ecosystems and resources to climate change 

impacts (IPCC 2013). Short-term adaptations build resistance and resilience, so that ecosystems 

are better able to withstand undesirable effects of climate changes such as diminished ecosystem 

integrity and function. In Table 65, the alternatives are compared by their relative capacity to 

support various climate adaptation approaches that are recommended by climate vulnerability 

assessments and other best available science information sources. These approaches include: 

(1) increase adaptive capacity of ecosystems through ecological restoration and climate 

adaptation, (2) develop and use collaborative partnerships, (3) apply climate vulnerability 

assessments in planning and prioritization, and (4) use monitoring and adaptation. Collaborative 

partnerships are addressed in the “Benefits to People” section. 

The primary adaptation strategies are listed below. These are based upon several recent climate

adaptation workshops (Southern Sierra Partnership 2010, Nydick and Sydoriak 2011a, Kershner 

2014) as well as scientific literature on climate change (North et al. 2009, Finch 2012, Lawler et 

al. 2012, Safford et al. 2012a, 2012b; Millar et al. 2007, Hanberry et al. 2015).

• Manage for vegetation heterogeneity and diversity;

• Restore or maintain key ecological processes, including fire in fire-adapted forest 

ecosystems;

• Reduce the density of smaller diameter, shade-tolerant trees in fire-adapted forests to 

levels more consistent with the natural range of variation;

• Reduce the chance of uncharacteristically large and severe wildfire and other climaterelated stressors using ecologically appropriate treatments, including prescribed fire, 

mechanical thinning, and wildfires managed for resource objectives within the natural 

range of variation;

• Implement rapid detection of and response to invasive species; 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

252

• Restore ecosystem function to degraded meadows, aquatic and riparian ecosystems;

• Identify and protect future climate refugia for other areas of native species persistence;

• Maintain and restore habitat connectivity across the ecoregion to facilitate species 

movements under rapidly changing conditions; and 

• Enhance recruitment and expansion in species that are ecologically underrepresented 

(aspen), functionally important (whitebark pine), or climate resilient (oaks and pines).

Assumptions

• Ecological response models assess the response of ecosystems (vegetation, wildlife 

habitat) to climate change. These models include additional assumptions that increase the 

level of uncertainty (Glick et al. 2011).

• The outcomes of management actions with climate change are also highly uncertain. 

However, best strategies for adapting to future change will be based on adaptive land 

management strategies that consider historic, current, and future projected changes in 

climate and climate-related processes (Wiens et al. 2012). This provides a more 

comprehensive evaluation of the effects of climate change in the absence of robust 

projections of future climate and climate-related processes (Safford et al. 2012b).

• Plan components that specifically address climate change, including desired conditions 

and management approaches, will result in improved climate adaptation.

• Plan components that result in increased pace and scale of restoring vegetation to a more 

resilient condition (desired conditions that reflect the natural range of variation) will 

substantially improve the capacity for climate response of major vegetation types. Thus, 

the increased pace and scale of restoration treatments will provide greater support of 

climate adaptation strategies focused on enhancing ecosystem resilience.

• Increased pace and scale of restoring vegetation will include proportionate measures to 

prevent or control non-native invasive plant species to the extent possible.

It is assumed that the different adaptation strategies are equally important. However, depending 

upon the vegetation type, species or ecosystem process, that some strategies may be more 

important than others in a particular situation. Differences in the importance of adaptation 

strategies by vegetation type, species or ecosystem processes are analyzed in the “terrestrial 

Ecosystems,” “Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems,” and “Species of Conservation Concern”

sections.

Affected Environment

Studies of terrestrial mammals, birds, and butterflies show that ranges of many species have been 

shifting to higher elevations and shrinking in high elevation zones, probably in response to 

warming temperatures and changing precipitation patterns (Safford et al. 2012a). Similar

sensitivities are suggested for aquatic and riparian species (Hauptfeld and Kershner 2014). 

As described in the “Agents of Change,” “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology,” and “Terrestrial 

Ecosystem Processes and Function” sections above, there have been changes in wildfires, tree 

mortality, and insect populations related in part to climate changes that affect species habitat and 

distribution. Wildfire frequency, size, total area burned, and fire severity have all been increasing 

in the Sierra Nevada over the last two to three decades. Larger trees are also dying from factors 

other than fire throughout many parts of the Sierra Nevada (Dolanc et al. 2014, van Mantgem et 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

253

al. 2009). This pattern is frequently associated with increasing moisture stress and bark beetle

activity related to increasing temperatures across western North America (Logan et al. 2003, van 

Mantgem et al. 2009). More recently, especially in the last several years, extensive tree mortality 

has occurred. In some areas, more than half of the ponderosa pine forests are dead (see “Insects 

and Pathogens” section). How much of this mortality is directly related to climate change is not 

known, but it is likely an important contributing factor. Higher winter temperatures allow more 

insect survival and buildup over winter. There may be a combination of increased drought stress 

as well as increased respiration of trees (absorb water and release water vapor) in the warmer 

weather (van Mantgem et al. 2009). 

Projected Future Trends in Ecological Indicators

Climate vulnerability assessments for the planning area anticipate broad-scale changes in 

ecosystem conditions, such as fire regimes, vegetation, insect activity, and species distribution 

patterns. Table 63 shows the climate vulnerability of different major vegetation types based on the

degree of climate exposure, sensitivity to climate change, and capacity to adapt to changing 

conditions, which is ranked from high to low based on relative vulnerability among types. Models 

suggest the area of conifer-dominated forest in the southern Sierra Nevada will decrease 

substantially, especially for high elevation forests (like subalpine areas). In contrast, hardwoods 

are expected to respond positively to warmer nighttime temperatures and shifting disturbance 

regimes (such as increased fire intensity and bark beetle activity) that favor oaks over conifers. 

This will result in some of the ponderosa pine and lower mixed conifer forests shifting to black 

oak and/or live oak types. Many scenarios also show an increase in grassland area at lower and 

middle elevations, as woody vegetation retracts in the face of increased fire frequency and 

invasion by non-native annual grasses. This is expected to occur especially at the lower 

elevations, where blue oak woodlands will shrink or move upward. 

Table 63. Climate vulnerability of major vegetation types in the planning area

Vegetation type Climate vulnerability

Subalpine forest and alpine High

Red fir forest High

Wet meadow High

Riparian Moderate‒High

Mixed conifer and yellow pine forest Moderate‒High

Xeric shrubland Moderate

Sagebrush Moderate

Pinyon-juniper woodland Low‒Moderate

Montane and foothill chaparral Low‒Moderate

Oak woodland Low‒Moderate

Grassland Low

Current trends of increasing fire activity (such as longer fire seasons, and changes to fire 

frequency) and larger burned areas are expected to continue in most vegetation types under 

almost all future climate scenarios (see “Fire Trends” section). Moisture stress and the frequency 

and severity of bark beetle outbreaks are projected to increase dramatically with increasing 

temperatures in the Sierra Nevada, resulting in widespread tree mortality (Bentz et al. 2010, 

Hicke et al. 2006). This is currently happening on much of the Sierra and Sequoia National 

Forests in ponderosa pine and lower elevation mixed conifer forests, where the amount of dying 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

254

conifers is moderate to very high in many areas as shown in Figure 39 and discussed in the 

“Insects and Pathogens” section. Note in the photo that over half of the ponderosa pine trees are 

recently dead, as evident by the red needles. 

Figure 39. High levels of dead and dying trees in ponderosa pine and black oakponderosa pine forests on the Sequoia National Forest

Regional climate trend assessments (Safford et al. 2012a), climate vulnerability assessments 

(Kirshner ed. 2014), and natural range of variation assessments suggest that climate change will 

have impacts to species that vary by individual plant and animal species. Table 64 shows the 

climate vulnerability of selected species or species groups in the plan area. This is not an 

exhaustive list but instead rather representative species that are vulnerable in the different 

ecosystems in the Sierra Nevada.

Table 64. Climate vulnerability of select species or species groups in the planning area

Species or Species Group Climate Vulnerability

High-elevation white pines1 High

Alpine chipmunk High

Greater sage-grouse High

Fisher and marten High

Mountain and Sierra yellow-legged frogs High

Giant sequoia2 Moderate to high

Great gray owl Moderate to high

Aspen Moderate

Clark’s nutcracker Moderate

Swainson’s thrush Moderate

Canyon and interior live oak Low

Stellar’s Jay Low

1. Includes whitebark pine, foxtail pine, bristlecone pine, and limber pine

2. Overall climate vulnerability is moderate but mature and old trees may be highly vulnerable
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

255

There will likely be increasing vulnerability of species resulting from direct and indirect effects of 

climate change. Direct effects will include increasing evaporative demand for plants with 

warming temperatures and resultant increased water stress. Indirect effects will include habitat 

loss from vegetation changes. For example, Clark’s nutcracker is dependent on whitebark pine in 

subalpine and alpine areas for food. If whitebark pine and these forests are heavily impacted by 

climate change, then Clark’s nutcracker will be heavily impacted.

Many models project significant range contractions in some species distributions, those with high 

climate sensitivity and low adaptive capacity. For example, alpine plants and animals that live at 

the highest elevations will have few if any other places to go to stay in the colder environments 

they are adapted to. Species with low adaptive capacity include those that have small and isolated 

populations, low genetic variation, and limited ability to move widely and low reproductive rates. 

Vulnerable species also include those with habitat tied to vulnerable vegetation types. For 

example, it is predicted that the conditions that support marten presence in California are likely to 

change greatly over the next century, potentially causing a pronounced loss of suitable habitat 

(Lawler et al. 2012). Marten are closely associated with red fir forests, which are dependent upon 

snowpack. Lawler et al. (2012) suggest that marten will be highly sensitive to climate change, 

with the largest impacts in the southern Sierra Nevada (Lawler et al. 2012).

Environmental Consequences to

Climate, Ecological Vulnerability and Adaptation

The alternatives were contrasted qualitatively in the opportunity, likelihood and rate of 

application of adaptation strategies focused on building adaptive capacity of ecosystems from 

restoration actions (Table 65). A rating of high means that there were likely to be numerous 

opportunities and a high likelihood of applying adaption strategies in multiple locations. A rating 

of low meant that there were few opportunities and a low likelihood of applying adaptation 

strategies on few to no locations. Moderate would be in between, either with a lower likelihood 

and/or fewer locations where adaptation strategies would be applied.

The climate adaptation strategies were assumed to be equally weighted. There may be different 

ways to weight them, emphasizing the importance of some (such as reducing vegetation density 

or protecting future climate refugia) over others. Because this analysis is general and not specific 

to individual species, it would be difficult to provide ecological justification for a specific 

weighting scheme, since it would likely vary by individual species. For analysis specific to 

individual vegetation types or specific species of conservation concern see the Vegetation 

Ecology, Wildlife and Plants sections. 

Consequences Common to All Alternatives

Decades of fire exclusion coupled with intensive logging in forest ecosystems of the southern 

Sierra Nevada have resulted in uncharacteristically high fuel loads and homogenous forest 

structure (Kilgore and Sando 1975, McKelvey and Johnston 1992). These conditions increase the 

susceptibility of fire-adapted forest ecosystems to climate change and related influences on 

ecosystems including uncharacteristically severe wildfire, insect or disease outbreaks, and 

drought-triggered mortality (North et al. 2009, Stephens et al. 2010). All alternatives include the 

reduction of small-diameter, shade-tolerant trees to increase forest resilience, although the amount 

varies considerably by alternative. The desired conditions for vegetation are shared across 

alternatives B, C, and D and they include reduced forest densities and a shift from dominance of 

smaller to larger trees (TERR-POND-DC-02 to 03; TERR-DMC-DC-03 to 04; -MMC-DC-02, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

256

04; TERR-RFIR-DC-03, 05; TERR-LDGP-DC-05, 08, 09; TERR-UMJF-DC-03, 05; TERRMJF-DC-01).

Table 65. Rating of the amount of application climate adaptation strategies by alternatives

Climate Adaptation 

Strategy Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Manage for vegetation 

heterogeneity and diversity

Low Low to moderate 

(in 15 to 25% of 

area)

Low Moderate to 

high (in 30 to 

60% of area)

Restore or maintain key 

ecological processes (like

fire) 

Low Low (moderate in 

Kern Drainage) 

Low Moderate

Reduce density of smalldiameter trees, reduce tree 

density in sagebrush

Low low to moderate 

(in 15 to 25% of 

area)

Low Moderate to 

high (in 30 to 

60% of area)

Reduce impacts of climaterelated stressorsLow Low to moderate Low Low to moderate

Rapid detection and rapid 

response to invasive species

Low to moderate Low to moderate Low to moderate Low to moderate

Restore and maintain 

watershed function

Low Low to moderate Low Moderate

Restore function of nonmeadow riparian vegetation Low Low to moderate Low Moderate

Restore function of meadow 

ecosystems

Low Low to moderate Moderate Low to moderate

Improve resilience of 

aquatic ecosystems

Low Low to moderate Low Moderate

Protect future climate refugia Low Low Low Low

Post-disturbance climate 

adaptation response 

strategies

Low Low moderate Low Low to moderate

Enhance ecologically 

important species

Low Moderate Low to moderate Moderate

Maintain and restore 

dynamic habitat connectivity

Low Moderate to high Low to Moderate Low to high

Overall Low Low to moderate 

(some high)

Low (some 

moderate)

Low to moderate 

(some high, 

some low)

All alternatives would continue to have opportunities to maintain and restore vegetation in the 

Kern Drainage using wildfire managed for resource objectives. These areas currently have greater 

resilience to climate change and related trends in increased fire because extensive areas have had 

restoration of wildfire managed for resource objectives over the least 15 years (Fites-Kaufman et 

al. 2003, Vaillant 2009, Meyer 2015). This area has large landscapes that have reduced forest 

density and fuel conditions. Fires are limited in size when they reach numerous recent fires in the 

area (Ewell et al. 2012, Reiner et al. 2016).

Aggressive eradication and containment of established invasive species will be an important 

component of ecosystem management under a changing climate. This is especially true 

considering that while fire plays an essential role in vegetation restoration, these same activities 

can result in invasive plant species introductions and spread (Keeley 2006). Projections are for an 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

257

increase in burned area with climate change (see “Fire Trends” section). All alternatives include 

taking an approach to controlling invasive species and preventing their introduction. Similar plan 

direction from the existing plans has been incorporated into the proposed new plans and would be 

similar under alternatives B, C, and D. This includes desired conditions limiting invasive plant

invasion and spread (INV-FW-DC-01 to 02; MA-RCA-DC-01), and management approaches, 

standards, and guidelines to reduce invasion and spread during management activities using an 

early detection and rapid response strategy (INV-FW-STD-01; INV-FW-GDL-01 to 06).

No alternatives have identified future climate refugia for native species persistence, except for a 

desired condition for special habitats that would apply to alternatives B, C, and D (SPEC-FWDC-03). However, vulnerability assessments for the southern Sierra Nevada have the potential to 

identify future climate refugia that can be prioritized for restoration or monitoring. Alternatives B, 

C, and D would share desired conditions that address connectivity and the ability of species to 

move and persist across larger areas (MA-RCA-DC-04; RCA-RIV-DC-01; TERR-FW-DC-04; 

TERR-SAGE-DC-04; TERR-OLD-DC-02; TERR-MONT-DC-02).

No alternatives have addressed prioritization of restoration to address vulnerabilities to climate 

change. However, alternatives B, C, and D provide climate adaptation response strategies by 

emphasizing vegetation restoration to reduce climate-related stressors including large and severe 

wildfires, insect outbreaks, invasive species, and drought (chapter 2, Table 6 through Table 8).

Monitoring and adaptive management approaches are fundamental to understanding how to 

respond to the impacts of climate change. All alternatives include monitoring and adaptive 

management as a component of their plan management strategies, approaches, and tools. 

Alternatives B, C, and D apply the new 2012 planning rule that was developed in part to use a 

more flexible and adaptive planning process that allows for more frequent and streamlined plan 

amendments and revisions. This adaptive process, provides greater potential for alternatives B, C, 

and D to monitor, learn, and adapt to rapidly changing climate. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Alternative A has no management direction specific to climate adaptation or resilience. There is 

some ecological restoration aimed at reducing forest density but it is limited in intensity and 

extent. Alternative A has the lowest potential to reduce the risk of undesirable wildfires because 

of the reduced fuel treatment rates under this alternative that have resulted in a significant fuel 

treatment “backlog” and fuel buildup in Sierra Nevada forest ecosystems Alternative A would not 

emphasize forest heterogeneity approaches to promote resilience to the same degree as the other 

alternatives. Although there is an ability to restore heterogeneity, the limits on allowed changes to 

forest canopy cover in California spotted owl habitat limit the degree to which heterogeneity can 

be restored. Compared to the other alternatives, alternative A has the lowest rate of watershed 

restoration (less focus on priority watersheds) and has an increased potential for wildfires burning 

at increased severity outside the historic range of variation that may impair watershed function 

(such as increased soil erosion and sedimentation). Fewer fuel reduction treatments, less 

watershed restoration, and less emphasis on heterogeneity restoration would likely result in less 

prescribed burning and fewer wildfires managed primarily for resource objectives than other 

alternatives. Although alternative A has the least potential to reduce the risk of large wildfires 

which would be vulnerable to weed invasion, it also has the fewest restoration activities such as 

prescribed fire and mechanical treatments that would be vulnerable to being invaded by nonnative plants.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

258

Alternative A provides the least benefit to certain ecologically important species, such as aspen 

and whitebark pine, because it has the lowest treatment rates in special habitats and whitebark 

pine stands, and the lowest potential use of wildfire managed primarily to meet resource 

objectives. Alternative A may incorporate some of these recommendations, but they are not part 

of the plan direction and there is uncertainty that the recommendations would be implemented. 

Consequently, alternative A would do the least to integrate climate vulnerability assessments in 

planning and prioritizing of all the alternatives. Alternative A does not address vulnerabilities to 

climate change for riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Alternative A does not have plan monitoring 

components focused specifically on climate change and there are no direct and indirect indicators 

of changing climate conditions. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

Alternative B emphasizes plan direction that would increase the resilience of vegetation directly 

to climate change and indirectly through increased vegetation and watershed resilience to fire, 

drought, insects, and pathogens. This includes desired conditions on resilience to climate change 

and sustainability in the face of climate change for watershed and terrestrial ecosystems (WTRFW-DC-01, -03 to 04; TERR-FW-DC-02, -05, -08) and riparian and aquatic ecosystems (MARCA-DC-12; RCA-MEAD-DC-02; RCA-RIV-DC-01; RCA-SPR-DC-02-03). There is a goal to 

integrate landscape or watershed approaches to restoration that integrates recreation, fuels, 

partnerships, and vegetation management to effectively address climate change (WTR-FWGOAL-01).

Alternative B would manage for forest and shrubland vegetation heterogeneity and diversity and 

restore or maintain key ecological processes (such as fire in frequent fire systems), and key 

approaches for resilience to climate change through guidelines and desired conditions (TERRFW-GDL-01; TERR-FW-DC-01; TERR-BLU-DC-01; TERR-CHAP-DC-01; TERR-MONT-DC01, -04, -06; TERR-UPPR-DC-01 to 02; TERR-ALPN-DC-01; TERR-SAGE-DC-01 to 02; 

TERR-PINY-DC001 to 02; TERR-XER-DC-01 to 03). This includes restoration of vegetation 

density and composition to vegetation types and specific desired conditions that are based 

primarily on the natural range of variation for those types (see “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecosystem” 

section for more detail). In alternative B the assumption is that fire, and low resilience to drought, 

insects, and pathogens are the greatest risk to all ecosystems. Therefore, the emphasis is on 

restoring the resilience of terrestrial ecosystems. Alternative B would likely increase structural 

heterogeneity based on the emphasis of mechanical thinning and prescribed fire treatments to 

implement concepts of ecological restoration in westside forests (North et al. 2009-1, North 2012) 

and vegetation diversity in eastside sagebrush and pinyon-juniper woodlands. This would occur 

on 15 to 25 percent of the landscape, primarily in the montane and foothill areas on the west side, 

and in the Jeffrey pine, pinyon-juniper and sagebrush vegetation types in the east side (TERRFW-OBJ-01 to 04).

Alternative B would have a moderate likelihood of reducing the chance of uncharacteristically 

large and severe wildfire and other climate-related stressors in portions of the planning area based 

on the combined rates of mechanical and prescribed fire treatments and use of wildfire managed 

to meet resource objectives (see the “Fire Trends” section). Alternative B has greater treatment 

rates of mechanical treatments, prescribed fire, and wildfires managed for resource objectives 

(TERR-FW-OBJ-01 to 04) than alternatives A and C. The greater use of mechanical treatment 

and prescribed fire in the foothill, montane, Jeffrey pine, pinyon-juniper, and sagebrush 

vegetation types would provide greater resilience to climate change, since these vegetation types 

are most departed from the natural range of variation. The greater use of wildfires managed for 

resource objectives (Sequoia: TERR-FW-OBJ-03; MA-WRZ-GOAL-01; MA-WRZ-DC-03; MA-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

259

WMZ-STD-01; MA-WMZ-GOAL-01) would be critical to reduce fuel loading and the 

vulnerability of forest ecosystems across large spatial scales in the southern Sierra Nevada 

(Meyer 2015), especially considering the high level of mechanical constraints in the steep and 

inaccessible areas that occur in many parts of the analysis area (North et al. 2015). Use of 

wildfires managed for resource objectives would occur primarily at higher elevations in the upper 

montane and subalpine and alpine vegetation types and in the Kern River Drainage where 

landscape fuel conditions are moderate to low overall. Since red fir, subalpine and alpine 

ecosystems have a high vulnerability to climate change, continued restoration of fire in these 

areas would provide increased resilience to climate change.

Alternatives B would restore watershed function at a slightly higher rate by increasing the 

emphasis on priority watersheds for management actions (WTR-FW-OBJ-01) and objectives for 

water quality improvement projects (RCA-RIV-OBJ-01 to 02). Vegetation treatment rates in 

riparian ecosystems and meadows would also likely be higher in alternative B (MA-RCA-OBJ01; RCA-MEAD-OBJ-01) compared to alternative A, resulting in greater resilience to climate 

change and in some locations resilience to fire under alternative B. There is less emphasis on 

direct restoration of aquatic ecosystems. There would be limited improvements to aquatic 

ecosystem resilience as a result. There would continue to be vulnerability of many aquatic 

ecosystems to changing hydrographs and temperature thus increasing their vulnerabilities to 

climate change. There would be improvements to resilience of meadows to climate change that 

are restored as a result of meadow restoration objectives.

In the long term, greater resilience of forest and shrubland vegetation would improve climate 

resilience in areas where restoration is emphasized (such as focus landscapes on the west side) 

and may maintain relatively greater levels of habitat connectivity for forest-dependent species by 

facilitating species movements into suitable future habitat (higher elevation forests or climate 

refugia). There would be a management approach on the westside forests that addresses 

restoration of larger areas:

Emphasize vegetation treatments in focus landscapes (10,000 to 80,000 acres in size) to 

move terrestrial ecosystems toward desired conditions and increase resilience of old 

forest habitat, while limiting impacts to the Pacific fisher and California spotted owl. 

In addition to desired conditions for connectivity for wide-ranging species (MA-RCA-DC-04; 

RCA-RIV-DC-01;TERR-FW-DC-04; TERR-SAGE-DC-04; TERR-OLD-DC-02; TERR-MONTDC-02) there are specific standards and guidelines to ensure restoration projects do not result in 

reduced connectivity for species vulnerable to climate change, such as Pacific fisher (SPEC-CSODC-01, SPEC-PF-DC-01; SPEC-PF-DC-01, -08 to 10; SPEC-PF-STD-01). 

There would continue to be large, high-intensity fires, especially in unrestored areas in the 

foothill, montane and eastside pine, pinyon-juniper and sagebrush landscapes that would disrupt 

connectivity for some species. Only a portion of the landscape would be restored and fire trends 

would continue in many areas (see “Fire Trends” section). Species associated with mature forest 

or shrublands, including Pacific fisher, the California spotted owl, and greater sage-grouse, would 

continue to have disruptions in connected habitat in many areas. For more detail, see the “Old 

Forest” and “At-risk Terrestrial Wildlife Species” sections. There would be consideration of 

climate change in post-fire restoration. This is from numerous desired conditions that emphasize 

resilience to climate change (see above). There would also be a specific guideline to consider 

climate change adaptations in reforestation related restoration (TIMB-FW-GDL-02) and a 

management approach that addresses native vegetation: 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

260

Promote native vegetation (e.g., conifers, hardwoods, shrubs) in complex early-seral 

habitat that supports long term ecosystem integrity considering climate change, drought, 

insects, disease and fire.

Restoration in alternative B would have some benefits to ecologically important species that have 

a high vulnerability to climate change, such as aspen and whitebark pine. The restoration of 

special habitats (like aspen) and whitebark pine stands would increase and there would be specific 

direction to improve management of whitebark pine and special habitats. The greater use of 

wildfire managed to meet resource objectives would likely improve conditions for aspen and 

whitebark pine because they respond positively to mixed-severity fires.

Climate vulnerability assessments provide useful insights in the regional impacts of climate 

change. In the southern Sierra Nevada, several recent vulnerability assessments are available for 

assessing climate change effects to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in the planning area 

(Nydick and Sydoriak 2011a, 2011b). Alternatives B incorporates at least some recommendations 

of these climate vulnerability assessments in planning and prioritization efforts for terrestrial 

ecosystems (like for whitebark pine restoration,). There is a guideline that addresses consideration 

of refugia for species associated with small-scale special habitats that are less likely to have 

connected habitat (MA-RCA-GDL-04). Fewer recommendations from the Climate Vulnerability 

and Adaptation Strategy (Kershner 2014) to use strategies and standards to address climate 

change vulnerabilities for aquatic systems were incorporated. Increased meadow restoration is 

one area where the recommendations were incorporated. Vulnerabilities to climate change for 

aquatic ecosystems are already being manifested in terms of decreased water flows and increased 

temperature.

Alternative B would have moderate potential to reduce the risk of large wildfires which would be 

vulnerable to weed invasion, but it also has more restoration activities such as prescribed fire and 

mechanical that could make areas more vulnerable to being invaded by non-native plants. There 

is specific management direction (desired conditions, guidelines, and standards) to limit the 

invasion and spread of non-native invasive plants that are common to all alternatives (described 

above). Alternative B also incorporates objectives to restore infested areas (INV-FW-OBJ-01) that 

would lessen the effects of climate change on increasing invasive plant spread. However, this 

would not be enough to keep up with the pace of increased invasions. There is a specific 

management approach directed at improved understanding of effectiveness of different methods 

to reduce climate related invasive species spread:

Coordinate with research and other organizations to evaluate the potential effects of 

climate change on the spread of invasive, non-native species.

Alternatives B uses more flexible plan direction and an adaptive planning process that allows for 

more streamlined plan amendments and revisions than alternative A, which requires more 

prescriptive and restrictive plan direction developed under the 1982 Planning Rule. In alternative 

B, the emphasis is on specific desired conditions at multiple spatial scales (from patches to 

landscapes) that allow for a wide range of site-specific actions to implement. In alternative B, the 

greatest flexibility is in the focus landscapes, where there would be more flexibility to evaluate 

the response of Pacific fisher and California spotted owl to restoration of vegetation to the natural 

range of variation. This adaptive process that is inherent in the new planning rule provides greater 

potential for alternative B to monitor, learn, and adapt to rapidly changing climate. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Alternative C shares many of the desired conditions for forest structural heterogeneity and 

diversity and restoration and maintenance of key ecological processes (like fire) as alternative B.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

261

However, additional desired conditions for more forest cover in California spotted owl habitat 

(interim recommendations) combined with additional restrictions on reducing canopy cover and 

using mechanical restoration in westside mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forests would limit 

the amount of restoration of vegetation to the desired conditions. This would result in lower levels 

of heterogeneity. Much of the landscape would remain in the current condition of high forest 

density. There would be an increased emphasis on restoration using prescribed fire and wildfires 

managed primarily for resource benefit but the opportunities for this type of restoration would be 

low in most areas (except Kern Drainage as mentioned previously) because vegetation would be 

denser and fires harder to control. However, on the Sequoia National Forest, there is expected to 

be less prescribed fire (chapter 2, Table 6 through Table 8). Overall there would be lower 

resilience of mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forests to climate change and associated stressors 

of drought, insects and pathogens, and high-intensity wildfire. 

Because of the denser forest conditions, there would be fewer opportunities to reduce the chance 

of uncharacteristically large and severe wildfire and other climate-related stressors in the planning 

area based on the combined rates of mechanical and prescribed fire treatments and use of wildfire 

managed to meet resource objectives. The greater use of wildfires managed for resource 

objectives would be critical to reduce fuel loading and the vulnerability of forest ecosystems 

across large spatial scales in the southern Sierra Nevada (Meyer 2015), especially considering the 

high level of mechanical constraints in the steep and inaccessible areas that occur in many parts 

of the analysis area (North et al. 2015). The outcome of such fires in alternative C would be larger 

patches of high-severity fire because vegetation would remain denser throughout much of the 

montane landscape.

Alternative C would restore watershed function by increasing the emphasis on priority watersheds 

for management actions. There would be an increased emphasis on restoration using prescribed 

fire and wildfires managed primarily for resource benefit; however, whether this is sufficient to 

reduce risk of large, high-intensity fire and improve resilience to climate change in riparian 

ecosystems and meadows is unknown. It is unlikely that alternative C would result in improved 

watershed resilience compared to alternative B.

Alternative C would have varied benefits to ecologically important species (such as keystone 

species). Although there is an emphasis on species conservation in alternative C, the benefits to 

some special habitats that are especially at risk (like aspen and whitebark pine) may be fewer than 

alternative B due to less overall restoration that could include these areas. For those aquatic 

species without conservation strategies or standards and guidelines, alternative C would not 

improve habitat conditions or decrease vulnerabilities to climate change.

Like alternative B, alternative C incorporates some of the recommendations of recent climate 

vulnerability assessments (especially for terrestrial ecosystems) that would increase climate 

adaptation. Alternative C would similarly apply only limited recommendations for aquatic 

ecosystems. The objectives for meadow restoration are increased and would provide for increased 

climate resilience in restored meadows and for associated aquatic ecosystems, especially 

downstream. 

For non-native invasive plant species, alternative C would have a more limited use of mechanical 

treatment and would reduce risk of invasion. However, this may be outweighed by a likely 

increase in the amount of burned area predicted from climate change (see “Fire Trends” section). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

262

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

Alternative D would have similar consequences to alternative B but there would be a greater 

amount of terrestrial, riparian and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The amount of restoration could 

potentially be double that in alternative B and more than double what currently occurs under 

alternative A. This would decrease the likelihood of large, high-intensity fires (see “Fire Trends”

section) and increase vegetation resilience to climate change and related stressors. There may be 

increases in the spread of non-native plants because of increased mechanical restoration; 

however, there would also be plan direction similar to alternative B designed to reduce and limit 

invasive plant establishment and spread. Nonetheless, non-native plants are likely to increase to a 

greater degree under alternative D than alternatives A, B, or C.

Alternative D has the greatest potential to reduce the risk of large wildfires which would be 

vulnerable to weed invasion, but it also has the most restoration activities such as prescribed fire 

and mechanical restoration that would be vulnerable to being invaded by non-native plants.

Alternative D has the greatest potential for short-term impacts to habitat connectivity due to the 

increased amount of restoration occurring in a relatively short period of time, but it provides the 

most reduction of risk of large, high-intensity wildfires that have long-term impacts on 

connectivity of forest cover. The plan components from alternative B would reduce some of the 

short-term impacts by incorporating the consideration of maintaining or restoring connectivity in 

project design. 

Cumulative Effects

There are three aspects to cumulative effects from climate change. First, there are the cumulative 

effects of multiple climate change adaptation strategies. Second, there are cumulative effects of 

management across different adjacent ownerships. These interact with cumulative effects of 

climate change over time.

The cumulative effects of climate change and climate-related stressors (such as

uncharacteristically large and severe wildfire, insect outbreaks, and non-native invasive species) 

can be substantial to ecosystems in the planning area. The incorporation of multiple or many 

climate adaptation strategies may synergistically build greater adaptive capacity than the 

application of a few approaches. Adaptation strategies that increase climate resilience across 

larger areas in more vulnerable ecosystems are likely to have the greatest positive effect. This 

includes restoration of vegetation that reduces the likelihood of large, high-intensity fire.

Reasonably foreseeable management activities on private, State, tribal, or other Federal land 

would vary in the application of climate adaptation strategies. Some management activities on 

adjacent tribal lands, national parks, and Bureau of Land Management-managed lands would be 

similar, including vegetation restoration, aquatic and riparian restoration, and measures to 

enhance habitat resilience of species and vegetation types vulnerable to climate change. Private 

land owners may implement some similar actions in conjunction with Natural Resources 

Conservation Service programs to restore watershed health and function or improve grazing 

lands. These actions would increase the positive benefits of climate adaptation actions on the 

national forests. Conversely, a lack of restoration actions on these adjacent lands could increase 

the vulnerability of terrestrial, riparian and aquatic ecosystems on national forest lands because 

the likelihood of large, high-intensity fires and limited resilience of widespread vegetation types 

would persist. Coordinated efforts across all ownerships would provide the greatest cumulative 

positive impact on climate adaptation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

263

Lastly, in the foreseeable future, climate will continue the trend of increasing temperature, earlier 

snowmelt, and increased level of fluctuating precipitation. It is unknown whether the current 

drought will continue or other more severe ones will occur. The climate record suggests that this 

is possible although when or how long is uncertain. 

Analytical Conclusions

Based on the climate adaptation indicators and measures, alternative D followed closely by 

alternative B are best for achieving overarching forest management goals and objectives under 

climate change. Alternatives B, C, and D share most of the same desired conditions that 

incorporate resilience and adaptation to climate change. They all emphasize an all lands approach 

to management, encouraging partnerships with a wide variety of public groups, communities, and 

government agencies. These will increase the likelihood of a successful outcome of the 

application of climate adaptation strategies.

Alternative D has the greatest flexibility in the amount of vegetation restoration that would reduce 

the impacts of high-intensity fire, drought, and warmer temperatures on vegetation. Alternative B 

has increased flexibility to conduct vegetation restoration in owl and fisher habitat in focus 

landscape areas and has the potential to double current levels of restoration, but alternative D 

proposes double the amount of restoration in alternative B. Although alternative D results in 

greater potential to increase current non-climate stressors on ecosystems related to management 

activities (such as reducing habitat connectivity in the short term compared to the current 

condition), it moves the most area toward the vegetation natural range of variation over time and 

provides for the most dynamic habitat connectivity in the long term by increasing the resilience of 

vegetation to disturbance. In contrast, alternatives B and C contribute less to non-climate stressors 

on ecosystems in the short term and maintain current habitat connectivity. However, these two 

alternatives would have more areas at risk to dynamic habitat connectivity because of continuing 

high risks of large, high-intensity wildfires. 

Alternatives A and C have the least flexibility in vegetation management and the least area 

planned for restoration. Both alternatives emphasize conservation of moderate to high density 

canopy cover in late seral forest habitat and would result in retention of dense vegetation 

conditions that have low resilience to large, high-intensity fires, drought and temperature 

increases. Desired results in terrestrial ecosystems and watersheds would be achieved more 

rapidly in alternatives B and D, but potentially at greater short-term impacts to habitat for at-risk 

species than alternative C and possibly alternative A.

Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems

Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystem Integrity

Background

This section summarizes the current conditions in aquatic and riparian ecosystems on the Inyo, 

Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests, and the consequences of adopting the revised plan or its 

alternatives. To address aquatic and riparian ecosystem integrity, the proposed plan includes 

desired conditions designed to: 

• provide resilience to climate change;

• restore or maintain the function of streams, meadows, riparian areas, seeps, and springs,

avoid invasive species;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

264

• conserve biodiversity;

• preserve and reestablish ecological connectivity; and 

• promote resilience to fire in riparian ecosystems. 

The extent the alternatives would move toward the proposed desired conditions are analyzed in 

this section. The terrestrial, aquatic, and riparian ecosystems are interconnected with watershed 

conditions, water quality, and water quantity. Watershed condition and function are discussed 

recognizing these connections. A more detailed analysis can be found in the Aquatic and Riparian 

Ecosystems supplemental report in the project record.

Ecological integrity is a measure of an aquatic and riparian ecosystem’s functional and structural 

conditions. Functional conditions include the surface flow that sustains riparian and aquatic 

habitats; shallow groundwater recharge; temperatures; carbon and nitrogen sequestration; and 

nutrient cycling. Structural conditions include habitat type and availability, migration corridors 

among habitats, and structure and composition of riparian vegetation. These ecosystem conditions 

affect suitability of habitat, diversity, connectivity and resilience to climate change. Aquatic and 

riparian ecosystem conditions in the southern Sierra Nevada vary depending on the amount of 

past and current land disturbance that has occurred within the area, and the effect of climate 

changes on the natural integrity of the ecosystems. The severity of effects is influenced in part by 

the elevation, fire regime, precipitation, and management of these areas.

Analysis and Methods

This qualitative analysis is based primarily on the best available scientific information derived 

from forest assessments (USDA FS 2013a, 2013b, 2013c), the Bio-Regional Assessment (USDA 

FS 2013d), the Science Synthesis (Long et al. 2014) and recent reports and publications that 

assess trends in current conditions, and where available, assessment of effects of management 

actions. Aquatic habitats and diversity, groundwater-dependent systems, and riparian ecosystem 

functions that have been assessed at a broad scale are evaluated. Key ecosystem characteristics 

common to all three forests are used to predict whether future conditions will provide for

ecological integrity under the different alternatives. Only key ecosystem characteristics that could 

be influenced by management following the draft plan direction or by climate change were 

selected. For this analysis, these indicator measures were assessed at the landscape or southern 

Sierra Nevada level.

Indicators and Measures

Sustainability of aquatic habitat (including invasive species), ecological connectivity, aquatic 

species diversity, resilience to climate change, and riparian vegetation were selected because they 

could be assessed across the landscape, were indicators of the desired conditions, and were

important measures of aquatic and riparian ecosystem integrity. All aquatic ecosystems including 

fens, wet meadows, springs, stream, lakes, ponds and rivers are referred to as aquatic ecosystems 

in the analysis. Aquatic indicators cover all the various aquatic and semi-aquatic habitats.

Sustainability of Habitat

• Management to maintain or improve habitat for all life stages of aquatic and riparian 

species. 

• Management direction to reduce invasive aquatic species. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

265

Ecological Connectivity

• Management to reduce or improve road crossings and small dams and diversions affecting 

aquatic at-risk species.

• Management of connectivity among habitats for aquatic or riparian associates. 

Aquatic Species Diversity

• Management that improves aquatic species diversity, including rare and common native 

species.

Resilience to Climate Change

• Rate of restoration to improve resilience to climate change of priority habitats for all life 

stages of riparian and aquatic rare and common native species.

• Rates of restoration of ecological and hydrologic connectivity to improve resilience to 

changing timing of flows and changing elevation of rain/snow interface. 

• Rates of ecological restoration for native species and effects on riparian species fire 

resilience.

Riparian Vegetation

• Management of riparian conservation areas to promote native species including understory 

vegetation, as indicated by management direction.

• Rate of ecological restoration to reduce risk of high-intensity wildfire and promote native 

shrub diversity in riparian areas.

• Rate of restoration of riparian areas to promote native species, reduce the risk of highintensity wildfire, and promote wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. 

The environmental consequences section provides a qualitative assessment of forecasted trends in 

indicator measures by alternative based on the effects from potential watershed restoration 

activities; meeting objectives for meadow, stream, aquatic organism passage, and riparian area 

restoration; forest vegetation restoration activities; recreation activities; trails and road crossings 

management; invasive species management, and climate change management on these indicator 

measures.

Assumptions

There are several key assumptions about why, when, where, and how restoration treatments 

would occur in aquatic and riparian areas that were used in the analysis.

• Restoration of aquatic passages would occur as resources permit on forest roads where 

aquatic at-risk species occur, and where appropriate. However, no desired barriers to 

invasive fish would be opened where they might impact at-risk species. Culverts and road 

crossings that are associated with roads used to access treatment areas would be 

examined for restoration opportunities. 

• National forest managers would use an integrated restoration approach to designing 

projects that strive to balance watershed restoration with terrestrial restoration. 

Stewardship contracting may increase funding for restoration treatments of all types, 

although the Inyo and Sequoia National Forests would not have as many stewardship 

contract opportunities to restore aquatic habitats as the Sierra National Forests due to the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

266

difference in forest product markets, values, and area available for mechanical vegetation 

treatment. 

• Within riparian areas, vegetation treatments would occur to move vegetation toward the 

desired conditions. This would be primarily to restore native species composition and 

reduce the ingrowth of conifer trees where appropriate. The end result of the treatments 

would generally be more diversity of hardwood species and sizes, as well as vigorously 

growing herbaceous vegetation. 

• Most riparian vegetation restoration would occur in areas where the adjacent upland areas 

are being restored.

• Aquatic habitat restoration in streams, meadows, and other special aquatic habitats would 

be primarily to maintain or improve habitats for at-risk species and to improve 

downstream beneficial uses. Aquatic habitat restoration would be integrated into 

landscape treatment designs where appropriate. Partnerships and additional funding 

opportunities from sources outside the Forest Service would be sought to increase the 

pace and scale of aquatic habitat restoration.

Affected Environment

Aquatic habitat integrity within the three national forests is generally highest in the higher 

elevation portions of the analysis area and within existing protected areas due to fewer alterations

than lower elevation areas. There are several aspects of aquatic habitat integrity that are outside 

the natural range of variation across the three national forests including species assemblages and 

flow regimes altered by diversions and dams. 

The current plans developed critical aquatic refuges to preserve, enhance, restore or connect 

habitats for aquatic species at the local level and to ensure the persistence of aquatic or ripariandependent species. Critical aquatic refuges provide additional protection to watersheds with high 

biodiversity of native species or that contain sensitive, threatened, or endangered species. The 

three national forests have critical aquatic refuges of various sizes tied to a particular native 

species or a high level of biodiversity. Many critical aquatic refuges are wholly encompassed 

within areas of high aquatic integrity and inventoried roadless areas or wilderness, especially 

those delineated for Little Kern golden trout, Kern River rainbow trout, California golden trout, 

Yosemite toad, and yellow-legged frogs. Table 66 summarizes the current critical aquatic refuges 

on the three national forests and the overall watershed conditions in the watersheds containing 

these critical aquatic refuges (see “Water Quality, Water Quantity, and Watershed Condition” 

section).

Across the Sierra Nevada, aquatic biodiversity is vulnerable, as indicated by declining trends in 

native fish, amphibians, and other species (Moyle and Randall 1998, Moyle et al. 2011, Purdy et 

al. 2012, Viers and Rheinheimer 2011, Viers et al. 2013, Vredenburg, et al. 2007, Frissell et al. 

2012, USFWS 2015). Depending on the species groups, 40 to 80 percent of all aquatic species in 

California are now facing extinction, unless current trends are reversed by active management

and conservation (Frissell et al. 2012, Howard et al. 2013, Katz et al. 2012, Quinones and Moyle 

2015). In 2010, the primary threats to aquatic biodiversity were ranked as follows: alien species 

were considered the most detrimental threat (34 percent), followed by major dams and associated 

water diversions (24 percent), agriculture (18 percent), hatcheries (14 percent), and estuarine 

alteration (12 percent) (Moyle et al. 2011).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

267

Table 66. Summary of critical aquatic refuges and watershed conditions on the Inyo, Sequoia, and 

Sierra National Forest

National 

Forest

Number of 

Critical 

Aquatic 

Refuges in 

Current 

Plans 

Critical Aquatic 

Refuge

Watersheds in 

Good Condition 

(Functioning 

Properly)

Critical Aquatic 

Refuge

Watersheds in 

Fair Condition 

(Functioning At 

Risk)

Critical Aquatic 

Refuge 

Watersheds in 

Poor Condition 

(Impaired 

Function)

Type of 

Species 

Provided 

Protection 

Inyo 17 11 6 0 Amphibians, 

birds, fish

Sequoia 6 3 3 0 Amphibians, 

fish

Sierra 7 2 5 0 Amphibians, 

birds, fish

Planning 

Area 

30 16 14 0 Amphibians, 

birds, fish, 

mollusks

Rivers and Streams

Large river systems on the three national forests drain the highest peaks in the Sierra Nevada. The 

Inyo National Forest provides the headwaters within the eastern Sierra Nevada, White, Inyo and 

Glass Mountains. The Owens River drains the east side of the Sierra Nevada and the White 

Mountains. Because the eastern slope is in a rain shadow and drier, permanent streams, meadows 

and springs are especially important for wildlife and fisheries. The upper Owens River and 

smaller permanent streams, including Pine Creek, Bishop Creek, Big Pine Creek, and Rock 

Creek, are the major sources of water. Historically these waters flowed into Owens Lake but 

much of the flow is now diverted to Los Angeles for domestic consumption. 

The Kern River flows north to south through the Kern Plateau, which is shared by the Inyo and 

Sequoia National Forests. The Kern Plateau is home to many springs and meadows that maintain 

perennial streams. One of the few riparian forested areas in the area lies at the confluence of the 

South and North Forks of the Kern River, upstream of Lake Isabella.

The Kings River drains both the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. The Kern and Kings Rivers 

historically flooded the Tulare Lake Basin, but today supply water for agriculture, industry, and 

residential use in Kern, Tulare, and Kings Counties. 

The Kings and San Joaquin Rivers drain the Sierra National Forest. The San Joaquin River and its 

major tributaries, the Chowchilla, Fresno and Merced Rivers flow north through the San Joaquin 

Valley to the delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.

The geologic history of the basins (Owens, Tulare, and San Joaquin) determined what types of

fish (anadromous or inland) were native to these rivers.

Although the Inyo National Forest is often thought to be dry, there are an estimated 1,640 miles 

of perennial streams there. About 1,280 miles of perennial streams occur on the Sequoia National 

Forest. The Sierra National Forest includes about 2,000 miles of perennial streams and rivers.

Common native species found in these systems include a variety of stream-dwelling macroinvertebrates, such as caddis flies, mayflies, and stone flies. Seventy-eight percent of streams 

were found in good condition on national forest lands in the southern Sierra Nevada based on 

assessment of macro-invertebrate populations (Furnish 2013).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

268

Prior to stocking of non-native trout, the North and South Forks of Kern River and some of their 

tributaries provided a much larger range for three golden trout species. Now these native species 

are confined to small headwater streams. Native rainbow trout in the Kings River were extirpated

due to non-native trout introductions (Moyle 2002). Brown trout and rainbow trout were 

introduced into eastside Sierra streams and rivers as they are prized by anglers, but they have 

reduced native amphibian population. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages 

the fishery resources in the state and has changed fish stocking policies, using triploid fish that 

are unable to reproduce, and encourage restoring native fish and managing for native species 

where possible (Frissell et al. 2012). The Forest Service encourages the return of native species to 

the landscape.

Non-native fish and bullfrogs are present within the planning area and their presence has been 

detrimental to native species, especially amphibians (Schwartz et al. 2013). The New Zealand 

mud snail is established in the Owens River watershed and has found to cause significant 

disruptions in stream food chains throughout the western states (Moore et al. 2012). It is 

anticipated that aquatic invasive species will continue to spread throughout streams, rivers and 

reservoirs in the San Joaquin valley on boats, fishing equipment, and other water sports gear 

(CDFG 2008). Invasive species are a continual and pervasive threat to native species in rivers and 

streams as it can be difficult and expensive to control them once they become established. 

Dams and water impoundments block movements of fish, amphibians, and aquatic insects 

resulting in a lack of habitat connectivity. Large dams on the San Joaquin and Merced Rivers and 

their tributaries block salmon from reaching former habitat on the Sierra National Forest (USDA 

FS 2013c). Connectivity of aquatic habitat is also an issue at higher elevations due to poorly 

designed or maintained road culverts that block aquatic species passage. Non-native fish are often 

predators in aquatic systems and they can disrupt the connectivity of habitat and reduce 

populations of amphibian species in particular. By contrast, where at-risk fish or amphibian 

species are present it is often desirable to maintain barriers to aquatic connectivity to keep 

invasive fish away from at-risk species.

Meadows, Fens, and Springs 

The Inyo National Forest has over 25,000 acres of meadows; the Sequoia National Forest has 

more than 10,000 acres in meadows, and the Sierra National Forest has more than 15,000 acres in 

meadows. Although the overall area of meadows is a small proportion of the landscape (around 2 

percent of national forest lands higher than 6,000 feet elevation), they provide critical ecosystem 

function. The Kern Plateau on the Sequoia National Forest is an exception to this general pattern 

where meadows occupy an estimated 10 percent of the landscape.

Meadow condition depends on vegetation, hydrology, stream channel condition, and invasive 

species (Purdy et al. 2012). Viers et al. (2013) found during drought in the Sierra Nevada that 

vegetation cover and bare ground cover ranged from natural condition to moderately or heavily 

impacted, depending on the montane meadow location. Meadows with incised channels are less 

resilient to water flow changes over time and face increased risk of damage from wildfire. Bank 

erosion, small streambed materials, and wide and shallow streams within meadows in the Sierra 

Nevada degrades habitat for aquatic species (Micheli and Kirchner 2002). Habitat quality within 

meadow habitats for rare aquatic species has been degraded (Frissell et al 2012, Purdy et al. 2012, 

Henery et al. 2011) due to an ingrowth of conifers, bank trampling by cattle, off-highway vehicle 

use, and destabilized banks due to roads, culverts, historic ranching, and intensive timber harvest

on adjacent uplands on the three national forests (Fryjoff-Hung and Viers 2013). Where meadow 

conditions are degraded, restoration may be necessary to restore hydrologic functions for 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

269

dependent vegetation such as willows to recover in highly degraded meadows (Frissell et al. 

2012).

In 1999, the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Range Program initiated a regionwide, 

long-term meadow condition and trend monitoring program. The primary purpose of the program 

was to (1) document baseline meadow conditions as these new riparian standards and guidelines 

were coming into use; and (2) examine long-term trends in meadow condition following 

implementation of these riparian standard and guidelines. The program currently includes 618 

permanent meadow vegetation monitoring sites established in key meadows across the region 

including the three national forests covered in this analysis. Vegetation composition is measured 

at the time a plot is established and then every 5 years following. There are 496 plots within the 

10 national forests covered under the Sierra Nevada Forest Amendment. As of summer 2012, a 

total of 246 plots have been reevaluated over the past 10 years, across 127 grazing allotments.

In 2012, the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region and the University of California, Davis 

Rangeland Watershed Laboratory established a partnership to conduct the first comprehensive 

analysis of this unique dataset examining (1) meadow conditions and trends; and (2) relationships 

between meadow conditions and trends, livestock management, weather, and environmental 

drivers. In this analysis (Roche 2013) the number of plots available with at least 8 years between 

their earliest measurement (1997 to 2002) and the latest measurement (2007 to 2012) was 42, 23, 

and 25 on the Inyo, Sierra, and Sequoia National Forests, respectively. The meadow plant 

community condition metrics analyzed included relative frequency data, Ratliff Vegetation Score 

and Condition Classification, and species richness and diversity. The comprehensive analysis 

found a significant increase in mean species richness and species diversity on all three national 

forests. There was no significant change in Ratliff condition class between the readings.

On the Sierra National Forest, 4 percent of plots were in excellent to good vegetation condition 

with an upward trend, 43 percent were in excellent to good vegetation condition with stable trend, 

no plots were in good vegetation condition with downward or fair upward trend, 30 percent were 

in fair vegetation condition with stable trend, 22 percent were in fair vegetation condition with a 

downward trend, and no plots were in poor vegetation condition. 

On the Sequoia National Forest 16 percent of plots were in excellent to good vegetation condition 

with an upward trend, 64 percent were in excellent to good vegetation condition with stable trend, 

8 percent were in a good vegetation condition with downward trend, no plots were in a fair 

vegetation condition with upward trend, 4 percent were in fair vegetation condition with a stable 

trend, 8 percent were in a fair vegetation condition with a downward trend, and no plots were in a 

poor vegetation condition (USDA FS 2013c). 

On the Inyo, 5 percent of plots showed excellent to good vegetation condition with an upward 

trend, 74 percent were in excellent to good vegetation condition with a stable trend, 14 percent 

were in good vegetation condition with a downward trend, no plots were in a fair vegetation 

condition with an upward trend, 2 percent were in fair vegetation condition with a stable trend, 5 

percent were in fair vegetation condition with a downward trend, and no plots were in poor 

vegetation condition (USDA FS 2013a). 

Because no systematic assessment of meadows exist on the three national forests, the forest 

assessments provide information about a subset of meadows overall. Other meadow and stream 

assessments covering the Kern Plateau, the Breckinridge Mountains, and the Sierra National 

Forest indicated that a majority of meadows exhibited features such as ingrowth of trees, unstable 

banks, off-highway vehicle trails, headcuts, and gullies (Fryjoff-Hung and Viers, 2013). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

270

Another study on the Inyo National Forest, which included the Kern Plateau, found that meadow 

plant species richness, diversity, evenness, and frequency of soil-substrate stabilizing species 

were not significantly different between grazed and ungrazed sites (Freitas et al. 2013). Modest 

increases in richness and diversity were observed over the 10-year study period, while evenness 

and frequency of soil-substrate stabilizing species were constant.

Fens are special sensitive habitat types with deep organic soils found at high elevation on the 

three national forests (Wolf and Cooper 2015, Kattleman and Embury 1996). While the exact 

number of fens on each of the three national forests is not known and no consistent assessment 

exists, fens are estimated to represent about 10 percent of the meadows on the Sequoia National 

Forest and about 1 percent of the landscape (M. Linton, personal communication). Further north, 

fens in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks cover approximately 0.2 percent of the 

landscape (Hopkinson et al. 2013). On the Inyo National Forest proper functioning condition 

information for fens that have been evaluated indicate that most either are properly functioning, 

or have an upward trend, or no trend (USDA FS 2013a).

Springs and seeps are a result of both precipitation and geologic structure and are generally found 

throughout the plan area. From the highest passes and valleys into the lower elevations, springs 

are found throughout the southern Sierra Nevada and the White Mountains. Fully functioning 

springs are typically considered “biodiversity hotspots” supporting many species that only occur 

there, most notably spring snails. Spring habitats are vulnerable to damage from on- or off-site 

changes of water or land uses and species associated with springs typically have limited mobility; 

therefore, effective protection of springs is necessary to protect endemic species (Frissell et al. 

2012). There is little information about the current trends for springs across the landscape (USDA

FS 2013d). However, drought has influenced flow in many springs, so the uncertainty of climate 

change may influence this habitat.

Lakes

Lakes on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in the Inyo National Forest range in 

size from one acre to hundreds of acres. No lakes occur in the White, Inyo, or Glass Mountains. 

Mono Lake is a vast inland saline lake of 44,480 acres. Approximately 478 freshwater lakes that 

are larger than 2 acres occur on the Inyo National Forest (USDA FS 2013a). Ponds and other 

small waterbodies, such as tarns and pools, occur throughout the higher elevations within the 

Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Sequoia National Forest has 96 acres of natural lakes and ponds. 

Due to lack of glaciation, high-elevation lakes and ponds are rare on the Sequoia National Forest. 

However, lower elevation reservoirs such as Hume Lake and Lake Isabella provide lake habitat 

and recreational opportunities for residents and visitors. The Sierra National Forest contains 11 

reservoirs covering 17,310 acres (Redinger, Wishon, Florence, Bass, Mammoth Pools, 

Huntington, Courtright, Edison, Shaver, and Pine Flat). In addition, there are 1,602 lakes larger

than 1 acre (totaling 14,273 acres), plus 3,366 lakes, ponds and other waterbodies less than 1 acre 

(totaling 1,006 acres; USDA FS 2013c).

Historically the lakes of the high Sierra Nevada were fishless and supported native fauna such as 

amphibians, aquatic insects, abundant zooplankton, and phytoplankton. However, many of the 

high-elevation lakes now support introduced brook, brown, rainbow and golden trout, which has 

had an impact on native frog populations (Knapp et al. 2007, Knapp and Matthews 2000a, Knapp 

and Matthews 2000b). The historic introduction of trout into lakes throughout the Sierra Nevada 

mountain range has had the effect of eliminating the yellow-legged frog from over 95 percent of 

its historic range (Vredenburg et al. 2007). The introduction of trout into these lakes has also 

altered the life-cycle and reduced the population numbers of macro-invertebrates and zooplankton 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

271

within lakes (Knapp 2005, Schindler et al. 2001). The loss of these keystone species changes the 

food web, and changes biodiversity. Aquatic ecosystem biodiversity in many of these lakes is 

outside the natural range of variation. A few lakes have remained fishless, or have had fish 

removed to protect amphibians and are being protected from additional fish stocking by changes 

in stocking rules by the state fish and wildlife agencies. These fishless lakes provide important 

refuges for some amphibians to support their persistence. 

Riparian Ecosystems

Riparian vegetation composition and structure are influenced by the size and type of stream, the 

amount of flooding, and the surrounding upland ecosystems and vegetation (Kondolf et al. 1996, 

Kattelmann and Embury 1996). Riparian vegetation across these three national forests is diverse, 

with plant communities varying widely based on elevation, location, and site history (Harris 

1989, Manning and Padget 1995, Potter 2005, Fites-Kaufman et al. 2007). In most of the analysis 

area, fire is an important influence on riparian vegetation, especially in the foothill, montane, 

upper montane, sagebrush and pinyon-juniper ecosystems. At lower elevations on the east slope 

of the Sierra Nevada, often only a few trees such as cottonwoods, willows, and birch are found. 

These systems are naturally drier and the riparian areas are limited in width. Similarly, at higher 

elevations throughout the analysis area, riparian vegetation is more limited in width in the 

subalpine and alpine areas. On both the east and west sides of the Sierra Nevada, in the pine or 

conifer forest, narrow bands of herbaceous riparian plants and often deciduous shrubs (such as

creek dogwood or willow) are interspersed with upland forest trees (mostly conifers) growing 

next to the streams. Riparian plants can include grasses, sedges, shrubs, and trees, Along larger 

streams and rivers, willow shrubs are common, with a wide variety of species that vary by 

elevation.

In the absence of fire within the natural range of variation, conifers have grown into riparian areas

and often are taller and now shade riparian hardwood trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants in 

many areas. This has occurred especially at low and middle elevations where fire was historically 

more frequent and trees grow relatively fast. Many riparian areas have become more uniform 

with dense overstory cover (especially of conifers), and less vigorous and diverse understory 

deciduous shrubs, grasses, sedges, and herbaceous plants. Many riparian plant species are adapted 

to disturbances such as floods, and vigorously resprout after disturbance. This makes them 

resilient to fire as well (Pettit and Naiman 2007). When composition and structure of riparian 

vegetation becomes dominated by conifers, especially at a high density, it becomes less resilient 

to fire. Many of the riparian areas in the analysis area are in this condition of low resilience. Fire 

return intervals are not within the natural range of variation over much of the landscape, and thus 

not within the range of variation for the interspersed riparian areas.

Climate Change Influences to Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems

The climate in the southern Sierra Nevada and the White and Glass Mountains is normally 

variable in nature varying by year, season, elevation and slope and aspect. Average annual 

precipitation ranges from 39 to 49 inches along the western foothills; 9 to 20 inches along the 

southern end of the Sierra Nevada, Kern River, and eastern slope; and up to 49 to 59 inches at 

higher elevations (Wolf and Cooper 2015). Changes in climate have influenced the quantity, 

quality, or seasonality of water and can have significant impacts on the ecological integrity of 

aquatic systems. Warming temperatures, particularly when combined with less precipitation, 

results in loss of stream flows, drying of shallow lakes or ponds, and changes in seasonal 

availability of aquatic habitat. Resilience of streams to climate change is influenced by sources of 

water, riparian forest cover, and meadow area (Frissell et al. 2012). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

272

Changes in timing of snowmelt are already influencing stream flow patterns (Hunsaker and Long 

2013). Flood potential is predicted to increase, as is the proportion of precipitation falling as rain 

instead of snow (Overpeck et al. 2012, Safford et al. 2012a). This is likely to continue (Null et al 

2010) and will impact aquatic ecosystems through seasonal changes, decreased water flows and 

increased water temperatures. Stream flows in summer are declining and floods are occurring in 

winter rather than spring in areas dominated by snowmelt (Luce and Holden 2009; Isaak and 

Rieman 2013). These changes along with increases in stream temperature are expected to shift 

distributions of native fishes according to their water temperature requirement (Isaak et al. 2012; 

Rieman et al. 2007; Wenger et al. 2011a; and Wenger et al. 2011b).

Over the next century, climate change is predicted to alter hydrologic and precipitation patterns, 

riparian vegetation, and the role of fire in riparian areas. This will have important effects on 

aquatic and riparian ecosystems, since they are shaped and are dependent on the amount and 

pattern of water. Riparian areas will also be strongly shaped by climate-related changes in fire 

(see “Fire Trends” section).

Climate change has the potential to affect surface and groundwater flows. If there are more severe 

floods that follow severe droughts, erosion of stream channels could increase. The rain-snow 

interface zone is predicted to occur at higher elevations, causing warming of streams earlier in the 

season. Streambank vegetation could decrease in vigor and extent if summer base flows become 

much lower or some perennial streams become intermittent. Then, when high flows occur, there 

would be a greater chance of channel scour and possible widening or gully incision.

Environmental Consequences to Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems

Consequences Common to all Alternatives 

Sustainability of Habitat

Currently, major drivers of change to aquatic ecosystems include climate change and shifting 

hydrologic patterns and increasingly dense and unhealthy forests. With any of the alternatives, 

aquatic invasive species would also continue to be a primary issue of concern affecting aquatic 

ecosystems in the future. While restoring fire to the landscape generally benefits aquatic habitats, 

the benefit is reduced where invasive species are present and during the recovery period 

following fire, aquatic habitats can be more susceptible to invasion by aquatic species. Broad 

guidance for the management and control of invasive species is provided by the Forest Service 

National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management (FS-1017 2013). While nonnative fish were mentioned in the context of maintaining genetically pure native trout, aquatic 

invasive species such as New Zealand mud snail or other aquatic nuisance species are not a focus. 

Alternatives B, C and D however include specific desired conditions that support rapid detection 

and control of aquatic invasive species that are absent in the current forest plans. 

Resilience to Climate Change

Warming temperatures increase the potential for large, high-intensity wildfires throughout the 

forest and within riparian areas wildfires can remove all shade that maintains cooler water 

temperatures (Westerling et al. 2006). Restoring meadows helps regulate downstream flows and 

water storage under the surface where it maintains cooler temperatures (see “Water Quality, Water 

Quantity, and Watershed Condition” section). Riparian plants can shade streams and can be 

restored or protected to cool streams across the landscape to counteract the warming temperatures 

that are already occurring (see “Fire Trends” section). Because current air temperatures are 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

273

getting warmer and changing conditions for native aquatic species, mitigation of these effects to 

maintain and increase shading of streams, and to help store more water below ground in restored 

meadows will be increasingly important. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Alternative A would continue to follow the current forest plan direction of the Inyo, Sequoia and 

Sierra National Forests for management of aquatic species and habitats. The aquatic management 

strategy would continue to provide direction for riparian habitat according to riparian 

conservation objectives designed to maintain the ecology of riparian areas and reduce the risk of 

sediment from entering aquatic ecosystems. Standards and guidelines for alternative A emphasize 

protecting water quality and protecting riparian conservation areas by limiting active management 

within a variable buffer distance around riparian features. During project planning, the width of 

riparian conservation areas can be varied through a landscape-level assessement by an 

interdisciplinary team to best protect riparian resources. A variety of management actions and 

uses on the three national forests can impact ecological integrity of riparian areas including 

unmanaged recreation, dams or diversions, high road and trail density, vegetation management, 

and grazing. 

This alternative would continue to implement priority watershed restoration as funding permits. 

Critical aquatic refuges would remain the same protecting areas around some but not all rare 

species. Community wildfire safety concerns would be addressed by an emphasis on fire 

suppression. There would continue to be limited restoration of riparian vegetation. Few areas 

would have conifers removed to restore hardwood dominance where conifers have grown in and 

are outside the natural range of variation. Although wildfire is recognized as an essential 

ecosystem process, wildfire managed to meet resource objectives would generally be limited to 

select areas of each national forest, such as wilderness and remote areas. Where new roads are 

needed to conduct restoration activities, best management practices would be used to reduce the 

risk of sediment entering the watershed and eventually streams.

Sustainability of Habitat

Alternative A focuses on developing resilience to fire with prioritization of areas around 

communities. This alternative includes the implementation of the aquatic management strategy. 

Plan direction emphasizes restoration of hydrologic connectivity but does not include specific 

direction for the restoration of habitat for all life stages of aquatic or riparian species. Restoration 

of aquatic ecosystems is a regional priority for the three national forests following the “Ecological

Restoration Leadership Intent” established by the regional forester (USDA FS 2011a). 

Improvement of aquatic habitat conditions is primarily related to mitigating the effects of roads 

and addressing hydrologic connectivity. 

Under this alternative, limited implementation of restoration is anticipated, leaving many areas 

containing native at-risk aquatic species untreated. Direction under this alternative has allowed 

for improvements to increase ecological integrity of streams by actions such as reducing trail and 

road density in riparian areas and meadows and removing or mitigating effects of dispersed 

camping from the edges of meadows and streams. These standards and guidelines have been in 

place since 2004; and along with best management practices, have worked well to protect most 

stream habitats from sedimentation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

274

Ecological Connectivity

Hydrologic connectivity is addressed under this alternative through maintenance of ecological 

connectivity among habitats for some aquatic species and riparian associates. Restoration of 

ecological connectivity by improving road crossings or mitigating water diversions would be 

expected to occur at a slow pace under this alternative.

Aquatic Species Diversity

In the current plans, direction and best management practices reduce the impacts of management 

actions locally but do not by themselves address the diversity, sustainability, or persistence of 

aquatic diversity. Plan direction is primarily prescriptive and restrictive to limit management 

activities that would restore forest vegetation and improve habitats that support the persistence of 

all life stages of aquatic or riparian species. Similarly, plan direction in alternative A does not 

emphasize management of invasive species or restoration of ecological connectivity as well as the 

other alternatives.

Resilience to Climate Change

Adaptively managing aquatic habitats for resilience to future climate change, or improving 

adaptive capacity of aquatic ecosystems through ecological restoration and climate adaptation 

actions are not explicitly addressed in the current forest plans. Climate changes may alter riparian 

habitats substantially (Perry et al. 2015), especially those that are outside the natural range of 

variation. Projects designed under the current plans incorporate actions to increase resilience to 

the extent they are consistent with other plan direction. 

Riparian Vegetation

Resilience of riparian composition and structural heterogeneity to climate change and increased 

risk of wildfires would not be improved in alternative A except on the occasional basis. Thom and 

Seidl (2015) investigated the role of natural disturbance (fire, wind, and bark beetles) in riparian 

areas and found effects on ecosystem services were negative but effects on native riparian species 

diversity was positive. There is some ability to restore riparian vegetation structure and 

composition in alternative A but it is limited by restrictions on mechanical treatments within 

riparian conservation areas. Prescribed fire restrictions in riparian areas limit direct fire ignitions, 

which reduces the ability of fire managers to create a patchy mosaic within riparian areas to lower 

the risk of riparian vegetation burning at high intensity during wildfires. There is less control of 

fire intensity and spatial pattern of fires when they back down into riparian areas compared to 

when fire managers are allowed to use ignition patterns to more closely control the fire behavior. 

The limited amounts of restoration would result in most riparian areas continuing to trend toward

a decrease in heterogeneity and degraded condition of hardwoods. Less fuel reduction within 

watersheds under alternative A can lead to future larger fires that burn at high intensity and 

impact upland and riparian vegetation and cause more intense fire in riparian ecosystems. 

Alternative A has the most limited area where wildfires are likely to be managed to meet resource 

objectives, primarily in wilderness areas, leaving most riparian areas with an altered fire regime.

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

Alternative B improves resilience of terrestrial ecosystems to climate change by increasing the 

pace and scale where vegetation is being restored, decreasing the threat of large, high-intensity 

wildfires; and increasing the local capacity to restore vegetation and reduce fuels. This alternative 

manages the same riparian conservation areas as alternative A; but uses the full suite of plan 

components (desired conditions, standards, guidelines, goals, and potential management 

approaches) to better move riparian ecosystems toward resilience to fire and climate change. The 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

275

focus landscape treatment approach combined with the riparian conservation area direction is

designed to reduce the negative effects of wildfire more effectively than the scattered treatment 

approach of alternative A and the limited treatment approach of alternative C. Treatments to 

improve fire resilience in riparian ecosystems over the long term would be guided by desired 

conditions, standards, and guidelines that protect water temperature, riparian vegetation and other 

conditions that provide quality habitat for dependent wildlife over the short term. 

Sustainability of Habitat

Some management activities like vegetation management and maintenance and development of 

infrastructure, like roads, trails and campgrounds, have the potential to cause both short- and 

long-term adverse impacts to aquatic and riparian habitat (Frissell et al. 2012). Desired 

conditions, standards, and guidelines in this alternative are designed to protect aquatic habitats. 

The integrated restoration emphasis of focus landscapes would consider impacts such as headcuts 

in streams and meadows, disconnected floodplains, and lack of mature willows, alders, and 

cottonwoods across the landscape during project planning. This landscape approach is intended to 

address the restoration needs of all resources, including impacts to aquatic and riparian habitats 

from forest infrastructure such as roads, trails, and campgrounds within sensitive areas. The 

reduction of high-intensity wildfire risk, especially within riparian areas, would improve 

watershed and aquatic habitat conditions over the long term compared to alternative A.

The proposed increase in ecosystem restoration, and change in slope limitations for equipment 

use in riparian conservation areas on the Sequoia National Forest, would not be expected to result

in substantially increased amounts of sediment and other disturbances to streams. All projects 

would be designed to incorporate best management practices to mitigate soil and sediment 

impacts and projects would be designed to maintain or improve riparian and aquatic ecosystem 

desired conditions. Best management practices and standards and guidelines are designed to 

reduce the risk of sediment from entering aquatic ecosystems. Alternative B, with its landscape 

approach, would allow for more improvement of watersheds and riparian ecosystems. The goal of 

increasing restoration of aquatic habitats through partnerships would help increase the pace and 

scale of restoration under alternative B, compared to alternative A. The potential for short-term 

effects from the increased pace and scale of restoration would be balanced against the long-term 

benefits to aquatic habitats for alternative B.

Ecological Connectivity

While there is uncertainty about the magnitude of climate change, species can be influenced 

especially where connectivity issues block species movements. Desired conditions address the 

maintenance and restoration of ecological connectivity among habitats for aquatic or riparian 

associates. The increase in the pace of restoration compared to alternative A, especially in concert 

with an increased use of partnerships, should allow for an increase in the restoration of aquatic 

connectivity. The increase in vegetation restoration projects would increase the potential to 

replace and improve road culverts to improve hydrologic and aquatic connectivity. For 

amphibians associated with streams and meadows, connectivity requires movement between 

habitat islands and to allow dispersal among subwatersheds. 

Riparian conservation areas would provide conditions for species to use stream corridors for 

movement and foraging habitat. Plan direction would guide projects that occur within riparian 

conservation areas to consider connectivity of riparian habitats and the needs of at-risk species. 

Connectivity among streams for aquatic species would improve over the landscape as undesired 

barriers are removed to reduce fragmentation and desired barriers to separate invasive species 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

276

from native species are maintained. A greater emphasis on partnerships may result in increased 

resources to restore aquatic habitats and provide for persistence of native aquatic species. 

Aquatic Species Diversity

Restoration of degraded habitats would lead to increased resilience for native aquatic species. 

Desired conditions address native aquatic species and encourage aquatic restoration across the 

landscape to provide for the persistence of species. An increase in terrestrial ecosystem 

restoration could have localized, short-term negative effects to aquatic species, but would be 

offset by long-term benefits where actions would restore riparian vegetation or increase fire or 

climate change resilience. 

Increased partnerships to restore aquatic habitats would improve ecological conditions that 

support the persistence of native species and aquatic diversity. Existing critical aquatic refuges are 

managed similar to alternative A and one new critical aquatic refuge is added around populations 

of the black toad on the Inyo National Forest. New critical aquatic refuges are not proposed in 

areas of high aquatic species diversity in lower elevation habitats; however, desired conditions, 

standards, and guidelines would guide management of habitat for all aquatic species. Restoration 

of watersheds that include critical aquatic refuges through focus landscapes and through 

restoration of priority watersheds would benefit aquatic species diversity more in alterative B 

compared to alternative A. 

This alternative has potential for localized, short-term impacts for slow-moving species 

concentrated in moist riparian areas due to mechanical treatments and prescribed burning. Timing 

of prescribed burning and other ground-disturbing activities outside of species’ activity periods 

could minimize these effects and can be determined at the project level for specific at-risk 

species. Minimizing short-term consequences on aquatic species when restoring aqautic habitat in 

conjunction with the long-term benefits of more sustainable and resilient landscapes would 

improve persistence of species. Overall, the goal to increase restoration of aquatic habitats would 

address species needs and improve aquatic biodiversity more than alternative A.

Resilience to Climate Change

Managing aquatic habitats for resilience to future climate change and improving adaptive 

capacity of aquatic ecosystems through ecological restoration and climate adaptation actions are 

adressed in the desired conditions for alternative B. Riparian plants provide shade over streams 

and can be restored or protected to cool streams across the landscape to counteract the warming 

temperatures that are already occurring. The risk of large intense fire in riparian areas would be 

reduced with this alternative (see “Fire Trends” section). Adaptively managing aquatic habitats 

for resilience to future climate change, and improving adaptive capacity of aquatic ecosystems 

through ecological restoration and climate adaptation actions are emphasized under alternative B. 

Riparian Vegetation

There would be more emphasis on ecosystem restoration, including riparian vegetation 

restoration in alternative B, than in alternative A. As national forest managers increase the pace 

and scale of restoration, including mechanical thinning, prescribed fire, and managing wildfire to 

meet resource objectives, the forests and riparian areas should become more resilient to climate 

change.

All restoration that results in a reduction of conifer encroachment, and an increase in 

heterogeneity in riparian areas would move riparian vegetation composition and structure toward 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

277

the natural range of variation. This would improve growing conditions for riparian hardwoods 

and shrubs that are often shaded out by upland trees and shrubs. Prescribed fire and wildfire 

managed to meet resource objectives would improve the condition, vigor and health of most 

native riparian plants. Many native riparian plants sprout as an adaptation to flooding and this

often allows them to respond positively to fire as well (Fites-Kaufman et al. 2006, van Watendonk 

and Fites-Kaufman 2006). The trend in composition and structural heterogeneity of native species 

would increase. 

An increased emphasis on wildfire managed to meet resource objectives would continue to 

provide improved riparian vegetation conditions and reduce the risk of intense fire across large

landscape areas, especially those in higher elevations where there are fewer opportunities for 

more direct restoration. The reduction in risk of severe wildfire can improve the overall resilience 

of these systems over the life of the plan. Restoration in alternative B in westside foothill, 

montane, and upper montane areas would be emphasized in focus landscapes. This would result 

in large landscape and watershed (10,000 to 80,000 acres) areas with a decreased likelihood of 

large, high-intensity fires (see “Fire Trends” section) and increased opportunities for riparian 

restoration in these areas. Alternative B would lead to more improvement of riparian ecosystem 

resilience to fire and climate change compared to alternatives A and C.

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Alternative C would have the least restoration using mechanical treatment of all alternatives, and 

an increased emphasis on the use of prescribed fire and managing wildfires to meet resource 

objectives. Riparian conservation areas would be managed similar to alternative B. Although 

there is more emphasis on managing wildfire to meet resource objectives proposed for alternative 

C, there is a high uncertainty about how much would actually occur because of low levels of 

mechanical restoration used to create strategic areas to “anchor” large prescribed fires and 

wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. If there is more fire, there could be a greater 

benefit in alternative C, but it would be in more limited locations compared to the other 

alternatives and the intensity of prescribed fire might be higher than in the other alternatives due 

to higher levels of fuels being burned. With lower amounts of fuel reductions, this alternative 

would continue the trend of larger, high-intensity wildfires in the future. 

Sustainability of Habitat

Desired conditions, standards, and guidelines in alternative C would provide for maintenance of 

aquatic habitat and protections of aquatic habitats. The large scale landscape approach has the 

potential to address national forest infrastructure such as roads, trails, and dispersed campgrounds 

within sensitive areas. This should improve watershed and aquatic habitat conditions over the 

long term compared to alternative A. The goal of increasing restoration of aquatic habitats 

through partnerships would help increase the pace and scale of restoration under alternative C, 

when compared to A. Equipment use would be more restricted in riparian conservation areas 

compared to the alternatives B and D. The potential for short-term effects from the increased pace 

and scale of restoration under alternatives B and D would be reduced under alternative C. 

Alternative C would add the most new critical aquatic refuges of all of the alternatives, although 

most of them are in existing designated wilderness areas or areas recommended for management 

as wilderness. The goal to restore aquatic habitat could improve the resilience and sustainability 

of aquatic and riparian habitat under alternative C. 

Resilience and sustainability of aquatic habitats and ecological integrity would not necessarily 

improve by simply setting aside critical aquatic refuges. Proposing new critical aquatic refuges
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

278

and having existing critical aquatic refuges at high elevation may not serve to restore large rivers 

and lower elevation habitats for aquatic species (Frissell et al. 2012). The increase in the number 

of stream miles restored and meadows restored under this alternative would increase the pace of 

restoration compared to alternative A, but would not be sufficient to achieve the restoration 

needed to reverse past legacy land use degradation of habitat. Restoration of aquatic habitat with 

partners could improve sustainability and resiliency of aquatic ecosystems to climate change.

Ecological Connectivity

Alternative C would provide for ecological connectivity among habitats for aquatic or riparian 

associates similar to alternative A, but with more emphasis on restoring connectivity associated 

with critical aquatic refuges. There would be less potential for short-term impacts to connectivity 

from restoration compared to alternatives B and D, but there would also be less potential to 

restore aquatic connectivity related to existing roads compared to those alternatives. Goals to 

address aquatic restoration including restoring connectivity and increasing the involvement of 

partners and stakeholders would help improve connectivity of habitat similar to alternatives B and 

D.

Aquatic Species Diversity

Alternative C identifies additional areas as critical aquatic refuges in watersheds that contain atrisk aquatic species. Aquatic restoration could be focused on habitat to maintain biodiversity or 

at-risk species, especially in conjunction with restoration in priority watersheds. With restoration 

of aquatic habitats, aquatic diversity is expected to be sustained or increase in the short term. 

However, the long-term consequences of this alternative would be an increased risk of large, 

high-intensity fire. Intense wildfire can have a negative effect on aquatic and riparian species. 

Although these effects are generally short lived, landscape changes in forest vegetation from large 

wildfires has longer consequences. Like alternatives B and D, the goal to increase restoration of 

aquatic habitats would address species needs and improve aquatic biodiversity. 

Resilience to Climate Change

Adaptively managing aquatic habitats for resilience to future climate change, or improving 

adaptive capacity of aquatic ecosystems through ecological restoration and climate adaptation 

actions are addressed in this alternative similar to alternatives B and D.

This alternative would reduce the risk of high-intensity wildfire impacts to riparian areas and 

adjacent uplands as well as other alternatives due to the decreased area with fuel reduction 

treatments. Adaptively managing aquatic habitats for resilience to future climate change, or 

improving adaptive capacity of aquatic ecosystems through ecological restoration and climate 

adaptation actions would be hampered if sustainability and resilience to climate changes in the 

rest of the watershed and landscape are not restored. Without more active watershed-level 

restoration as well as restoration of aquatic habitat, no increase in habitat or species resilience to 

climate change would occur (Moyle et al. 2013, Viers et al. 2013). 

Riparian Vegetation

Limited restoration using mechanical treatments and an increased emphasis on fire, both 

prescribed and wildfire managed to meet resource objectives, would be the basis for managing 

riparian areas under this alternative. Although there is more managed wildfire proposed for 

alternative C, there is a high uncertainty how much would occur because of low levels of 

mechanical restoration used to create strategic areas to “anchor” large prescribed fires and 

wildfire managed to meet riparian resource objectives. If there is an increase in low- to moderate-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

279

intensity wildfire, there could be a benefit to riparian species and composition in alternative C

similar to alternatives B and D. However if the rate of managed wildfire and prescribed fire 

remains low, then riparian vegetation restoration and improvement in ecological conditions would 

not be achieved as well as in alternatives B or D.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

Alternative D would treat more area within individual focus landscapes and more focus 

landscapes in total than alternatives B and C. The modified approach for riparian conservation 

areas would be the same as alternative B. Increased use of mechanical equipment in the riparian 

conservation areas would be designed to improve conditions of riparian areas, especially to 

restore fire within the landscape and riparian areas. Focus landscapes are designed to reduce risks 

of wildfire more effectively than the scattered treatment approach of alternative A and limited 

treatment approach of alternative C. Alternative D plans to improve resilience of terrestrial 

ecosystems to climate change by increasing the rate and extent of the land area where vegetation 

is being restored, decreasing the threat of large, high-intensity wildfires; and increasing the local 

capacity to restore vegetation and reduce fuels. As national forest managers increase the pace and 

scale of restoration, including the use of mechanical thinning and increased area where wildfires 

are managed to meet resource objectives, the national forests should become more resilient to the 

effects of climate change, especially increases in wildfire.

Sustainability of Habitat

The large-scale landscape approach under alternative D has the potential to address national forest 

infrastructure such as roads, trails, and dispersed campgrounds within sensitive areas to a greater 

degree than alternative B. This should improve watershed conditions over the long term 

compared to all other alternatives. Vegetation management activities and maintenance and 

development of infrastructure, like roads, have the potential to cause both short- and long-term 

adverse impacts to habitat (Frissell et al. 2012). Desired conditions, standards, and guidelines 

would provide for maintenance of aquatic habitat and protections of aquatic habitats. The 

proposed increase in ecosystem restoration, including increased allowance for equipment use in 

riparian conservation areas would not be expected to result in substantially increased amounts of 

sediment and other disturbances to streams. All projects would be designed to incorporate best 

management practices to mitigate soil and sediment impacts and projects would be designed to 

maintain or improve riparian and aquatic ecosystem desired conditions. The goal of increasing 

restoration of aquatic habitats through partnerships would help increase the pace and scale of 

restoration under alternative D, as compared to A. The potential for short-term effects from the 

increased pace and scale would be balanced against the long-term benefits to aquatic habitats for 

alternative D.

Addressing the proper scale of restoration of aquatic habitat while increasing the pace and scale 

of restoration across the landscape is important. Effective protection of aquatic habitat from

sedimentation, erosion, and nutrient mobilization; impediments to connectivity, and undesirable 

vegetation conditions is essential to ensure the resilience of aquatic habitats in the face of climate 

change, drought, and fire. Existing headcuts in meadows and streams; impaired hydrologic 

connectivity and ecological connectivity; lack of mature willows, alders, and cottonwoods;

sediment impacts from roads; legacy grazing impacts; and impacts from recreation use are all 

identified as areas in need of restoration. 

Under alternative D increased restoration actions within focus landscapes would result in 

proportional increases in aquatic habitat restoration. Alternative D would reduce the risk of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

280

uncharacteristically large wildfires, thus reducing the risk of undesirable short-term impacts to 

aquatic ecosystems while still allowing for the historically beneficial role of fire to be expressed. 

The goal of encouraging restoration of habitats using partnerships could address many legacy 

restoration needs in areas prioritized for species and is similar to alternatives B and C. 

Ecological Connectivity

Desired conditions in alternative D address the maintenance and restoration of ecological 

connectivity among habitats for aquatic or riparian associates, and an increased pace and scale of 

restoration compared to alternatives A, B, and C. With an increased use of partnerships, this 

alternative should allow for the greatest increase in the number of projects designed to protect 

aquatic connectivity. The increase in vegetation restoration projects would increase the potential 

to replace and improve road culverts to improve hydrologic and aquatic connectivity more than in 

the other alternatives.

Riparian conservation areas would provide conditions for species to use these areas close to 

streams as corridors for movement and foraging habitat. Plan direction would guide projects that 

occur within riparian conservation areas to consider connectivity of riparian habitats and the 

needs of at-risk species. Connectivity among streams for aquatic species would improve over the 

landscape as undesired barriers are removed to reduce fragmentation and desired barriers are 

maintained to separate invasive species from native species.

Aquatic Species Diversity

An increase in terrestrial ecosystem restoration could have localized, short-term negative 

consequences to aquatic species, particularly where mechanized treatments are used to restore 

riparian vegetation, and roads are reopened to accomplish restoration actions. This alternative 

may have negative short-term consequences for species concentrated in moist riparian areas, but 

these short-term consequences on riparian species diversity are balanced favorably against the 

long-term benefits of creating more sustainable landscapes that have more resilience to changes 

from wildfire, climate change, and other stressors. The goal to support aquatic restoration using 

partnerships would encourage restoration of aquatic habitat to improve persistence of species and 

sustain aquatic diversity.

Resilience to Climate Change 

As national forest managers increase the pace and scale of restoration, including mechanical 

thinning and increasing the use of wildfire managed to meet resource objectives, riparian areas 

should become more resilient to climate change. The risk of large intense fire on riparian areas 

would be reduced the most with this alternative because of the increased amount of planned 

restoration in the riparian areas and adjacent upland vegetation and surrounding watersheds. 

Restoration and protection of aquatic habitat would improve resilience as in alternatives B, and C

but on an increased number of acres under alternative D. Increased fire resilience would confer 

long-term benefits to watersheds and riparian areas more than all other alternatives.

Riparian Vegetation

With the increased pace and scale of restoration in this alternative, riparian areas should become

more resilient to fire and the vegetation community would more closely reflect the natural range 

of variation. There would be similar environmental consequences to alternative B but with more 

riparian area restored. The greater amount of area proposed for restoration in alternative D would 

result in a greater amount of riparian area restoration in sagebrush and pinyon-juniper, westside 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

281

foothill, and all montane areas. All of these areas would be the focus of both mechanical and 

prescribed fire restoration treatments in uplands. Both upland and adjacent riparian areas would 

be incorporated in large landscape projects. Upper montane riparian areas would have more 

restoration of wildfire primarily to meet resource objectives. In all of these types of restoration, 

there would be beneficial impacts to composition, structure, and function of riparian vegetation. 

There would be a decrease in conifer or upland shrub density and cover that is outside the natural 

range of variation and an increase in heterogeneity. There would be increased light for hardwood 

shrubs, trees and understory plants. The likelihood of large, high-intensity fires would decrease 

under this alternative in many areas of the landscape (see “Fire Trends” section) compared to all 

other alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects

The geographic area included in this section is the southern Sierra Nevada, and the White and 

Inyo Mountains. For aquatic ecosystems, the long-term cumulative effects of future management 

actions across the landscape would continue to emphasize protection of water quality and riparian 

ecosystem function while increasing resilience to disturbance. At lower elevations, user-created 

motorized trails, motorized trails in riparian areas and adjacent to meadows, and dispersed 

recreations sites on streams and adjacent to meadows can influence aquatic habitat and ecological 

integrity and would be a focus for restoration when opportunities exist. Dams on major rivers and 

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power water use from the eastern slope of the Sierra 

Nevada would continue to have effects on connectivity of habitat within aquatic ecosystems. 

Recreational fishing is a valued pastime in the Sierra Nevada and is expected to continue, 

although some changes would occur as State wildlife agencies adjust their policies and practices. 

Introductions of non-native rainbow, brown, and brook trout for sport fishing will continue to be a 

management challenge for native trout. Native fish will continue to decline if conditions begin to 

dry and get too warm and dams prevent species from seeking refuge at higher elevation.

Analytical Conclusions

Desired conditions designed to achieve restoration of aquatic ecosystems on the three national 

forests would help improve aquatic and riparian habitats within the planning area more under 

alternatives B, C, and D than under alternative A. Alternative A does not specifically address 

ecological connectivity of habitat, nor does it specifically address climate change. Alternatives B, 

C, and D address ecological connectivity, species diversity and resilience to climate change in 

plan components. All alternatives continue direction that emphasizes desired conditions and 

management of riparian conservation areas and critical aquatic refuges similar to the current 

direction. All alternatives have flexibility of management within these areas allowed for reducing 

fuels, restoring fire, and managing riparian vegetation species composition, structure, and 

function, while reducing soil disturbance. Alternatives B and D would allow some increased use 

of mechanized equipment in riparian conservation areas to facilitate prescribed burning and 

improve riparian desired conditions. Alternative C would have fewer disturbances to the riparian 

conservation areas than alternatives B and D with more restrictions on mechanical treatments 

overall.

Since desired conditions for restoration address invasive species, alternatives B, C, and D are 

more likely to assist the three national forests in meeting desired conditions for aquatic invasive 

species. Improvement of ecological connectivity (including reduction or improvement of road 

crossings and water diversions and the accompanying improvement in number of rivers with 

unimpeded aquatic organism passage) would improve under alternatives B, C, and D because the

goal to address aquatic restoration includes restoration of connectivity. Desired conditions address 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

282

aquatic biodiversity in alternatives B, C, and D. The goal to improve habitat can help reverse the 

downward trend in biological diversity and effects of climate change currently found in the Sierra 

Nevada. Improving sustainability and resilience of aquatic habitat for aquatic at risk species 

would contribute toward ecological integrity; involvement with partners would help make 

progress toward achieving these desired conditions more quickly. 

Improving resilience to climate change for aquatic habitats and species requires prioritization 

across the landscape. Increasing the rate of restoration of priority habitats for aquatic species and 

improving adaptive capacity through ecological restoration and climate adaptation actions is 

necessary to conserve diversity of aquatic species. Partners can assist with increasing restoration 

of aquatic ecosystems by increasing the availability of funding and in some cases through use of 

volunteers to implement restoration projects. Uncertainty in the rates of climate change, funding 

availability, and the number of national forest staff working on watershed restoration would affect 

accomplishments under all alternatives.

Improving riparian area resilience to fire would most improve as restoration activities create a fire 

regime more aligned with historic patterns under alternatives B and D. Riparian vegetation 

condition, function, composition, and structure would improve under alternatives B and D more 

than alternatives A and C due to the greater amount of area restored with a combination of 

mechanical treatments, prescribed fire and wildfires managed to meet resource objectives.

Water Quality, Water Quantity, and Watershed Condition

Background

This section summarizes the current hydrological environment and soil conditions on the Inyo, 

Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests and the consequences to each of implementing the revised 

plan or its alternatives. Water originating on the three National Forests supplies municipal and 

agricultural water to central and southern California. It also provides electricity for local and 

distant populations. Stream flows provide recreational opportunities for locals and visitors. Water 

is integral for ecological sustainability. On the three national forests, streams, lakes, springs, and 

their associated riparian areas are relatively rare and important habitats. These national forests 

contain the watersheds of the Owens, Kern, Kaweah, Kings, San Joaquin and Merced Rivers. The 

watersheds of these rivers contain meadows and corridors of riparian vegetation that provide 

wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and function to store and release water year round. 

The quality and quantity of water is of critical importance because these watersheds provide 

water for use by millions of agricultural, residential, and industrial users downstream. The waters 

from the southern Sierra Nevada are essential for population centers ranging from small 

communities like Lee Vining, east of Yosemite National Park, to metropolitan areas like Fresno, 

Bakersfield and Los Angeles.

For the purposes of analysis, overall watershed conditions are described in terms of 10,000 to 

40,000-acre watersheds called HUC-12 watersheds.

21 Table 67 shows the number of HUC-12 

watersheds which lie completely or partially on the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests 

and the major river basins of each national forest.

 

21 HUC-12 refers to “hydrologic unit code” 12, which indicates a very large-scale watershed. As watersheds decrease in 

size and are nested as subwatersheds, the hydrologic unit code number decreases. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

283

Table 67. HUC-12 watersheds completely or partially located in the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra 

National Forests 

National 

Forest

Number of HUC-12 

Watersheds River Basin Watersheds

Inyo 125 Kern, Mono Lake, Owens

Sequoia 83 Deer, Kaweah, Kern, Kings, Tule, White

Sierra 64 Chowchilla, Fresno, Kings, Merced, San Joaquin

Streams and rivers are used for water supply, irrigation, transportation, hydropower, waste 

disposal, mining, flood control, timber harvest, and recreation. Many of these uses have a long 

history on the national forests and have made aquatic and riparian systems the most altered and 

impaired habitats of the Sierra Nevada. As the population of California has grown, so has the 

demand for water, leading to a potential for greater diversion and de-watering within Sierra 

Nevada hydrologic systems.

The Sierra Nevada ecosystem produces approximately $2.2 billion in commodities and services 

annually and water accounts for more than 60 percent of that total value (Hunsaker et al. 2013). 

For more detailed information on water conditions see the assessments for the Inyo, Sequoia, and 

Sierra National Forests (USDS FS 2013a, 2013b, and 2013c).

Analysis and Methods

The analysis evaluates and compares estimated future conditions for each alternative to the 

desired conditions. The indicators, measures, and assumption described below are used to 

evaluate how the alternatives move toward desired conditions, and identify potential 

consequences from management actions across the three national forests. The indicators are used 

to predict future conditions related to water resources and overall watershed condition under the 

four alternatives.

The qualitative analysis is based primarily on the best available scientific information derived 

from the forest assessments (USDA FS 2013a, 2013b, and 2013c), the Bio-Regional Assessment 

(USDA FS 2013d), the Science Synthesis (Long et al. 2014) and recent reports and publications 

that assess current conditions and trends in condition. In particular, soil and water best 

management practices monitoring data were reviewed to evaluate the effectiveness of current 

constraints on management actions. In addition, watershed condition assessments using the 

“Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework” were examined for the three national forests to 

assess the existing watershed condition ratings and identify restoration opportunities. Since the 

watershed condition framework is composed of various indicators, each alternative was evaluated 

on how it would likely effect three key indicators (water quality, water quantity, and watershed 

condition). Stream condition inventory monitoring and assessment data and State 303(d) listing 

information was also examined where available to evaluate restoration opportunities across the

national forests.

Indicators and Measures

This analysis uses three indicators: Water quality, water quantity, and the overall watershed 

condition. These indicators are evaluated over two general time periods to compare and contrast 

how the different alternatives would affect the aquatic resources.

• Short-term impacts generally run for 1 to 5 years after an event 

• Long-term impacts generally run from 5 years through the life of the plans 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

284

Water Quality

Water quality impacts the health of aquatic habitat, as well as other beneficial uses of water as 

defined by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB 2015). The two most critical 

parameters with the potential to influence water quality at the landscape scale or be influenced by 

climate change are sediment loading and water temperature (Neary et al. 2005, Hunsaker and 

Neary 2012, Young et al. 2009, USDA FS 2013d). Other water quality parameters such as nutrient 

inputs (like nitrogen and phosphorus), metals, and bacteria (such as e. coli) are also a concern to 

water quality but are best addressed at the project level considering requirements of the Clean 

Water Act.

Water Quantity

Water quantity refers to the timing, overall distribution, and volume of water produced from 

forest watersheds, and includes both surface and groundwater resources. Water quantity is largely 

dependent on the amount, type, and timing of precipitation. Soil conditions and impervious 

surfaces affect how precipitation is distributed, whether through runoff or ground infiltration. 

Shallow groundwater recharge and storage redistributes the water not captured by plant roots as 

streamflow and as springs and seeps.

Watershed Condition

In March 2011, the three national forests assessed the condition of National Forest System lands 

for 272 HUC-12 watersheds22 using standardized protocols (Potyondy and Geier 2011). This

watershed condition classification system, known as the watershed condition framework uses 12 

indicators consisting of attributes related to watershed processes. The indicators and their 

attributes are surrogate variables representing the underlying ecological functions and processes 

that affect soil and hydrologic function. The indicators include: water quality, water quantity,

aquatic habitat, aquatic biota, riparian and wetland vegetation, roads and trails, soils, fire regime 

or wildfire, forest cover, rangeland vegetation, terrestrial invasive species, and forest health. Each 

indicator consists of one or more attributes and is assigned a weighted score. The overall 

watershed rating is based on amalgamated values of these attributes and indicators.

For the majority of the indicators, the Forest Service can take direct action that can contribute to 

maintaining or improving watershed condition, integrity and functionality. This provides a direct 

linkage between the classification system and management or improvement activities the Forest 

Service conducts on the ground (USDA FS 2011b). 

The watershed condition framework and the Forest Service Manual use three classes to describe 

watershed condition (USDA Forest Service 2004, FSM 2521.1) and the condition is related to 

geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity and their functioning relative to their natural 

potential. Following are three watershed condition class ratings: 

• Class 1 watersheds are considered to be functioning properly 

• Class 2 watersheds are considering to be functioning at risk

• Class 3 watersheds have impaired function

 

22 http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/watershed/condition_framework.html 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

285

Assumptions

There are several assumptions about ecological restoration and how different management tools 

may affect water quality, water quantity, and overall watershed condition that described in the 

assumptions section in the “Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystem Integrity” section. There are some 

additional assumptions that inform this analysis as well. 

Water Quality

• Projects developed under all alternatives would implement established best management 

practices to protect soil and water quality (USDA FS 2011b and USDA FS 2012). Based 

on results of past monitoring, best management practices are expected to reduce both 

short- and long-term adverse impacts to less than significant levels. The Forest Service

would continue to follow agency direction to implement an annual best management 

practices evaluation and adaptive management program, following established agency 

monitoring protocols, and report these results to local Regional Water Quality Control 

Boards. 

• The Forest Service would continue to work with local Regional Water Quality Control 

Boards to identify management strategies to address current 303(d) watersheds and 

develop total maximum daily load (TMDL) listings. Projects would comply with 

requirements of the Clean Water Act.

• The Forest Service would continue the transportation analysis planning process to 

systematically identify and address segments of roads that are causing impairment to 

hydrologic function or causing accelerated erosion. 

• The Forest Service would continue to pursue opportunities to retrofit, relocate, or 

decommission roads and trails to reduce potential sediment transport to rivers and 

streams, especially within priority watersheds as outlined in watershed restoration action 

plans. System trails are currently undergoing a similar assessment and retrofit program, 

but are not considered to present the same degree of water quality threat as the road 

network because of their relatively small footprint.

• While uncertainty surrounds climate changes, observed warming air temperatures 

combined with fire suppression and insect outbreaks have changed fire behavior, creating 

the potential for increased size, intensity and frequency of wildfires, and observed 

increases in water temperatures during late summer will continue (Null et al. 2013, 

Knowles and Cayan 2002). 

• Some management activities and forest infrastructure such as mechanical vegetation 

management treatments, roads, campgrounds, and grazing management have the potential 

to cause both short- and long-term adverse impacts to water quality that are evaluated and 

mitigated at the site-specific project level when projects are proposed and designed.

• Forest Service restoration activities, such as landslide stabilization, road 

decommissioning, stream channel, floodplain, and meadow restoration reduce 

sedimentation, and restore resiliency to watershed processes that affect water quality.

• Groundwater serves as a filtering system for surface water and helps maintain beneficial 

temperatures for native fish.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

286

Water Quantity

• The quantity of groundwater is reduced under drought conditions and where infiltration is 

limited by development or hydrophobic soils, which occur in areas of high burn intensity 

after wildfire. 

• The Inyo and Sierra National Forests do not contain a recognized groundwater basin but 

the Sequoia National Forest contains one groundwater basin. The alternatives considered 

in detail would not affect use of groundwater in this basin. 

• The Forest Service would work with the States regarding regulated water rights, 

particularly during periods of drought. 

• Meadow restoration activities would help regulate and extend the season of water flows, 

and may help mitigate climate change effects as flows become more erratic and the 

season for ephemeral flows changes.

• Climate predictions include increased warming, less snowpack, and earlier spring 

snowmelt. These changes would influence the amount of water supply that can originate 

from national forest lands and from precipitation. 

• Climate changes, especially where rain precipitation replaces snowfall, tend to increase 

runoff and reduce infiltration and shallow groundwater recharge. 

• The amount of impervious surface throughout a watershed affects the timing and flow 

characteristics because a greater area of impervious surface reduces infiltration into the 

soil of rain and snowmelt. 

Watershed Condition

• Management direction would provide opportunities to improve watershed conditions to 

protect and restore the high value ecological functions of aquatic and riparian 

ecosystems. Restoration of terrestrial ecosystems would also improve or maintain 

watershed condition by increasing fire resilience, and reducing risk of large high-intensity 

wildfire. Under all alternatives, projects listed in the watershed restoration action plans 

would continue to be planned and completed within the priority watersheds on each 

national forest.

• There would continue to be a risk of adverse resource effects associated with wildfire 

under each of the alternatives, which could result in degradation of overall watershed 

condition. The relative difference in wildfire risk between alternatives is described in the 

“Fire Trends” and “Fire Management” sections. It is assumed that the level of risk of 

adverse effects on soil and water resources can be estimated by the level of risk of 

catastrophic wildfire.

• Stream channel and floodplain restoration efforts planned and implemented, under all the 

alternatives would improve resilience to and mitigate some effects of climate change. 

Geomorphically stable stream channels and floodplains that exist in a state of dynamic 

equilibrium are better able to adjust to climate change impacts to hydrology, without 

resulting in adverse impacts to aquatic habitat, water quality, or water quantity.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

287

Affected Environment

Current Conditions and Trends Common to the Three National Forests

Water Quality

Overall, water quality in the three national forests is good, having benefited from restoration 

projects to treat legacy impacts and because of protective standards and guidelines in the current 

forest plans. Specifically, water quality throughout the southern Sierra Nevada is generally high. 

Water quality is directly influenced by erosion of soils, pollutants, dams, roads, and management 

activities associated with the national forest. Soils are influenced by erosion, compaction, 

pollution, and land-disturbing activities and events. Water quality on the three national forests is 

generally good, due to high elevation sources (USDA FS 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2013d). 

Relatively few areas on the three National Forest have widespread accelerated erosion beyond the 

natural range of variation. Erosion rates far outside of the natural range of variation have been 

observed mainly along roads in steep areas, in developed areas such as ski areas, and after highintensity wildfires. While rilling and gullying are evident at Mammoth and June Mountain Ski 

Areas on the Inyo National Forest, erosion is generally limited to within the ski area boundary. 

Both ski areas have extensive ski run drainage systems and revegetation programs to reduce 

erosion (USDA FS 2013a).

There are an estimated 1,985 miles of National Forest System roads on the Inyo National Forest, 

1,646 miles on the Sequoia National Forest, and 1,969 miles on the Sierra National Forest. The 

estimated sediment yield from these roads is between 0.01 and 0.09 tons per acre per year. This 

compares to an estimated 0.0004 to 0.004 tons per acre per year from vegetation management 

activities USDA FS 2013d).

In the southern Sierra Nevada, fires are often observed to cause increased erosion, both from 

water and wind, and to a lesser extent, from dry ravel (Berg and Azuma 2007). Erosion rates as 

high as 30 to 44 tons per acre per year have been measured following high-severity wildfire. 

These high erosion rates seen after a fire typically decline within 3 to 5 years as vegetation 

recovers. Wildfires and soil erosion are natural processes that help shape forest ecosystems. 

Prescribed fire has not been shown to increase erosion in most studies, due to low fire severity 

that often leaves soil structure and organic matter intact (Moghaddas 2013). Prescribed fire has 

been largely successful in reducing fuels without significantly impairing soil productivity, soil 

stability, or riparian vegetation, which stabilizes soils (DeBano 2000, Bêche et al. 2005, Pettit and 

Naiman 2007, Arkle and Pilliod 2010). 

The effects of fire can be both negative and positive for water quality and quantity, depending 

upon the extent and severity of the fire. Reducing large, high-intensity wildfire is extremely 

important to lower total sediment yields from forests in the Sierra Nevada drainage basins. The 

primary effect of large, high-severity fires on water quality is increased sediment as a result of 

loss of soil cover and soil organic matter, soil hydrophobicity (lack of ability for soil to absorb 

water), and the destabilizing of existing roads, trails, and skid trails (Neary et al. 2005, Hunsaker 

et al., 2013b). Large, high-intensity fires may also cause erosion and changes to the streambed 

that can eliminate vulnerable aquatic populations, degrade water quality, reduce capacity of 

downstream reservoirs, and increase the risk of flood (Long et al. 2013c). Two recent debris flows 

on the Inyo National Forest occurred in watersheds that had recently burned. 

There are also beneficial effects of fire to stream and river ecosystems (such as large wood 

recruitment into streams) that are described more in the “Terrestrial Ecosystems” and “Aquatic 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

288

and Riparian Ecosystems” sections. More information on fire and its effect on hydrologic 

function may be found in the “Fire Trends” section. 

The development of fixed width riparian conservation areas and standards and guidelines in the 

current forest plans have provided an effective level of protection to water quality throughout the 

three national forests. The current Sequoia and Sierra forest plans incorporate a default “half-thewidth” equipment exclusion zone, which can be adjusted as projects are designed, considering 

site-specific conditions. The riparian conservation areas have resulted in reduced soil disturbance 

and erosion in areas of highest risk of sediment entering a stream.

The current plans also have the critical aquatic refuges as described in the “Aquatic and Riparian 

Ecosystems” section above. Critical aquatic refuges focus restoration needs when projects occur 

within or near them. Where roads are used for management actions, managers would look for 

opportunities to maintain, repair, reroute, or improve aquatic organism passages across them 

through stewardship or partnership opportunities. In some cases, critical aquatic refuges lie within 

priority watersheds where essential projects would benefit aquatic species and watershed 

condition overall and critical aquatic refuges would continue to be considered as additional 

priority watersheds are identified over time.

The three national forests have limited direct measurements of water temperature and sediment 

from monitoring. The State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards have established lists of 

impaired waters on or immediately downstream of the national forests using the limited data 

available. The 303(d) list of impaired waters reports on streams and lakes identified as impaired 

for one or more pollutants; the term “impaired” means these waterbodies do not meet one or more 

water quality standards (U.S. EPA 2015). Sometimes these listings result in the establishment of a 

total maximum daily load (TMDL) water quality threshold and management strategy for bringing 

these waterbodies back into an unimpaired condition. Total maximum daily load values have not

been established yet, but some have been identified as needed for these waterbodies. Impaired 

waters are identified through assessment and monitoring programs conducted by volunteer 

networks and other local, State and Federal agencies. Table 68 shows the 303(d) listed 

waterbodies within or adjacent to the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests and cause of the 

impairment.

Based on an analysis of best management practice effectiveness data collected over the past 4 

years (2011 to 2014) the Sequoia National Forest determined that 92 percent of the best 

management practices evaluated were rated as implemented and effective in preventing adverse 

impacts to soil and water quality (Kelley 2015b). The Inyo and Sierra National Forest rated 76 

percent and 77 percent of their best management practices as implemented and effective, 

respectively (Kelley 2015a, 2015c). Data collection and analysis was performed following 

protocols and procedures established for the Regional Best Management Practice Effectiveness 

Monitoring Program (USDA FS 2002). 

Approximately 465 miles of perennial stream channel on the Sierra National Forest were 

evaluated to rate channel type and stability. Stream reaches composed of bedrock or boulders had 

low sensitivity to management activities and made up about 60 percent of the streams evaluated. 

Fifty-four percent of the moderately sensitive channels had poor channel stability, meaning they 

are susceptible to bank and bed erosion (USDA FS 2013c). Similar conditions on the Inyo and 

Sequoia are likely within the same range.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

289

Table 68. 303(d) Listed waterbodies within or adjacent to the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests 

National 

Forest Water Body

Reason(s) for Listing 

(Pollutant) 

Impairment (For 

What Use or 

Benefit?) Possible Causes / Notes

Year to be 

Rectified

Total Maximum 

Daily Load 

(TMDL) Limited

Inyo Hilton Creek Dissolved Oxygen 

Chlorine (Cl)

Fish Habitat Unknown / Upstream from 

Crowley Lake

2021 Yes

Inyo Mammoth Creek Dissolved Oxygen 

Metals (Mn, Hg) Total 

Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Sport Fishing Natural sources (metals) / 

Flows through urbanized 

Mammoth Lakes

unknown Yes

Inyo Mono Lake Chlorine (Cl) 

(Hypersalinity)

N/A Evaporation / Downstream 

from Inyo / Not 303(d) listed 

due to special 

circumstances

Settlement w/Los 

Angeles 

Department of 

Water and Power

Yes

Inyo Rock Creek Total Dissolved Solids 

(TDS) 

Fish Habitat Surface mining / 

Downstream from 

Mammoth Lakes

2021 Yes

Sequoia Deer Creek Ammonia (pH) Fish Habitat Unknown 2021 Yes

Sequoia Hume Lake Dissolved Oxygen Sport Fishing Unknown / Popular 

recreation area

2021 Yes

Sequoia Isabella Lake Dissolved Oxygen 

Ammonia (pH)

Sport Fishing Popular recreation area 2021 Yes

Sequoia Kaweah Lake Mercury (Hg) Ammonia 

(pH)

Sport Fishing Hardrock mining / 

Downstream from Sequoia 

National Forest

2019 Yes

Sequoia and 

Sierra 

Pine Flat 

Reservoir

Mercury (Hg) Sport Fishing Unknown / Popular 

recreation area

2021 Yes

Sierra Willow Creek Temperature Fish Habitat Unknown / Downstream 

from priority watershed

2019 Yes
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

290

Water Quantity

The effects of climate change in the Sierra Nevada range are apparent in rising minimum 

temperatures, earlier snowpack melting, changing stream hydrology, and increased frequency of 

large, severe wildfires (Safford et al. 2012). Climate changes are also expected to change the 

pattern, frequency, and intensity of disturbances (Safford et al. 2012). The result will be increased 

wildfires, doubling the area burned annually by the middle of the 21st century. 

Based on patterns of large flood described previously, the frequency of large floods may be 

increasing. Climate predictions indicate that changes in flow patterns will stress meadows, 

streams, and rivers in several ways. In areas where snow is replaced by rain, the opportunity to 

infiltrate and recharge shallow groundwater is reduced as more precipitation immediately runs off 

the land. Peak flows will be earlier and more intense, possibly increasing erosion and leaving less 

water later in the summer (Hunsaker et al. 2013). Pulses of soil erosion and flooding caused by 

higher rainfall intensity will increase, but the pattern will be highly variable.

Because severe wildfire often leads to high erosion rates from hill slopes and stream channels, as

climate change leads to more intense and larger wildfires, the planning area as a whole will have 

greater erosion rates. If streams tend to dry out earlier in the summer, or formerly perennial 

streams become intermittent, it is likely that there will be less riparian vegetation over time. This 

could lead to increased streambank erosion. Potential climate change effects to nutrient cycling 

and organic matter in soils has not been well studied outside of agricultural systems.

Watershed Condition

The watershed condition framework, completed in 2011, provides a means to evaluate, prioritize, 

and measure progress of restoration across the three national forests and to evaluate alternatives 

(USDA FS 2011b). The three national forests use the watershed condition framework to assess 

and classify the condition of 272 HUC-12 watersheds in the planning area. Most drain to the San 

Joaquin Valley or terminal Great Basin lakes and desert valleys. These waters have been diverted 

in large quantities for agricultural, municipal, commercial, and industrial uses. For example, the 

majority of flows into the Owens River Basin are diverted to Los Angeles via the Los Angeles 

Aqueduct, greatly affecting downstream flows below the Inyo National Forest boundary. 

Properly functioning watershed conditions create and sustain functional terrestrial, riparian, 

aquatic, and wetland habitats capable of supporting diverse populations of species. As noted 

above, assessment of watershed condition is conducted at the HUC-12 watershed level (typically 

10,000 to 40,000 acres). Watershed condition integrates the entire ecological function of a land 

area contained within a given hydrologic boundary. For the three national forests, existing 

assessments describe watershed condition within their administrative boundaries that are subject 

to management by the Forest Service and not lower watersheds and intervening areas that may be 

impacted by agricultural or urban development.

Management activities that affect watershed condition class ratings are not limited to soil and 

water improvement activities, but include a broad array of resource program areas from 

hazardous fuel treatments, invasive species eradication, abandoned mine restoration, riparian area 

treatments, aquatic organism passage improvement, road maintenance and obliteration, and 

others. To achieve a change in watershed condition class will in most cases require changes 

within a watershed that are significant in scope and include treatments from multiple resource 

areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

291

The discussion and analysis of watershed conditions and consequences of selecting forest plan 

alternatives is focused on individual or aggregated effects on HUC-12 watersheds. Some adjacent 

HUC-12 watersheds are hydrologically connected to each other and others are not. Therefore it is 

possible to have one or more HUC-12 watersheds that exhibit poor ecological integrity, adjacent 

to highly functioning watersheds. 

The condition of the HUC-12 watersheds on the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests is 

summarized in Table 69. The condition class area is based on National Forest System lands 

contained within the HUC-12 watersheds. Private lands cover approximately 37 percent of the 

area within the listed HUC-12 watersheds. Class 1 represents watersheds that are considered to be 

functioning properly. Class 2 represents watersheds considered to be functioning at risk. Class 3 

represents watersheds that are considered to have impaired function.

Table 69. Number of and percent of HUC 12 watersheds by condition class on the Inyo, Sequoia, and 

Sierra National Forests

Condition 

Class

Inyo 

(number)

Inyo 

(percent)

Sequoia

(number)

Sequoia

(percent)

Sierra 

(number)

Sierra 

(percent)

Condition 

Class 1

95 76% 20 24% 23 36%

Condition 

Class 2 

30 24% 59 71% 40 63%

Condition 

Class 3

0 0% 4 5% 1 1%

Total 125 100% 83 100% 64 100%

High fuel loads, road density, and road proximity to water, invasive species, and aquatic habitat 

fragmentation due to dams, were the most common stressors affecting watersheds that were not 

properly functioning, or functioning at risk. 

The Inyo National Forest is focusing restoration activities within its priority watersheds to 

minimize past impacts of high road density, high fire risk due to bark beetle infestation, and 

channel destabilization caused by high-intensity wildfires. About 7 percent, or 117 miles of the 

1,640 miles of perennial streams on the national forest are downstream of a dam, where flows are 

determined by both natural precipitation and runoff, and the operations of these dams. As noted in 

Table 69, the Inyo National Forest does not have any watersheds assessed as impaired but 30 are

considered at-risk watersheds.

The Sequoia National Forest has four impaired watersheds. The causes of impairment are habitat 

fragmentation, flow alteration, exotic species, road density, and road proximity to water. Most

properly functioning watersheds occur at higher elevations, in inventoried roadless areas, and 

away from dams on the Sequoia National Forest. The watersheds in fair or poor condition are 

associated with dams on the Kern and Kings Rivers. The Sequoia National Forest is managing its 

current priority watersheds under the Giant Sequoia National Monument Plan because these 

watersheds lie within the boundaries of the Monument (USDA FS 2012).

The at-risk and impaired watersheds on the Sierra National Forest are predominately at lower 

elevations associated with dams, high-intensity wildfires, past logging, and high road densities. 

The 50 dams and diversions on the Sierra limit connectivity of aquatic habitat and affect flow 

over approximately 220 miles of streams on the national forest (USDA FS 2010). Many 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

292

watersheds on the Sierra National Forest have been degraded due to historic wildfire and historic 

salvage logging, high road density, and road drainage issues that have created unstable channels.

Environmental Consequences to

Water Quality and Quantity, and Watershed Condition

This section evaluates how the four alternatives considered in detail affect water quality, water 

quantity, and watershed condition based on the pace and scale of ecological restoration and plan 

components. The first part describes consequences that are common to all alternatives followed 

by a table that summarizes different consequences by alternative and a description of those 

differences.

Consequences Common to All Alternatives

Water Quality

The key water quality indicators are temperature and sediment loading since these factors are 

critically important to aquatic species and the overall health of the aquatic system (see “Aquatic 

and Riparian Ecosystem Integrity” section). Climate change will alter the overall hydrologic 

regime in the Sierra Nevada. The higher ambient air temperatures will cause earlier peak flows 

and lower base flows in the summer and fall throughout the southern Sierra Nevada. All 

alternatives seek to mitigate these effects through restoration to maintain or reduce water 

temperatures and prevent erosion for the benefit of native fish and other species.

The three national forests and their partners are actively implementing restoration actions to 

reduce erosion on roads, trails, dispersed camping areas, grazed areas, and other developed and 

dispersed recreation sites. These efforts are expected to continue, further reducing erosion on the 

national forests. Water quality would be improved where the Forest Service and partners actively 

restore watersheds.

Water quality in 303(d)-listed streams, shown in Table 68, is likely to be unchanged except where 

restoration has occurred and the contaminant is within control of Forest Service management. 

Most of the 303(d)-listed streams on or adjacent to the three national forests are impaired by 

operations of the various hydropower and other dams on the national forests. These dams have 

undergone relicensing from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and have changed some 

operating procedures including maintaining downstream baseline flows. Higher flows from these 

dams, especially where the stored water is cooler than the ambient stream water can help maintain 

cool water temperatures for the benefit of native fish habitat. Other sources of contaminants, such 

as mercury and copper that have caused 303(d) impairment to streams are from geologic or 

legacy sources that are not a result of Forest Service management.

Water Quantity

Climate change will alter timing and distribution of runoff and infiltration to recharge shallow 

groundwater, which affect stream flow and downstream agricultural, municipal, and industrial 

users of both surface water and groundwater. Warming air temperatures will bring about less 

snowfall, more intermittent snowpack at all but the highest elevations, more rain-on-snow events, 

reduced spring snowmelt, earlier and likely lower peak spring runoff, and higher 

evapotranspiration rates for vegetation (Podolak et al, 2015). These impacts reduce the 

effectiveness of precipitation, since snow is stored on the landscape for later release to infiltrate to 

refresh shallow groundwater or runoff to provide stream flow over many months, and higher 

evapotranspiration returns the water to the atmosphere. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

293

Climate change will tend to reduce the overall quantity of water produced by the Sierra Nevada 

affecting both on-forest and downstream beneficial uses. The higher evapotranspiration rates over 

large landscapes will reduce percolation into shallow groundwater storage and reduce baseflow in 

streams that are groundwater dependent (Bales et al, 2011).

All alternatives would work toward ecological restoration and attempt to mitigate effects of 

climate change at varying scales across the three national forests. All alternatives include both 

removal of vegetation through hand thinning, mechanical treatments, prescribed fire, and wildfire 

managed to meet resource objectives. The use of fire to restore landscapes in the Sierra Nevada is 

a key part of all alternatives and has been used for centuries by Sierran tribes to maintain flow 

from springs and streams among other benefits (Parrotta and Troscar 2011, Anderson 2006). 

Taking action to improve or maintain watershed condition will make the forest more resilient to 

climate change (reducing fuel loading in high fire risk areas, restoring meadows and stream 

channel function). As the three national forests in the bio-region increase the pace and scale of 

restoration, including mechanical tree thinning and managed fire, the forests should become more 

resilient to climate change.

Watershed Conditions

The Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests have identified priority watersheds to focus work 

in a way that results in overall benefits to a watershed, rather than restoring disparate locations 

through the three national forests. For all priority watersheds, each national forest has developed 

water restoration action plans, which identify essential projects to restore sites with legacy 

erosion and degraded aquatic and riparian habitats, such as streams and meadows. The watershed 

restoration action plans provide each national forest with a list and schedule of projects to be 

completed and are designed to improve the condition class rating of priority watersheds. As each 

national forest completes these essential projects, they evaluate the watersheds to determine 

whether the projects achieved their goals and track and report projects through national agency 

databases such as the Watershed Improvement Tracking and Watershed Condition and 

Assessment Tracking Tool. The national forests develop funding strategies, focus resources, and 

develop appropriate partnerships to complete the identified projects to maintain or enhance the 

watershed.

The forest plans do not determine the development of new priority watersheds. Instead, watershed 

managers use the watershed condition framework process to select new priority watersheds after 

assessing their need to restore degraded aquatic and riparian habitats based on national forest 

inventory and monitoring data and factors such as interest and availability of partners, the 

presence of a listed or species of conservation concern, and the risk of large high-intensity 

wildfire. Managers will also consider watersheds already identified for fuel reduction and other 

ecological restoration. As new priority watersheds are selected, essential projects are identified in 

watershed restoration action plans. 

Although Forest Service budgets are expected to stay relatively static, with limited funding 

available to meet all the restoration needs currently identified on the three national forests, there 

are increasing opportunities for projects to restore watersheds through State water bond grants 

and other funding. There are a variety of partners interested in applying for grants to accomplish 

work on National Forest System lands. The three national forests have a substantial list of 

potential projects that are either ready to begin or being planned for implementation once funding 

is available. These projects are currently listed in the Watershed Improvement Tracking database, 

and can easily be incorporated into watershed restoration action plans as new priority watersheds 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

294

are selected. The Forest Service anticipates that such partnerships would compete well for these 

and other State funding for potential projects that benefit watershed condition on the three 

national forests. The Sierra National Forest has more additional opportunities to generate funding 

for watershed restoration, through timber harvest receipts and stewardship contracts than the 

other forests.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Alternative A continues the current objectives for reducing fuel loading covering approximately 

10 to 15 percent of the lands needing this treatment to substantially reduce the risk of large highintensity wildfires. The priority for treatment is within the wildland-urban intermix defense and 

threat zones and upland areas with road access and on low to moderate slopes where mechanical 

equipment can operate safely and with minimum ground disturbance. The amount of fuel 

reduction work completed under the existing forest plans is not sufficient to reduce the threat of 

large high-intensity wildfire, so the potential to maintain or enhance watershed condition remains 

low (see “Terrestrial Ecosystems” section). Alternative A does not change the pace and scale of 

terrestrial restoration and retains the restrictive and prescriptive standards and guidelines in the 

current forest plans. While these standards and guidelines serve to protect water quality and 

watershed function in areas where projects occur over the short term, the pace and scale is not 

sufficient to reduce the long-term negative effects from high-intensity wildfire across the 

landscape. Since climate change is likely to increase the risk of high-intensity wildfire, the overall 

impact on water quality and watershed function would decline under alternative A. 

Water Quality

Alternative A maintains current riparian conservation areas and standards and guidelines from the 

current forest plans. Short-term sediment impacts from continuing at the current pace and scale of 

restoration would remain nearly the same. However, long-term indirect impacts would be greater 

from trends of increasing wildfire frequency and fires that burn with higher intensity (see 

“Terrestrial Ecosystems” section). Ecological restoration reduces fuel loading and tends to have a 

dampening effect on wildfire intensity. Wildfire behavior would be less constrained by fewer 

treated acres and be expected to grow larger and burn at higher intensity and may affect multiple 

watersheds. Within the burned areas, these fires destabilize hillslopes and stream channels, 

consume surface litter that protects the soil, and creates hydrophobic soils that can significantly 

limit infiltration and increase runoff. These effects can cause accelerated soil erosion, impaired 

water quality, and reduced watershed function (Neary et al 2005).

Water Quantity

Alternative A would continue to contribute to reduced flows due to higher evapotranspiration 

rates of dense forests over broad landscapes, exacerbated by lower precipitation and higher 

temperatures from climate change. The decrease of winter snowpack and increased proportion of 

rain verses snow reduces the infiltration and increases runoff compared to the past. This would 

potentially cause earlier peak flows, lower late spring and early summer runoff, and lower 

baseflows during the dry season. After high-intensity wildfires greatly reduce vegetation, ground 

cover, and evapotranspiration, runoff spikes are further amplified by the reduction of infiltration 

by hydrophobic soils, for the short term. This runoff carries a high potential for downstream 

flooding, soil erosion, and sediment loading of streams. The overall annual yield of surface water 

is likely to be lower and more difficult to manage and store for beneficial downstream uses (Bales 

et al. 2011).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

295

Shallow groundwater would also potentially be reduced due to maintaining the current pace and 

scale of terrestrial and meadow restoration combined with climate change effects. Deep 

percolation through the soils would be reduced by evapotranspiration in unburned and untreated 

areas and infiltration would be reduced where high-intensity wildfire causes hydrophobic soils.

Water quantity reductions may be mitigated where forest managers actively restore the 

watersheds. Since the current forest plans do not limit watershed restoration, the pace and scale 

may increase as new opportunities and funding sources evolve and partnerships are enhanced to 

complete watershed restoration projects. Shallow groundwater recharge would increase only 

where meadows have been restored, but generally would decline overall across the three national 

forests due to the relatively low pace of restoration.

Watershed Conditions

Alternative A emphasizes restoration activities within priority watersheds to maintain or improve 

watershed conditions. Under the current forest plans, additional watershed restoration occurs in 

areas where mechanical thinning occurs and stewardship opportunities exist. Additional sources 

of funding and assistance through partnerships could be used to improve watershed conditions 

throughout the three national forests. Riparian and aquatic habitat restoration help offset effects of 

climate change on stream temperatures, better maintain baseflows, and can enhance riparian 

condition. However, overall watershed conditions would continue to be at risk from highintensity wildfire and legacy impacts.

The existing forest plans contain specific standards and guidelines and implement best 

management practices to protect soils on steep slopes, especially within the riparian conservation 

area. The critical factors to maintain and enhance soils productivity are to minimize soil 

disturbance and compaction. Alternative A maintains the current pace and scale of ecological 

restoration and all riparian conservation area protections in the current plans.

The existing critical aquatic refuges were created to protect and enhance habitat for aquatic 

species. Alternative A would not add new critical aquatic refuges and would continue to minimize 

ground-disturbing activities within them.

Alternative A is not likely to adequately address watershed condition indicators such as water 

quantity, fire regime, forest cover, and forest health issues such as tree mortality and insect 

infestation over the long term, because these require an increase in pace and scale of terrestrial 

restoration to moderate the risk of large high-intensity fire at a landscape scale. Riparian area 

conditions may also decline over time due to increased risk of high-intensity wildfire within the 

riparian conservation areas.

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

Alternative B proposes to double ecological restoration across the three national forests compared 

to alternative A and would treat 15 to 30 percent of areas identified as needing this treatment to 

substantially reduce the risk of high-intensity fire. These treatments are expected to reduce the 

likelihood of large high-intensity fire compared to current conditions under alternative A but there 

would still be an increasing trend in large high-intensity wildfires due to climate change (see 

“Fire Trends” section). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

296

Water Quality

Alternative B requires the use of best management practices in project design and implementation 

that are effective in reducing soil erosion and sediment delivery to streams in order to protect 

watersheds. The southern Sierra Nevada has large areas where steep slopes and unconsolidated 

granitic and pumice soils are common. However, alternative B maintains the riparian 

conservation areas of generally fixed widths with a default half-the-width equipment exclusion 

zone, which can be adjusted on a project-by-project basis. These riparian conservation areas have 

proven effective at reducing soil disturbance and erosion in critical areas near streams, lakes, 

wetlands, fens and springs.

The proposed use of best management practices, standards, and guidelines in project design and 

implementation would be effective in reducing soil compaction, erosion, and sediment delivery to 

streams to protect watersheds. Short-term sediment impacts from increasing the pace and scale of 

restoration would likely be slightly higher than alternative A but project implementation of best 

management practices, standards, and guidelines should minimize impacts to water quality. 

Although alternative B emphasizes fire’s role in restoring ecological integrity to the landscape 

and would moderate the upward trend of wildfire frequency and intensity, the effects of climate 

change and insect and disease outbreaks over the long term increase the risk of high-intensity 

wildfire over current conditions. The emphasis on restoring low- and medium-intensity fires 

across the landscape (including within riparian areas) would limit the accumulation of fuels, 

restore understory plants of cultural importance to Sierra tribes, and encourage vigorous riparian 

habitats. The long-term potential for indirect impacts of sediment flows to streams is lower than 

alternative A but will still likely increase in the future. High-intensity fires are trending larger and 

may affect entire or multiple watersheds. Within the affected areas, these fires destabilize 

hillslopes and stream channels, consume surface litter that protects the soil, and create 

hydrophobic soils that can significantly limit infiltration and increase runoff. It is these effects 

that contribute to accelerated soil erosion, impaired water quality, and reduced watershed function 

(Neary et al 2005).

Water quality in 303(d)-listed streams impaired due to temperature may be improved due to 

slightly higher base flows caused by lower evapotranspiration on the restored uplands adjacent 

and upstream from affected stream reaches. Restoring meadows would help regulate downstream 

flows and store water under the surface where it maintains cooler temperatures. Riparian plants 

shade streams and would be restored or protected to cool streams. Fuel reduction treatments 

would reduce the potential for high-intensity wildfires. Reducing the risk that high-intensity 

wildfires would kill vegetation, particularly within riparian areas, would maintain cooler water 

temperatures by providing more stream shade (Westerling et al. 2006). This is more important 

considering the expected higher air temperatures (see “Fire Trends” section). Restoration of 

riparian areas and meadows, combined with upland reintegration of fire into the landscape, would 

likely enhance greater infiltration and recharge shallow groundwater. Greater groundwater 

recharge and storage increases baseflow of surface water across the landscape and tends to lower 

water temperatures during the dry season, which provides habitat for aquatic species and water 

sources for terrestrial species (see “Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems” section).

Water Quantity

Climate change is likely to reduce effective precipitation. Deep percolation through the soils is 

reduced by evapotranspiration in unburned and untreated areas and infiltration is reduced where 

high-intensity wildfire has caused hydrophobic soils. Overall, shallow groundwater recharge and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

297

storage is likely to be slightly reduced compared to current conditions due to climate change.

Alternative B would help somewhat to maintain shallow groundwater recharge and storage under 

warming climate conditions.

Mechanical thinning of trees and low-intensity underburning of vegetation would reduce 

evapotranspiration and maintain, slightly increase, or extend the timing of stream flows 

(Hunsaker et al. 2014). Alternative B would treat more area than alternative A, and combined 

with more meadow restoration could increase infiltration on a landscape scale, thereby providing 

more groundwater recharge and storage. Increased shallow groundwater storage potentially 

mitigates some of the impacts from climate change and increases aquatic system resilience, 

stabilizes stream flows, and benefits wildlife dependent on springs. 

Watershed Conditions

Alternative B would address watershed condition factors such as water quantity, fire regime, 

forest cover, and some forest health issues because of the increased pace and scale of terrestrial 

restoration at a landscape scale. Riparian conditions may improve due to less risk of highintensity wildfire within riparian conservation areas, but not as much as alternative D. 

Alternative B proposes a new critical aquatic refuge for the benefit of the black toad on the Inyo 

National Forest and several new critical aquatic refuges within existing wilderness on the Sierra 

National Forest. The opportunity to focus restoration within existing critical aquatic refuges to 

benefit species would be the same as alternative A. The additional critical aquatic refuges in 

alternative B are outside of areas to be actively managed so impacts would be similar to 

alternative A except where new opportunities may present themselves to maintain and enhance 

amphibian habitat on the Inyo and Sierra National Forests. 

Riparian areas are likely to be maintained as restoration activities proceed within riparian 

conservation areas in the short term and improve over the long term compared to alternative A 

from the ecological restoration of adjacent uplands and where restoration of riparian structure and 

native species occurs. The potential for short-term effects from the increased pace and scale of 

restoration would be balanced against the long-term benefits to riparian areas for alternative B.

Soils may be impacted more in the short term due to ground disturbance during restoration 

activities when compared to alternative A, but would improve over the long term where 

restoration has reduced the risk of high-intensity wildfire. The critical factors to maintain and 

enhance soil productivity are to reduce soil disturbance and compaction. The increased pace and 

scale of ecological restoration, especially using ground-based mechanical equipment, causes soil 

disturbance and compaction. Infiltration is reduced on compacted soils and tends to run off and 

increase erosion. The riparian conservation areas and equipment exclusion zones are designed to 

limit soil disturbance adjacent to streams and to provide filter strips to capture erosion from 

adjacent uplands. These filter strips have proven effective in preventing sediment delivery to 

streams and protecting aquatic species such as salamanders (Olson 2015). Alternative B would 

maintain similar riparian conservation area protections and requires the use of best management 

practices to reduce soil compaction and erosion. The potential for short-term effects from the 

increased pace and scale of restoration would be balanced against the long-term benefits to soil 

sustainability for alternative B.

The likelihood of large high-intensity fires would continue to increase but at a lower rate than in 

alternative A. As a result, alternative B fuel reduction work would provide benefits to maintaining 

water and soil quality, and watershed condition over the long term. As the pace and scale of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

298

restoration is increased, including mechanical tree thinning and managed fire, the forests should 

become more resilient to climate change than alternative A. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Alternative C proposes to reduce high-intensity fire risk by increasing the use of prescribed fire 

and actively managing wildfire to meet resource objectives. However, because there would be 

less opportunity to pre-treat fuels in this alternative, there is uncertainty in how much area would

have wildfires managed to meet resource objectives; this in turn leads to a high degree of 

uncertainty regarding how alternative C would affect the landscape condition (see “Terrestrial

Ecosystems” section). Although alternative C proposes to reduce fuel loading more than 

alternative A using fire as the primary treatment method, the challenges of actively managing fire 

without mechanical treatment to lower fuels in the landscape may not result in treating more acres

than alternative A. For this analysis, it is assumed that alternative C would result in approximately 

the same treatment area as alternative A, but treatment would be achieved through different 

means.

Water Quality

Alternative C requires the use of best management practices, standards, and guidelines in project 

design and implementation that are effective in reducing soil compaction, erosion, and sediment 

delivery to streams to protect watersheds. Short-term sediment impacts from emphasizing 

prescribed fire and managed wildfire to achieve restoration goals would be similar to alternative 

A. Alternative C proposes to reduce ground disturbance from mechanical thinning, but would 

likely increase the risk of large high-intensity wildfire (see “Terrestrial Ecosystems” section.) 

Prescribed fire under these conditions is likely to burn at greater intensity than other alternatives 

because of greater fuel loading on the landscape due to less mechanical treatment.

Indirect impacts from high-intensity wildfire is greater than alternative B and similar to 

alternative A over the long term. High-intensity fires are trending larger and may affect entire or 

multiple watersheds causing adverse effects to hillslopes, stream channels, infiltration, and runoff. 

It is these effects that contribute to accelerated soil erosion, impaired water quality, and reduced 

watershed function (Neary et al 2005).

Alternative C would treat only a small proportion of the lands needing treatment to substantially 

reduce the risk of high-intensity wildfire. The staff at each national forest identified lands in need 

of treatment, including all wildland-urban intermix zones and upland areas of low to moderate 

slopes. The pace and scale is not sufficient to reduce the long-term negative effects from highintensity wildfire across the landscape. Since climate change is likely to increase the risk of highintensity wildfire, the overall water quality and watershed function would decline under 

alternative C. 

Water Quantity

Alternative C would potentially cause reduced flows due to higher evapotranspiration by 

vegetation over broad landscapes and across watersheds exacerbated by climate change. The 

decrease of winter snowpack and increased proportion of rain versus snow reduces the infiltration 

and increases runoff compared to the past. This will potentially cause earlier peak flows, lower 

late spring and early summer runoff from snowmelt, and lower baseflows during the dry season. 

Where high-intensity wildfires occur, evapotranspiration would be greatly reduced for a time, but 

the runoff increases reflect additional effects from hydrophobic soils. Alternative C would likely 

reduce annual water yields from surface water.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

299

Shallow groundwater recharge and storage is also potentially reduced due to maintaining a 

similar pace and scale of terrestrial and meadow restoration as alternative A, exacerbated by 

climate change effects. Deep percolation through the soils is reduced by evapotranspiration in 

unburned and untreated areas and infiltration is reduced where high-intensity wildfire has caused 

hydrophobic soils. 

Since alternative C does not limit watershed restoration, the pace and scale may increase as new 

opportunities and funding sources evolve and partnerships are enhanced to bring such projects to 

completion. However, where meadow and other aquatic restoration activities would remain at 

their current pace and scale, shallow groundwater recharge would increase only where the 

meadows have been restored, but generally decline overall across the three national forests.

Watershed Conditions

Alternative C emphasizes fuel reduction within the wildland-urban intermix defense zone and a 

greater reliance on prescribed fire and managed wildfire to reduce the threat of large highintensity wildfires. Alternative C would provide similar direction for protection of riparian 

conservation areas and would place similar emphasis on watershed restoration as alternative B to 

maintain or improve watershed conditions. However, overall watershed conditions would 

continue to be at risk due to large high-intensity wildfire. Alternative C does not limit watershed 

restoration and could utilize additional sources of funding and assistance through partnerships to 

address watershed conditions. 

Riparian and aquatic restoration work to help offset impacts of climate change on stream 

temperatures and availability of water would likely be limited to existing and new priority 

watersheds and completing essential projects within those watersheds. Riparian areas would not 

likely change in the short term but would decline over the long term due to the limited pace and 

scale of ecological restoration of adjacent uplands, except where restoration of riparian structure 

and native species occurs.

Alternative C requires the use of best management practices and maintains riparian conservation 

areas like alternative B, but would have less mechanical treatment so the effects are almost all fire 

related. The emphasis on prescribed fire and managed wildfire would result in less soil 

disturbance and compaction related to equipment use but increased soil impacts from fire. 

Alternative C would have approximately the same effect on soils as alternative A because the 

long-term risk of high-intensity wildfire would remain high and the fire intensity of prescribed 

fire and managed wildfire may be greater than other alternatives. There is more uncertainty in 

analyzing the potential impact to soil sustainability for alternative C.

Alternative C is not likely to adequately address watershed condition factors such as water 

quantity, fire regime, forest cover, and some forest health issues such as widespread tree mortality 

because these require an increase in the pace and scale of terrestrial restoration to achieve 

equilibrium at a landscape scale. Although alternative C addresses the need to emphasize 

managed fire to maintain and enhance riparian areas, the riparian areas overall may decline due to 

increased risk of high-intensity wildfire within the riparian conservation areas.

Alternative C proposes additional critical aquatic refuges on the three national forests for the 

benefit of various aquatic species. These critical aquatic refuges are well distributed throughout 

the national forests both inside and outside wilderness area boundaries. Alternative C presents a 

wide variety of opportunities to focus restoration to benefit specific aquatic species such as the 

Yosemite toad and terrestrial species that need moist habitat such as slender salamanders, as well 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

300

as aquatic biodiversity in critical aquatic refuges across the landscape. It is assumes that as 

restoration work is completed, new priority watersheds would be identified considering the 

restoration needs of these critical aquatic refuges. Since many proposed critical aquatic refuges 

are within areas to be actively managed, additional opportunities would be available to restore 

both terrestrial and aquatic habitats within the critical aquatic refuges for the benefit of species 

and biodiversity. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

Alternative D proposes to double ecological restoration across the three national forests compared 

to alternative B and would address 30 to 60 percent of areas identified as needing this treatment 

to substantially reduce the risk of high-intensity fire. These treatments are expected to reduce the 

likelihood of large high-intensity fire compared to current conditions more than the other 

alternatives (see “Fire Management” and “Air Quality” sections).

Water Quality

Alternative D would require the use of best management practices, standards, and guidelines in 

project design and implementation, and would maintain riparian conservation areas similar to 

alternative B. These would be effective at reducing soil compaction, erosion and sediment 

delivery to streams to protect watersheds. Short-term sediment impacts from increasing the pace 

and scale of restoration would likely be higher than the other alternatives because of the increase 

in treated acres. However, project implementation of best management practices, standards, and 

guidelines should minimize reduction to water quality. 

Alternative D emphasizes restoring ecological integrity to the landscape at an overall pace and 

scale that would reduce the current upward trend of wildfire frequency and intensity. The longterm potential for indirect impacts of sediment flows to streams is lower than all other alternatives 

considered in detail because alternative D would be most effective across more areas at reducing 

high-intensity wildfire. The emphasis on low- and medium-intensity fires across the landscape 

(including within the riparian areas) would limit the accumulation of fuels, restore understory 

plants of cultural importance to Sierra tribes, and encourage vigorous riparian habitats. The longterm benefits of an increased pace and scale of restoration would be reduced impacts to 

watersheds, soils, riparian areas, streams, and aquatic habitats from large high-intensity wildfires 

(Neary et al 2005).

Water quality would be improved where restoration of watersheds occurs, especially in areas 

where restoration of meadows and riparian areas provide greater shallow groundwater storage, 

baseflow, and shading of streams. 

Water quality in 303(d)-listed streams affected by temperature may be improved due to slightly 

higher base flows caused by lower evapotranspiration on the treated adjacent upland areas. 

Groundwater recharge of surface water should be greater due to slightly higher infiltration rates 

across the landscape and restoration of meadows, resulting in higher baseflows and lower water 

temperatures during the dry season. 

Water Quantity

Like alternative B, mechanical thinning of trees and low-intensity underburning of vegetation 

would reduce evapotranspiration and slightly increase or extend the timing of stream flows 

(Hunsaker et al. 2013b). However, alternative D would increase the amount of treated area more 

than other alternatives considered in detail. Combined with potentially more meadow 

restorations, alternative D could increase infiltration on a landscape level and encourage more 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

301

groundwater storage. Encouraging shallow groundwater storage potentially mitigates some of the 

impacts from climate change by increasing aquatic ecosystem resilience, providing more stable 

stream flows, and benefitting wildlife dependent on springs. 

Climate change is likely to reduce effective precipitation. Deep percolation through the soils is 

reduced by evapotranspiration in unburned and untreated areas and infiltration is reduced where 

high-intensity wildfire has caused hydrophobic soils. Overall, alternative D would likely maintain 

current shallow groundwater recharge and storage under conditions of warming climate better 

than the other alternatives. 

Water quantity may be increased slightly where managers actively restore the watersheds. Since 

alternative D does not limit watershed restoration, the pace and scale may increase as new 

opportunities and funding sources evolve and partnerships are enhanced to bring such projects to 

completion. 

Watershed Conditions

Alternative D would address watershed condition factors such as water quantity, fire regime, 

forest cover, and some forest health issues through an increased pace and scale of terrestrial 

restoration. 

Like alternative B, alternative D proposes a new critical aquatic refuge for the benefit of the black 

toad on the Inyo National Forest and several new critical aquatic refuges within existing 

wilderness on the Sierra National Forest. The opportunity to focus restoration within existing 

critical aquatic refuges to benefit species is the same as alternative A. The additional critical 

aquatic refuges in alternative D are outside of areas to be actively managed so impacts would be 

similar to alternative A except where new opportunities may present themselves to maintain and 

enhance amphibian habitat on the Inyo and Sierra National Forests. 

Models indicate that alternative D is the alternative that best achieves landscape-scale reductions 

to the risk of high-severity wildfire and provides the greatest resilience to the effects of climate

change. Riparian conditions may decline due to increased activity within riparian conservation 

areas in the short term but they would improve over the long term from the ecological restoration 

of adjacent uplands and where restoration of riparian structure and native species occurs. The 

potential for short-term effects from an increased pace and scale of restoration would be balanced 

against the long-term benefits to riparian areas.

Similar to alternative B, soil conditions may decline slightly in the short term due to ground 

disturbance by restoration activities but would improve where restoration has reduced the risk of 

high-intensity wildfire. The critical factors to maintain and enhance soil productivity are to reduce 

soil disturbance and compaction. The increased pace and scale of ecological restoration, 

especially using ground-based mechanical equipment, could cause soil disturbance and 

compaction. The riparian conservation areas and equipment exclusion zones are designed to limit 

soil disturbance adjacent to streams and to provide filter strips to capture erosion from adjacent 

uplands. Alternative D maintains similar riparian conservation area protections and requires the 

use of best management practices similar to alternative B. The potential for short-term effects 

from the increased pace and scale of restoration would be balanced against the long-term benefits 

to soil sustainability in alternative D.

Alternative D would increase the pace and scale of ecological restoration to reduce likelihood of 

large high-intensity fires more than the other alternatives. As a result, alternative D restoration 

treatments would provide benefits to maintaining water and soil quality and watershed condition 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

302

over the long term. As forest managers increase the pace and scale of restoration, including 

mechanical tree thinning and managed fire, the forests should become more resilient to climate 

change.

Cumulative Effects 

The present and foreseeable actions of forest managers and landowners determines cumulative 

consequences to water quality, water quantity, and watershed condition. The watersheds on the 

three national forests are part of the greater southern Sierra Nevada ecosystem and are 

administered or owned by the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land 

Management, the State of California, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Southern 

California Edison, several tribes, and thousands of private landowners. The Forest Service 

manages most of the headwaters of Sierra Nevada rivers, some watersheds in their entirety, and 

shares management in parts of many watersheds where ownerships overlap. 

Successful management of shared and adjacent watersheds requires a concerted effort of the 

various landowners and a variety of partners. The Forest Service will continue to work with State 

agencies in the development of total maximum daily load (TMDL) strategic action plans for 

303(d)-listed streams. If sources of impairment are identified related to Forest Service 

management, the action plans may identify mitigation strategies including implementation of best 

management practices, maintenance or decommissioning of facilities, roads, and trails, 

implementation of currently planned restoration projects, and removal of existing stressors. The 

operators of the various dams on these rivers will adapt their operations to meet Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission relicensing requirements and to respond to effects of climate change on 

runoff and baseflows. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the power companies in 

conjunction with the Forest Service will need to address issues as they arise in the future. Private 

landowners and the Forest Service will need to work together to achieve stream and meadow 

restoration where ownership overlaps these areas.

The effectiveness of Forest Service management under all alternatives may be reduced or 

enhanced by the cumulative efforts of adjacent landowners. For all alternatives, without concerted 

efforts by many landowners, especially in the foothill and lower montane zones, the potential for 

long-term adverse cumulative watershed impacts from high-intensity wildfire remains high.

Analytical Conclusions

The alternatives considered in detail outline different approaches to achieving the same overall set 

of goals for maintaining and enhancing watershed health. This section and Table 70 summarize

how well these alternatives are expected to achieve these goals expressed in terms of the 

indicators: water quality, water quantity, and watershed condition. 

Water Quality

Table 70 shows that the alternatives vary in how they emphasize water quality impacts over the 

short term or long term. Alternatives A and C emphasize reduction of impacts over the short term 

through effective filter strips within the riparian conservation areas and less mechanical treatment, 

while alternatives B and D emphasize a long-term approach through an increased pace and scale 

of ecological restoration across the landscape. Alternative D best reduces the overall risk of highintensity wildfire on the three national forests. While short-term impacts of alternatives B and D 

have a potential for sediment delivery to streams due to the increased amount of treatment, 

alternatives B and D provide long-term benefits to water quality by reducing the risk of large 

high-intensity wildfire and resulting sediment more than either alternative A or C. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

303

Table 70. Summary of environmental consequences to water quality and watershed condition by alternative in comparison to current conditions1

Indicator Ecosystem Measure Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Water 

Quality

Risk of short-term sediment impacts Same or little 

change from 

present

Trend slightly to 

worse condition 

than present

Same or little 

change from 

present

Trend slightly to 

worse condition 

than present

Water 

Quality

Risk of long-term sediment impacts Trend to worse 

condition than 

present

Trend slightly to 

worse condition 

than present

Trend to worse 

condition than 

present

Trend slightly to 

better condition 

than present

Water 

Quality

Mitigation of air temperature effects caused by climate change on 

stream temperature

Trend to worse 

condition than 

present

Trend slightly to 

worse condition 

than present

Trend slightly to 

worse condition 

than present

Same or little 

change from 

present

Water 

Quality

Effects to 303(d) listed streams for temperature within or adjacent 

to National Forest System lands

Same or little 

change from 

present

Trend slightly to 

better condition 

than present

Same or little 

change from 

present

Trend slightly to 

better condition 

than present

Water 

Quantity

Shallow groundwater recharge and storage opportunities (based 

on static trend precipitation patterns)

Same or little 

change from 

present

Trend slightly to 

better condition 

than present

Same or little 

change from 

present

Trend slightly to 

better condition 

than present

Water 

Quantity

Shallow groundwater recharge and storage potential factored for 

climate change

Trend to worse 

condition than 

present

Trend slightly to 

worse condition 

than present

Trend to worse 

condition than 

present

Same or little 

change from 

present

Watershed 

Conditions

Opportunities to maintain or enhance watershed conditions Within 

existing critical aquatic refuges for the benefit of aquatic 

biodiversity or to protect specific aquatic species

Same or little 

change from 

present

Trend slightly to 

better condition 

than present

Trend slightly to 

better condition 

than present

Trend slightly to 

better condition 

than present

Watershed 

Conditions

Opportunities to maintain or enhance watershed conditions within 

expanded network of critical aquatic refuges for the benefit of 

aquatic biodiversity or to protect specific aquatic species

Trend slightly to 

worse condition 

than present

Same or little 

change from 

present

Trend to better 

condition than 

present

Same or little 

change from 

present

Watershed 

Conditions

Fire regime and forest health indicator (Watershed Condition 

Framework)

Trend to worse 

condition than 

present

Trend slightly to 

worse condition 

than present

Trend to worse 

condition than 

present

Trend slightly to 

better condition 

than present

Watershed 

Conditions

Soils indicator (Watershed Condition Framework) Same or little 

change from 

present

Trend slightly to 

worse condition 

than present

Same or little 

change from 

present

Trend slightly to 

worse condition 

than present

Watershed 

Conditions

Riparian indicator (Watershed Condition Framework) Same or little 

change from 

present

Same or little 

change from 

present

Same or little 

change from 

present

Trend slightly to 

better condition 

than present

Watershed 

Conditions

Overall resilience to climate change to maintain or enhance 

watershed conditions

Trend to worse 

condition than 

present

Trend slightly to 

worse condition 

than present

Trend to worse 

condition than 

present

Trend slightly to 

better condition 

than present
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

304

Climate change is causing a risk for higher water temperatures throughout the region and requires 

restoration of meadows and riparian areas to mitigate this effect. Alternative D provides the 

greatest opportunity to mitigate the effect of higher air temperatures and subsequent changes in 

precipitation patterns because it treats the greatest amount of acreage.

Water Quantity

The alternatives differ in approach, pace and scale of ecological restoration and may affect 

shallow groundwater recharge and storage. Alternatives A and C would likely maintain shallow 

groundwater at current levels if not for the changing climate tending toward warmer and drier 

conditions in the Sierra Nevada. Even if precipitation remains the same, more rain and less snow 

would reduce recharge and storage and increase runoff. Combined with greater 

evapotranspiration, the precipitation provides less soil moisture for healthy forest vegetation, soil

infiltration, and recharging the shallow groundwater. Alternatives B and D would reduce 

evapotranspiration at a landscape scale and would likely increase the opportunities for infiltration 

across many watersheds.

Watershed Conditions

The watershed condition framework provides a means to evaluate the alternatives considered in 

detail in how they would affect watershed conditions. Critical aquatic refuges provide additional 

protection to watersheds that have high biodiversity of native species or contain sensitive, 

threatened, or endangered species. Since the current priority watersheds and critical aquatic 

refuges are carried through all alternatives, the projects developed to maintain and enhance these 

watersheds would continue to move forward. As watershed restoration action plans in priority 

watershed are completed, new priority watersheds will be identified considering restoration needs 

of critical aquatic refuges. Alternative C may offer additional opportunities for restoration within 

these critical aquatic refuges through partnerships and short-term impacts on water quality would 

be lower due to less use of mechanical treatments. Alternative C also creates the greatest number 

of new critical aquatic refuges, many outside of wilderness boundaries, which could benefit from 

watershed restoration activities focused on enhancing habitat.

Since the watershed condition framework is composed of various indicators, each alternative was 

evaluated on how it would likely effect six key indicators (water quality, water quantity, fire 

regime, forest health, riparian, and soils). Table 70 shows how each alternative would affect these 

indicators. For fire regime and forest health, alternatives A and C are insufficient to maintain 

current conditions when they are influenced by climate change combined with insect and disease 

outbreaks. Alternative B performs better due to the increased pace and scale of ecological 

restoration and alternative D would show more long-term improvement of these indicators. The 

soils indicator would likely be maintained by alternatives A and C, but could decline in the short 

term under alternatives B and D due to the increased amount of mechanical treatments as 

described in the Consequences section above.

A key driver for improving watershed condition across the three national forests is restoration of 

the fire regime and forest health indicators, since long-term water quality and quantity are closely 

linked to these ecosystem conditions. Alternatives A and C would take longer than alternatives B 

or D to restore fire regime and forest health at a landscape level. Alternative D would be most 

likely to maintain watersheds at properly functioning or improve the condition of the greatest 

number of watersheds. Alternative D would also create the greatest number of watersheds on the 

three national forests that would be resilient to the impacts of climate change. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

305

Wildlife, Fish and Plants 

Background

The diverse landscapes of the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests provide a rich array of 

ecosystems and habitat types that support thousands of wildlife, fish, and plant species. These 

diverse landscapes include both the east side and west side of the Sierra Nevada, as well as 

elevations extending from approximately 1,000 feet to 14,494 feet above mean sea level. They 

include a variety of topography, geology and soils, and are influenced by a wide range of 

precipitation and temperature regimes. This diversity is also reflected by six major biological 

provinces present within these three national forests: Sierra Nevada Mountains, San Joaquin 

Valley, Great Basin Desert, Mohave Desert, Tehachapi Mountains, Great Basin, and the Mojave 

Desert (Long et al. 2014). 

The Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forest contain all or portions of 272 watersheds ranging in 

size from 10,000 to 40,000 acres (see the “Water Quality, Water Quantity, and Watershed 

Condition” section on page 282). All of these watersheds drain into the San Joaquin Valley or 

terminal Great Basin lakes (Mono Lake, Owens Lake Playa). There is an estimated 1,640 miles of 

permanent streams are on the Inyo National Forest, an estimated 2,000 miles of permanent 

streams and rivers on the Sierra National Forest, and an estimated 1,280 miles of permanent 

streams on the Sequoia National Forest. This diversity of habitats supports the following species 

diversity.

• The Inyo National Forest has approximately 300 terrestrial wildlife species: 160 birds, 100 

mammals, 30 reptiles, 10 amphibians, and 4 native fish species. There are also two 

federally threatened fish species (Paiute and Lahontan cutthroat trout), five introduced fish 

species, and more than 1,300 plant species (USDA FS 2013a).

• The Sequoia National Forest has approximately 304 species of terrestrial wildlife: 194 

birds, 85 mammals, 25 reptiles, 13 amphibians, and 9 native fish species. There are also 24

introduced fish species and more than 2,000 plant species (USDA FS 2013b). 

• The Sierra National Forest has approximately 302 terrestrial wildlife species: 198 birds, 82 

mammals, 22 reptiles; 15 amphibians, and 9 native fish species. There are also 22 

introduced fish species and more than 2,000 plant species (USDA FS 2013c). 

The Evaluation of At-risk Species

Forest plans are developed to guide the maintenance or restoration of structure, function, 

composition, and connectivity of ecosystems to provide ecological conditions that will maintain a 

diversity of plant and animal communities and support the persistence of most native species in 

the plan area. This analysis focuses on evaluating the consequences of the plan alternatives on atrisk species.

Forest Service at-risk species include two categories: (1) federally designated species and habitat 

(species listed as threatened or endangered, species that are proposed or candidates for federal 

listing, and species with designated critical habitat on the national forests), and (2) Forest Servicedesignated species of conservation concern. In contrast to categories described above that are 

derived under the Endangered Species Act, species of conservation concern is a new category 

developed and used by the Forest Service under the 2012 Planning Rule to describe animal and 

plant species that are known to occur in the plan area and for which the Regional Forester has 

determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

306

species' capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.

23 The species of conservation 

concern list guides forest planning; however, the designation of these species is not a forest plan 

decision. Just as there is a process for U.S Fish and Wildlife Service to change the federal listing 

status of a species; the Regional Forester has authority to change species of conservation concern

lists to reflect new information.

24 The Forest Service “sensitive species” concept is not carried 

forward as part of the 2012 Planning Rule and is therefore not used in these plans.

The basis for the analysis requires a determination of whether plan components such as desired 

conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines provide direction to provide the ecological 

conditions necessary to contribute to the recovery of federally recognized species and maintain 

the persistence of species of conservation concern within the plan area. Plan components were 

developed in an iterative way, which included identifying desired conditions and potential threats 

to species, and identifying whether proposed plan components are sufficient to address species 

and their habitat needs (Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 12.52.c-d). It is also recognized that 

due to circumstances that are neither within the authority of the Forest Service nor consistent 

within the inherent capability of the land, the plan area may be unable to provide the ecological 

conditions necessary to maintain a viable population of a particular species of conservation 

concern. When this occurs, the draft environmental impact statement documents this and where 

possible, focuses on other efforts that are within the capability and authority of the Forest Service.

Prior to issuing a final decision on the proposed forest plans, the Forest Service will consult with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the provisions of section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act, which will include preparation of a biological assessment for federally recognized species. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will provide a formal written response in the form of a 

biological opinion. This formal documentation will be available for the public to review at the 

final stage of planning. In the interim, draft” analytical conclusions for federally threatened, 

endangered, proposed, and candidate species or critical habitats are presented in this draft 

environmental impact statement for early review and comment by the public. 

Federally Listed, Candidate, and Proposed At-risk Species

For each at-risk species federally listed, candidate, or proposed for listing, determinations indicate 

whether alternatives (1) maintain or restore habitats in the plan area to provide the ecological 

conditions necessary to contribute to recovery of threatened and endangered species, and (2) 

contribute to preventing proposed and candidate species from becoming federally listed in the 

future.25 As described above, the extent and condition of habitat were the indicators used to 

determine if such ecological conditions were present to conserve species and to contribute to 

preventing species from becoming listed. The analysis also considers the authority of the Forest 

Service and the inherent capability of the plan area to provide for federally listed at-risk species.

When developing plan components (ecosystem and species-specific) to conserve at-risk 

threatened, endangered, candidate, and proposed species, we: 

1. Considered conservation measures identified in existing conservation strategies and 

agreements relevant to proposed and candidate species in the plan area.

 

23 36 CFR 219.9 24 See Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 chapter 20, section 21.22b 25 Forest Service Handbook 1909.12
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

307

2. Considered limiting factors and key threats to species identified in proposed rules from 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for listing, candidate species assessments, or accepted 

petitions. 

3. Consulted with (and will continue to consult with) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 

the evaluation of existing conditions for proposed and candidate species and in the 

evaluation of plan components designed to conserve the species.

4. Considered collaboration and cooperation beyond the plan area boundary with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, States, tribes, other partners, landowners, and land managers to 

support an all-lands approach to conserve proposed and candidate species. 

Relationship between Forest Plans

and the Endangered Species Act Consultation Process

Forest plans do not have direct effects because they provide a strategic framework for planning 

but no actions are compelled or authorized by the forest plan decision. The analysis of 

consequences for the forest plans consider indirect and cumulative effects that could reasonably 

result from implementation of the plan overall. Information and science based recommendations 

for federally listed species under the Endangered Species Act is included in species recovery 

plans, biological opinions, and critical habitat designations. This information was considered in 

developing plan components that are designed to provide, as appropriate, ecological conditions in 

the plan area necessary to meet the requirements for each at risk species, grouping or ecosystem.

Prior to issuing a decision, the Forest Service will formally consult with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and request a biological opinion regarding the selected alternative and proposed 

forest plans. During the consultation process, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may provide 

additional information that may lead to refined plan components to better conserve habitats and 

contribute to the recovery of listed species. Where appropriate to a programmatic forest plan, 

some consultation direction will be incorporated. For example, the 2014 Programmatic Biological 

Opinion for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog, northern distinct population segment of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog and Yosemite toad applies to all three national forests. Some, but 

not all, of this direction was applied as coarse or fine-filter plan components, though there is still 

other direction that is better suited to apply at the project level since conditions can vary widely. 

Forest plans are intended to be adaptive, and changes can be made for newly listed species, new 

critical habitat designations, or as new information becomes available. Once approved, 

consultation will be reinitiated on the forest plans, as needed. Consultation obligations will still 

apply to site-specific Forest Service actions independent of the forest plan, as required by the 

Endangered Species Act and agency procedures.

Table 71 summarizes the number of federally listed, proposed, or candidate species for each 

national forest by taxonomic grouping. These totals by national forest include some species that 

are found on more than one of the forest planning areas so totals should not be calculated by 

taxonomic group. 

Table 71. Number of federally threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species and species 

with critical habitat occurring in the forest planning areas

Forest Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Fish Invertebrates Plants Total

Inyo 2 0 0 3 3 0 1 9 

Sequoia 2 4 0 1 1 1 2 11 

Sierra 2 1 0 3 2 1 2 11 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

308

Species of Conservation Concern

Table 72 summarizes the total number of species of conservation concern for each national forest 

by taxonomic grouping. Like the previous table, these totals include some species that are found 

on more than one of the forest planning areas so totals should not be calculated by taxonomic 

group. 

Table 72. Number of species of conservation concern occurring in the forest planning areas

Forest Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Fish Invertebrates Plants Total

Inyo 4 4 0 3 1 15 105 132

Sequoia 5 7 0 8 4 6 70 100

Sierra 4 5 0 5 3 3 37 57

At-risk Terrestrial Wildlife Species

Background

This section evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences of the four forest 

plan alternatives on at-risk terrestrial wildlife species and habitat. This analysis evaluates the 

effectiveness of the alternatives to provide direction to create the ecological conditions to 

contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species, conserve 

proposed and candidate species, and maintain a viable population of species of conservation 

concern within the plan areas (the three national forests). 

The need for plan revisions is guided by three primary topics, including “Ecological Integrity” 

which addresses the need to restore the resilience of vegetation and aquatic and riparian 

ecosystems to fire, drought, and climate impacts; restore wildlife and plant habitat and diversity; 

and reduce the risk of wildfire impacts to species and wildlife habitat. An issue related to 

terrestrial wildlife includes the concern that the perceived accelerated pace and scale of potential 

management activities to restore resilience may not provide adequate habitat for wildlife species 

that use forests with large trees and dense canopy cover. Conversely, a second issue is that 

overemphasizing wildlife habitat needs overshadows the resilience and sustainability need of the 

forest itself. There is a concern that wildfires that could be managed to meet resource objectives 

will continue to be suppressed instead. There is also a concern that with climate change and 

drought, aquatic, and riparian systems that provide habitat for many terrestrial wildlife species are 

under increasing stress and in need of restoration to increase their resilience. The four alternatives 

present a range of approaches that address the revision topics and issues, including these issues 

related to at-risk terrestrial wildlife species and habitat.

Conservation Plans as they Relate to Forest Plans

Conservation strategies and assessments provide science-based guidance for conserving and 

recovering species and their habitat. Typically, these are developed as decision-support tools to 

implement conservation measures to achieve conservation goals and objectives specific to a 

single or logical grouping of species. Because scientific information is constantly evolving under 

continually changing conditions, an adaptive planning framework is necessary to allow for 

adjustments in conservation strategies over time.

Conservation strategies and assessments, as opposed to conservation agreements, are not 

themselves “decision” documents because they have not undergone environmental analysis and 

public review. In addition, management recommendation in conservation strategies are often 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

309

developed to optimize benefits to the species regardless of the authority and responsibility of the 

Forest Service and other multiple-use considerations. Where appropriate, the forest plan 

alternatives have incorporated some of the science-based management recommendations from 

various strategies and assessments, but the elements incorporated may vary by alternative. These 

documents are referenced because they serve as a tool to guide forest plan development.

The various conservation strategies, assessments, management plans, recovery plans, and other 

habitat or species-specific documents are also used by forest managers when analyzing the

consequences of site-specific project activities. These guiding documents are expected to be 

revised, replaced, or supplemented as new scientific information based on new data and reports 

becomes available over time. Therefore, the list below only includes those documents known to 

be available at this time or in preparation and is not intended to be a complete or exhaustive list. 

• Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Conservation Assessment (Spencer et al. 2015) 

• Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Conservation Strategy (Spencer et al. 2016) 

• Willow Flycatcher Conservation Assessment (Green et al. 2003) 

• Sierra Nevada Red Fox Conservation Assessment (Perrine et al. 2010) 

• Tricolored blackbird Conservation Plan (Tricolored Blackbird Working Group 2009) 

• California Bird Species of Special Concern (Shuford and Gardall 2008) 

Analysis and Methods

This analysis uses a complementary ecosystem (coarse filter) and species-specific (fine filter) 

approach to assess the alternatives’ potential for providing the habitat characteristics to support 

wildlife diversity and the persistence of native species in each plan area. The coarse filter 

approach assumes that wildlife diversity is broadly dependent upon the integrity of the function, 

composition, and structure of the forest’s terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems. This 

analysis compares the current abundance and condition of various habitats with ecological 

reference conditions (natural range of variation) based on the dynamic nature of ecosystems, 

recognizing they are not static (Landres et al. 1999). It recognizes that disturbances or processes 

(such as fire, flooding, insects, and disease) and responses to those are part of natural ecosystem 

processes. However, because integrity of whole ecosystems does not necessarily address all 

species’ needs, additional fine-filter (species specific) analyses were conducted to ensure that 

persistence is provided for at-risk wildlife species. 

As described in the “Agents of Change” section, a disruption of natural processes (such as the

legacy of fire suppression) can impact diversity and lead to a departure from the natural range of 

variation. Maintaining or mimicking natural processes and naturally occurring structural 

diversity; promoting natural patterns and connectivity; restoring ecosystems, communities, and 

species; and protecting the ecological characteristics required by at-risk species are all means to 

maintain biodiversity in an ecosystem. The coarse-filter and fine-filter approaches used in this 

analysis help to disclose how well each alternative addresses these needs. 

Overall, we used a qualitative approach for this analysis. It is based on scientific literature about 

species, their habitat, and effects of management. The analysis of habitat is based largely on that 

described in the “Terrestrial Ecosystems” and “Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems” sections 

(coarse filter components). The evaluation of environmental consequences to habitat that supports 

species persistence is framed as a risk assessment in terms of alternative effectiveness. However, 

there is a level of uncertainty about the possible effects of forest management and activities on 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

310

habitat that supports species persistence because of gaps in knowledge about the complex 

interaction between species and their habitats (Holthausen 2002) and how some species respond 

to varying degrees of habitat alteration.

The analysis area includes all National Forest System lands within the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra 

National Forests. In some cases, the best available scientific information for at-risk species’ 

ecological relationships originated outside the analysis area. However, indicator measures and 

threat information from within the analysis area were used in making conclusions. Because 

available biological and threat information for federally recognized threatened, endangered, 

proposed, and candidate species differs from information for species of conservation concern, and 

because the Forest Service Handbook outlines different procedures to identify plan components 

necessary to provide for the two groups of species, we used different approaches in their analyses.

Indicators and Measures

The key indicators for the analysis are trends in habitat quantity and habitat condition measured at 

a landscape scale. Primary habitat associations and associated threats are described for each atrisk species.

• Habitat quantity is measured by the potential trend in amount and distribution of habitat 

types in the plan areas over the next 15 to 20 years.

• Habitat condition is measured by the potential trend in resiliency and ability of habitats to 

be adaptable to large-scale disturbances (such as wildfire, insect outbreaks, and drought). 

These indicators were selected because they provide a reasonable assessment of ecological 

conditions needed to contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered 

species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and maintain a viable population of each 

species of conservation concern within the plan areas.

Management direction that may alleviate or exacerbate threats to habitat are evaluated at a 

programmatic level. The draft forest plans do not authorize site-specific projects or activities; 

therefore there are no direct effects from adopting these forest plans. The direct and indirect sitespecific effects will be analyzed when projects are proposed. Although potential short-term 

effects may be described where appropriate, this evaluation focused on longer term (15 to 20 

years) indirect effects.

Much of the analysis is based upon the premise that the natural range of variation provides 

important background information for evaluating ecological integrity and sustainability (Wiens et 

al. 2012). The natural range of variation was used in development of plan direction (desired 

conditions) and the selection of indicators and measures for the analysis because the condition 

and quantity of habitat available to a species helps predict the potential for species distribution 

and abundance within that habitat. Also important in the analysis of ecological integrity and 

sustainability of vegetation are consideration of climate and associated fire trends that may be 

creating a combination of conditions that are outside of the natural range of variation (Safford et 

al. 2012a, Millar et al. 2015).

Coarse-filter plan components (largely centered on desired conditions within the natural range of 

variation) are expected to provide for ecological conditions necessary to maintain the persistence 

or contribute to the recovery of native species within the plan area including at-risk species.26 The 

coarse-filter approach is considered the primary context for evaluating at-risk species. Where 

 

26 Forest Service Handbook 1909.12
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

311

coarse-filter components would not provide sufficient conditions for one or more at-risk species, 

fine-filter (species-specific) plan components, including standards and guidelines, were 

incorporated. 

The analysis involves:

• identifying habitat associations of and threats to at-risk species,

• reviewing plan components that have potential to influence habitat conditions, thereby 

influencing the ecological conditions that would support species persistence,

• evaluating the proposed magnitude of change in the management approach by alternative 

and potential consequences from the management approach, and

• revising plan components (including incorporating fine-filter components where necessary) 

to provide needed ecological conditions. 

Sources of information include: 

• peer-reviewed published literature, general technical reports and other reports by the Forest 

Service and other agencies;

• various databases (such as the California Natural Diversity Database, Forest Service 

Natural Resource Information System Wildlife database, and eBird);

• personal communications with researchers, species experts, and California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife staff; 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife recovery plans for threatened and endangered species;

• the final Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Assessments (USDA FS 2013a, 2013b, 

2013c); 

• the “Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Conservation Strategy” (Spencer et al. 2016); 

“Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Conservation Assessment” (Spencer et al. 2015); “Draft 

Interim Recommendations for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on 

National Forest System Lands” (USDA FS 2015a); Science Synthesis to Support 

Sociological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range (Long et al. 

2014); 

• resource reports for terrestrial ecology, fire ecology, and aquatic ecosystems; and

• Natural Range of Variation Assessment reports for the various habitats in the Sierra Nevada 

as prepared by the Forest Service (Estes 2013a and 2013b, Gross and Coppoletta 2013, 

Merriam 2013, Meyer 2013a, 2013b, Safford 2013, Sawyer 2013, Slaton and Stone 2013a, 

2013b). 

Analysis Area

In general, the analysis area for indirect effects includes all lands managed by the three national 

forests; however, for the purposes of this document it may include areas outside the national 

forest boundaries. In some cases National Forest System lands may provide all or a high 

percentage of the habitat for a given species; however, in most instances, wildlife generally move 

from area to area and habitats on National Forest System lands may be important to a species’ 

survival. Cumulative effects analyses generally include lands within other ownerships 

immediately adjacent to the national forests, including adjacent national parks (Yosemite, 

Sequoia, Kings Canyons, and Death Valley), national monuments (Giant Sequoia and Devil’s 

Postpile), land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (particularly along Highway 395 

and adjacent to the Inyo National Forest), and comparatively smaller sections of State, county, 

and privately owned lands (especially near the Inyo National Forest). For some wide-ranging 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

312

species, the analysis area was a little larger and included an evaluation of connectivity between

larger areas of habitat. For species with migratory or travel routes that extend far beyond the 

Sierra Nevada, management direction under alternatives B, C, and D would only influence habitat 

persistence (both quantity and condition) within the national forest plan areas, but actions that 

occur outside of National Forest System lands is beyond the authority of the Forest Service to 

influence. 

Assumptions

• If a species is associated with a particular habitat, then the condition, amount, and 

distribution of those habitat elements available to the species on the landscape help to 

predict its distribution and abundance within that habitat. 

• Habitat abundance and distribution similar to that which supported associated species 

during conditions as a consequence of evolutionary time, will likely contribute to their 

maintenance in the future (Haufler 1999). Therefore, habitat abundance, distribution, and 

condition similar to that within the natural range of variation for the habitats will likely 

contribute to species maintenance in the future. (See also the “Terrestrial Vegetation 

Ecology” section).

• In general, the further a habitat is departed from desired conditions (natural range of 

variation), the greater the risk to viability of associated species. Conversely, the closer a 

habitat is to desired conditions, the lower the risk to viability of associated species 

Therefore, comparing the degree to which the alternatives trend conditions toward desired 

conditions provides a comparison of each alternative’s viability effectiveness.

• For the purposes of analysis, we are assuming the plan alternatives will be implemented as 

described and objectives will be realized over the life of the plan.

Species Evaluated

The following tables list the names and national forest locations of federally listed species, 

designated and proposed critical habitat, and species of conservation concern we considered in 

this analysis. 

Federally Listed Wildlife Species

Table 73. Federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species for the Inyo, Sequoia, 

and Sierra National Forests

Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Status National Forest

Valley elderberry longhorn 

beetle

Desmocerus californicus 

dimorphus

Threatened Sequoia, Sierra 

Least Bell's vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Endangered Sequoia

Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii extimus Endangered Sequoia

Western yellow-billed cuckoo 

western distinct population 

segment

Coccyzus americanus Threatened Sequoia

California condor Gymnogyps californianus Endangered Sequoia, Sierra 

Sierra Nevada red fox – Sierra 

Nevada distinct population 

segment

Vulpes vulpes necator Candidate Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra 

Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis sierra Endangered Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

313

Federally Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat

Table 74. Federally designated and proposed critical habitats for terrestrial wildlife species on the 

Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests

Species Type of Designation National Forest

Southwestern willow flycatcher Designated Critical Habitat Sequoia

Western yellow-billed cuckoo Proposed Critical Habitat Sequoia

California condor Designated Critical Habitat Sequoia

Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep Designated Critical Habitat Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra

Wildlife Species of Conservation Concern

Mammals

Table 75. Mammal species of conservation concern for Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests

Common Name Scientific Name National Forest

Yellow-eared pocket mouse Perognathus parvus xanthonotus Sequoia

Pacific fringe-tailed bat Myotis thysanodes verpertinus Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra 

Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra 

Pacific fisher Pekania pennanti Sequoia, Sierra 

Sierra marten Martes caurina sierra Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra

Nelson’s desert bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis nelsoni Inyo

Birds

Table 76. Bird species of conservation concern for Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests

Common Name Scientific Name National Forest

Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii brewsteri and E.t. 

adastus Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra 

Kern red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus aciculatus Sequoia

Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor Sequoia

Greater sage-grouse - Bi-state 

distinct population segment

Centrocercus urophasianus Inyo

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra 

American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra 

Great gray owl Strix nebulosa yosemitensis Sequoia, Sierra 

California spotted owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis Sequoia, Sierra 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

314

Terrestrial Amphibians

Table 77. Terrestrial amphibian species of conservation concern for Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra 

National Forests

Common Name Scientific Name National Forest

Inyo Mountain salamander Batrachoseps campi Inyo

Hell Hollow slender salamander Batrachoseps diabolicus Sierra 

Fairview salamander Batrachoseps bramei Sequoia

Gregarious slender salamander Batrachoseps gregarius Sequoia, Sierra 

Kings River slender salamander Batrachoseps regius Sequoia, Sierra 

Kern Canyon slender salamander Batrachoseps simatus Sequoia

Yellow-blotched salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii croceator Sequoia

Limestone salamander Hydromantes brunus Sierra 

Snails

Table 78. Snail species of conservation concern for Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests

Common Name Scientific Name National Forest

Indian Yosemite Snail Monadenia yosemitensis Sierra 

Merced Canyon Shoulderband Helminthoglypta allynsmithi Sierra 

Tight Coin Ammonitella yatesii Sequoia

Butterflies

Table 79. Butterfly and moth species of conservation concern for Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National 

Forests

Common Name Scientific Name National Forest

Behr's Metalmark Apodemia virgulti davenporti Sequoia

Boisduval’s blue Plebejus icarioides inyo Inyo, Sequoia

Tehachapi fritillary Speyeria egleis tehachapina Sequoia

San Emigdio blue Plebulina emigdionis Inyo, Sequoia

Sierra Sulphur Colias behrii Inyo

Square Dotted Blue Euphilotes battoides mazourka Inyo

Mono Lake Checkerspot Euphydryas editha monoensis Inyo

Sierra Skipper Hesperia miriamae Inyo

White Mountains Skipper Hersperia miriamae longaevicola Inyo

Atronis fritillary Speyeria mormonia obsidian Inyo

Apache fritillary Speyeria Nokomis apacheana Inyo

Other Invertebrates

A cave obligate pseudoscorpion, (Tuberochernes aalbui) is a species of conservation concern on 

the Inyo National Forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

315

Affected Environment

The diverse landscapes of the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests provide a rich assortment

of ecosystems and habitat types that support hundreds of wildlife, fish and plant species. These 

landscapes include both the east side and west side of the Sierra Nevada, Glass Mountains, White 

Mountains and Inyo Mountains, as well as elevations extending from approximately 1,000 feet to 

14,494 feet above sea level. They include a variety of topographic, geologic and soil conditions, 

and are influenced by a wide range of precipitation and temperature regimes.

Many of the terrestrial ecosystems that support wildlife species in this portion of the Sierra 

Nevada are outside the range of natural variation due to a variety of past and current land use 

practices as well as changing climate conditions. Past activities like dam construction and water 

diversion, livestock grazing, various kinds of timber harvest, and fire suppression have 

contributed to these vegetation types changing away from their natural states. Changing climate 

conditions like drought and warming temperatures are also fostering increasingly stressed 

vegetation conditions that are vulnerable to high-severity effects of large and frequent wildfires, 

and pest and insect outbreaks, among other disturbances. 

As described in the “Fire Trends” and “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” sections, large fires with 

high-severity effects are occurring more frequently in the Sierra Nevada, particularly in the dense 

forested stands in montane vegetation. Although specific effects are generally not known, these 

fires are having adverse consequences on many species associated with large-diameter trees, 

dense canopy cover, and complex vertical and understory stand structure. For example, fires with 

high-severity effects can completely remove nesting and denning trees, roost trees, structurally 

complex understories that support prey, and denning and cover structures. In addition to fire, large 

trees and groups of trees are dying from widespread insect outbreaks and the spread of diseases 

and pathogens. Drought stress is not only weakening these trees and making them more 

vulnerable to insects, diseases, and pathogens, but it is also causing many trees to die. The sheer 

density of the forests in the Sierra Nevada and prolonged drought conditions pose a significant 

and growing threat to montane habitat and the species associated with it.

Terrestrial ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada are expected to continue to be dramatically 

influenced by changes in climate in the coming decades (Meyer et al. 2012a, 2012b, Mallek et al. 

2012, Safford et al. 2012a). Consequently, the future range of variation in climate exposure for 

these ecosystems will almost certainly exceed the natural range of variation. Changing climate 

conditions have been influencing, and are projected to continue to have effects on terrestrial 

wildlife species. A total of 128 (36 percent) of 358 California bird species are considered 

vulnerable to climate change, including at-risk species like greater sage-grouse, western yellowbilled cuckoo, least Bells’ vireo, and great gray owl (Gardali et al. 2012). 

Climate change has also been correlated with latitudinal and altitudinal range boundary shifts 

(Parmesan 2006, Moritz et al. 2008, Crimmins et al. 2011) as well as phenological shifts (changes 

in timing of migration and blooming) for a variety of plants and animals (Parmesan and Yohe 

2003, Root et al. 2003). Uphill and higher elevation range shifts in response to historical warming 

have been well documented (Lawler et al. 2012). For example, in Yosemite National Park, Moritz 

et al. (2008) found substantial upward shifts in elevation limits of 50 percent of small mammal 

species sampled as well as an expansion of ranges in low-elevation species, contraction of ranges 

in high-elevation species, and changes in the community composition at mid- and highelevations. Forister et al. (2010) found a similar upward shift in elevation range of butterfly 

species in the Sierra Nevada. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

316

In contrast, recent research on range shifts of 73 vascular plant species in various California 

mountain ranges over the last century showed that about half of them had shifted the center of 

their range slightly downhill (Crimmins et al. 2011). Based on their results, the authors suggest 

that cooler and wetter sites at higher elevations have potential to be more sensitive to changes in 

precipitation than warmer and drier sites at lower elevations, which would be more sensitive to 

temperature changes. Under changing climate scenarios, temperature and precipitation can 

interact in a variety of unusual ways that influence vegetation. Crimmins et al. (2011) suggest that 

downhill shifts in species’ ranges are expected to be more likely at these higher elevation wetter 

sites (Crimmins et al. 2011). Although these results are not specific to terrestrial wildlife species, 

which some studies have shown to experience uphill and higher elevation shifts in the Sierra 

Nevada (Moritz et al. 2008, Forister et al. 2010), some terrestrial wildlife species could shift 

ranges in response to precipitation changes. For example, bird surveys along Grinnell transects 

across the Sierra Nevada originally surveyed between 1911 to 1929 and resurveyed between 

2003 to 2008 have provided evidence that bird species may be tracking both precipitation and 

temperature or either over time (Tingley et al. 2009). Some species may not shift at all but show a 

retraction in their range in response to changing climate conditions. 

At the ecosystem level, community composition will change as the ranges of species shift. It 

appears that related species and species in the same ecological community may respond 

differently to changing environmental variables and these disparate responses may result in the 

breaking up of existing ecological communities and formation of novel communities (Root et al. 

2003, Moritz et al. 2008, and Stralberg et al. 2009). This reshuffling of species in communities 

can present species with new challenges such as changes in predator and prey relationships, 

parasitism, and competition. 

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 

Westside Foothill Vegetation

At the lowest elevations, vegetation communities on the west side of the Sierra Nevada (Sierra 

and Sequoia National Forests) primarily consist of blue oak woodlands and chaparral/live oak 

communities. These vegetation types provide cover, food resources (such as acorns and browse

plants), and shelter for a variety of wildlife species. This ecological zone is among the most 

altered and fragmented from urbanization and agriculture, and lies mostly on private land outside 

the national forests (Franklin and Fites-Kaufman 1996, USDA FS 2001). The foothill hardwood 

habitat is one of a variety of known foraging habitats for the Pacific fringe-tailed bats. Great gray 

owls have been found nesting in oaks in the lower elevations (Wu et al. 2015). The upper 

westside foothill vegetation includes ponderosa pine and black oak habitat for Pacific fisher and 

California spotted owl. Pacific fisher in this zone are strongly associated with the black oak 

habitat at the upper elevational end and over half of suitable fisher target cells (delineated as 

hexagonal grid cells) is found in this zone in the planning area. California spotted owls also have 

been found nesting in foothill and riparian habitat and the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests 

have delineated protected activity centers in this zone.

Eastside Arid Shrublands(Pinyon-Juniper, Sagebrush, and Mountain Mahobany)

This zone is occupied by xeric shrub-blackbrush communities, mountain mahogany, sagebrush, 

and pinyon-juniper communities. Changes in climate, fire, and grazing regimes in the late 19th 

and 20th centuries have been particularly important factors influencing the structure, function, 

and distribution of arid shrublands and woodlands in this area (Slaton and Stone 2013a). There 

has been an increased expansion of non-native invasive species, increased density of woody 

shrubs and trees into shrublands, and an overall change in successional pathways, particularly 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

317

related to changing fire regimes. Some pinyon-juniper woodlands have grown into sagebrush 

shrub communities, due to a combination of factors including grazing, fire suppression, and 

climate change. Yellow-eared pocket mouse is supported by habitats like desert scrub, pinyonjuniper, chaparral, and sagebrush habitats. Sagebrush is important habitat for all life history 

requirements for the bi-state distinct population segment of greater sage-grouse. Various at-risk 

butterflies that forage in sagebrush habitats are associated with sagebrush. Pacific fringe-tailed 

bats use pinyon-juniper for foraging.

Montane Forests (Westside and Eastside)

The mixed conifer forest-dominated montane zone includes large areas of varied mixtures of 

ponderosa pine or Jeffrey pine, black oak, sugar pine, incense cedar, and white fir. The mixed 

conifer forests in this zone support a variety of wildlife species including Pacific fisher, California 

spotted owl, and great gray owl, and provide foraging habitat for Townsend’s big-eared bats. The 

mixed conifer habitat, and to a lesser extent montane hardwood forest types in this zone, provide 

the majority of habitat within California spotted owl protected activity centers on the Sequoia and 

Sierra National Forests. A variety of at-risk snails inhabit the spaces within talus deposits, rock 

outcrops, or rock and woody debris within forest habitat in this zone. 

Overall, the vegetation and fire ecology of this zone are far outside the natural range of variation 

and therefore, this zone constitutes a large focus of the restoration needs. Forest density is higher, 

canopy cover of trees is more uniform, small and medium tree density is higher, and large tree 

density is lower than desired (see “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section). Due to the previous 

factors, there is less heterogeneity within stands of trees, which reduces habitat diversity and 

habitat quality. In addition to trees killed from fires, the amount of large trees dying has doubled 

in the last two to three decades across the western U.S. (van Mantgem et al. 2009). Trees are 

stressed by a variety of factors such as drought, air pollutants, and competition. Within this zone, 

wildfires are less frequent than historic, but evidence is strong that they are on average larger and 

more severe than they were pre-European settlement (Collins and Skinner 2014, Safford 2013). 

Overall, resilience of these forests to drought and fire has decreased considerably (Safford 2013).

There are differences in the composition and structure of forests in drier compared to more moist 

parts of the landscape in this zone (Lydersen and North 2012). South- and west-facing slopes are 

drier and more dominated by pines (dry mixed conifer), whereas forests on north- and east-facing 

slopes, with less sun, are more moist and have a greater fir component (moist mixed conifer) 

(Fites-Kaufman et al. 2007). Also, ridges and upper slopes tend to be drier and drainages and 

lower slopes tend to be moister. Historically, under a frequent-fire regime, both the moist and dry 

mixed conifer types had higher levels of heterogeneity than current conditions (Lydersen et al. 

2013). Although it’s not well understood how heterogeneity varied between dry and moist forests 

historically, reconstruction of historic forest patterns suggest that moist sites were denser than dry 

sites. Both types are currently far outside the natural range of variation and have low resilience 

and adaptability to climate changes and insect outbreaks, and high susceptibility to high-severity 

wildfire.

Upper Montane Forests (Westside and Eastside)

On both sides of the Sierra Nevada, upper elevation montane zone forests largely consist of 

conifer forests where snow is the primary precipitation (Meyer 2013a). A mosaic of red fir and 

Jeffrey pine forests dominate, along with interspersed meadows, rock outcrops, lodgepole pine 

and montane chaparral. Red fir and lodgepole pine forests vary widely from open to closedcanopied. Red fir forests provide habitat for a variety of wildlife including great gray owl. Red fir 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

318

forests also overlap a portion of the range of the California spotted owl and some protected 

activity centers in the planning area are found in the upper montane zone. Red fir and lodgepole 

pine forests are the primary habitat of Sierra marten. These forests are less departed from the 

natural range of variation than the montane forests, with fewer changes in forest density, 

heterogeneity, and resilience (Meyer 2013a).

Subalpine and Alpine Vegetation

Above the upper montane zone are the subalpine and alpine zones. The subalpine landscapes 

consist of a mosaic of subalpine forests and woodlands, extensive rock outcrops, scrub 

vegetation, meadows, and riparian corridors (Fites-Kaufman et al. 2007). Since alpine 

environments are found at the extreme end of the temperature gradient in the Sierra Nevada, the 

life forms that are narrowly adapted to those conditions essentially have nowhere to go as their 

environment changes, making them among the most vulnerable to climate change (Sydoriak et al. 

2013). Due to the high elevation on the Sequoia National Forest, the last cold refugia may be in 

the mountains surrounding the Kern Plateau. These alpine ecosystems are more threatened due to 

rapid climate change (Loarie et al. 2008).

Coniferous forests in the subalpine zone in California typically support fewer species of birds and 

mammals than any other major forest type in the state (Verner and Purcell 1988). The reasons, 

though not clearly established, probably involve some combination of climate, short growing 

season, lower primary productivity, moisture stress, and lower production of insects and other 

invertebrates that provide food resources for many vertebrates (Verner and Purcell 1988). Wildlife 

species like the Sierra Nevada red fox use high-elevation barren, conifer and meadow habitats. 

Many butterflies have been located in high-elevation dry and wet meadows and rocky habitat. 

This zone also includes the areas of talus and rock outcrops that support a variety of at-risk 

species. For example, Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep use the upper montane, alpine, and subalpine 

habitats of the plan area, particularly rugged, rocky areas. A variety of snails prefer to seek 

refugia in talus deposits and rock outcrops, particularly on north-facing talus and rocky slopes 

and within woody debris in rocky areas within forests. Sierra marten uses some portions of the 

subalpine zone where dense patches of forest are interspersed with meadows and riparian areas. 

Old Forest

Old forests are located across various elevations and ecosystems. Although old forests tend to 

contain old and usually large trees, tree size varies based on species and site productivity (see 

“Terrestrial Ecosystem Processes and Functions,” “Special Habitats” subsection). The density, 

size and arrangement of individual trees also varies by ecosystem type with higher elevations 

having a more open and scattered arrangement. Old forests at lower elevations tend to contain 

larger trees in a wide variety of densities and canopy covers. Old forests often contain large snags 

and logs in addition to large live trees. The densities of all of these old forest components varied 

widely in the past. Much of the montane mixed conifer and pine forests that contain large, old 

trees are more uniformly dense, with high tree cover, than they were in the past (Safford 2013, 

Stephens et al. 2015, and Collins et al. 2015). There are increased rates of old growth trees dying 

from competition with younger trees for water, climate change that influences carbon balances 

and growth reserves, insect-related mortality, and increased high-intensity fire. Dense, older 

forest conditions are strongly associated with the California spotted owl, Pacific fisher and Sierra 

marten. Individual old growth forest components such as large snags and trees are used by bald 

eagles and California condors.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

319

Complex Early Seral Habitat

For this analysis, complex early seral habitat is defined as the stage of forest development that 

follows a significant mortality event in a mature forest (see “Terrestrial Ecosystems Processes and 

Functions,” “Special Habitats” subsection). Typical major disturbance events in the Sierra Nevada 

currently include large wildfires with high-severity effects and wide-scale insect outbreaks. The 

death of many overstory trees creates openings that allow other plants and tree seedlings to 

reoccupy the site. The complex early seral habitat is often characterized by high densities of 

snags, the development of shrub cover and other native vegetation, downed wood and natural 

conifer regeneration. This transitional seral stage provides important habitat for a variety of birds 

and small mammals which are prey for species such as California spotted owls and Pacific fisher. 

This habitat can also be important for woodpeckers and cavity-nesting birds that benefit from the 

increase in snag habitat and food resources associated with dead and dying trees. With the change 

of vegetation from the natural range of variation, the size and distribution of complex early seral 

habitat in both location and timing has changed with large fires creating very large areas of highseverity fire.

Caves, Cave-like Habitat, and Cliffs

Large cliffs provide habitat for a variety of raptors including peregrine falcon, osprey, bald eagle, 

and golden eagle. Peregrine falcons currently nest in cliff habitat in the Sequoia National Forest. 

Caves and cave surrogates (such as mines, adits, and vacant buildings and structures) can provide 

habitat for many bat species, including Townsend’s big-eared bat and the Pacific fringe-tailed bat, 

as well as a cave obligate pseudoscorpion (Tuberochernes aalbui). Natural caverns and large, 

abandoned mine shafts exist in the three national forest planning areas.

Aquatic Wildlife Habitat 

Meadows

Meadows in the three national forests play important roles in hydrology, water storage, erosion 

control, nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat, and recreation (see “Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystem” 

section). The condition of meadows in the Sierra Nevada bio-region (including all three national 

forests) were assessed and 65 percent of meadow indicators (13 of 20 indicators) were outside the 

natural range of variation for various characteristics related to composition, structure, and process 

(Gross and Coppoletta 2013). In addition, the total area of meadows in the Sierra Nevada has 

decreased due to past and current land use practices such as dams, diversions, and recreation;

upland vegetation encroachment from conifers and sagebrush as a result of fire suppression; or 

from drying due to stream channel incision (Gross and Coppoletta 2013). Meadows will continue 

to be at risk if the precipitation pattern in the southern Sierra Nevada shifts to more rain than 

snow because many meadows are dependent on snowpack to sustain the water table throughout 

the long dry period of summer. 

Meadows provide nesting, burrowing, cover, and foraging habitat for a variety of terrestrial 

wildlife species including mammals that burrow in the ground (like gophers and voles) and are 

prey for a variety of species (like great gray owl and Sierra Nevada red fox), meadow nesting 

birds (such as willow flycatcher), herbivores, insectivorous bats (like Pacific fringe-tailed bats),

and carnivores. Meadows support one or more life history requirements for the following species 

of conservation concern in the three national forests: butterflies, two willow flycatcher subspecies 

(E. t. brewsteri and E. t. adastus), great gray owl, bi-state sage-grouse, Sierra Nevada red fox, and 

Pacific fringe-tailed bat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

320

Lakes and Ponds

Many terrestrial wildlife species depend on habitat surrounding lakes, ponds, and associated 

habitats like marshes to support one or more life history requirements, particularly breeding or 

foraging. For example, bald eagles forage in lakes and other large bodies of water. The peregrine 

falcon breeds near open waters like lakes, ponds, rivers, or wetlands. A variety of bat species 

forage in or near waterbodies, like the Pacific fringe-tailed bat that uses open habitat or dry forest 

where it is adjacent to an open water source. Butterflies often persist adjacent to aquatic habitats. 

Nesting by tri-colored and Kern red-winged blackbirds is strongly associated with marsh habitat 

characterized by cattails and tules. In the Sequoia National Forest, the area surrounding Lake 

Isabella, the Kern River corridor, and South Fork Wildlife Area is a hotspot for many at-risk 

terrestrial wildlife species, particularly migratory birds like the western yellow-billed cuckoo. 

Riparian Forests and Woodlands

Riparian forests and woodlands occur throughout the three national forests and have an 

exceptionally high value for many wildlife species, often supporting a higher concentration of 

species diversity than most terrestrial ecosystems. These areas serve as a link between aquatic and 

terrestrial ecosystems. Overall, within the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin bio-regions, riparian 

areas are outside the natural range of variation at low and mid-elevations, where fire suppression, 

land uses, and water development have been concentrated (Sawyer 2013). Many of the montane 

riparian communities in the three national forests have had an ingrowth of conifers due to the 

absence of fire. Without fire, this ingrowth of riparian forest woodlands will continue. Over the 

next century, climate change will continue to alter hydrologic and precipitation patterns, and the 

role of fire in riparian areas.

Riparian areas provide water, thermal cover, migration and movement corridors, and diverse 

nesting and feeding opportunities for wildlife (Grenfell Jr. 1988). The shape of many riparian 

zones, particularly the linear nature of streams, maximizes the development of a natural edge that 

is used by a variety of amphibians, birds, and mammals, as movement corridors. Riparian forests 

and woodlands provide habitat for all but one (Inyo Mountain salamander) of the at-risk 

salamanders. Montane riparian habitats also serve as important nesting, foraging, and cover 

habitat for a variety of birds. Two endangered species (least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow 

flycatcher) and one threatened species with critical habitat designated (western yellow-billed 

cuckoo) are dependent on low-elevation riparian habitat and are found exclusively in the South 

Fork Wildlife Area, in the South Fork Kern Valley near Lake Isabella. Riparian habitats are also 

especially important for a variety of invertebrates that forage and persist near aquatic features like 

streams. Bats often follow stream courses while foraging for insects, and some bats prefer to nest 

in riparian vegetation. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

321

At-risk Terrestrial Wildlife Species

The following species accounts provide information for listing status, occurrence in each national 

forest, and threats for at-risk terrestrial wildlife species. Primary habitat associations are described 

in Table 73 through Table 75 above. 

Federally Threatened, Endangered,

Candidate, and Proposed Terrestrial Wildlife Species

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle

Status: The valley elderberry longhorn beetle was listed as threatened in the Federal Register on 

August 8, 1980. Critical habitat was also designated at that time in Sacramento County, 

California. A final recovery plan was approved for the beetle on June 28, 1984 (USFWS 1984); 

the three national forests are not within recovery plan areas. The species is primarily found in the 

Central Valley and foothills and does not occur on the Inyo National Forest and has not been 

confirmed in the Sierra or Sequoia National Forests. Some unconfirmed exit holes were recorded 

but beetle exit holes can easily and frequently be misidentified.

Threats: At the time of listing, destruction of riparian habitat was identified as one of the most 

significant threats to the valley elderberry longhorn beetle.27 Since that time, the following four 

specific threats were noted in the 2012 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service analysis on the status of the 

species: (1) agricultural and urban development; (2) levees and flood protection; (3) road 

maintenance and dust; and (4) climate change. The first two threats are outside the authority of 

the Forest Service as these types of activities generally do not occur on National Forest System 

lands and are also managed or operated by other agencies or individuals. 

Direct studies of the valley elderberry beetle near dirt and paved surfaces have shown that its 

distribution was not negatively affected by the proximity to dirt surfaces (Talley et al. 2006). 

Therefore, dust from low traffic dirt and paved access roads and trail did not directly or indirectly 

affect the species or the shrub host species. However, the species is threatened where road and 

trail maintenance and creation, including the construction of associated infrastructure, leads to the 

loss of habitat (Talley et al. 2006). The Sequoia and Sierra National Forests have a number of 

roads and trails that traverse the landscape; however, the species is currently not known to occur 

in the planning area. Elderberry longhorn beetle exit holes have been identified on the Sierra 

National Forest, but the beetle has not been confirmed as valley elderberry longhorn beetle. 

In the long-term, the effects of changing climate conditions can have dramatic effects on species 

like the valley elderberry longhorn beetle because it is specialized on a specific host plant, 

making the beetle less able to adapt to losses in elderberry. Elderberry persists primarily in 

riparian areas which are at risk from continued warming temperatures and drought conditions. 

Warming temperatures could alter the timing of elderberry growth (and season length) and impact 

the quality of the plant as a host for the beetle (Holyoak and Graves 2010). Range shifts may 

occur, which could lead to hybridization with the California elderberry longhorn beetle 

(Desmocerus californicus californicus) (Holyoak and Graves 2010), which occurs at higher 

elevations and areas outside of the Central Valley (Linsley and Chemsak 1972). The species and 

host plant may also be directly affected by large high-intensity wildfire that can kill beetles and

remove host plants. 

 

27 From the Federal Register at 45 FR 52805
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

322

In addition to the threats named by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, habitat for the valley 

elderberry longhorn beetle may be threatened to the displacement of native vegetation by invasive 

plant species. In California, invasive black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), giant reed (Arundo 

donax), and salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) have been shown to displace native riparian vegetation 

(Bossard et al. 2000).

The spread of Argentine ants may also threaten the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Holyoak 

and Graves 2010) but is not considered a current known threat in the three national forests at this 

time. This aggressive ant species may prey on beetle eggs, although the exact mechanism of their 

interaction is unknown (Huxel 2000). The Argentine ant has been shown to be spreading an 

average of 52 feet per year along riparian woodland habitat and displacing native riparian 

invertebrates (Holway 1998). Projections from climate change modeling indicate suitable 

conditions will occur for Argentine ants to continue to spread in California during the next several 

decades (Roura-Pascual et al. 2004, Hartley et al. 2006, and Roura-Pascual et al. 2011).

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

Status: The southwestern willow flycatcher, subspecies extimus,

28 was listed as endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act on February 27, 1995. A final recovery plan was completed on 

August 8, 2002 (USFWS 2002). A final ruling of critical habitat was designated January 3, 2013 

including river corridors in the South Fork Kern Valley in the Sequoia National Forest. The 

riparian vegetation communities of the Kern River Valley, including the South Fork Wildlife 

Areas, are designated as critical habitat for this species.

Within the Sequoia National Forest and vicinity, the primary areas of suitable nesting habitat are 

located on the Kern River Preserve (owned and managed by the California Audubon Society) and 

the South Fork Wildlife Area managed by the Sequoia National Forest. Other areas of potentially 

suitable habitat have been identified on National Forest System lands around Lake Isabella 

including: west of Patterson Lane (including Hanning Flat), Tillie Creek, and the North Fork of 

the Kern River. Currently the Sequoia National Forest has approximately 1,050 acres of suitable 

habitat, all of which is potentially occupied. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife 

manages the Canebrake Ecological Area, which is also on the South Fork of the Kern River 

upstream from the national forest. In the past, restoration actions have created riparian forest, and 

invasive species removal projects have removed tamarisk species (also known as salt cedar) 

primarily in the Kern River Preserve.

Surveys for the flycatcher have been conducted in the Kern River Valley since 1989. The majority 

of the nesting records for this species have been found within the South Fork Wildlife Area and 

the adjacent (upstream) Kern River Preserve. Since 1989, the total number of flycatchers 

documented for this population has ranged between 27 and 44 pairs. Of this number, 5 to 12 pairs 

have been recorded breeding each year in the South Fork Kern Valley on the Sequoia National 

Forest (Whitfield 2014).

Threats: The principal cause of this species’ decline is believed to be the alteration and 

destruction of riparian habitats (USFWS 2002, USFWS 2014b). Other factors contributing to the 

decline include nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds, grazing disturbances, loss of riparian 

habitat due to reservoir and hydroelectric development, fires in riparian habitats, and disturbances 

on wintering grounds outside of the United States (Serena 1982). Locally, tamarisk is spreading 

rapidly at Lake Isabella (USDA FS 2015b). If left untreated, tamarisk is likely to spread and 

 

28 The other subspecies (brewsteri and adastus) are managed as species of conservation concern. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

323

possibly replace currently suitable native willow-cottonwood habitats used by the southwestern 

willow flycatcher and the western yellow-billed cuckoo (USDA FS 2015b).

Although grazing is a threat identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approximately 100 

acres of Sequoia National Forest habitat for this species is outside the fenced and protected South 

Fork Wildlife Area. The 100-acre area within the Lake Isabella Grazing Allotment complies with 

formal biological opinions rendered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the southwestern 

willow flycatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and for proposed critical habitat for western yellow-billed 

cuckoo. Livestock grazing is not a major threat in this area for a variety of reasons including that 

the current timing and intensity of grazing minimizes impacts on mature riparian forest. In 

addition, this area lacks potential to be considered long-term suitable habitat due to frequent and 

long duration inundation episodes under routine operation of the Lake Isabella reservoir which is 

outside the authority of the Forest Service.

Least Bell's Vireo

Status: The least Bell’s vireo was listed as endangered on May 2, 1986 and occurs only on the 

Sequoia National Forest. Critical habitat was designated on February 2, 1994 and but none is 

found within the Sequoia National Forest (USFWS 1994).

There are no recent systematic surveys for the species in the Kern River Valley prior to 1998, but 

sporadic reports of the subspecies were recorded from 1992 through 1996 (Laymon personal 

communication as cited in USACE 2004). Observations included seven documented sightings 

between 1995 and 1997 that included unmated, singing males. Surveys from 1998 to 2003 

detected one singing male in the South Fork Wildlife Area (USACE 2004). Surveys of willow 

flycatchers from 2011-2014 by personnel experienced with least Bell’s vireo recorded no 

detections of the species in the South Fork Wildlife Area (Whitfield 2014). However, two vireos 

were reported at different locations adjacent to the South Fork Wildlife Area in May 2014, one 

pair nested with three eggs but the clutch was lost following nest parasitism by a cowbird 

(Whitfield 2014).

Threats: Across the range of this species, primary threats include the loss or degradation of 

habitat and nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Franzreb 1989, USFWS 2006b, USFWS 

2009b). Unmanaged livestock grazing and other agricultural practices can also degrade habitat in 

some areas (USFWS 2006b). Currently livestock grazing and agriculture development are not 

practiced in the South Fork Wildlife Area. Livestock grazing adjacent to this area is managed 

under a Forest Service allotment management plan and grazing permit, which incorporates 

appropriate measures to eliminate potential impacts to habitat (see threats for southwestern

willow flycatcher above). Populations in Mexico, outside of the authority of the Forest Service, 

also are subject to ongoing habitat loss and uncontrolled cowbird parasitism (USFWS 2006b). 

The primary threats to occupied and potentially suitable habitat in the South Fork Wildlife Area 

of Sequoia National Forest that are within the authority of the Forest Service are high-severity 

wildfire, impacts from recreation, and loss of native riparian forest, including heterogeneity and 

structural diversity, due to the invasion of tamarisk and giant reed (Arundo donax).

Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo

Status: The western distinct population segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo was listed as a 

threatened species on October 3, 2014. On August 15, 2014 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

proposed to designate critical habitat for the western yellow-billed cuckoo and public comment 

subsequently extended the evaluation period to January 12, 2015. Critical habitat has not yet been 

designated for this species but proposed critical habitat occurs on the Sequoia National Forest in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

324

the upstream area of Lake Isabella, the South Fork Wildlife area, and in the adjacent grazing 

allotment.

Currently the 1,050 acres of suitable riparian habitat in the South Fork Wildlife Area is potentially 

occupied by this species during the breeding seasons. Surveys between 1985 and 2000 at the 

South Fork of the Kern River documented an annual average of 10.5 pairs (range 2-24) (USFWS 

2011). Year to year population fluctuations may be influenced by water-level fluctuations at Lake 

Isabella, adverse conditions in the migratory routes or destinations outside of the Sequoia 

National Forest, or some other mechanism that has not yet been identified (Henneman 2010). In 

2010, surveys for the species were conducted along the South Fork of the Kern River, yielding 71 

detections, which potentially represented 20 individual birds, the maximum detected during any 

one survey period (USFWS 2011).

Threats: Much of the substantial historical decline in California has been directly attributed to 

breeding habitat loss from clearing and removal of huge areas of riparian forest for agriculture, 

urban development and flood control (Gaines 1974, Gaines and Laymon 1984, Laymon et al. 

1987, Launer et al. 1990, Hughes 2015). The species also experiences impacts on their wintering 

grounds from loss of riparian habitat and exposure to the pesticide DDT and loss of habitat on the 

international winter range. Locally, in the Sequoia National Forest, habitat for the species is 

threatened by high-severity wildfire and potential conversion from native riparian forest to a 

monoculture of lower value from the spread of tamarisk and giant reed (USDA FS 2015b). 

California Condor 

Status: The California condor was listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 and critical habitat 

was designated on September 24, 1976. Critical habitat has not been designated on Sierra or 

Sequoia National Forests outside of 92 acres within the Giant Sequoia National Monument. 

Recovery plans were written and revised in 1975, 1979, 1984, and 1996 (USFWS 1996).

The expanding population of condors in southern California has recently resumed the use of a 

number of traditional roosting sites (USGS 2010). However, no nesting attempts have occurred 

on the Sequoia or Sierra National Forests since the condor reintroduction program began in 1992. 

Based on the population size and use patterns observed in 2010, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

condor biologist estimated that it would be at least 5 years before condors explore Sequoia 

National Forest with sufficient frequency to establish a reproductive territory (personal 

communication J. Brandt, USFWS 2010). Based on historic and contemporary condor travel 

patterns and continued observations at historically used roost sites on the Sequoia National 

Forest, the highest quality habitat for the condor within the analysis area is represented by the 

upper two-thirds of forested slopes on the west side of the Greenhorn and Breckenridge 

Mountains. Some fly-over activity has been recorded over the Sierra National Forest but there are 

no known modern-day records of foraging or nesting within the Sierra National Forest. 

Threats: As part of its five-year review conducted in 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

assessed the causes of California condor mortality since the condor reintroductions began in 1992 

(USFWS 2013a). According to the most recent recovery plan 5-year assessment, the current 

primary threats to the population are: (1) loss or change in habitats from activities such as 

rangeland conversions, and powerline and wind energy development; (2) predation and disease; 

and (3) lead poisoning, shooting, micro-trash ingestion, organochlorines (especially for birds that 

feed on marine mammals), and climate change. Of these threats, lead ingestion by California 

condors and the subsequent behavioral and physiological effects of lead poisoning, including 

death, is the single most significant threat to the species. Since 2008 the California Department of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

325

Fish and Wildlife has restricted the use of lead ammunition for hunting big game and coyotes in 

the condor range. The State of California is currently phasing in a ban on the use of lead 

ammunition for taking any wildlife statewide by July 2019 but lead use for target shooting could 

still continue.

Sierra Nevada Red Fox 

Status: The Sierra Nevada distinct population segment of the Sierra Nevada red fox was 

designated a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act on October 8, 2015. Before 

2010, two small populations of under 40 adults were known to exist around Mount Lassen Peak 

in the southern Cascades and Sonora Pass on the crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains on the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe and Stanislaus National Forests. It has been confirmed through genetic 

analysis and photo documentation that the Sierra Nevada red foxes in the southern Cascades 

actually range widely, including north into Oregon as far as Mount Hood (USFWS 2015a). 

However, this more secure southern Cascades population is not believed to be connected to, or 

breed with the more southern Sierra Nevada red fox population (USFWS 2015a). Due to the 

threats faced by the Sierra Nevada population and small population size, the Sierra Nevada red 

fox distinct population segment was designated a candidate for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. Known sightings of the species in the Sierra Nevada are limited to the Sonora Pass 

area and recent sightings in Yosemite National Park during the winter of 2013. This species is 

listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act.

Threats: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated a variety of potential stressors from the 

best available scientific and commercial information and determined that the most serious 

stressors impacting the Sierra Nevada distinct population segment at this time include small 

population size and isolation, hybridization with non-native red fox, climate change, and 

competition and predation from coyotes (USFWS 2015b). 

Populations are small and isolated enough to make inbreeding a very real risk (USFWS 2015b). 

Although inbreeding may be an issue now (or in the future), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

lacks clear evidence to indicate that inbreeding depression has occurred (USFWS 2015b). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that although hybridization with non-native red fox 

is not impacting the Sierra Nevada red fox at the subspecies level, it is likely to produce 

population-level impacts in the Sonora Pass area and therefore constitutes a stressor to the distinct 

population segment (USFWS 2015b). There is evidence that hybridization has already occurred 

in the population in the Sonora Pass area (Sacks et al. 2015).

Coyotes chase and kill red foxes and compete with them for prey (USFWS 2015b). It is 

hypothesized that red foxes remain at higher elevations than coyotes, particularly during the 

winter, to avoid interactions with coyotes. Sierra Nevada red foxes also restrict pup-rearing to 

these higher elevation areas. The trend in warming temperatures and reduced snowpack may 

allow coyotes to persist at higher elevations longer, possibly throughout the winters, increasing 

the potential for competition and aggressive interactions with the Sierra Nevada red fox (USFWS 

2015b). 

Climate change also has the potential to threaten the Sierra Nevada distinct population segment 

by causing increased wildfires, and loss of forested habitat from wildfires, drought stress, and 

pathogen and insect outbreaks (USFWS 2015b). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

326

Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep 

Status: The Sierra Nevada distinct population segment of the California bighorn sheep (now 

considered the “Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep”) was listed as an endangered species on April 20, 

1999 in an emergency listing. At the time, the population was thought to total no more than 125 

animals distributed across five areas of the southern and central Sierra Nevada. On August 5, 

2008 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published the final rule on critical habitat designation for 

the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep and made the taxonomic name change to Ovis canadensis 

sierrae (USFWS 2008). At least 90 percent of the critical habitat is within designated wilderness 

areas on the three national forests. 

The most recent estimate shows the population climbing to over 500 animals and the range 

expanding (USFWS 2014a). The Inyo National Forest has the most individuals of the three 

national forests. On the Sierra National Forest, the species has two summer populations that 

migrate to and from winter ranges at lower elevations on the Inyo National Forest (T. Stephenson, 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, personal communication, 2013). The Sequoia 

National Forest has a relatively small amount of designated critical habitat compared to the other 

two national forests. Although not currently occupied, this critical habitat could receive bighorn 

sheep migrants in the future.

Threats: The greatest threat to bighorn sheep is their susceptibility to pneumonia, usually caused 

by the bacteria Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae, which destroys lung tissues and often causes death

(Besser et al 2008, Besser et al. 2014). Domestic sheep and goats carry this and other Pasteurellarelated bacteria, and contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep under range conditions 

can lead to transferring these diseases (Clifford et al 2007). As a result of this threat, the Inyo 

National Forest has vacated, closed, or not authorized domestic sheep grazing within Sierra 

Nevada bighorn sheep habitat. In addition, the Inyo National Forest, working with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, has implemented a risk assessment management plan that provides 

guidance for reducing the risk of disease transmission from other allotments. The Sierra and 

Sequoia National Forests do not currently issue permits for domestic sheep grazing. There are no 

permits for domestic goat grazing on any of the national forests.

Species of Conservation Concern

Nelson’s Desert Bighorn Sheep

Status: Unlike the federally endangered Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, the Nelson’s desert 

bighorn sheep is not imperiled and is considered common and secure throughout its range. The 

focus in this planning effort is whether the local population of bighorn that occurs on the Inyo 

National Forest within the White Mountains can be maintained on the planning unit through 

Forest Service actions. 

Threats: Domestic sheep and goats are host animals for a lung disease that is easily spread and 

are widely reported to have resulted in die-offs of entire bighorn sheep herds in the western 

United States (Besser et al 2008). The White Mountain bighorn population has had this 

respiratory disease since 2009 (CDFW 2015b). The disease is transmitted by domestic goats and 

or sheep through direct contact with bighorn sheep. Concerns about potential spread of disease 

from private livestock were specifically identified in the Chalfant and Hammil Valleys west of the 

White Mountains (CDFW 2015b). Some private land parcels are located immediately adjacent to 

the Inyo National Forest, but the majority are buffered by lands managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management. The Lone Pine and Silver Peak areas are east of Fish Lake Valley (to the east of the 

Inyo National Forest) and there are bighorn sheep located in those areas. These sheep have 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

327

exhibited disease issues and those sheep have been observed crossing Fish Lake Valley and 

entering the White Mountains on the Inyo National Forest. These adjacent mountains are 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management, where the Forest Service has no jurisdiction.

Yellow-eared Pocket Mouse

Status: The yellow-eared pocket mouse appears to have a highly restricted range and is found on 

the eastern slopes of the Piute Mountains and Sierra Nevada along the western fringe of the 

Mojave Desert (USDI BLM 1998). This subspecies has been captured in Kelso Valley, Horse 

Canyon, Sage Canyon, Freeman Canyon, Indian Wells Canyon, and Sand Canyon. Of the three 

national forests, the yellow-eared pocket mouse has only been detected on the Sequoia National 

Forest in the Kiava Wilderness. Similar habitat exists in adjacent canyons. Additional trapping is 

necessary to determine the current distribution of the species.

Little information is available regarding habitat requirements of the yellow-eared pocket mouse. 

The species has been found in Joshua tree woodland, desert scrub, pinyon-juniper, mixed and 

montane chaparral, sagebrush and bunchgrass habitats (Grinnell 1912, Williams et al. 1993). It 

occurs primarily in sandy soils with sparse to moderate shrub cover (Zeiner et al. 1990). 

Elevations of known localities range between 3,380 to 5,300 feet (Hall 1981, Zeiner et al. 1990) 

Threats: No studies have shown a cause-and-effect relationship between yellow-eared pocket 

mice and management activities (USDI BLM 1998). Therefore, only potential threats are 

described for this species. Potential threats include cattle and sheep grazing due to the effects on 

plant assemblages or erosion of soils. Off-highway-vehicle activity and mineral extraction are 

other potential threats, due to their effects on native vegetation. Another potential threat to this 

species is collision with vehicles.

Pacific Fringe-tailed Bat

Status: The Pacific fringe-tailed bat is a subspecies of the fringe-tailed bat (Myotis thysanodes). 

The fringe-tailed bat appears to be in serious decline as historic maternity colonies have 

disappeared and those remaining are significantly reduced in size (Pierson 1998). The Western 

Bat Working Group considers the fringe-tailed bat to be imperiled or at high risk of imperilment 

in the majority of the national forests in California (Weller 2005). The fringed-tailed bat occurs 

throughout the Sierra Nevada Range; however, the species is patchily distributed showing 

irregular patterns of abundance (Bradley et al. 2005, CDFW 2005). The fringed-tailed bat is 

known to migrate, but little is known about the distance traveled or location of winter habitats 

(O’Farrell and Studier 1973). The California Natural Diversity Database has recorded 

occurrences of the fringe-tailed bat from the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. The known 

range of this bat also includes much of the Inyo National Forest (Zeiner et al. 1990).

Threats: Bradley et al. (2005) state that the major threat identified for the fringed-tailed bat is 

loss or modification of roosting habitat. They listed closure or renewed activity at abandoned 

mines, recreational caving and mine exploration, loss of current and future large, decadent trees, 

and replacement of buildings and bridges with non-bat friendly structures as possible causes of 

roost loss or abandonment. Management activities that reduce the number of snags or potential 

creation of snags may reduce available roost sites. Disturbance at roost sites is considered a major 

threat to this species. If hibernating bats are disturbed, they awaken. Arousal from hibernation 

increases the possibility that the bat’s stored fat will be insufficient to survive the winter (USDA 

FS 2005). Pesticides may affect fringed-tailed bats by reducing the quantity of prey or they can be 

consumed and accumulated in the fatty tissues of bats (McCracken 1986). Pesticides in fatty 

tissues are released during hibernation, migration, or periods of stress and may be passed to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

328

nursing young. The emergence and spread of the pathogenic white-nose syndrome fungus 

(Pseudogymnoascus destructans) that infects hibernating bats and is prevalent along the eastern 

one-third of the U.S. has the potential to spread to California. Fringed-tailed bats may be at risk in 

the future from white-nose syndrome.

Townsend’s big-eared bat 

Status: Nearly 20 years ago, Pierson and Rainey (1998) found that the Townsend’s big-eared bat

had shown marked population declines over the past 40 to 60 years. Their results suggested a 39 

percent loss in the number of maternity colonies, a 55 percent decline in the total number of 

individuals and a 32 percent decrease in the average size of remaining colonies. The most notable 

declines occurred in the central Sierra Nevada. This species is known to occur within the Inyo, 

Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests. This species is a candidate for threatened status under the 

California Endangered Species Act.

Threats: According to the Western Bat Working Group, this species now ranks as a high risk 

species due to habitat loss, habitat fragility, trend, and abundance (Piaggio 2005). High risk 

means that threats are well documented, are current and ongoing, and have a high probability of 

substantially impacting the species by reducing habitat over a widespread area. The Townsend’s 

big-eared bat is highly susceptible to human disturbance and colonies are known to abandon roost 

sites after human visitation. The species is particularly vulnerable during the maternity season 

when females are aggregated and rearing defenseless young (Pierson and Rainey 1998). 

Pesticides may affect bats by reducing the quantity of prey or be consumed and accumulated in 

the fatty tissues of bats (McCracken 1986). Pesticides in fatty tissues are released during 

hibernation, migration, or periods of stress and may be passed to nursing young. The emergence 

and spread of the pathogenic white-nose syndrome fungus (Pseudogymnoascus destructans) that 

infects hibernating bats has the potential to spread to California. Townsend’s big-eared bats may 

be at risk in the future from white-nose syndrome which is at time of press, has been verified as 

occurring in Washington State which is far west of previous eastern occurrences.

Pacific Fisher

Status: In October 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing the West Coast 

distinct population segment of fisher as threatened under the Endangered Species Act based on 

potential threats to its habitat from wildfire, some timber harvest practices, and indiscriminate and 

illegal use of pesticides to protect illicit marijuana plantations from rat infestations. These threats 

were subsequently found to be not as significant as previously thought. Although stressors exist at 

varying levels across the distinct population segment, they are not causing significant impacts or 

declines to the population. Therefore, on April 14, 2016 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

decided to not list the Pacific fisher distinct population segment as a federally protected species 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

Although there has not been a definitive census, the current southern Sierra Nevada population of 

Pacific fisher almost certainly numbers less than 500 total individuals (Spencer et al. 2011) and 

probably less than 300 adult fishers and has been stable over the past decade based on occupancy 

estimates from the regional monitoring program (Zielinski et al. 2013). Regardless of the precise 

size, populations of a few hundred individuals, with only a small proportion of breeding-age 

females, are at an elevated risk of disappearing from the area as habitat decreases or is changed 

by unpredictable events such as wildfire. 

Occupancy was estimated separately for three zones in the southern Sierra Nevada population: 

the northwestern (west slope of Sierra National Forest), the southwestern (west slope of Giant 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

329

Sequoia National Monument and Sequoia National Forest), and the southeastern (Kern Plateau). 

The overall probability of occupancy is estimated to be the lowest on the Kern Plateau and the 

highest in the southwestern zone (Zielinski et al. 2013). There was no detectable change in 

occupancy from 2002 to 2009 for the entire assessment area or for any individual zone (Zielinski 

et al. 2013). However, genetic patterns and survey data strongly suggest that the population 

expanded into areas north of the Kings River during the 1990s, before the regional monitoring 

program was established (Tucker et al. 2014).

Habitat modeling conducted for the “Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Conservation Assessment” 

(Spencer et al. 2015) predicted habitat suitability is generally consistent with previous models and 

provides an excellent statistical fit to the fisher locality data. As with previous models and onground habitat assessments, the variables in this model indicated fishers are closely associated 

with forests at intermediate elevations with moderate climate conditions that support many large 

trees within stands having dense, green canopies. Because female fishers have the most stringent 

habitat requirements, the fisher conservation strategy area is based on female habitat requirements 

and breeding range size. The strategy area consists of 1,012 hexagonal cells that include all areas 

considered likely to contribute substantially to sustaining the fisher population over the next 15 to 

30 years (Spencer et al. 2015). Each hexagon represents the size of an average female breeding 

home range (2,471 acres or 3.86 square miles). A hexagon within this grid is considered suitable

if it is similar in composition and structure to actual measured female home ranges. An unsuitable 

hexagon could become suitable in the future. The Sequoia and Sierra National Forests overlap 

with about four percent and 20 percent of all suitable fisher hexagons, respectively. Within the 

Sequoia National Forest, approximately 90 percent of suitable fisher hexagons are found in the 

montane zone and about 9 percent are found in the upper montane zone. In the Sierra National 

Forest, 23 percent of suitable fisher hexagons are located in the westside foothill vegetation, 73

percent in the montane zone, and 3 percent in the upper montane zone (Spencer et al. 2015).

Threats: The greatest threat to Pacific fisher habitat and populations are large-scale, highseverity fire outside the natural range of variation. Large and severe wildfires that kill the 

majority of standing trees can negatively affect fisher habitat by removing canopy cover and 

essential habitat elements (Scheller et al. 2011, Thompson et al. 2011) and these effects may 

persist for many decades until canopy cover and large trees regrow sufficiently (Collins and 

Roller 2013). In light of the low population numbers and narrowly distributed habitat, wildfires 

that burn with high severity over large areas pose a significant risk to the population by reducing 

and fragmenting habitat. 

There is a lack of scientific information on fisher use of burned areas; however, the evidence from 

habitat selection and long-term demographics studies suggests that fishers cannot meet all life 

requisites (establish home ranges or find sufficient resting and denning habitats) within large 

areas burned by high-severity fires (Spencer et al. 2015). Fire size and fire severity have been 

trending upward in low and mid-elevation forests on National Forest System lands over the last 

20 to 30 years, and these trends have been linked to increasing forest fuels from historical forest 

management actions, fire suppression, and climate change (Miller et al. 2009, Miller and Safford 

2012, Safford et al. 2012a, Mallek et al. 2013). Recent fires in the Sierra Nevada have included 

some very large patches of stand-replacing fire, extending for thousands or even tens-ofthousands of acres. This is in direct contrast to the expected size of stand-replacing patches from 

forests in reference landscapes of the Sierra Nevada (areas where the fire regime is minimally 

influenced by humans), where mean stand-replacing patch size is less than 10 acres and 

maximum patch size generally is 250 acres or smaller (Collins and Stephens 2010, Miller et al. 

2012, Safford 2013).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

330

Other major threats to Pacific fisher include timber harvest and habitat fragmentation that remove 

important denning or resting habitat elements or leave the treated landscape in a way where the 

habitat cannot meet the life history requirements of the species (Zielinski 2014). Activities that 

remove large-diameter trees, snags, or logs can severely limit the habitat condition for fisher by 

removing trees used for resting and denning. Down logs provide habitat for prey and cover when 

traveling on the ground. Activities that also create large openings in the canopy in otherwise 

dense canopied forests can also increase fragmentation and reduce the ability of the landscape to 

support fisher. Pacific fishers can be negatively affected by prescribed burning that 

unintentionally burns large-diameter trees that can serve as potential denning sites. Late-season 

prescribed burning has potential to directly threaten fisher denning success (Zielinski 2014). 

Prescribed burning on the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests are planned and conducted to 

consider fisher habitat needs to reduce impacts to large down logs, snags, and potential denning 

trees.

Pacific fishers are anticipated to be highly sensitive to changing climate conditions, particularly in 

the southern Sierra Nevada where there are projected changes in forest composition from mixedhardwood forests to grasslands and shrublands, increases in fire frequency and intensity, and 

losses of large conifer and hardwood trees as fire severity increase (Lawler et al. 2012).

Pacific fishers are also negatively impacted by road-related deaths as well as poisoning from 

rodenticides used in illegal marijuana cultivation (Spencer et al. 2016).

Sierra Marten

Status: In addition to harvest of old forest, martens were trapped for fur until 1954 and it is 

thought that these actions contributed to declining numbers of Sierra marten (Zielinski 2014). In 

the southern and central Sierra Nevada the marten is considered well distributed but not in the 

northern Sierra Nevada (Kucera et al. 1995, Zielinski et al. 2005). Sierra martens are ranked by 

NatureServe as a G4G5 (apparently secure/secure) but S3 (vulnerable) in California. Sierra 

martens are listed as a species of special concern by California Department of Fish and Wildlife 

and were designated a species of greatest conservation need in the 2015 California State Wildlife 

Action Plan (CDFW 2015a). Marten occur in forested areas that receive considerable snowfall 

(Zielinski 2014). The upper montane forests serve as this subspecies primary habitat, which is 

considered within the range of natural variation (Meyer 2013a) on these forests.

Threats: Key risk factors to Sierra marten are climate and climate-driven changes including 

decreased snowpack and altered fire regimes. The capacity of the marten to adapt to climate 

change is limited by its reliance on deep snow for access to prey in winter through subnivean 

(under snow) foraging and caching of food (Hauptfeld and Kershner 2014). The other key risk 

factor is fragmentation (primarily due to roads) and, at lower montane or foothills elevations, past 

timber harvest. In the future, the forested habitat the marten relies upon may be further 

fragmented by changes in macro and micro forest conditions or reduced by increasing wildfires

associated with climate warming (Zielinski 2014 and Hauptfeld and Kershner 2014). A 

vulnerability assessment by Hauptfeld and Kershner (2014) ranked overall vulnerability of the 

marten as moderate/high, due to its moderate/high sensitivity to climate and non-climate 

stressors, moderate adaptive capacity, and moderate/high exposure. Pacific martens are also listed 

as “climate vulnerable” in the 2015 California State Wildlife Action Plan (CDFW 2015a). 

The southern extreme of the range for martens is within the three national forests planning area 

and generally populations at the edges of their range are more at risk than those in the center. 

Martens are extremely sensitive to the loss and fragmentation of mature forest habitat (Zielinski 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

331

2014). Lawler et al. (2012) predicted that the range of marten in California will contract to the 

north and become less common and more fragmented. High-intensity fires have been increasing 

in upper montane red fir forests and this trend is expected to increase with climate change 

(Schwartz et al. 2015). Changes could include a loss of red fir (Lenihan et al. 2003) and lodgepole 

pine habitat (replacement by white fir or loss by high-intensity wildfire) and increased 

competition from other carnivores (like Pacific fisher) no longer constrained by snow levels. 

Also, because of the marten’s aversion to crossing large openings, large fires may fragment 

marten habitat and isolate populations leading to localized extinction. The increase in large trees 

killed by bark beetles will create new snags at the expense of living trees used for resting and 

denning. Finally, increased drying conditions would lead to further deterioration of montane 

meadows. Drier meadows would likely reduce the prey populations on which martens depend. 

Willow Flycatcher 

Status: The willow flycatcher is a polytypic species, with three subspecies breeding in California: 

E. t. brewsteri in isolated patches in northern California and along the western slope of the Sierra 

Nevada; E. t. adastus along the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada; and E. t. extimus

(southwestern willow flycatcher) breeding in riparian areas of southern California, including near 

Lake Isabella (Grinnell and Miller 1944, Unitt 1987, Browning 1993). E. t. extimus is a federally 

endangered species and was described in the federally listed species section above. The boundary 

between E. t. brewsteri and E. t. adastus in the Sierra Nevada and elsewhere is unclear (Sedgwick 

2001), these subspecies are discussed collectively below. The willow flycatcher (E. traillii) is 

listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act; both subspecies E. t. brewsteri 

and E. t. extimus are listed as endangered.

The 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment listed sites on National Forest System land that 

are within the current planning area: eight sites on the Inyo National Forest, eight on the Sierra 

National Forest, and one on the Sequoia National Forest (outside of Giant Sequoia National 

Monument). These sites were considered occupied, historically occupied or conditionally 

occupied based on records of detection. 

The willow flycatchers documented on the Inyo National Forest in the lower Rush Creek area 

occur in atypical habitat. Lower Rush Creek is at roughly 6,500 feet above sea level and lies 

within a matrix of Great Basin big sagebrush scrub. After decades of heavy diversion, it has been 

under passive restoration for 22 years. Livestock grazing, once heavy on lower Rush Creek, has 

been excluded from the riparian corridor for over 10 years by the Inyo National Forest and the 

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Although lower Rush Creek (often referred to as 

the “Rush Creek Bottomlands”) has one of the widest riparian corridors in the Eastern Sierra, the 

corridor’s riparian vegetation can be patchy, with significant amounts of sagebrush scrub mixed 

within patches of riparian obligates that are supported by current and historic side channels 

(McGreedy 2005).

The status of these subspecies on the Sequoia National Forest is not well understood because the 

federally listed southwestern willow flycatcher and nonlisted willow flycatcher subspecies are 

extremely difficult to differentiate in the field. Willow flycatchers have been detected outside of 

the South Fork Wildlife Area and are presumed to be E. t. brewsteri but identity hasn’t been 

confirmed. 

Once common throughout the western United States, the willow flycatcher is gone from much of 

its range. Information from the Sierra Nevada indicates a substantial decline of subspecies E. t. 

brewsteri and adastus during the past 40 years, resulting in the absence or near-absence from 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

332

multiple areas that were historically inhabited (Gaines 1992, DeSante and George 1994, Craig 

and Williams 1998, Bombay et al. 2003, Green et al. 2003, Siegel et al. 2008). 

Threats: Throughout the Sierra Nevada, loss and degradation of riparian and meadow habitats 

due to human influences (Siegel and DeSante 1999; Green et al. 2003) is a contributing factor to 

population declines of breeding willow flycatchers. Degradation could include, but is not limited 

to: (1) changes in hydrological patterns leading to meadow drying, (2) destruction of shrub 

vegetation resulting in loss of nesting sites and cover for predator avoidance, (3) increased 

predator access to meadow interior, (4) loss of foraging substrate and decreased insect abundance, 

and (5) potentially increased contact with brown-headed cowbirds (Green et al. 2003). It has been 

determined that none of the willow flycatcher sites on the three national forests occurs on an 

active livestock allotment. However, recent population declines of E. t. brewsteri observed in 

relatively pristine and seemingly unaffected habitats in Yosemite National Park suggest other 

reasons for these declines, including effects on the wintering grounds or migration routes, and 

climate change (Siegel et al. 2008). These factors, as they affect this species in the three national 

forests, are outside of the authority of the Forest Service to address.

Kern Red-winged Blackbird

Status: The Kern red-winged blackbird inhabits east central Kern County, in Walker Basin and 

on the South Fork of the Kern River on the Sequoia National Forest (Mailliard 1915a, 1915b). 

Important nesting areas are protected on the Kern River Preserve managed by the National 

Audubon Society, Canebrake Ecological Reserve managed by California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, and the South Fork Wildlife Area managed by the Sequoia National Forest. This 

blackbird is a species of special concern for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The breeding population in the South Fork Kern River Valley was estimated to number as many 

as 500 individuals, and a survey in the Walker Basin in 2001 found approximately 50 red-winged 

blackbirds believed to be this subspecies (Gallion 2008). It is unknown if the subspecies 

continues to persist in the Walker Basin. 

Threats: Tamarisk and other invasive plants moving into wetlands along the South Fork Kern 

River may threaten the foraging and nesting habitat of the Kern red-winged blackbird (Gallion 

2008). Any loss of wetland habitat through climate change or human water uses would likely 

adversely affect this subspecies.

Tricolored Blackbird 

Status: The geographic range of this species is restricted to California’s Central Valley and 

surrounding foothills, a few coastal areas, and other scattered sites (Meese et al. 2014). Statewide, 

the population of tricolored blackbirds declined 35 percent, from approximately 395,000 to 

258,000 birds between 2008 and 2011 (Kyle and Kelsey 2011). From 2011 to 2014 the number of 

tricolored blackbirds dropped another 44 percent, from 258,000 to 145,000 birds (Meese et al. 

2014). The blackbird’s historic breeding range in California included the San Joaquin Valley and 

the foothills of the Sierra Nevada south to Kern County, and up to 3,400 feet in Walker Basin 

(Grinnell and Miller 1944). Within the Sequoia National Forest, breeding colonies have been 

recorded only in marshes around Lake Isabella and the Kern River. The tricolored blackbird was 

made a candidate species under California Endangered Species Act, effective January 08, 2016 

with many of the concerns focused on grain fields and nesting colonies in areas of agricultural 

production. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

333

Threats: The greatest effects to this species are related to habitat loss and alteration with virtually 

all suitable habitats being converted by agriculture and urbanization (Meese et al. 2014). In the 

limited habitat for this species on the Sequoia National Forest, loss of tules or cattails to invasive 

species like tamarisk is a major threat. Changes in water levels at Lake Isabella may also be a 

threat, but regulating those levels is outside the authority of the Forest Service.

Greater Sage-grouse Bi-state Distinct Population Segment

Status: The sage-grouse has experienced significant range and population reductions in many 

areas of eastern California and western Nevada where the species is a permanent resident. It is 

designated as a (third priority) California species of special concern in its nesting and breeding 

(lek) grounds. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes this species as a distinct population 

segment under the Endangered Species Act and proposed the bi-state distinct population segment 

of greater sage-grouse as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2013 (USFWS 2013b). 

Through collaborative efforts, a bi-state action plan was developed and funding commitments 

were made which led the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make a final decision in 2015 that 

listing the species under the Endangered Species Act was not warranted (USFWS 2015c).

The bi-state population of greater sage-grouse occurs in portions of Carson City, Lyon, Mineral, 

Esmeralda, and Douglas Counties in Nevada, and of Alpine, Inyo, and Mono Counties in 

California and is only found on the Inyo National Forest. The State wildlife agencies in Nevada 

and California have jointly identified five bi-state area population management units (PMUs): 

Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, Mount Grant-Bodie, South Mono and White Mountains. The most 

recent population study showed that sage-grouse populations within the bi-state area were stable 

from 2003 to 2012 (Coates et al. 2014). One exception was the Parker Meadow population in the 

South Mono Population Management Unit; the study showed that this subpopulation is at risk of 

extinction (Coates et al 2014). However, this subpopulation has relatively low influence on the 

overall population trend averaged across the entire bi-state area (Coates et al 2014).

Threats: Key risk factors to sage-grouse include pinyon-juniper expansion and ingrowth of 

conifers into sagebrush habitats, the spread of invasive species and noxious weeds, predation by 

ravens, and human development. On the Inyo National Forest, pinyon pine has grown into lower 

elevation sagebrush ecosystems at a high rate due to many factors such as wildfire suppression, 

historic livestock grazing, and changing climate (Slaton and Stone 2013a, 2013b). Jeffery pine 

has also grown into sagebrush ecosystems and threatens the condition of sage-grouse habitat.

In addition to conifer ingrowth, cheatgrass is invading sagebrush ecosystems and adversely 

affecting habitat condition. Cheatgrass becomes established after wildfire or other disturbance 

and changes the structure and composition of sagebrush habitat. Consequently, cheatgrass also 

makes habitat more flammable and susceptible to subsequent wildfires (Brooks and Minnich 

2006). 

Past land management practices and weather patterns may be correlated with a decrease in 

understory and shrub cover in sage-grouse habitats that has been linked with increased nest 

predation by ravens (Coates and Delehanty 2010). Although it has not been measured, the extent 

of human development impacting sage-grouse habitat has been limited and most impacts have 

probably occurred on private land development in the Chiatovich Creek area east of the White 

Mountains in Nevada. In addition to reducing and degrading habitat condition, developments can 

impact sage-grouse use and movement in habitats, especially winter range use where new roads 

and housing development fragment habitat. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

334

Bald Eagle 

Status: In 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted the threatened bald eagle in the 

contiguous 48 states due to population recovery. This species is still protected under the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continues to monitor 

the status of the bald eagle at 5-year intervals (USFWS 2009a) and the data indicate highly 

significant increases in California during the period from 1966 to 2007 (14 percent per year) and 

1980 to 2007 (12 percent per year) (Sauer et al. 2008). The bald eagle population in the southern 

Sierras is believed to be stable or slightly increasing. This species is still listed as endangered 

under the California Endangered Species Act. 

Bald eagles can be found as a migrant or wintering bird throughout the Sierras, especially near 

reservoirs, lakes and large rivers. Nesting has been documented at reservoirs on the Sierra 

National Forest (Southern California Edison Company 2011). Nesting has also been documented 

on the Inyo National Forest. 

Threats: Disturbance from recreational activities such as boating, jet-skiing, fishing, and low 

flying aircraft can cause disturbances to nesting birds, but this species also shows some tolerance 

for the presence of humans (Buehler 2000). Timber harvest that removes potential nest or roost 

trees pose a risk. Climate change could reduce reservoir levels and prey availability. Collisions 

with objects, including wind turbines, have also been documented as a threat to bald eagles (Pagel 

et al. 2013). Use of illegal pesticide, such as DDT in marijuana grow sites continues to threaten 

egg shell development of bald eagles.

American Peregrine Falcon 

Status: The American peregrine falcon is a resident breeding and wintering subspecies in the 

southern Sierra Nevada (White et al. 2002). Breeding Bird Survey data indicate significantly 

increasing population sizes of peregrine falcons in California during 1966 to 2007 at 12.8 percent 

per year, and between 1999 and 2007 it increased at 20.4 percent per year (Sauer et al. 2008). 

Peregrine falcons are uncommon on California national forests, including in the three national 

forests. This species was de-listed under both the Endangered Species Act and the California 

Endangered Species Act in 1999. 

In the three national forests, peregrine falcons use many areas for hunting and numerous cliffs are 

suspected or known nesting sites. There are confirmed nests and unverified accounts of the 

species on the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. There are unverified accounts of this species 

on the Inyo National Forest. 

Threats: Disturbance of nests from rock-climbing activities has been documented (White et al. 

2002). Other potential threats include recreation activities, over collecting of chicks by falconers 

and collisions with man-made structures, such as wind turbines. Use of illegal pesticides such as 

DDT in marijuana grow sites continues to threaten egg shell development of peregrine falcon.

Great Gray Owl

Status: Great gray owls are listed as endangered by the State of California. In the central Sierra 

Nevada this species is primarily found within Yosemite National Park and the adjacent Sierra and 

Sequoia National Forests, but breeding has been documented as far north as Plumas County and 

south to Tulare County (Hull et al. 2014, Wu et al. 2015). There is a gap in nest records from 

Calaveras and Amador Counties and between El Dorado and Plumas Counties (Wu et al. 2015). 

About 100 to 200 individuals have been estimated in California since 1980 (Hull et al. 2010a), 

and only 80 were estimated in 2006 (Maurer 2006). Yosemite National Park estimates that it has 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

335

65 percent of the nesting owls in California in what is described as the Sierra Nevada population. 

Recent surveys and genetic sampling of the Sierra Nevada great gray owl population indicate that 

it is s geographically-isolated population of a few hundred individuals in the central Sierra 

Nevada (Hull et al. 2014).

There are currently 11 great gray owl protected activity centers on the Sierra National Forest and 

one on the Giant Sequoia National Monument. There are records of detections at additional 

locations in the Sequoia National Forest but not with confirmed nesting. A landscape habitat 

suitability model used in Yosemite National Park highlights that high suitability great gray owl 

areas are rare within the park with only 0.8 percent of the landscape rated in the highest 20 

percent suitability class (Keane 2011). However, a recent comparison of 47 great gray owl nest 

sites with paired reference sites throughout the Sierra Nevada indicates that this species may 

persist and nest in lower elevations than previously thought, with 21 percent of nests below 3,281 

feet, which corresponds to the lower conifer zone/foothill zone (Wu et al. 2015). Additionally, 

this once perceived conifer forest specialist had 30 percent of all total nests surveyed in large oak 

trees (Wu et al. 2015). This species is not a species of conservation concern for the Inyo National 

Forest because there have been only incidental observation of great gray owls there with no 

known or suspected breeding. 

Threats: Degradation or loss of mid-elevation coniferous habitats and meadows and meadow 

complexes at least 26 acres in size are thought to have degraded great gray owl habitat as a result 

of forestry practices, fire suppression, and rural development (Bull and Duncan 1993, Siegel and 

DeSante 1999, Kotliar et al. 2002, Maurer 2006, Bunn et al. 2007, Steel et al. 2011). Roads, trails, 

and other manmade structures that have modified the hydrologic flows within the meadows are 

another threat. Even-aged stands from past forestry activities, causing a loss of heterogeneity in 

stand structure, created two threats: loss of nesting structure that is hidden from predators and 

open edge areas where predators can easily attack. The most common predator is the great horned 

owl.

The diet of great gray owls is thought to be highly specialized on voles and pocket gophers, both 

meadow-associated species. In a two-year study of cattle grazed meadows on the Stanislaus 

National Forest and ungrazed meadows in Yosemite National Park, a weak negative correlation 

between grazing and vole abundance was found (Kalinowski et al. 2014). However, the weak 

correlation may have been influenced by various confounding variables, including the fact that 

some grazed meadows were surveyed before grazing for the season even began. Winter (1996) 

documented the threat of overgrazing, reducing cover and food sources for voles and pocket 

gophers. The concern lies in unmanaged grazing where plant cover is greatly reduced. 

Human presence during recreational activities has been found to have an adverse effect on this 

species (van Riper III et al. 2013). Collisions with vehicles on roads around occupied meadows 

are substantial threats, in part because the population is so small (Bull and Duncan 1993, Maurer 

2006, Bunn et al. 2007, Steel et al. 2011). West Nile virus infection has also been listed as a cause 

for concern in the owl population (Hull et al. 2010b). 

California Spotted Owl

Status: California spotted owl nesting and roosting locations are strongly associated with mature 

coniferous forests with tree canopy cover greater than 70 percent, multilayered canopies, and an 

abundance of large trees and snags (Forsman et al. 1984, Bias and Guitierrez 1992, Call et al. 

1992, Verner et al. 1992, Bond et al. 2004, Chatfield 2005). Territory occupancy is positively 

related to the amounts of mature forest at core area scales, with higher colonization rates and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

336

lower extinction rates associated with territories having more mature forest (Blakesley et al. 2005, 

Dugger et al. 2011, Seamans and Gutiérrez 2007). California spotted owls nest in cavities, on tops 

of broken trees, and on platforms located in older, large-diameter live conifers, oaks, and snags. 

Conifer nest trees average about 45 inches diameter at breast height in the Sierra Nevada (Verner 

et al. 1992). California spotted owl foraging habitat consists of a broader range of vegetation 

types that may include younger, more open habitat (Williams et al. 2011, Roberts and North 2012, 

Keane 2014). These foraging patterns may be driven by the abundance and availability of 

important prey species. It has been suggested that some level of landscape (forest) heterogeneity 

may be an important consideration for California spotted owl management and can improve 

conservation (Williams et al. 2011, Roberts and North 2012). A synthesis of recent research 

indicates that higher California spotted owl survival and reproduction are associated with areas 

that have a mix of different vegetation types and edge between mature forest and other vegetation 

types (Keane 2014).

There are 238 protected activity centers on the Sierra National Forest and 71 protected activity 

centers on the Sequoia National Forest, excluding the Giant Sequoia National Monument. There 

are no California spotted owls on the Inyo National Forest. On the Sierra National Forest, 

approximately 50 percent of the overall protected activity centers acreage is in the mixed conifer 

vegetation type. On the Sequoia National Forest, approximately 32 percent of the protected 

activity center acreage is in the mixed conifer vegetation type and 23 percent is in montane 

hardwood and montane hardwood conifer vegetation types. 

For all protected activity centers combined, 233 contain both dry and moist mixed conifer 

vegetation type, and 4 contain only dry mixed conifer. Dry mixed conifer comprises 21 percent of 

all vegetation types within all protected activity centers on the Sequoia and Sierra National 

Forests combined, and 45 protected activity centers contain more than 50 percent of the protected 

activity center in the dry mixed conifer vegetation type. Moist mixed conifer vegetation 

comprises 24 percent of all vegetation types within protected activity centers on the Sequoia and 

Sierra National Forests combined and 49 protected activity centers contain more than 50 percent 

moist mixed conifer. 

California spotted owls are currently distributed relatively continuously and uniformly throughout 

their range in the Sierra Nevada (Verner et al. 1992, Noon and McKelvey 1996), although 

concern exists for fragmentation effects at finer scales due to habitat changes (Gutiérrez and 

Harrison 1996). The majority of owls occur within the mid-elevation, mixed-conifer forests on 

the west slope of the Sierra Nevada. Some owls also occur at lower elevations in the oak 

woodlands of the western foothills in the southern Sierra Nevada, at higher elevations in red-fir 

forests, and in conifer forests on the eastern slope of the mountains (Verner et al. 1992). Gradual, 

but steady population declines of California spotted owl over the past 20 years have been 

observed across the entire Sierra Nevada (Keane 2014). Conner et al. (2013) used a Bayesian 

approach for estimating the probability of different levels of population decline using realized 

population change and reported a 78 percent probability that a decline was occurring on the Sierra 

National Forest and an 8 percent probability of a stable or increasing population in the Sequoia 

and Kings Canyon National Parks. The factors driving these population trends are not known, and 

likely involve a complex interaction of multiple current and past factors.

Threats: Large, high-severity fires, which are occurring more frequently in the Sierra Nevada, 

are a major threat to the California spotted owl (USFWS 2006a). Large-scale stand replacing fires 

can be detrimental to California spotted owls, at least in the short term, because severely burned 

areas do not contain habitat features important to California spotted owls (Anthony and Clark 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

337

2008). High-severity fires that kill most or all of the living trees effectively reduce the availability 

of preferred nesting and roosting habitat, including dense canopy cover, multilayered canopies, 

and an abundance of large trees that can take centuries to regrow. In southwest Oregon, Clark 

(2007) and Clark et al. (2011) found that annual survival rates were lower in northern spotted 

owls inhabiting burned areas or displaced by the wildfire as compared to owls that inhabited areas 

outside the burn perimeter.

The rate of loss of protected activity centers from wildfire in the Sierra Nevada is alarming. From 

2003 to 2008, a Geographic Information System (GIS) exercise by the Forest Service found that 

33 protected activity centers had more than 75 percent of their area burned at either high or 

moderate severity, and rendered unusable by California spotted owl, due to eight major wildfires 

on National Forest System lands (see Table 1 and footnotes in Yasuda 2008). For example, in 

2007, the Moonlight fire on the Plumas National Forest burned approximately 46,000 acres on 

National Forest System lands (31,682 acres at high and moderate-high severity) (Rotta 2011). 

This fire resulted in the long-term loss of 17 California spotted owl protected activity centers as 

well as the removal of 96 percent of the suitable nesting habitat and 86 percent of the suitable 

foraging habitat within the landscape (Rotta 2011). From just two wildfires (King and Rim) in 

two years (2013 and 2014), 20 protected activity centers were burned at high severity in the 

central Sierra Nevada; 14 were lost completely from the landscape and six were able to be remapped in nearby green forest. Re-mapped protected activity centers are based entirely upon 

available habitat and may or not may not be inhabited by owls. 

California spotted owls seem to be able to persist in landscapes that experience low- to moderateseverity fire, as well as some level of mixed-severity wildfire (Keane 2014). All of these fire 

severities are beneficial for prey species. Low to moderate severity fires, which were historically 

common within Sierra Nevada montane forests, maintained important habitat characteristics for 

California spotted owl site occupancy (Roberts et al 2011). A high level of uncertainty remains 

regarding patch sizes of high-severity fire that affect California spotted owl survival and 

reproduction (Keane 2014). Clark (2007) observed that although 23 northern spotted owls used 

all types of fire severity, within burned areas owls strongly selected low severity or unburned 

areas with minimal overstory canopy mortality. In this burned landscape, owl high-use areas were 

characterized by lower fire severity and greater structural diversity. Bond et al. (2009) reported 

that foraging may occur preferentially in high severity burned areas; the study followed seven 

owls in 4-year-old burned areas on the McNally Fire on the Sequoia National Forest and found 

higher than expected owl foraging in high severity burned areas. The study is limited by small 

sample size (7 owls), short duration (12 weeks), nonrandom selection of owls, and delay (4 years) 

following a wildfire. Bond et al. (2002) hypothesized that wildfires may have few short-term 

impacts on spotted owls; the authors reported that northern, California, and Mexican spotted owl 

survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success at 11 territories one year after fires 

seemed uninfluenced by the fires. Four of the territories were mapped as having experienced lowto moderate-severity fire and four experienced high-severity fire that burned more than 30 percent 

of the territories. 

California spotted owls studied in Yosemite National Park were estimated to have similar 

detection, density, and occupancy rates between randomly selected unburned sites and recently 

burned (less than 15 years since burn) sites that had predominantly burned at low- to moderateseverity (Roberts et al. 2011). Jenness et al. (2004) found no statistical relationship between fire 

with mixed-severity effects and Mexican spotted owl occupancy and reproduction in Arizona and 

New Mexico, but the authors caution that higher occupancy and reproduction in unburned sites 

may not have been detected as statistically significant because of small sample size, lack of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

338

information on temporal and spatial variability in owl occupancy rates, and high variability in 

burn extent and severity. In a comparison of California spotted owl occupancy dynamics in 

burned versus unburned sites in the Sierra Nevada, Lee et al. (2012) found that the probability 

(model mean-averaged) of colonization and local extinction did not differ substantially between 

burned and unburned sites and the authors concluded that fire has no significant effect on 

occupancy dynamics. The authors also found that California spotted owls continued to occupy 

sites (a distinct area in which a single or territorial owl or pair had been detected) where almost 

one third (32 percent) of suitable habitat had been burned at high severity. They hypothesize that 

there may be a critical spatial threshold (proportion of a site) above which a burn at high severity 

could adversely affect California spotted owl occupancy. Collectively, a large number of studies 

of fire effects on California spotted owls suggest the presence of large trees and dense overstory 

canopy closure are the most important pre- and post-fire conditions associated with California 

spotted owl occupancy (Roberts and North 2012). However, it is clear that additional information 

is needed to better understand the effects of fire on California spotted owls. 

Years of fire suppression have led to dense forested conditions with heavy fuel loading; these 

conditions can not only contribute to an increased risk of high-severity wildfire and increased risk 

of trees dying from insect outbreaks, stress from competition with other trees, disease and 

pathogens, but such conditions also threaten the quality of foraging and nesting habitat due to 

structural changes in the stands (Roberts and North 2012). For example, extremely dense stand 

conditions characteristic of fire suppressed forests are not typically used for California spotted 

owl foraging (Verner et al. 1992, Irwin et al. 2007). Occupancy of nesting California spotted owls 

in fire suppressed forests may also be negatively influenced by an increasing proportion of 

smaller trees (less than 23 inches in diameter) around the nest (Blakesley et al. 2005).

In their 12-month finding to not list the California spotted owl under the Endangered Species Act, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2006a) recognized: 

. . . the primary technique of fuel reduction, which is thinning understory trees with 

mechanical equipment and/or prescribed fire, may have detrimental effects on California 

spotted owl habitat in the short term, but may favor development of habitat in the longer 

term, and may reduce the likelihood of large high-intensity fire that could substantially 

degrade or eliminate habitat. 

There continues to be a great deal of uncertainty about the nature of effects of fuel reduction 

treatments, particularly mechanical thinning, on California spotted owls (Keane 2014). This 

uncertainty creates very real challenges to design an approach to management that strives to 

improve resilience of owl habitat on the landscape while also maintaining sustainable owl 

populations in the short term (in other words, reducing the potential for severe short-term impacts 

that could affect species persistence). This challenge revolves around the dilemma of retaining 

sufficient areas of dense canopy cover and large trees for the species while also reducing density 

of increasingly homogenized stands to improve forest health and resilience. The collection of 

studies and monitoring efforts (summarized below) trying to identify the effects of (or 

correlations of) forest management on California spotted owls suggest varying levels of 

sensitivities, which is probably due to the differences among treatments studied, the retention 

versus loss of key habitat features, and other local factors (like predation, prey availability, 

weather, disease, and barred owls).

For example, the results of simulation modeling research summarized in Keane (2014) suggests 

that some fuels treatments can reduce fire risk with minimal effects on owl reproduction, and may 

have long-term benefits of reducing wildfire risk that outweigh short-term effects of treatments. 

The results of an opportunistic monitoring effort of fuel reduction treatments (mechanical 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

339

thinning of understory trees and/or prescribed fire) on protected activity center occupancy and 

owl reproduction in the Stanislaus National Forest indicates that owls continued to occupy the 

treated areas and produce young (Rich 2007). Tempel et al. (2014) also found that California 

spotted owl population growth and survival were positively associated with amount of edge 

habitat (potentially because of prey abundance) created from patches of higher intensity 

treatments that create small gaps. However, Tempel et al. (2014) found a negative association of 

medium-intensity timber harvest with California spotted owl reproduction (reducing reproductive 

potential). Based on their study, the authors suggest that where such treatments are implemented 

in forests with dense canopy cover, these may function to also reduce survival and territory 

occupancy. 

Given the preponderance of dead trees in large areas of the Sierra Nevada due to recent largescale events (wildfire, insect outbreaks, and drought stress), it becomes increasingly important to 

evaluate how the salvage of some dead trees in such areas influences wildlife species, including 

California spotted owls and their prey. Some studies have shown that northern spotted owls have 

avoided habitat treated during post-fire salvage logging (Clark 2007, Clark et al. 2011). In 

general, there is a need for more information on the effects of fire and non-fire-related salvage 

treatments on California spotted owl habitat condition. 

California spotted owls face a number of stressors unrelated to fire and forest management 

activities including the invasion of barred owls (Strix varia), climate change, and diseases like 

west Nile virus. Barred owls are an increasing risk factor for California spotted owls in the Sierra 

Nevada (Keane 2014). Barred owls can hybridize and also out-compete California spotted owls. 

Although the majority of barred owl detections are confirmed in the northern Sierra Nevada, the 

species is a threat to California spotted owls in the southern Sierra Nevada also; five new records 

of barred owls were documented in the Stanislaus and Sierra National Forests in 2012, indicating 

further range expansion of barred owls in the southern Sierra Nevada (Keane 2014). Barred owl 

numbers are likely higher than documented in the Sierra Nevada, as there have been no 

systematic surveys for them to date. Across their range, California spotted owls exhibit 

population-specific demographic relationships with local weather and regional climates (Glenn et 

al. 2010, Glenn et al. 2011, and Peery et al. 2012). Based solely on projections of climate change 

(not incorporating other factors such as habitat), this population-specific variation could result in 

high species vulnerability (Keane 2014).

Terrestrial Salamanders

Status: The rare salamanders share many common attributes with rare plants in that many are 

narrowly endemic. All of the species require moisture to survive and because of this, at lower, 

drier elevations they are increasingly restricted to seasonal springs and seeps in otherwise arid 

environments. Habitat suitability appears to depend on microsite conditions such as north-facing 

talus and rocky slopes or under rocks and woody debris in forested habitats (Stebbins 1985). 

Many of these species occur in the foothills of these forests’ drier vegetation types and elevations 

that include oak woodland, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral. Several of these species occur in the 

relatively moist conditions found in montane forests (red fir and Jeffrey pine), often occurring in 

forest litter in the shade of trees or rock crevices, ravines, creeks, and often on north-facing or 

shaded areas depending on the availability and constancy of moist conditions. None of the 

salamanders that are species of conservation concern are located in the harsh subalpine or alpine 

conditions of these forests. Salamanders are found under logs, woody debris, bark, moss, leaf 

litter and talus, crevices, or in animal burrows (Stebbins 1985, Lannoo 2005). The limestone 

salamander is dependent on a limestone substrate (Lannoo 2005). Generally, there are many 

subspecies of salamanders because their dispersal capability is often limited by features on the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

340

landscape and habitat requirements; however, a few species do have local seasonal migrations 

(Jockusch et al. 1998). Eggs are deposited in terrestrial sites, probably in moist sites along 

springs, seepages, or creek margins (Lannoo 2005), and there is no aquatic larval stage. Food is 

not a limiting factor and consists of invertebrates including snails, crickets, earthworms, and a 

large variety of insects.

All localities for Kings River slender salamanders occur on public lands administered by the 

Forest Service or National Park Service and the Kern Canyon slender salamander’s habitat occurs 

entirely within the Sequoia National Forest (Lannoo 2005). In other cases, a substantial portion of 

these salamanders’ range is known to occur on public lands, though they can be an artifact of 

where they are more easily studied or the management of these lands has provided refugia from 

development and agricultural pressures on private lands.

Threats. There are no specific known limiting factors on the three national forests for salamander 

survival. Similar to many rare plants as well as invertebrates, these species are inherently limited 

in their geographic range resulting in limited occurrences and distribution. Several of these 

species have difficulty naturally dispersing or crossing man-made features such as highways, 

which can serve as barriers. For all of these species, population status is uncertain. The principal 

threats in the literature is habitat degradation or loss with concerns across all of these species for 

increasingly drier conditions resulting from climate change (Lannoo 2005). Potential losses of 

individuals could occur through fire suppression (compaction or deep soil disturbance from 

equipment), grazing that affects hydrology, logging, firewood collecting, mining and more 

consequential losses from impoundments, and hydro development. Climate change may eliminate 

or reduce the suitability of some of the existing habitat. Subterranean habitat may limit effect of 

wildfire on this species and habitat may be maintained with restoration of periodic fire. Highintensity fire is assumed to be a threat when individuals are above ground and at risk and likely 

impacts habitat in all respects and results in some direct mortality. However, the yellow-blotched 

salamander survived large fires in both the Breckenridge and Piute Mountains in forested habitats 

with large-scale, stand-replacing fire effects (S. Anderson, personal communication with J. 

Friedlander, April 7, 2016). This suggests that at least in the short term, salamanders can survive 

and demonstrate resilience under extreme fire conditions. Habitat was not found to be a limiting 

factor for any of these species.

Table 80 lists the status and threats for the terrestrial salamander species of conservation concern. 

Note that several species of primarily aquatic amphibians are addressed in the “Aquatic At-risk 

Species” section.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

341

Table 80. Status and threats for terrestrial salamander species of conservation concern

Species Status Threats

Inyo Mountain 

salamander

Found on the Inyo National Forest. 

Dependent on microhabitat associated 

with isolated springs in the largely desert 

and desert scrub environment. 

Any actions that would hydrologically 

impact springs in occupied habitat.

Hell Hollow slender 

salamander

Found on the Sierra National Forest. 

Found beneath rocks (often occurring in 

patches of talus), bark rubble, and 

downed logs.

Detailed knowledge of risk factors is 

fragmentary but concerns exist about 

holes in their distribution on the 

national forest.

Fairview slender 

salamander

Found on the Sequoia National Forest. 

Talus slopes, under rocks and logs.

Road barriers and fire

Gregarious slender 

salamander

Found on the Sequoia and Sierra 

National Forests. Downed logs, bark 

slabs, rocks, or within damp leaf litter 

usually associated with surface water

and stream or seep margins in mixed 

conifer and riparian woodland forest.

Concerns for compaction of soils in 

these environments.

Kings River slender 

salamander

Found on the Sequoia and Sierra 

National Forests. Logs or rocks with tree 

overstory (shade) and talus slopes.

Ground disturbance, water quality, 

habitat fragmentation by roads and 

wildfire threats: The lower Kings River 

sites are located immediately adjacent 

to a road and probably could be 

affected by road construction.

Kern Canyon 

slender salamander

Found on the Sequoia National Forest. 

Rocks and logs, talus slopes. 

Potential impacts to occupied habitat 

and hydrologic changes affecting the 

Kern River canyon.

Yellow-blotched 

salamander

Found on the Sequoia National Forest. 

Woodlands and riparian areas down logs 

and litter. 

Potential compaction to occupied 

habitat and hydrologic changes to 

habitat.

Limestone 

salamander

Found on the Sierra National Forest. 

Foothill areas cliffs, crevices, ledges, and 

talus frequently a limestone substrate. 

Cover is pines, oaks, buckeye and 

chaparral. 

Impacts to occupied limestone habitat, 

road building and road grading. 

Indian Yosemite Snail

Status: This species is found on the Sierra National Forest. The main requirements for land 

snails are moisture, food, shelter and a source of calcium for shell building and physiological 

processes (Burch and Pearce 1990). As a consequence, some of the greatest species abundance 

and richness occurs in moist, deciduous forest (Pearce and Örstan 2006). Burch and Pearce 

(1990) suggest refuges may be the most important factor limiting terrestrial snail abundance 

which include the right assemblage if not juxtaposition of habitat components including access to 

a substrate of calcareous carbonate (often cliff habitats or talus slopes), sufficient moisture and 

food. 

Threats: Burch and Pearce (1990) suggest refuges may be the most important factor limiting 

terrestrial snail abundance, which require the right assemblage of habitat components including 

access to a substrate of calcareous carbonate (often cliffs habitats or talus slopes), sufficient 

moisture (even in arid environments), and food consisting of herbaceous materials such as 

decaying leaf litter. Barriers include barriers to dispersal. Moisture is required for respiration and 

often hatching of eggs and lack of moisture can serve as a barrier to dispersal; therefore, lack of 

precipitation due to climate change can be a threat. Gastropods do not move much and usually 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

342

only to find food or reproduce and the suggested minimum separation distance is set at one 

kilometer as most movements are within this but could be far less. They are known to forage 

adjacent to areas with substantial grass or seasonal herbaceous vegetation as well as within leaf 

and needle litter and on fungi and lichens; thus fire can be a threat. Following the Megram Fire in 

1999, a fall wildfire that burned in old forest and an area of extensive blowdown on the Six 

Rivers National Forest in northwestern California, spring mollusk surveys found remains of 

burned snail shells of all ages as well as numerous live detections of tiny first year juvenile snails, 

an indication that presumably eggs are laid underground protected from the heat and flames. 

Merced Canyon Shoulderband

Status: This is a species of air-breathing land snail that is found on the Sierra National Forest. 

Local populations are small relative to those of other animal groups because terrestrial snails tend 

to be more sedentary. Baker (1958) claimed “long-distance dispersal of terrestrial gastropods is 

undoubtedly passive” although short distance dispersal is active involving slow, short-distance 

migration under favorable conditions. Passive migration of snails via wind, rafting on floating 

objects, or birds may occur over longer distances and may occur across barriers.

Threats: Terrestrial gastropods do not move much, usually only to find food or reproduce. There 

is very little information on this species; however, as a critically imperiled species, potential 

impacts to such a small refugia of small organisms could have severe impacts. Although these 

species have clearly evolved with fire in the landscape, altered fire regimes could have undesired 

consequences.

Tight Coin 

Status: The tight coin is a species of small, air-breathing land snail found on the Sequoia 

National Forest. Terrestrial gastropods do not move much, usually only to find food or reproduce. 

Associated with carbonate calcareous cliff habitats.

Threats: Burch and Pearce (1990) suggest refuges may be the most important factor limiting 

terrestrial snail abundance, although the greatest richness of species among carbonate cliff 

habitats (one of the most diverse in North America) is associated with calcareous, as opposed to 

acidic, substrates (Nekola 1999, Nekola and Smith 1999). Ground disturbance can create 

potential barriers that could impact movements or habitat quality.

Butterflies

Status: The butterflies occur mostly at high elevations between 6,000-10,000 feet on the Sierra, 

Inyo, and Sequoia National Forests with ranges south into the southern Sierra Nevada and the 

Kern Plateau. Some of the butterflies occur at high elevations and primarily in Inyo and Mono 

counties, near Mono Pass, Whitney Pass, White Mountains, and Barcroft Field Station (12,000 to 

13,000 feet). Collections of these species are associated with habitats during peak flowering times 

including dry and wet meadows, scree slopes, sagebrush scrub, lake and stream banks. Butterflies

inhabit virtually every part of an ecosystem largely determined by their dispersal ability, feeding 

and reproductive habits. Habitat suitability for many species depends on microsite conditions that

can vary with each life stage. Having both host and nectar plants available are usually critical 

requirements, and where both are present it may limit populations to the boundary of such 

habitats. For some, the majority of their life stages are limited to one or a few plants for larval, 

juvenile or pupa, and adult stages.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

343

Threats: Many of the populations are highly isolated from one another and cover a small area 

often less than an acre in size. The small area occupied by populations make them very 

susceptible to subtle habitat changes particularly wildfire that results in habitat type conversion. 

Host plants are the plants that the female butterflies lay they their eggs on. Most species of 

butterflies have evolved to be very selective and will only lay their eggs on one or two specific 

species of plants which also serves as a primary food source. The host plants of all of these 

species can be susceptible to ground disturbance and some are threatened due to climate change. 

Changes in temperature extremes and precipitation could affect host plant availability. Fires that 

burn with low to moderate severity can regenerate flowering plants in fire-adapted ecosystems 

that are important for butterflies (see “Terrestrial Ecosystems Processes and Functions, Keystone 

Species Group” subsection). Application of pesticides that are used to control nuisance insects or 

other pests or to kill target plants are threats to many butterflies if they are not selective or if they 

affect larval plants or habitat. Certain species of ants prevent wasps from parasitizing butterfly 

larvae; therefore the presence and abundance of certain ant species can be a limiting factor that 

limits geographic range and occupied sites. Hobby collecting of butterflies can impact 

populations and more information needs to be gathered with respect to this potential threat. 

A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion

Status: Found on the Inyo National Forest, this species is similar looking to a scorpion. 

Pseudoscorpions, commonly known as “false scorpions,” pose no threat to humans and are 

members of the spider family. This species is only found in caves and thought to disperse by 

“hitchhiking” on other species.

Threats: Disturbance to occupied caves that could impact this species include smoke from fires, 

trampling, and changes in moisture or temperature conditions in occupied caves.

Migratory Birds

The source of any duty to consider migratory birds during plan revision is Executive Order 

13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” (2001). The executive 

order states that environmental analysis of Federal actions, required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act or other established environmental review processes, evaluate the 

effects of actions and agency plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern.

A memorandum of understanding between the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service was signed in 2008.29 The memorandum outlines the responsibilities for both parties 

regarding migratory birds, including the Forest Service’s responsibilities regarding consideration 

of migratory birds in environmental analyses. The memorandum was used to help guide the 

development of this effects analysis.

In January of 2000 the Forest Service released a Landbird Strategic Plan (USDA FS 2000). The 

primary purpose of the strategic plan was to provide very general guidance for the agency’s 

landbird conservation program. Among the suggested actions was the incorporation of landbird 

management into forest plans. 

A recent report issued by several organizations and Federal agencies summarized the general 

condition of birds across the United States (North American Bird Conservation Initiative 2009, 

2011). It painted a picture of declines in multiple species across a variety of habitats. Climate 

change was one of the contributing factors to these declines, and is likely to continue impacting 

 

29 FS Agreement 08-MU-1113-2400-264
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

344

birds into the future. As the climate warms, breeding seasons and migrations are being altered. 

These activities may become out of sync with prey abundance, and climate change may also 

impact where and when those food items are available. This reinforces the need to have resilient 

habitat that is better able to handle climate change.

Environmental Consequences to At-risk Terrestrial Wildlife Species

Environmental consequences are evaluated for the major ecological zones as described above in 

and as they support habitat for at-risk terrestrial wildlife species. Although old forest habitat 

elements can occur in any ecological zone, and complex early seral habitat can be created in any 

ecological zone, these two habitats are described as part of the montane ecological zone 

evaluation of effects. For alternatives B, C, and D, the evaluation focuses on the ability of the 

coarse-filter components to achieve the desired conditions and provide habitat sufficient to 

support the persistence of associated species. For each zone, at-risk terrestrial wildlife species 

supported by that habitat or elements of that habitat are listed. Where fine-filter plan components 

are incorporated for an individual species, those plan components are evaluated under the various 

alternatives for their ability to provide habitat sufficient to support the persistence of that 

particular species.

Consequences Common to All Alternatives

Migratory Birds 

Habitat upon which migratory birds depend was considered during the development of plan 

components for alternatives B, C, and D. Such considerations are already in place under 

alternative A. Migratory birds are ubiquitous and use virtually all habitat types across a range of 

elevations. Therefore, restoration of many vegetation types at various elevations would benefit 

habitat for migratory bird species, especially in cases where restoration focuses on moving the 

vegetation toward the natural range of variation, improving resilience to wildfire and changing 

climate conditions, protecting and restoring riparian and watershed conditions, and controlling or 

eradicating invasive species (see plan components listed in Table 82 and Table 83 and the 

“Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section).

Partners in Flight produced a North American Landbird Conservation Plan in 2004 (Rich et al. 

2004) and a Strategic Action Plan in 2012, which promotes the conservation of migratory and 

other birds. It has two main components: helping bird species at risk and keeping common birds 

common. The draft forest plans do the same by using a science-based conservation and 

restoration design. Plan components help identify and develop solutions to threats and other risks 

to ecological conditions important for high priority “at-risk species” (SPEC-FW-DC-01 to 03; 

TERR-SH-STD-01; SPEC-FW-GDL-04 to 06; FIRE-FW-GDL-05 to 06, 08, and 10). Plan 

components also guide projects to conserve or restore the proper functioning of ecosystems upon 

which at-risk species as well as common migratory birds and other species depend forestwide 

(see Table 82 and Table 83). Except for the bi-state distinct population segment of the greater 

sage-grouse, all bird species of conservation concern and federally listed birds identified for the 

three national forests are listed as migratory under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Draft plan components were also designed to meet the needs of migratory birds and other species 

by addressing high priority habitats and their associated vegetation type or aquatic system where 

they depart from desired ecological conditions. These components include guidance on 

restoration approaches that reduce and limit impacts. Examples include systems that are highly 

altered such as some meadows where water tables have been lowered or vegetation reduced 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

345

(RCA-MEAD-OBJ-01; MA-RCA-GDL-04; MA-RCA-STD-11 to 12, -15 to 18), or altered 

montane forests and riparian areas that lack resiliency to wildfire under changing climatic 

conditions (TERR-FW-OBJ-01 to 03; MA-RCA-OBJ-01).

Habitat for migratory birds is anticipated to persist under all alternatives. Common migratory 

birds, by definition are expected to persist on the landscape because the plans strive to retain 

ecosystem diversity to provide for a range of habitats and ecological conditions expected for the 

respective national forest areas. However, different alternatives can provide more or less benefit 

to migratory at-risk bird species and more detailed analysis is provided for each of the species 

below. At the same time, there are some threats, for example, poisoning from pesticide residue or 

lead ingestion (condors) that may occur outside of the national forests; illegal uses on National 

Forest System lands where vegetation is removed or poisons are used; or cowbird parasitism of 

willow flycatcher nests that are outside of the authority of the Forest Service to control or 

manage.

Range Management

All alternatives maintain the same level of livestock grazing as the current plans (alternative A)

and each national forest proposes to manage grazing similar to the current practices (although this 

approach differs by national forest) (Sequoia and Sierra National Forests: RANG-FW-STD-01 to 

03; SPEC-GGO-GDL-01; Inyo National Forest: MA-RWLD-STD-02; DA-RNA-SUIT-08; 

SPEC-SHP-STD-01; RANG-FW-STD-01 to 02). This includes grazing management in meadows 

(MA-RCA-STD-11 to 17; MA-RCA-GDL-06 to 08). Grazing can adversely affect habitat for 

terrestrial wildlife species, particularly those that nest or forage in meadows, riparian areas, and 

grasslands. The standards and guidelines listed above from the draft forest plans are anticipated to 

improve grazing management, and result in positive meadow and riparian conservation area 

trends over time. These actions improve vegetative conditions, stability and resilience over time.

A recent study found a weak negative correlation between grazed meadows on Stanislaus 

National Forest allotments and vole abundance (Kalinowski et al. 2014). Although these findings 

indicate the need for further evaluation, there are a number of potentially confounding variables 

that influence these results, including the fact that some grazed meadows were surveyed before 

grazing for the season began, making it difficult to compare before and after or even grazed and 

ungrazed meadows. Grazing can cause structural changes to willow flycatcher habitat that could 

“expose nests, reduce substrate for insects, and diminish foliage cover that protects nests” 

(Mathewson et al. 2007). While poorly managed grazing can change the hydrologic and 

vegetative characteristics of meadows and contribute to poor quality habitat for nest selection and 

increased visibility (vulnerability) of nests to predation (Brookshire et al. 2002, Auble et al. 1994, 

Stanley and Knopf 2002, Scott et al. 2003), grazing on the national forests is managed to 

minimize and avoid these effects. 

Some grazing can be beneficial for butterflies, but heavy grazing can degrade habitat. Livestock 

grazing, especially in and near Sierran meadows, may affect breeding success of the Sierra 

marten by reducing understory vegetation (Zielinski 2014). Livestock grazing levels have been 

substantially reduced over the last several decades and some grazing allotments are now currently 

vacant and ungrazed. Specific decisions on the numbers, types, seasons, and level and intensity of 

livestock grazing are made during allotment management planning. Allotment management plans 

also include monitoring of grazing activities so that the need for adjustments to livestock grazing 

practices and amounts can be identified and addressed in annual operations or in the allotment 

management plans. This would be the same under all alternatives. If new grazing allotments or 

activities are proposed in habitat that supports a threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

346

species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service would be consulted prior to making allotment 

management plan decisions. 

Wilderness

Management of designated and recommended wilderness can benefit species by precluding 

management activities (like timber harvest) that might reduce habitat quality, and by limiting 

mechanized and motorized activities such as mountain biking and off-highway-vehicle use that 

could cause breeding disturbance. This conservation approach has long been employed as a 

means to help protect natural resources from degradation associated with human actions. 

Wilderness management areas are also locations where wildfires are often managed to meet 

resource objectives, such as restoring fire as a key ecosystem process in Sierra systems, which 

can substantially improve habitat condition, heterogeneity, structural diversity, and species 

composition of vegetation (MA-WILD-DC-01; MA-WMZ-STD-01 to 02). However, wilderness 

and recommended wilderness management direction can also impact species by precluding or 

limiting restoration activities and by continuing or increasing disturbance from wilderness users. 

In areas where vegetation and fuels have been impacted by past management, wildfires are 

becoming increasingly large and often have high-severity impacts. Many wildfires will be

difficult to manage safely, especially under alternative A where they are predicted to increase two 

to four fold (See “Fire Trends” section), and increased occurrences of wildfires could cause the 

loss of forest habitats.

Climate change has been associated with and will continue to influence shifts in ecological 

processes and patterns, and species ranges, movements, and phenologies (Bradley et al. 1999, 

Cole and Yung 2010, Safford et al. 2012b) among other newly emerging patterns. Biotic 

communities may shift in complex ways, such as some species may shift sooner or later than 

others, or in different geographical directions than others causing disruptions in ecosystem 

functions. In this way, novel species assemblages may form with new predatory or competitive 

interactions (Stralberg et al. 2009). Furthermore, the concept of ecosystem management 

represents a shift in conservation ecology in that it takes on a view of “nature in flux, rather than 

balance” and aims to protect ecosystem structure and function through adaptive management to 

maintain both biodiversity as well as adaptive capacity (Kalamandeen and Gillson 2007, 

Grumbine 1994, 1997). Therefore, while wilderness designation can benefit terrestrial wildlife 

species, protection of species and community assemblages may be limited to a snapshot in time 

and may not be protective in the future if natural processes aren’t sufficient to maintain habitat 

conditions due to factors such as climate change, large high-intensity fire, non-native species 

invasions (like invasive plants and barred owl), insect outbreaks, and pathogens, among others. 

Designated wilderness area allocations remain constant in all alternatives. However, areas 

recommended for wilderness varies by alternative. Alternative C would include the most acres 

recommended for wilderness and would offer the largest blocks of undisturbed habitat, yet the 

greatest potential for loss of habitat structure important to at-risk species due to increased 

potential for large wildfires (see “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section). Alternatives A and D 

would not increase the areas managed as wilderness from the current plans.

Nelson’s Desert Bighorn Sheep

Effects of the forest plans on the Nelson’s desert bighorn sheep would occur regardless of the 

alternative selected because actions by the Forest Service are not responsible for either the 

outbreak or continuation of disease contact or spread. Therefore, it is not within the capability of 

the Forest Service to ensure that this population on the Inyo National Forest persists over time. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

347

The risks of disease transmission from recreational pack goat use is currently very low due to 

limited trails and very low use levels in the areas occupied by this species. Also, pack goats are 

generally kept in close proximity to handlers, which minimizes the risk of direct contact with 

bighorn sheep. 

Terrestrial Salamanders

There is no specific identified threat that required developing species-specific plan components 

for at-risk salamanders. High-intensity wildfires could result in hydrophobic soils or could render 

the microsite for these species unsuitable. However, even in some of the most severe recent fires, 

individual yellow-blotched salamander have shown remarkable resilience by surviving highseverity fire conditions beneath the surface. Regardless, alternatives B and D, which favor 

increasing resilience to large, high-severity fires would be more beneficial to all salamanders by 

lessening the potential for high-severity fire toward the range of natural variation. The effects of 

drying conditions resulting from climate change would have negative impacts on all salamanders 

that are moisture dependent for many life stages regardless of alternative. The use of heavy 

machinery for the increased pace and scale of harvest under alternatives B and D, would result in 

greater risk of impacts than in alternative A and especially alternative C. However, all of the 

salamanders evaluated are known to occur in locations such as rocky drainages, steep slopes, and 

wilderness where such machinery use is typically limited or restricted. Recreation or grazing 

activities that would compact, disturb, or result in drying of moist areas could impact these 

species at a local scale but are not known to be a systematic concern at the national forest level. In 

Table 82 and Table 83, draft plan components provide over-arching species and habitat 

protections for this group that would guide future projects to ensure the needs of these species are 

incorporated into design and implementation of actions, including those that have the potential to 

restore habitat.

Consequences Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

Recreation Management

Improved site conditions and access have the potential to increase recreation in dispersed and/or 

developed areas and adversely impact habitat condition. Under alternatives B, C, and D, there 

would be an emphasis on addressing a backlog of deferred maintenance at developed recreation 

sites and on trails (REC-FW-OBJ-01 to 03). Some areas like meadows, cliffs, riparian habitat, 

lakes and ponds, and rocky outcrops may experience greater impacts than other habitats from 

increased recreation demand because these areas tend to receive more intense or frequent use. 

Human disturbance, including various kinds of recreation activities (like rock climbing, road and 

trail use, off-highway or over-the-snow vehicle operation), is a known threat for species like 

Pacific fringe-tailed bats, Townsend’s big-eared bats, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, Sierra 

marten, Sierra Nevada red fox, great gray owl, and yellow-eared pocket mouse. For example, 

rock climbing may adversely and directly affect nesting peregrine falcons. 

Cave exploration can directly and adversely affect at-risk bat species that may be roosting or 

rearing young and cause site abandonment. Increased use of meadows, riparian areas, and lakes 

and ponds due to trends in population and visitor use (see “Sustainable Recreation” and 

“Economic Conditions” sections) can introduce more trash, more overall noise, cause a greater 

amount of habitat trampling (which could impact host plants or nest shrubs), create unauthorized 

trails through previously undisturbed habitat, or increase nest disturbance (especially when pets 

are brought to these areas). Therefore, habitat condition may be affected under any alternative by 

recreation activities. Plan components have been developed to help protect habitat condition for a 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

348

variety of species where recreation impacts could occur (REC-FW-GDL-02, -04 to 05). For 

example, alternatives B, C, and D all include a guideline (SPEC-BAT-GDL-01) to install bat gates 

at cave and mine entrances when bat maternity colonies or hibernacula may be adversely affected.

Plan Components Developed for At-risk Terrestrial Wildlife Species

Alternatives B, C, and D share the same desired conditions. The desired conditions by major 

terrestrial vegetation types were listed in Table 40 and Table 41 in the “Terrestrial Vegetation 

Ecology” section. These plan components provide for a broad range of ecological conditions 

(coarse filter) important to ensure habitat diversity for wildlife. In addition, other desired 

conditions specific to wildlife are listed in Table 81. 

Table 82 lists standards and guidelines that specifically address consideration of habitat, 

especially for at-risk species and species of conservation concern.

Table 81. Draft forest plan desired conditions for terrestrial wildlife by habitat type or ecosystem 

function, alternatives B, C, and D

Summary of Content Component 

Mosaic providing ecosystem integrity and diversity. 

Provides habitat for native and desirable non-native 

plant and animal species.

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC-01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC 01

Conditions contribute to recovery of federally 

recognized species and persistence of species of 

conservation concern

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC-03

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC-02

Provides landscape connectivity for wide-ranging 

habitat generalists (like deer) and habitat specialists 

(like those dependent on old forest and sagebrush) 

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC-04

Animal and plant species (SPEC-SG): DC 04

Riparian habitat supports native riparian-dependent 

species

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC 

01-02, 05, 07, 11-15

Meadow habitat supports native species Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC 02, 05, 07

Springs and seeps provide habitat Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC 01

Consider climate change effects on habitat and species 

in project design

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC-02
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

349

Table 82. Draft forest plan standards and guidelines for terrestrial wildlife habitat, alternatives B, C, 

and D

Summary of Content Component 

Consider habitat for at-risk species, 

including special habitats in project design

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): GDL 04-05

Bats (SPEC-BAT): GDL 01

Restore and retain key snag habitat Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): GDL 02

Retain oak habitat Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): GDL 04; 

Black oak/canyon live oak (TERR-BLCK): GDL 01, 02; 

(Inyo: TERR-OAK): GDL 01

Restore and retain diverse chaparral 

habitat within NRV

Chaparral-live oak (TERR-CHAP): GDL 01, 02

Restore and conserve sagebrush habitat Pinyon-juniper (TERR-PNY): GDL 01, 02

Ensure habitat integrity for riparian 

species

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): STD 01, 04, 07, 10, 

11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17; GDL 01-04

Restore and conserve old forest habitat, 

including nest, roost trees

Old forest (TERR-OLD): GDL 01-02

Animal and plant species SPEC-FW-GDL 01

Consider wildlife habitat and connectivity 

in complex early seral forest areas

Complex early seral habitat (TERR-CES): GDL 01c-d, 03, 

06

Restore and conserve aspen and willow 

habitat

Aspen (TERR-ASPN): GDL 01-50

Range (RANG-FW): STD 01

Consider special habitats and at risk 

species during wildfires

Fire (FIRE-FW): GDL 01-10

Table 83 lists the threats and principal habitats for each terrestrial wildlife at-risk species and the 

primary applicable draft plan components that provide for the ecological conditions necessary to 

ensure persistence of the species. While many other plan components may also provide generally 

for ecological conditions that would benefit a species, only the primary plan components are 

identified. The plan components are generally the same between each of the forest plans; 

however, some plan components are identified by forest code where needed for clarity.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

350

Table 83. Draft plan components addressing the identified potential threats to at-risk terrestrial wildlife species in alternatives B, C, and D

Species Known Threats Persistence Principal Habitats

Forest Plan Components for Habitat

Integrity, Sustainability and/or Species Persistence

Valley elderberry longhorn 

beetle

(Desmocerus californicus 

dimorphus)

Large-scale, high-severity fire

outside the range of natural 

variability 

Riparian and non-riparian 

uplands with above average soil 

moisture.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): GDL 01

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC 02

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA) GDL 03, 06

Least Bell's vireo

(Vireo bellii pusillus)

Conversion of riparian habitats 

by tamarisk and fire

Low elevation riparian habitat. In 

the plan area, exclusively near 

Lake Isabella

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 02, 05, 06

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 02

Special habitats (TERR-SH): DC: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 03

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01, 02

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-03, 05, 07); 

STD: 04, 14, 16, 20, 26; GDL: 01, 03, 04, 06-08

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01, 02

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher

(Empidonax trailii extimus)

Conversion of riparian habitats 

by tamarisk and fire

Low elevation riparian habitat. In 

the plan area, exclusively near 

Lake Isabella.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 02, 05, 06

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 02

Special habitats (TERR-SH): DC: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 03

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01, 02

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-03, 05, 07; 

STD: 04, 14, 16, 20, 26; GDL: 01, 03, 04,06- 08

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01, 02

Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo DPS

(Coccyzus americanus)

Conversion of riparian habitats 

by tamarisk and fire

Low elevation riparian habitat. In 

the plan area, exclusively near 

Lake Isabella.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW-DC: 02, 05, 06)

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW-DC: 02)

Special habitats (TERR-SH-DC: 01)

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW-DC: 03)

Invasive species (INV-FW-DC: 01, 02)

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA-DC: 01-03, 05, 07); 

(RCA-FW-GDL: 04, 06-08); (MA-RCA-STD: 04, 14, 16, 20, 

26); (MA-RCA-GDL: 01, 03, 04, 08)

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV-DC: 01, 02)

California condor

(Gymnogyps californianus)

Habitat loss from conversion, 

lead poisoning, collision with 

human-built structures and 

large, high-severity fire outside 

the range of natural variation

Roosting and nesting in large 

conifer trees, including giant 

Sequoia trees (foraging primarily 

outside of national forests)

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): GDL: 02

Old forests (TERR-OLD): DC: 04, 05, 06; GDL: 04
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

351

Species Known Threats Persistence Principal Habitats

Forest Plan Components for Habitat

Integrity, Sustainability and/or Species Persistence

Sierra Nevada red fox – 

Sierra Nevada distinct 

population segment

(Vulpes vulpes necator)

Climate change, conversion of 

habitat by human development, 

and expansion of coyotes and 

non-native red foxes. 

Interactions with people and 

pets (disease transmission) 

and from contact with 

rodenticides, including plague 

control activities. 

Wide range of remote, highelevation alpine and subalpine 

habitats including meadows, 

dense, mature forest, talus, and 

fell fields. Habitat use varies 

seasonally. 

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 04; STD 01, 02

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): GDL 01, 05, 06

Old forests (TERR-OLD): GDL 01-05

Complex early seral habitats (TERR-CES): GDL 01-04, 06

Upper montane vegetation (TERR-UPPR): DC: 01, 02, 03

Animals and plants species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01-08; STD: 01, 07, 10, 14

Sierra Nevada

bighorn sheep

(Ovis canadensis sierra)

Pneumonia from domestic 

sheep or goat contact

Alpine, subalpine and upper 

montane habitats, primarily 

rugged, rocky areas.

Alpine and Subalpine (TERR-ALPN): DC: 01, 02, 03

Yellow-eared

pocket mouse

(Perognathus parvus 

xanthonotus)

Grazing, off-highway vehicle 

activity, and climate change

4,000 to 5,300 feet elevation in 

arid desert shrub and Joshua

tree communities, pinyonjuniper, chaparral, sagebrush, 

and habitats with sandy soils 

and sparse to moderate shrub 

cover.

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 01-04

Sagebrush (TERR-SAGE): DC: 01-03

Pinyon-juniper (TERR-PINY): DC): 01-05; GDL: 01-02

Xeric shrub/Blackbrush (TERR-XER): DC: 01-04; STD: 01; 

GDL: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-02; GDL: 01, 

05, 06

Range (RANG-FW): STD: 02

Sustainable recreation (REC-FW): DC: 02-03, 06, 08, 11; 

GDL: 02, 04, 05, 07

Pacific fringe-tailed bat

(Myotis thysanodes 

vespertinus)

Disturbance of roost and nest 

sites, loss of large snags for 

roost sites, potential threat of 

white-nosed syndrome. 

Roost in caves, mines, buildings, 

crevices in rocks, and large/tall 

snags. Forages in pinyonjuniper, valley foothill hardwood, 

hardwood-conifer habitat, and 

open habitats that have nearby 

dry forest and an open water 

source.

Watershed Condition (WTR-FW): STD: 01-03

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 01-04; GDL: 02

Blue oak Interior live oak woodland (TERR-BLU): DC: 01-03

Black oak/canyon live oak (TERR-BLCK): DC: 01-02; GDL: 

01-02

Ponderosa pine (TERR-POND): DC: 01, 05

Dry mixed conifer (TERR-DMC): DC: 01, 02,06

Pinyon-juniper (TERR-PINY): DC: 01-05; GDL : 01-02

Old forest (TERR-OLD): DC: 01, 06; GDL: 01-02

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 01, 

05, 06

Bats (SPEC-BAT): GDL: 01

Sustainable recreation (REC-FW): GDL: 02

Geology and minerals (GEO-FW): DC: 01

Riparian Conservation Areas (MA-RCA): -DC: 13, 15; STD: 

06; GDL: 01, 04, 06

Lakes, pools, ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

352

Species Known Threats Persistence Principal Habitats

Forest Plan Components for Habitat

Integrity, Sustainability and/or Species Persistence

Townsend's big-eared bat

(Corynorhinus townsendii)

Disturbance at roost or nest 

sites, potential threat of whitenosed syndrome.

Desert scrub, coniferous forests, 

mid-elevation mixed conifer, 

mixed hardwood-conifer forests, 

riparian habitats; roosts in caves, 

abandoned mines, and 

buildings; strong affinity for use 

of caves, and cave-like roosting 

habitat.

Watershed Condition (WTR-FW): STD: 01-03

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 01-04; GDL: 02

Blue oak Interior live oak woodland (TERR-BLU): DC: 01-03

Black oak/canyon live oak (TERR-BLCK): DC: 01-02

Chaparral-Live oak(TERR-CHAP): GDL: 01-02

Ponderosa pine (TERR-POND): DC: 01, 05

Dry mixed conifer (TERR-DMC): DC: 01, 02, 06

Old forest (TERR-OLD): DC: 01, 06; GDL: 01-02

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 01, 

05, 06

Bats (SPEC-BAT): GDL: 01

Sustainable recreation (REC-FW): GDL: 02

Geology and minerals (GEO-FW): DC: 01

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 13, 15; STD: 

06; GDL: 01, 04, 06

Lakes, pools, ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Pacific fisher

(Pekania pennanti) 

Large high-intensity wildfire, 

late season prescribed fires, 

loss of mature forest 

components (large trees, high 

canopy cover).

Mature mixed-conifer forest and 

ponderosa pine with dead and 

downed wood, dense, often 

multi-layered canopies, and 

large trees.

See Table 84. 

Terrestrial Ecosystems (TERR-FW): GDL: 02

Old Forest (TERR-OLD): DC: 01-07; GDL: 01, 02

Pacific fisher (SPEC-PF): DC: 01-10; STD: 01-04; GDL: 01-

04

California spotted owl, Pacific fisher and Sierra marten 

(SPEC-CSO-PF-SM): DC: 01, 02; GDL: 01

Sierra marten

(Martes caurina sierra)

Loss of mature forest from fire 

and insect and disease; 

decrease in snow from climate 

change; fragmentation from 

legacy forest practices

Patches of mature old forest 

linked by effective corridors in 

high-elevation upper montane 

(red fir is important) and large 

trees.

Terrestrial Ecosystems (TERR-FW): GDL: 02

Upper montane vegetation (TERR-UPPR): DC: 01, 02, 03

Complex early seral habitats (TERR-CES): GDL 01-04, 06

Old Forest (TERR-OLD): DC: 01-07; GDL: 01, 02

Animals and plants species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03

Pacific fisher (SPEC-PF): DC: 01-10; STD: 01-04; GDL: 01-

04

California spotted owl, Pacific fisher and Sierra marten 

(SPEC-CSO-PF-SM): DC: 01, 02; GDL: 01

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01-08; STD: 01, 07, 10, 14
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

353

Species Known Threats Persistence Principal Habitats

Forest Plan Components for Habitat

Integrity, Sustainability and/or Species Persistence

Nelson’s desert

bighorn sheep

(Ovis canadensis nelsoni) 

Limiting factor is a respiratory 

disease (Mycoplasma 

ovipneumoniae) verified in the 

White mountains since 2009.

Found in mid-to higher 

elevations (6,000 to 12,000 feet) 

in the White Mountains on the 

Inyo in areas with steep, rocky 

cliff or rock faces. Forages on 

shrubs located near or on these 

cliff faces and within meadow 

systems. Requires visually open 

areas with suitable escape 

terrain (rock cliff faces).

This subspecies is different from the federally listed Sierra 

Nevada bighorn sheep, which is addressed by plan 

components elsewhere in this document and draft plan. 

While many plan components will benefit Nelson’s desert 

bighorn sheep, none address the one factor that could result 

in the loss of persistence on the national forest. The Forest 

Service does not have authority over the threat of sheep or 

goat contact outside of the national forest. Therefore, the 

Forest Service cannot ensure that viability will be maintained 

for populations on the Inyo National Forest from actions that 

may occur on other lands. 

Willow flycatcher

(Empidonax traillii and E.t. 

adastus)

Declining meadow condition 

due to climate change, invasive 

species, poorly managed 

livestock grazing. 

Dense willow or other shrub 

thickets within large (more than 

10 acres) wet meadows between 

3,900-7050 feet elevation. 

Meadows with standing or 

running water needed for 

breeding.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-03; STD: 01-03; 

GDL: 01

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 01-04, 06; GDL: 05

Special Habitats (TERR-SH): STD: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 01, 

03, 04

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; GDL: 02-05

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-03

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-05, 07, 10, 

11, 13, 15; STD: 01-02, 07, 11, 15-17, 18; GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01, 03, 07

Rivers and Streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Critical aquatic refuges (MA-CAR): DC: 01-03

Range (RANG-FW): STD: 01

Kern Red-winged 

blackbird

(Agelaius phoeniceus 

aciculatus)

Changes in water level in 

wetlands at Lake Isabella due 

to climate change, habitat 

conversion by invasive 

species, and large highintensity wildfire. 

Freshwater cattail and tule 

marshes, marsh vegetation 

bordering ponds and lakes, 

riparian forests near wetlands, 

wet pastures, annual and 

perennial grasslands.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-03; STD: 01-03, 

05; GDL: 01

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 01-04, 06

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 01, 

05, 06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01; GDL: 01-

02, 04-05

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, Pools, Ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Fire (Fire-FW): GDL: 04-05
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

354

Species Known Threats Persistence Principal Habitats

Forest Plan Components for Habitat

Integrity, Sustainability and/or Species Persistence

Tricolored blackbird

(Agelaius tricolor)

Changes in water level in 

wetlands at Lake Isabella due 

to climate change, habitat 

conversion by invasive 

species, and large highintensity wildfire. 

Breed in freshwater marshes 

and winter primarily in open 

fields including pastures.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-03; STD: 01 -03, 

05; GDL: 01

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 01-04, 06

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 01, 

05, 06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01; GDL: 01-

02, 04-05

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, Pools, Ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Fire (FIRE-FW): GDL: 04-05

Greater sage-grouse, bistate distinct population 

segment

(Centrocercus 

urophasianus)

Pinyon-juniper expansion and 

conifer encroachment into 

sagebrush habitats, invasive 

species, and predation by 

ravens. 

Large and contiguous sagebrush 

stands mixed with areas of wet 

meadows, riparian, or irrigated 

agriculture fields.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01

Sagebrush (TERR-SAGE): DC: 01-04

Animals and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-02; GDL: 01, 

05-06

Sage-grouse habitat (SPEC-SG): DC: 01-09; STD: 01-13; 

GDL: 01-07

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03; GDL: 05

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01 - 08, 11-15; 

STD: 01-02, 04-07, 10-14; GDL: 01-07

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01-07

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03

Critical aquatic refuges (MA-CAR): DC: 01-03

Bald eagle

(Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus)

Human recreation disturbance, 

loss of roost or nest trees. 

Large bodies of water (lakes or 

reservoirs) or free flowing large 

rivers with adjacent large live 

trees or snags.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): STD: 01-05; GDL: 01

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): STD: 01; GDL: 01-02

Old forest (TERR-OLD): GDL: 01-02

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): GDL: 01, 04, 05

Invasive species (INV-FW): STD: 01

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Critical aquatic refuges (MA-CAR): DC: 01-03
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

355

Species Known Threats Persistence Principal Habitats

Forest Plan Components for Habitat

Integrity, Sustainability and/or Species Persistence

American peregrine falcon

(Falco peregrinus anatum)

Human recreation disturbance Nesting and roosting primarily in 

remote cliff habitat; breeding in 

areas near rivers, wetlands, 

lakes or other aquatic features.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-03; STD: 01-03

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 01-04, 06 -07; GDL: 

01-02, 05

Special habitats (TERR-SH): DC: 01-02; STD: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 04-

06

Sustainable recreation (REC-FW): DC: 02-03, 11; GDL: 02, 

04-05

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-03, 10-11, 

15

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01, 03, 07

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Great gray owl

(Strix nebulosi)

Loss of mature forest habitat, 

large scale high-intensity 

wildfire, meadow degradation 

from unmanaged grazing, loss 

of large snags, disturbance at 

nest sites

Forage in meadows and open 

areas; nest in decayed large 

trees in higher elevation forest 

with dense canopy (more than 

65%) and also low elevation 

conifer-dominated forests just 

above the transition from oak 

woodlands and near meadows.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): STD: 01; GDL: 01-02, 

04, 05

Black oak/Canyon live oak (TERR-BLCK): DC: 01-02; GDL: 

01-02

Old forest (TERR-OLD): DC: 01-07; GDL: 01-02

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): GDL: 01, 04, 05, 06

Great gray owl (SPEC-GGO): DC: 01); GDL: 01 - 02

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): STD: 01, 10 -17; 

GDL: 04, 07- 08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01-08

Fire (FIRE-FW): GDL: 01-02, 04-05, 08-10

California spotted owl 

(Strix occidentalis 

occidentalis)

Large, high-intensity wildfire, 

past forest management 

activities such as even-age 

stand structure, removal of 

lower vegetation layers and 

large snags.

Mature mixed conifer and fir 

forests with high tree canopy 

cover, multi-layered canopies, 

and an abundance of large and 

mature trees and snags; 

possible use of young stands for 

foraging; occasionally lower 

elevation riparian and montane 

hardwood forests.

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): STD: 01; GDL: 01-02, 

04, 05

Black oak/Canyon live oak (TERR-BLCK): DC: 01-02; GDL: 

01-02

Old Forest (TERR-OLD): DC: 01-07; GDL: 01-02

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01- 03; GDL: 01, 

04, 05

California Spotted owl (SPEC-CSO): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-06; 

GDL: 01-07

California spotted owl, Pacific fisher and Sierra marten 

(SPEC-CSO-PF—SM): DC: 01, 02; GDL: 01

Fire (FIRE-FW): GDL: 01-02, 04-05, 08-10
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

356

Species Known Threats Persistence Principal Habitats

Forest Plan Components for Habitat

Integrity, Sustainability and/or Species Persistence

Inyo Mountain salamander

(Batrachoseps campi) 

Drying of permanent springs 

and seeps. Loss of springs and 

seeps due from historic 

livestock grazing and wild 

horse grazing.

Small permanent desert springs 

and seeps with riparian 

vegetation. May extend out from 

riparian areas in canyon bottoms 

at higher elevations. 

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 02-04

Sagebrush (TERR-SAGE): DC: 01-04

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 05

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02

Riparian conservation areas (MC-RCA): DC: 01- 05, 10-11, 

15; STD: 11-13; GDL: 04, 06, 07

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01- 07

Lakes, Pools, Ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Hell Hollow slender 

salamander

(Batrachoseps diabolicus)

Limited distribution and rarity Mixed pine-oak woodland and 

chaparral communities of the 

foothills of the Sierra Nevada.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 01-03

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03

Geology and minerals ( GEO-FW): DC: 01

Fairview salamander

(Batrachoseps bramei) 

Road maintenance and road 

grading of Mountain Highway 

99 (Kernville-Johnsondale).

Often found beneath rocks, 

talus, logs, leaf litter, or other 

cover in a chaparral plant 

community. Very limited range 

from 2,800-4,200 feet above sea 

level. 

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-05; 

GDL: 01

Chaparral-live oak ( TERR-CHAP): DC: 01-02

Special habitats (TERR-SH): STD: 01

Animals and plants (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 04-06

Fire (FIRE-FW): GDL: 05, 08

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-

14, 17-19; GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01-06

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03

Critical aquatic refuges (MA-CAR): DC: 01-03

Gregarious slender 

salamander

(Batrachoseps gregarius)

Potential compaction of 

occupied habitat.

Found in a wide range of 

habitats, from mixed Sierran 

coniferous forests at high 

elevation, to open woodlands, to 

open grasslands at low 

elevation.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 01-03

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

357

Species Known Threats Persistence Principal Habitats

Forest Plan Components for Habitat

Integrity, Sustainability and/or Species Persistence

Kings River slender 

salamander

(Batrachoseps regius)

Road construction. Mixed pine-oak/chaparral 

association, in moist side 

canyons or shaded, north-facing 

slopes and ravines; ferns and 

mosses are present at some 

sites.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-05; 

GDL: 01

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 01-04; GDL: 01-2, 

04-05

Animals and plants species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 

04-06

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-

14, 17-19; GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01-06

Rivers and Streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03

Critical aquatic refuges (MA-CAR): DC: 01-03

Kern Canyon slender 

salamander

(Batrachoseps simatus) 

Potential impacts that would 

degrade occupied habitat in 

narrow ravines. Substantial 

changes to hydrologic 

functions such as development 

of water storage facilities within 

the Kern River Canyon

Near streams in shaded, narrow 

canyons and on ridges and 

hillsides, particularly those facing 

north under logs, 

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-05; 

GDL: 01

Animals and plants species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 

04-06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03; GDL: 05, 08

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-03, 05; STD: 02

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-

14, 17-19; GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD-): DC: 01-06

Rivers and Streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03

Critical aquatic refuges (MA-CAR): DC: 01-03

Yellow-blotched 

salamander

(Ensatina eschscholtzii 

croceator) 

Potential compaction to 

occupied habitat and 

hydrologic changes to habitat.

Typical habitat includes 

coniferous forest, deciduous 

forest, oak woodland, coastal 

sage scrub, and chaparral under 

logs, bark, moss, leaf litter, and 

talus or in animal burrows

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; GDL: 01

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): GDL: 01-2, 04-05

Animals and plants species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 

04-06
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

358

Species Known Threats Persistence Principal Habitats

Forest Plan Components for Habitat

Integrity, Sustainability and/or Species Persistence

Limestone salamander

(Hydromantes brunus) 

Potential threats: include direct 

impacts to occupied limestone 

habitat. Potential road 

construction along Yosemite 

access road.

Inhabits mossy limestone 

crevices and talus in the Grey 

Pine, Oak, Buckeye, Chaparral 

belt of the lower Merced River 

Canyon, typically on steep 

slopes. Sierra foothill habitats 

along moist steep (more than 35 

degrees) canyon slopes to midelevation.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-03

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 01-03

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 05

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 02

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03

Geology and minerals (GEO-FW): DC: 01; GDL: 01-02

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-

18; GDL: 01-08

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03

Indian Yosemite snail

(Monadenia yosemitensis)

This species has very little 

capability to disperse and even 

relatively small barriers are 

limiting. Drought and climate 

changes are threats as well as 

stochastic events that might 

affect this single location.

Occurs on limestone outcrops on 

the western foothills of the Sierra 

Nevada. Dry, xeric areas with 

less than six inches precipitation 

annually, as moisture is required 

for respiration and often hatching 

of eggs.

Special habitats (TERR-SH): DC: 01, 02

Merced Canyon 

shoulderband

(Helminthoglypta 

allynsmithi) 

High-intensity fire outside 

typical burn season

Talus deposits and outcrops, 

rocks and woody debris in forest 

habitats.

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 01-03

Special habitats (TERR-SH): DC: 01, 02

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 05

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 02

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03

Geology and minerals (GEO-FW): DC: 01; GDL: 01-02

Tight coin

(Ammonitella yatesii) 

Barriers to movement in 

occupied habitats

Carbonate calcareous cliff 

habitats.

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 02-04; GDL: 01-02, 

05

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03, GDL: 04-

06

Behr's metalmark

(Apodemia virgulti 

davenporti) 

Known from relatively few 

populations. Problems with 

invasive weeds, especially 

cheatgrass.

Tehachapi and Piute Mountains 

in Kern County between 4,000 to 

6,000 feet. 

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): STD: 01

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 01-04

All montane vegetation Types (TERR-MONT): DC: 01-02

Special habitats (TERR-SH): STD: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 01, 

03, 05

Invasive species (INV-FW): STD: 01; GDL: 01-05

Boisduval's blue

(Plebejus icarioides inyo) 

Disturbance within known sites 

to larval food plant Lupinus

species.

Occurs in the Inyo Mountains, 

uses several Lupinus species for 

larval food plant.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

359

Species Known Threats Persistence Principal Habitats

Forest Plan Components for Habitat

Integrity, Sustainability and/or Species Persistence

Tehachapi fritillary

(Speyeria egleis 

tehachapina) 

Potential disturbance within 

known sites to larval food plant 

thought be Viola purpurea 

xerophyta.

Summit peaks and ridges on 

Tehachapi Mountains and Piute 

Mountains.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): GDL: 01

Animals and plants species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 

04-06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01; GDL: 01-05

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-03, 05; STD: 01-03

San Emigdio blue

(Plebulina emigdionis) 

While the food plant is not rare, 

this butterfly is extremely 

localized and known from 

perhaps only 20 sites This 

species may be subject to 

stochastic events such as 

wildfire.

Localized species ranging from 

3,000 to 5,000 feet, in washes 

and alluvial fans. Habitats are 

lower Sonoran zone desert 

canyons and along riverbeds. 

Host plants are shrub species 

Atriplex canescens. 

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 02-04

All Montane Vegetation Types (TERR-MONT): DC: 01-02

Special habitats (TERR-SH): STD: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 01, 

03, 05

Fire (FIRE-FW): GDL: 05

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): STD: 11-13; GDL: 

04, 06, 07

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01- 07

Sierra Sulphur

(Colias behrii) 

Disturbance to known sites at 

wet and dry meadows where 

food plants occur. (Vaccinium 

caespitosum and various 

grasses or sedges). Alpine 

population less prone to 

collecting pressures due to lack 

of access but drought and 

climate change a concern.

Common N side of Saddlebag 

Lake and above timberline on 

ridge below Mt. Conness at over 

10,000 feet, northern limit at 

Yosemite. Wet and dry 

meadows where food plants 

occur (Vaccinium caespitosum

and various grasses or sedges).

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 02-04

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 05

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): STD: 11-13; GDL: 

04, 06, 07

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01- 07

Square dotted blue

(Euphilotes battoides 

mazourka) 

Potential disturbance within 

known sites to food plant 

Eriogonum umbellatum 

subaridum.

Limited to Westgard Pass area 

between 8,000 and 13,000 feet

on scree slopes, barren ridges, 

and pumice fields. 

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): STD: 01

Upper montane vegetation types (TERR-UPPR): DC: 01-02

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 05

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; GDL: 02

Mono Lake checkerspot

(Euphydryas editha 

monoensis) 

Potential disturbance within 

known sites to food plants; 

Penstemon rydbergii and 

Collinsia parviflora 

East side Sierras in Great Basin 

Scrub habitat, Sonora Pass to 

Big Pine Creek Canyon.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): GDL: 01

Animals and plants species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 

04-06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; GDL: 01-05

Invasive species (INV-FW): STD: 01

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-03, 05; STD: 01-03

Sierra skipper

(Hesperia miriamae) 

Potential disturbance within 

known sites to various grasses 

including Festuca 

brachypphylla 

Mount Barcroft in the North to 

Mount Campito in the south 

above 10,500 feet. 

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): STD: 01

Upper montane vegetation types (TERR-UPPR): DC: 01-02

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 05

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; GDL: 02
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

360

Species Known Threats Persistence Principal Habitats

Forest Plan Components for Habitat

Integrity, Sustainability and/or Species Persistence

White Mountains skipper

(Hesperia miriamae 

longaevicola)

Butterfly is confined to highest 

elevations of the White 

Mountains and prone to 

stochastic threats such as 

wildfire.

Food plant is various grasses in 

high meadows of White 

Mountains. Found in the White 

Mountains of Mono County from 

Mount Barcroft to Mount 

Campito, CA. Also found at 

Boundary Peak in NV.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 02-04

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 05

Riparian conservation areas (MC-RCA): STD: 11-13; GDL: 

04, 06, 07

Meadows (RCA-MEAD: DC: 01- 07

Fire (FIRE-FW): GDL: 05

Atronis fritillary

(Speyeria mormonia 

obsidiana) 

Potential disturbance within 

known sites to larval food 

thought to be Viola adunca. 

Sawmill Meadow, Glass 

Mountain vicinity

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01- 07

Apache fritillary

(Speyeria nokomis 

apacheana) 

Significant drop in numbers at 

Mono Lake Park because of 

loss of water runoff and loss of 

habitat from converting Mono 

Lake Park into an unnatural 

habitat. It remains more 

common elsewhere and in the 

Rovana area near Bishop

Spring-fed meadow at Round 

Valley, Inyo County

Watershed condition (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 02-04

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 05

Invasive species (INV-FW-DC: 01-02); (INV-FW): GDL: 02-

05

Fire (FIRE-FW-GDL: 05).Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02

Riparian conservation areas (MC-RCA): STD: 11-13; GDL: 

04, 06, 07

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01- 07

A cave obligate 

pseudoscorpion

(Tuberochernes aalbui) 

Disturbance to caves Cave environments Special habitats (TERR-SH): DC 01, 02
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

361

Consequences to At-risk Wildlife by Vegetation Zone 

The analysis by vegetation zone is based in part on the “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” and 

“Agents of Change” sections. These sections describe consequences to vegetation that affect 

habitat. The alternatives vary in their ability to reduce the risk of habitat degradation across large 

forested areas from large-scale disturbances like drought-related vegetation mortality, large highintensity fire, and insect outbreaks (see “Agents of Change” section). The alternatives also vary in 

their ability to move toward the desired conditions for structure, composition, and resilience of 

each vegetation type (see “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section).

Westside Foothill Vegetation

Under alternatives B, C, and D, habitat in the lower elevations of this zone would predominantly 

be treated to reduce fuels in the community buffers near structures and along roads and ridges 

because much of this zone is adjacent to communities. This zone includes low elevation blue oak 

woodlands, chaparral, and some ponderosa pine and black oak. The following species are known 

to use portions of this zone to meet some life history requirements: 

• Pacific fringe-tailed bat at this elevation forages in valley foothill hardwood (oak) habitat. 

• Pacific fisher uses the ponderosa pine, blue oak, and particularly black oak habitat. 

• California spotted owl uses riparian/hardwood habitat (blue oak).

• Great gray owl has been detected nesting in lower elevation oak woodlands. 

• Yellow blotched salamander typical habitat includes coniferous forest, deciduous forest, 

oak woodland, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral under logs, bark, moss, leaf litter, and talus 

or in animal burrows. 

• Kings River slender salamander is found in mixed pine-oak/chaparral association, in moist 

side canyons or shaded, north facing slopes and ravines; ferns and mosses are present at 

some sites.

• Limestone salamander inhabits mossy limestone crevices and talus in the Grey Pine, Oak, 

Buckeye, Chaparral belt of the lower Merced River Canyon, typically on steep slopes; and 

in Sierra foothill habitats along moist steep canyon slopes to mid-elevation.

• Fairview salamander is often found beneath rocks, talus, logs, leaf litter, or other cover in a 

chaparral plant community from 2,800-4,200 feet above sea level.

In terms of fine-filter plan components, all alternatives retain the current direction (plan 

components) to protect known nests and nesting habitat for great gray owls in protected activity 

centers. These areas include at least 50 acres of the highest quality habitat established around all 

known great gray owl nest stands. The four alternatives protect habitat condition or quantity 

within protected activity centers for this species the same since this approach does not differ by 

alternative.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Habitat quantity is not expected to change as a result of management activities under this 

alternative but could be at a risk of loss from large, high-intensity fires, which are predicted to 

increase the most (two to four times) under this alternative.

Habitat condition is anticipated to trend further away from the desired conditions (and natural 

range of variation) under this alternative (see “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section). 

Treatments to restore vegetation types to within the natural range of variation are generally 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

362

limited under alternative A. Treatments in this ecological zone are focused primarily on reducing 

fuel volumes (and reduce fire risk) rather than on restoring the vegetation condition to within the 

natural range of variation because so much of this zone overlaps with the wildland-urban intermix

defense and threat zones. Treatments remove mostly small- and medium-diameter trees and treat 

some shrubs, and include standards and guidelines to retain moderate to high canopy cover and 

retain habitat features in sensitive areas like great gray owl protected activity centers, California 

spotted owl protected activity centers, and the southern Sierra fisher conservation area. These 

treatments do not necessarily restore forest structure, composition, and heterogeneity toward the 

natural range of variation that would increase resilience of habitat for terrestrial wildlife species. 

The relatively slow rate of restoration under this alternative and emphasis on treating the 

wildland-urban intermix, rather than strategically treating vegetation across the landscape, can’t 

keep pace with the build-up of high fuel volumes throughout the landscape, improve landscape 

heterogeneity, and help the forest vegetation trend toward the natural range of variation. Overall, 

the composition and structure of vegetation and spread of invasive plants are predicted to have 

low or low to moderate similarity to the desired conditions for this zone. 

Alternative A continues to take a species-specific approach to habitat protection in which 

treatments are very limited in great gray owl protected activity centers, California spotted owl 

protected activity centers, and the southern Sierra fisher conservation area, including in the 

wildland-urban intermix. This alternative is also prescriptive in that it restricts the removal of 30-

inch or larger diameter trees and restricts reduction in canopy cover. Although the foothill zone 

(except portions of the Sierra National Forest) does not have many large-diameter trees due to 

past land management practices, some dense, even-aged stands of large-diameter trees exist in 

areas that were logged by the railroad starting in the late 1800s. In these 90- to 110-year-old, 

even-aged second growth forests, many of the trees growing on highly productive forestlands 

have been previously thinned and most trees are now 30 inches or larger. These forests have 

fewer pine trees and are denser than they would have been historically and are outside the natural 

range of variation. Stands with large trees and moderate to dense canopy cover are now classified 

as suitable habitat for fisher further restricting potential restoration treatments. Vegetation 

treatments are limited within protected activity centers and fisher habitat, limiting the opportunity 

to restore resilience of these protected areas to support species in the future as oaks, pines, and 

other important habitat elements are lost to fire, insect outbreaks, intense drought conditions, and 

competition with shade-tolerant trees. Large areas of Pacific fisher habitat and many California 

spotted owl protected activity centers have already been lost in the Sierra Nevada to large 

wildfires with high-severity effects that have completely removed forested landscapes, including 

canopy cover, live trees, and structurally complex understories (see species accounts in “Affected 

Environment” section).

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

There would be some increase in restoration in the foothill zone in alternative B because of 

management direction to reduce fire risk to communities and increase resilience of oak 

woodlands to climate change. Within the community wildfire protection zone and general 

wildfire protection zones there is plan direction to incorporate ecological desired conditions 

wherever possible, so that vegetation in these areas moves toward vegetation desired conditions 

and the natural range of variation (MA-CWPZ-DC-02; MA-CWPZ-GDL-02; MA-CWPZGOAL-02; MA-GWPZ-DC-02; MA- GWPZ-GDL-01; MA-GWPZ-GOAL-01). This alternative 

incorporates new desired conditions for blue oak, interior live oak, and chaparral live oak habitat 

types and fire behavior in this zone that would more clearly direct management than under 

alternative A and would result in improved habitat condition (Table 40 and Table 41 in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

363

“Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology”; and Table 81.) With these desired conditions, objectives 

(TERR-FW-OBJ-01 to 03), and guidelines (TERR-FW-GDL-01 to 02, -04; TERR-BLCK-GDL01 to 02), management is directly addressing the desire to improve resilience, recruitment, and 

structural diversity and complexity of this habitat type. As a result, it is anticipated that the 

composition and structure of the habitat in this zone will move from low/moderate to moderate 

similarity to desired conditions in restoration areas (see “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section). 

Although this alternative improves habitat condition beyond alternative A, the magnitude of this 

improvement may not be as dramatic as for the montane zone because fewer acres in this zone are 

proposed for mechanical treatment. 

Alternative B also emphasizes restoration in focus landscapes. These will overlap with portions of 

the westside foothill vegetation, especially where there is fisher and owl habitat. Vegetation types 

in these areas would include ponderosa pine and black oak. Treating in large focus landscapes

under alternatives B and D would more rapidly improve the resilience of the greater landscape to 

wildfire and changing climate conditions than alternatives A and C. Alternatives A and C 

emphasize treatments on the patch and stand scale, which does not translate into a greater degree 

of resiliency that is achieved with landscape scale restoration. Focus landscape treatments not 

only function to disrupt the spread of high-intensity wildfires over large landscapes, they are also 

intended to move the vegetation types closer to within the natural range of variation (see 

“Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section Table 37). This shared emphasis would improve habitat 

condition for at-risk terrestrial wildlife species where treatments help the habitat trend toward

improved heterogeneous conditions with enhanced structural diversity and landscape 

connectivity. Therefore, this alternative has less of a risk of habitat loss in this zone to large-scale 

disturbances and better potential to maintain or improve habitat condition on the landscape than

alternatives A and C. 

This alternative has more flexibility than alternative A to use a variety of management techniques 

to achieve the desired conditions more rapidly. Although managed wildfire would not usually be 

used near communities, there is potential to use more mechanical treatments and larger landscape 

scale prescribed fires (TERR-OLD-GDL-01; SPEC-CSO-GDL-07; SPEC-PF-GDL-04; SPECCSO-STD-01 to 02; SPEC-PF-STD-01). Therefore, where this habitat occurs, particularly outside 

of the community buffers but within focus landscapes, it is expected that this alternative would be 

in a better position than alternative A to move vegetation toward desired conditions using more 

effective treatment techniques.

The consequences for habitat resilience in westside foothill vegetation differs for blue oak 

woodlands or chaparral from ponderosa pine or black oak. The management approach under this 

alternative is anticipated to maintain a moderate resilience to large, high-intensity fires in blue 

oak woodlands and chaparral. For ponderosa pine and black oak, the management approach is 

anticipated to move the landscape from a very low to a low resilience overall and to a moderate 

resilience in focus landscapes to large, high-intensity wildfires and improve resilience beyond 

alternative A to the stressors of changing climate conditions. Improving the resilience of the 

landscape would improve habitat condition and reduce the risk of habitat loss for wildlife. 

However, large, high-intensity wildfires are anticipated to continue under this alternative (see 

“Fire Trends” section) and may remove habitat and important habitat elements (such as canopy 

cover, large-diameter trees) for mature forest associated species (see “Terrestrial Vegetation 

Ecology” section). But given the emphasis on landscape treatments, it is anticipated that highintensity fires would affect smaller and more variable patches of habitat than those that currently 

burn and are predicted to burn under alternative A. A mosaic pattern of varying fire effects on the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

364

landscape can improve heterogeneity for species like California spotted owls and Pacific fisher 

that may use low, moderate, and mixed-severity burned areas for foraging.

There is a greater risk of treatment-related effects to habitat quantity and condition under this 

alternative compared to alternative A because of the greater flexibility to remove larger diameter 

trees within the two wildfire protection zones and to treat within California spotted owl protected 

activity centers and suitable fisher target cells within community buffers and focus landscapes. 

There is no restriction on the size of tree that can be removed in the community and general 

wildfire protection zones, but vegetation treatments that may include the removal of some large 

trees would be designed to move toward desired conditions for vegetation, old forest, and wildlife 

(TERR-OLD-DC-03 to 04, TERR-OLD-GDL-01; SPEC-FW-GDL-01). 

On the Sierra National Forest, most of the community wildfire protection zone overlaps with 

westside foothill vegetation. The combined area overlap contains 25 percent of suitable fisher 

target cells and 20 percent of California spotted owl protected activity centers. The removal of 

some large-diameter trees could reduce prey abundance, reduce canopy cover, and remove 

potential resting, denning, nesting, and roosting sites. It could also be compounded by the 

potential for loss of some large-diameter trees from patches of mixed- and high-severity fires, and 

insect and pathogen outbreaks. Old forests would likely benefit if treatments reduce the loss of 

other large and old trees in the future. Management in California spotted owl protected activity 

centers and suitable fisher target cells could also cause temporary impacts on habitat condition, 

particularly where canopy cover is reduced.

Although there is potential for treatment-related impacts to habitat condition, there are a variety 

of plan components to guide project design, including in sensitive habitats like California spotted 

owl protected activity centers and suitable fisher target cells (TERR-FW-GDL-01 to 04; TERROLD-GDL-01 to 02; TERR-CES-GDL-01, -03, -06; SPEC-CSO-STD-03 to 06; SPEC-PF-STD01 to 04). These plan components are intended to allow treatments to preserve habitat condition 

and reduce the risk of habitat loss in the long term, while tempering the magnitude of effects in 

the short term. For example, the desired conditions for vegetation types, including old forests, 

describe the number and size of large trees that are desired (see Table 37 in “Terrestrial 

Vegetation Ecology” section, TERR-OLD-DC-03 to 04), which were developed with mature 

forest-associated species needs in mind (SPEC-CSO-DC-02, -04; SPEC-PF-DC-02, -05, -

07). 

For California spotted owl protected activity centers and suitable fisher target cells, there are new 

fine-filter plan components (see Table 83); these provide flexibility to address fire risk where 

these habitats overlap with community buffers (SPEC-PF-DC-06) and provide long-term habitat 

resilience in the two wildfire protection zones and focus landscapes while maintaining key habitat 

elements in most of these habitats in the short term (SPEC-CSO-STD-01 to 02; SPEC-CSOGDL-04, -07; SPEC-PF-GDL-04). All of these coarse and fine-filter plan components were 

developed to improve resilience of these habitats to changing climate conditions and reduce the 

risk of loss from large-scale disturbances like large, high-intensity wildfires. They were 

developed using a combination of recommendations included in General Technical Report 220 

(North et al. 2009), General Technical Report 237 (North 2012), the “Draft Interim 

Recommendations for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National Forest 

System Lands” (USDA FS 2015a), and the “Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Conservation 

Strategy” (Spencer et al. 2016). Therefore, these plan components, at the programmatic level of 

these plans, are anticipated to provide long-term habitat in sufficient quantity and condition for 

terrestrial wildlife species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

365

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Effects to habitat condition and risk of habitat loss from large-scale disturbances are similar to 

those described under alternative A. Although the desired conditions for oak woodlands are the 

same as described under alternative B, this alternative proposes fewer acres of mechanical 

treatment, prescribed fire, and wildfire managed to meet resource objectives than alternative B 

and has less ability (similar to alternative A) to incorporate prescribed fire as a restoration tool 

due to existing heavy fuels and increasingly dense stand conditions. The landscape under this 

alternative, similar to alternative A, is less able to adapt to changing climate conditions and is less 

resilient to large high-intensity wildfire than the landscape under alternative B. Additional area in 

recommended wilderness in alternative C increases the area where there is little active 

management from 29 to 34 percent of the westside foothill vegetation. Overall, plan components 

to maintain current structure and density in the short term for California spotted owl and Pacific

fisher would minimize short-term impacts to species but would constrain treatment pace and 

scale. This restriction on treatment intensity and treatment methods would make habitat for at-risk 

terrestrial wildlife species more vulnerable than under alternative B to loss from climate change, 

large disturbances such as high-intensity wildfire, drought- and insect-related tree mortality, and 

other stressors. Similarly, habitat condition is anticipated to move further away from the desired 

conditions without treatments designed to improve heterogeneity, structural complexity, and 

landscape connectivity.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

In alternative D, the benefits to improve habitat condition and quantity, achieve resilience, and 

lower the risk of habitat loss are expected to be similar to those described under alternative B. 

However, this alternative would more rapidly achieve the desired conditions to move vegetation 

toward the natural range of variation due to the faster pace and scale of restoration (chapter 2, 

Table 6 through Table 8). This alternative is designed to improve the resilience of the landscape to 

large, high-intensity wildfire more than any other alternative and to improve resilience to climate 

change similar to alternative B, which is greater than under alternatives A and C. Similarly, this 

alternative would reduce the risk of habitat loss from wildfire and improve habitat conditions by 

creating diverse, heterogeneous landscapes more than any other alternative.

This alternative has the greatest potential for treatment-related short-term effects because of the 

increased pace and scale of treatment, enhanced flexibility to treat in California spotted owl 

protected activity centers during the breeding period after hatching, more flexibility to treat 

within suitable fisher target cells, and the ability to remove some large-diameter trees in all four 

strategic fire management zones. There are no diameter limits for the removal of some large trees 

but the emphasis is on managing toward desired conditions for large tree densities for each 

vegetation type and condition. In addition a guideline (SPEC-FW-GDL-01) is designed to protect 

known nest, roost, or den trees and surround trees for species of conservation concern. Although 

the approach under this alternative presents a greater short-term risk to habitat quantity and 

condition than alternative B from treatment actions, this alternative has the greatest potential to 

preserve existing habitat for at-risk terrestrial wildlife species by lowering the risk of large-scale 

disturbance events that create large areas of dead and dying trees. 

This alternative also has the greatest potential to improve condition of currently unoccupied 

habitat that could support at-risk terrestrial wildlife species in the future. Although treatments 

would generally be limited in the westside foothill vegetation as compared to the montane zone, 

the benefit of improving current and potential future habitat condition in this zone, enhancing the 

distribution of potential habitat, and reducing the risk of widespread vegetation mortality is 

estimated to outweigh the potential for short-term impacts. This alternative continues to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

366

implement fine-filter plan components for many mature forest-associated species (Table 83) with 

some minor adjustments discussed above.

Eastside Pinyon-Juniper, Sagebrush, and Mountain Mahogany

In this zone, sagebrush and pinyon-juniper are the primary habitats that support at-risk terrestrial 

wildlife species. These habitats occur predominantly on the Inyo National Forest but also occur 

on the eastside of the Sequoia National Forest. The following species are supported by the 

habitats in this zone: 

• Bi-state sage-grouse meet all of their life history requirements in this zone, particularly in 

sagebrush habitat,

• Yellow-eared pocket mice are supported by pinyon-juniper and sagebrush habitats in this 

zone, and 

• Pacific fringe-tailed bat forages in pinyon-juniper habitat. 

There is analysis of eastside arid shrublands and woodlands, especially sagebrush, pinyon-juniper 

and eastside Jeffrey pine vegetation in the “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section. This analysis 

builds upon that analysis and emphasizes wildlife habitat and species requirement aspects.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Habitat condition for at-risk terrestrial wildlife species in this zone would be relatively unchanged 

by management activities due to limited proposed treatments. Alternative A proposes the least 

amount of restoration of all alternatives. Treatments to reduce invading pinyon in sagebrush 

would occur focused primarily on sage-grouse habitat, but not at an increased pace as under 

alternatives B, C, and D. Pinyon would be treated where it overlaps the wildland-urban intermix

and presents a fire risk. Under this alternative, the structure and composition of the habitat would 

likely remain departed from the desired conditions and this alternative is the least able to prepare 

the landscape to adapt to changing climate conditions. The landscape under this alternative would 

continue to have a low resilience to large high-intensity wildfire. Although fire is a natural part of 

these systems, large wildfires with high-severity effects could remove large areas of these habitats 

from the landscape until they are able to recover, assuming that native vegetation is not 

overwhelmed by invasive species. However, the condition could deteriorate and the amount of 

habitat could be reduced more than under any other alternative due to habitat type conversion 

from increases in cheatgrass, loss of quality habitat due to the spread of pinyon and Jeffrey pine 

into sagebrush habitat, and the increasing risk of large high-intensity wildfires.

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

This alternative would increase restoration levels compared to alternative A but would still treat 

relatively little of the woodland habitat in this zone (about 5 percent) compared to other areas on 

the Inyo and Sequoia National Forests. Eastside Jeffrey pine habitats are the most outside of the 

natural range of variation and at the greatest risk to stressors and, therefore would have increases 

in treatment (chapter 2, Table 6 through Table 8). Still, this alternative proposes to treat more 

habitat in this zone (including sagebrush and pinyon-juniper) than alternative A, focused on 

restoration of sage-grouse habitat and areas around communities at risk (TERR-FW-OBJ-01 to 

03; SPEC-SG-OBJ-01). This would include restoration of 1 to 10 percent of sage-grouse habitat. 

There would be restoration of riparian areas, most of which would occur in this area on the Inyo 

National Forest (MA-RCA-OBJ-01). There would be an increase in the area treated to reduce 

nonnative invasive plants (INV-FW-OBJ-01). There are specific goals and management 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

367

approaches to increase emphasis on cooperation with adjacent landowners and other interested 

collaborators in managing habitat (SPEC-FW-GOAL-01 to 02, -04; SPEC-SG-GOAL-01). 

Management approaches include the following: 

Continue coordination and communication with the California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Nevada Department of Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during 

project development for all projects occurring within sage-grouse habitat.

Coordinate with research and other organizations to evaluate the potential effects of 

climate change on the spread of invasive, non-native species.

Habitat condition for at-risk terrestrial wildlife species is more likely to improve under this 

alternative and risk of habitat loss from large-scale disturbances is more likely to be less than 

under alternative A. This alternative has clear desired conditions for the resiliency, structural 

diversity, recruitment, functioning, and connectivity of these habitats (TERR-SAGE-DC-01 to 04; 

TERR-PINY-DC-01 to 05; TERR-XER-DC-01 to 04; TERR-MOMA-DC-01 to 02; TERR-SHDC-01 to 02; SPEC-FW-DC-01 to 04; SPEC-SG-DC-01 to 09). This alternative also takes a 

landscape-level approach to restoration that would translate into large-scale improvements to 

habitat condition, including connectivity. The composition and structure of vegetation in restored 

areas in this zone would likely move from low similarity to desired conditions under alternative A 

to low-moderate similarity to desired conditions in restored areas under this alternative as 

described in the “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section. Encroaching pinyon and Jeffrey pine 

would be more effectively removed from large zones of sagebrush. Although the use of 

prescribed fire would be somewhat limited (although not as limited as in alternative A), this 

restoration technique would move the structure of these habitats toward the desired conditions. 

There are specific standards and guidelines to guide restoration project design to enhance or limit 

impacts to wildlife habitat, especially for sage-grouse and other at-risk species (TERR-SH-STD01; SPEC-SG-STD-01 to 13; TERR-XER-STD-01; RANG-FW-STD-01; TERR-XER-GDL-01; 

SPEC-FW-GDL-04 to 06; SPEC-SG-GDL-01 to 07). In addition, the following potential 

management approaches could help improve this zone: 

Prevention of unwanted fire in priority habitat can be accomplished through managing 

sagebrush systems to be resilient, implementing proactive fire prevention and limiting 

cheatgrass expansion.

An adaptive management strategy shall be used when conducting vegetation treatments 

within sage-grouse habitat. Treatment methods and intensities will be determined based 

on the results of past treatments as information from those past treatments becomes 

available. If the results of past treatments show that those treatments have caused an 

increase in non-native annual grasses and poor sagebrush recruitment, further treatments 

within sage-grouse habitat will not adhere to the same prescription.

When a right-of-way is no longer in use, relinquish the right-of-way and reclaim the site 

by removing powerlines, reclaiming roads and removing other infrastructure.

Where sage-grouse habitat is being degraded due to wild horse and burro use, determine 

site-specific measures to improve or restore sage-grouse habitat.

Direction to limit the invasion and spread of nonnative plants is similar to alternative A (INV-FWGDL-01 to 06). Nonnative invasive plants greatly reduce native plant composition, structure and 

fire patterns and consequently impact habitat (see “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section).

Where these habitats occur in wilderness and support at-risk terrestrial wildlife species, the 

restoration approach proposed under this alternative would be better positioned to use managed 

wildfire to restore habitat condition (see “Fire Management” section). Most wilderness areas 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

368

would be in the wildfire maintenance zone where managing wildfires can safely be used to meet 

resource objectives is emphasized. This alternative is not expected to have as many severe and 

large, high-intensity fires like those predicted under alternative A (see “Fire Trends” section), 

which can completely remove this habitat from the landscape. Unlike alternative A, the 

management approach under alternative B moves the landscape toward to a moderate resilience 

to large high-intensity fire and better positions the vegetation to adapt to changing climate 

conditions.

Although short-term effects to habitat condition could occur due to the increased pace and scale 

of restoration and more intensive management tools (such as mechanical equipment), these 

effects would be site and project-specific and cannot be fully assessed at this programmatic level. 

At the programmatic level of the proposed plan, the long-term benefit to habitat condition and 

reduction in potential for habitat loss under this alternative is expected to outweigh the potential 

for short-term effects.

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Alternative C emphasizes the management of fire, both the active use in prescribed burning at 

greater landscape scales as well as through managing wildfires to meet resource objectives.

However, alternative C proposes to treat far fewer acres than alternative B, especially in this zone 

(chapter 2, Table 6 through Table 8). The exception is that restoration of sagebrush habitats 

important for sage-grouse would be slightly higher than alternative B. There is 3 percent more 

sagebrush and pinyon-juniper habitat in recommended wilderness in this alternative.

This alternative is more limited in the use of mechanical equipment that can effectively target 

specific trees for removal and help move vegetation toward the desired conditions. Therefore, 

although the potential for short-term effects related to implementation could be less under this 

alternative than under alternatives B and D, the long-term condition of many pinyon-juniper 

habitats that support a variety of at-risk terrestrial wildlife species would continue to trend away 

from desired conditions for structure, composition, function, and connectivity over time while 

conditions of sagebrush habitats would improve similar to alternative B. The forested habitat 

would be more vulnerable than alternative B to climate change and large high-intensity fire that 

can completely remove large areas of this habitat. Invasive species and encroaching pinyon and 

Jeffrey pine would continue to threaten sagebrush habitat where treatments are limited by 

restricting harvest to only smaller diameter trees.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

In alternative D, benefits to habitat quantity and condition including structure, composition, and 

resilience to climate change and large high-intensity wildfire, and potential for short-term effects 

would be the same as those described for alternative B. This alternative proposes to treat about 

the same, or slightly more habitat in this zone than alternative B (chapter 2, Table 6 through Table 

8). However, this habitat already faces threats due to invasive species (cheatgrass) and this 

alternative has the greatest risk of spreading invasive species due to more acres treated and more 

mechanical treatments.

Montane Forest (includes old forest components and complex early seral habitat) 

This zone supports a large number of at-risk terrestrial wildlife species and is also the primary 

focus of restoration treatments under alternatives B, C, and D to move vegetation toward the 

range of natural variation. This zone and treatments within this zone would occur on the Sierra 

and Sequoia National Forests only. The following species are supported by habitat and specific 

habitat elements in this zone:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

369

• California condors nest and roost in large conifers and giant sequoias. 

• Pacific fishers fulfill most to all of their life history requirements in mature mixed conifer, 

ponderosa pine, and black oak forests with dead and downed wood, high and multi-layered 

canopy cover, and large trees (live and dead).

• Bald eagles nest in large live conifers and roost in large live and dead conifers especially 

where these trees are located near aquatic habitat (large lakes, rivers, streams).

• Great gray owls nest in large, decayed trees in forests with high canopy cover that are near 

meadows. 

• California spotted owls fulfill most to all of their life history needs in mature mixed conifer 

and fir forests with high and multi-layered canopy cover and an abundance of large and 

mature trees and snags. 

• Pacific fringe-tailed bats will roost in large and tall dead trees and forage in hardwoodmixed conifer forests. 

• Townsend’s big-eared bats are foraging generalists that use mid-elevation mixed conifer 

and hardwood mixed-conifer forests. 

• Yellow blotched salamander typical habitat includes coniferous forest, deciduous forest, 

oak woodland, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral under logs, bark, moss, leaf litter, and talus 

or in animal burrows. 

Although old forest habitat can occur in any zone, the potential effects of the draft plan 

alternatives on old forest characteristics are described in this section because many of the at-risk 

terrestrial wildlife species that persist in the montane zone are strongly associated with old forest 

habitat features such as large live and dead trees and complex stand structure. Similarly, complex 

early seral habitat can be developed anywhere there is a significant tree mortality event in mature 

forest, not strictly in the montane zone. Complex early seral habitat provides an important habitat 

type to several mature forest-associated species in that it can provide cavities for roosting (bats), 

an increased prey base for a variety of species, and a level of heterogeneity and edge habitat that 

can benefit some species like California spotted owls and great gray owls and the Sierra Nevada 

red fox. Because many of the species that persist in this zone are also associated to some degree 

with complex early seral habitat the potential effects on this habitat type are described in this 

section. In the “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” sections, there is analysis on montane vegetation, 

old forests and complex early seral habitats. This section builds upon that analysis with an 

emphasis on wildlife habitat and species requirements.

There are specific desired conditions for vegetation for alternatives B, C, and D that provide a 

template for restoration of habitat toward the natural range of variation (TERR-MONT-DC-01 to 

07; TERR-POND-DC-01 to 05; TERR-DMC-DC-01 to 06; TERR-MMC-DC-01 to 06). All three

alternatives would continue to implement the current fine filter components for the protection of 

great gray owl known nests and nesting habitat in protected activity centers (SPEC-GGO-GDL01 to 02; see also Table 83 above). Therefore, the alternative analysis focuses on the relative 

ability of varying coarse-filter plan directions to provide habitat that supports the persistence of 

the species.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Throughout the three national forests the habitat in the montane zone is becoming increasingly 

dense and homogenized under the current management approach (see “Terrestrial Vegetation 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

370

Ecology” section). There is little vertical structural complexity and diversity, and low levels of 

habitat heterogeneity. These conditions are generally the result of decades of fire suppression, 

relatively slow treatment rates, limited treatment tools, emphasis on treatments at the patch and 

stand scale (instead of landscape scale) in the wildland-urban intermix, and requirements to retain 

all large-diameter trees and dense canopy cover everywhere except in the wildland-urban 

intermix. Forested habitat within this zone is moving further away from conditions that support 

at-risk terrestrial wildlife species. There is generally a lack of habitat heterogeneity and structural 

complexity that supports terrestrial wildlife, particularly prey species. Increasingly uniform 

canopy condition from the rapidly growing understory of shade-tolerant trees reduces the amount 

of sunlight needed to maintain the understory shrub layer that supports forage and cover for a 

variety of prey species. The increase in small- and medium-diameter trees competes with larger 

trees for critical resources, exacerbating existing stressors on these systems (like drought) and 

generally limiting the ability of these larger trees to grow and support nesting and denning habitat 

for a variety of wildlife species like Pacific fisher, California spotted owl, great gray owl, and 

bald eagle that are strongly associated with large-diameter trees.

As a result of these habitat conditions that continue to trend away from the natural range of 

variation, the landscape under this alternative has the lowest adaptive capacity to climate change 

that would promote long-term ecological sustainability and resilience. Alternative A would 

provide a low level of long-term connectivity for forest-dependent species (lower than 

alternatives B and D) because it is the least flexible management approach in addressing rapidly 

changing climate conditions that could lead to the large-scale loss of contiguous areas of forested 

habitat. 

Alternative A also has a lower potential than alternatives B and D to reduce the risk of large, 

high-intensity wildfires (see the “Fire Trends” section) which can increase the quantity of early 

seral habitat but also substantially reduce the quantity of forested habitat within this zone. Under 

this alternative, burned area, fire size, and fire intensity are expected to continue to increase. 

Wildfires under this alternative are predicted to have large patches of high-intensity and high 

severity effects that could completely remove habitat and habitat elements (such as large live 

trees, dense canopy cover, and high structural diversity). Where these fires occur and the habitat 

trends toward early seral conditions, there would be an overall increase in the amount of early 

seral habitat. Post-fire and early seral habitats are valuable to a variety of species, including avian 

species (White et al. 2015) and some small mammals. Species like California spotted owls can 

benefit from an increase in these kinds of habitats where prey abundance increases. However, 

such large fire events (and other large-scale disturbances) threaten contiguous patches of dense 

forest that have good canopy cover and large trees, which are preferred nesting and roosting 

habitat for California spotted owls. 

The relatively slow rate of restoration (chapter 2, Table 6 through Table 8) and emphasis on 

treating the wildland-urban intermix under this alternative can’t keep pace with the build-up of 

high fuel volumes throughout the landscape, improve landscape heterogeneity, and help the forest 

vegetation trend toward the natural range of variation. Treatments in the wildland-urban intermix 

are important to reduce the fire risk to communities. However, treatments primarily focused on 

reducing fuels in these areas may not necessarily restore structure, composition, and 

heterogeneity toward the natural range of variation that would support terrestrial wildlife species. 

The uniformity of stand structure in these areas is characterized by very little to no vertical 

complexity, few to no surface fuels (like shrubs and down woody debris), and relatively fewer 

snags than in unmanaged areas, which translates into poor habitat condition for many specialized 

terrestrial wildlife species. Elsewhere on the landscape, outside of the wildland-urban intermix, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

371

stand structure is becoming increasingly homogenized due to continued ingrowth from fire 

suppression. These stands may struggle to support terrestrial wildlife species in the future as 

shade-tolerant trees compete with larger trees for resources needed to grow (like nutrients, light, 

and space) and reduce the vertical and horizontal structural complexity, including the shrub layer 

that supports prey.

The forested habitat in the montane zone outside the wildland-urban intermix continues to be at a 

high risk to large high-intensity fire without treatment priority and landscape-level treatments. 

Although fire is a natural component of Sierra ecosystems, fires are becoming increasingly 

massive and often burn large areas at high intensity rather than in a mosaic of intensities (Collins 

and Skinner 2014). The result is that habitat that previously supported dense conditions and 

canopy cover is converted to burned snag habitat and early seral habitat. Although early seral and 

burned forest habitats are important ecosystems and support a large variety of terrestrial wildlife 

species, the loss of forested habitat at such large scales is not sustainable for terrestrial wildlife 

habitat. Ultimately, a landscape that continues to burn, such as has been seen in recent years, 

cannot sustain habitat for species associated with dense canopy cover stands unless treatments 

can be done to break up the fuel loading and restore heterogeneity back on the landscape, and 

change fire behavior to promote early seral and burned forest habitat while also protecting 

densely forested, high canopy cover habitat. 

Under this alternative, plan direction is generally prescriptive and species-specific, with

limitations on two primary metrics: diameter limits of trees that can be removed and requirements 

to retain certain amounts of tree canopy cover. This alternative includes forestwide canopy 

closure requirements and prohibits the removal of trees greater than 30 inches diameter (except 

for removal of hazard trees and to enable equipment operation). Even where trees less than 30 

inches in diameter are marked for removal, the maximum diameter limit is often set to a much 

lower size because removing these larger trees (even under 30 inches) would drop the residual 

canopy cover below that described in the designation for certain wildlife habitats (such as 

protected activity centers and southern Sierra fisher conservation area). Nearly all of the at-risk 

terrestrial wildlife species associated with these habitat elements would experience no direct 

adverse consequence to habitat condition because of the direction to retain these elements. 

However, without the flexibility to remove some large trees within increasingly dense and 

homogenized forests, there would be limited opportunity to improve long-term habitat resilience 

to changing climate conditions and decrease the risk of loss to large, high-intensity wildfires and 

other large-scale disturbances. California spotted owl and Pacific fisher habitat would continue to 

be vulnerable to loss from the landscape. Habitat condition would deteriorate over time as stands 

become increasingly dense and homogenized, large trees become more stressed for adequate 

growing conditions, and vertical and understory complexity and habitat heterogeneity decrease. 

Similarly, the current management direction includes species-specific direction designating 

sensitive habitat and protecting that habitat from disturbance. Fisher habitat is designated and 

protected in the southern Sierra fisher conservation area and California spotted owl nest and roost 

locations are protected in designated protected activity centers which are inside larger designated 

home range core areas. These management areas are severely limited from treatment except in 

certain parts of the wildland-urban intermix. Even in these areas, there are restrictions on the use 

of mechanical equipment and prescribed burning, and requirements for the maintenance of 

canopy cover. Limited operating periods preclude treatments during critical breeding times. This

species-specific approach has generally prohibited treatments from occurring in these areas under 

the current plan and retained habitat elements (such as canopy cover and dense conditions) that 

are important to these species. However, these management areas are becomingly increasingly 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

372

dense, far outside the range of natural variation in many cases, and are proving vulnerable to 

large-scale disturbances. For example, large areas of Pacific fisher habitat and California spotted 

owl protected activity centers have been lost to large wildfires with high-severity effects that have 

completely removed forested landscapes, including canopy cover, live trees, and structurally 

complex understories. For the California spotted owl, a species that ranges throughout the Sierra 

Nevada, many protected activity centers throughout the range have been lost to large wildfires. 

Although management direction under the current plan has intended to protect habitat for these 

species, and protection in designated areas with treatment restrictions should continue to occur 

under any alternative, precluding carefully guided treatments from these areas or requiring that 

treatments retain unnaturally dense conditions throughout the landscape makes these species and 

their habitat more vulnerable to being lost on the landscape. 

Where fires and other large-scale tree mortality events occur, and the landscape is characterized 

by dead standing and down trees with no canopy cover and no understory vegetation, the removal 

and sale of burned trees over portions of the areas would continue. However, for large fires, salvage 

would not occur in at least 10 percent of the burned area to provide habitat for species dependent upon 

complex early seral habitats, such as some migratory birds. Although this habitat is not preferred 

nesting or denning habitat for California spotted owls and Pacific fisher, or roosting habitat for bats, 

removal of large snags and downed woody debris from large areas may still affect other habitat 

conditions. These areas can support a strong prey base for these species, and prey for bats, as well 

as large snags and large downed woody debris that could be used as rest and roost sites. These 

habitat values change over time as dead trees fall down, vegetation grows, and understory 

conditions change, affecting prey habitat and prey availability. 

The current plan includes direction to design projects to protect and maintain critical wildlife 

habitats, including retaining at least 10 percent of large wildfires unsalvaged, which provides 

undisturbed habitats for wildlife species. In reality, on most recent very large wildfires, 

substantially more than the required minimum 10 percent has been left unsalvaged. However, 

some recent research indicates that areas burned by high to moderate-severity wildfire had an 

increase in standing snags and shrub vegetation which in combination with severe fire weather, 

promoted high-severity fire in these areas later (Coppoletta et al. 2016). Therefore, under this 

alternative, where fires are predicted to burn larger and at higher intensities, there would be some 

value in removing some areas of snag habitat, in strategic locations on the landscape, because of 

the trade-off of long-term benefit to habitat condition by reducing the frequency with which these 

burned areas sustain future wildfires with high-severity effects. Removing some snags from these 

areas may also increase the ability to better contain large, rapidly spreading high-intensity fires 

safely, thereby reducing the total amount of forested habitat lost to wildfires. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

In comparison to alternative A, the management approach proposed under alternative B increases 

the pace of restoration. An overall increase in restoration treatments to improve resilience and 

trend vegetation toward desired conditions would likely improve forest habitat condition in this 

zone and reduce the risk of habitat loss (preserve habitat quantity) to large-scale disturbances 

such as high-intensity wildfire and insect outbreaks more successfully than under alternative A. 

More area would be treated using mechanical treatment and prescribed fire (TERR-FW-OBJ-01 

to 04), including in riparian areas (MA-RCA-OBJ-01). Treatments would also be more flexible, 

allowing greater movement toward vegetation desired conditions and the natural range of 

variation in most treated areas, particularly in focus landscapes and in the fire protection zones. In 

these areas, there is more flexibility to treat California spotted owl and Pacific fisher habitat. The 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

373

table below summarizes management direction specific to these montane species that affects 

vegetation restoration and varies in and out of focus landscapes and community buffers.

Table 84. Plan components guiding vegetation treatments in fisher and owl habitat that differ 

between areas in community buffers, focus landscapes, and outside of these two areas

In Community Buffers In Focus Landscapes Elsewhere

Fisher habitat desired conditions 

are same as vegetation ecological 

desired conditions (SPEC-PF-DC06 to 07)

Fisher habitat desired conditions 

are same as vegetation ecological 

desired conditions (SPEC-PF-DC06 to 07)

Fisher desired conditions, 

managed toward at least 60

percent of target cells for high 

canopy cover (mostly greater than 

60 percent) (SPEC-PF-DC-05)

None None Fisher limited operating periods 

(SPEC-PF-GDL-04)

Limits on acres of spotted owl 

protected activity centers treated 

to 5 percent per year or 10 

percent per decade (SPEC-CSOGDL-07)

Limits on acres of spotted owl 

protected activity centers treated 

to 5 percent per year or 10 

percent per decade (SPEC-CSOGDL-07)

Limits on acres of spotted owl 

protected activity centers treated 

to 5 percent per year or 10 

percent per decade (SPEC-CSOGDL-06)

Limits on treatment levels in 

Fisher target habitat cells (SPECPF-STD-02). Up to 50 percent of 

each cell in 10 year period

Limits on treatment levels in 

Fisher target habitat cells (SPECPF-STD-02). Up to 50 percent of 

each cell in 10 year period

Limits on treatment levels in 

Fisher target habitat cells (SPECPF-STD-02). Less than 13 percent 

of each cell in 5 year period

Alternative B proposes to restore vegetation at a landscape scale (focus landscapes) which can 

more effectively improve habitat connectivity for species than alternative A and also better enable 

wildfires to move through the treated landscape in a mosaic pattern with smaller patches of 

varying severities of fire effects. Most of the focus landscape areas would occur in the montane 

zone because the emphasis is on restoration of resilience in California spotted owl and Pacific 

fisher habitat (see description of focus landscapes in the “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” 

section). The following potential management approaches would emphasize restoration of larger 

landscapes in owl and fisher habitat, especially at higher risk of large, high-intensity fires: 

Emphasize vegetation treatments in focus landscapes (10,000 to 80,000 acres in size) to 

move terrestrial ecosystems toward desired conditions and increase resilience of old 

forest habitat, while limiting impacts to the Pacific fisher and California spotted owl.

To protect old forest components from uncharacteristic fire, prioritize restoration in key 

old forest areas. Methods of protecting existing old forest components on the landscape 

may include thinning, selective harvest, prescribed fire and wildfires managed to meet 

resource objectives.

Prioritize ecological restoration of protected activity centers that have departed furthest 

from protected activity center and/or vegetation desired conditions, and that promote the 

greatest ecological resilience of the protected activity center. Also consider prioritizing 

protected activity centers with the highest wildfire risk in the community buffers, such as 

on upper slopes or ridge tops or in canyons with large areas of chaparral below. Consider 

the risk of large high-intensity wildfire to clustered protected activity centers, degree of 

departure from desired condition, and whether some should be managed to reduce 

wildfire risk and increase overall resilience of protected activity centers and vegetation in 

an area. (California Spotted Owl).

Within protected activity centers, locate restoration treatments to minimize impacts to the 

protected activity center while considering opportunities to increase the resilience of the 

overall network of protected activity centers. Prioritize areas where dry vegetation is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

374

most departed from desired conditions and where treatments would provide for the most 

resilient conditions for the entire protected activity center.

Prioritize ecological restoration in landscapes around key linkage areas and areas with 

suitable habitat at highest fire risk.

Large, high-intensity fires are predicted to occur across the analysis area but fire-severity effects 

would be reduced in treated focus landscapes and other large areas with at least 40 percent of the 

area restored to vegetation desired conditions (see “Fire Trends” and “Terrestrial Vegetation 

Ecology” sections). This includes the Kern Drainage on the Sequoia National Forest that is 

already largely resilient. In these restored landscape areas, there would be less area in high 

severity and smaller patches of high severity. Wildfires with low to moderate-severity effects (that 

don’t become crown fires) can benefit habitat condition for terrestrial wildlife species by reducing 

stand density, improving structural complexity of habitat, creating snags, improving heterogeneity 

of the landscape, and increasing shrub regeneration (for cover and prey resources) while also 

retaining some key habitat features like large, fire-tolerant trees and canopy cover. Small patches 

of high-severity fires can also benefit habitat for mature forest wildlife species because the 

resultant habitat, particularly as it trends toward complex early seral habitat, can support a variety 

of prey. 

Overall, ecological resilience to large, high-intensity wildfire is anticipated to move from low 

resilience under alternative A to moderate resilience under this alternative in the focus landscapes 

and other areas where larger landscapes are restored (see “Fire Trends” section). This improved 

resilience would have long-term positive benefits for the habitat condition and quantity for at-risk 

terrestrial wildlife species associated with mature forest habitat in these areas. However, because 

this alternative does not treat enough of the overall montane landscape (about 40 to 60 percent) 

within a decade to achieve a greater resilience to large, high-intensity wildfire (see “Fire Trends” 

section, Westerling et al. 2015), habitat for mature-forest-associated species and key habitat 

elements like large trees and dense canopy cover would continue to be at risk of loss, especially 

in untreated areas. This includes two-thirds or more of the montane zone in the analysis area. This 

risk is less than under alternatives A and C but more than under alternative D, which proposes to 

treat a greater proportion of the landscape and promote a greater resilience to large wildfires.

Where high-severity wildfires occur, salvage would be conducted under this alternative using an 

integrated approach that considers safety, the ecological value of complex early seral forest, areas 

to anchor for follow-up prescribed burning, and economic recovery of forest products (TERRCES-GDL-01, -03 to 06). Like alternative A, at least 10 percent of burned areas are left 

unsalvaged to provide for complex early seral habitat using passive restoration. Additionally, 

fine-filter plan components are in place to guide salvage projects in protected activity centers and 

suitable fisher target cells (SPEC-CSO-STD-06; SPEC-CSO-GDL-02a; Table 83). Therefore,

short-term impacts to habitat condition under this alternative are expected to be similar to 

alternative A, but this alternative provides more specific guidance for project development that 

takes into account the value of this seral stage.

Unlike alternative A, alternatives B, C, and D guide project development through a set of desired 

conditions, standards, and guidelines to manage some areas within the natural range of variation 

while using habitat science for canopy cover desired conditions in some vegetation types. Most of 

the vegetation desired conditions are described with ranges. For example, for moist mixed 

conifer, desired canopy cover ranges from 20 to 90 percent, with a median of 60 percent (TERRMMC-DC-02). Similarly for dry mixed conifer, desired canopy cover ranges from 10 to 60 

percent, with a median of 30 percent (TERR-DMC-DC-03). With the emphasis on restoring 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

375

heterogeneity, there would be groups of trees or at least small areas that have more canopy cover 

on dry and especially moist sites (TERR-FW-GDL-01). See Figure 33 in the terrestrial vegetation 

section for maps showing an example of changes that would occur with restoration. 

Focus landscapes also reduce the potential for severe short-term impacts that could result from 

single or double-entry treatments that substantially reduce basal area and canopy cover. Many 

species in this zone, including California spotted owls and Pacific fisher, persisted and evolved on 

the landscape when the forest structure, especially in the montane zone, was far less dense (a 

lower basal area and less canopy cover) than it is today (Safford 2013). It may be that the 

increasingly dense forest conditions created from decades of fire suppression and limitations on 

mature forest restoration, particularly in the mixed conifer vegetation types, have inflated the 

overall amount of habitat for these species on the landscape. By emphasizing the movement of 

vegetation types toward these natural conditions, over time, the amount and condition of habitat 

similar to that which supported these species for hundreds of years, will likely contribute to their 

maintenance in the future (Haufler 1999).

The tradeoff under any management approach is finding an appropriate balance between shortterm risks from restoration treatments and long-term gains from improvement in habitat 

condition. To improve resiliency, there is a need for greater flexibility than alternative A to treat 

the landscape, including habitat within California spotted owl protected activity centers and 

suitable fisher target cells and habitat elements preferred by these species. Although impacts

might occur on a project-specific basis, these treatments would be carefully guided by coarse and 

fine filter desired conditions for vegetation types and wildlife habitat, and restricted in important 

ways by fine-filter standards and guidelines (see Table 83 above). These plan components were 

crafted with the idea that treatment to improve habitat condition is needed and warranted for these 

species but such treatments in these sensitive habitats should retain large areas of preferred 

habitat elements that support these species. In addition to the plan direction described in Table 82

above on the rate of treatment and limited operating periods for fisher and owls, there is 

additional direction on management in protected activity centers (SPEC-CSO-STD-01, -03 to 05; 

SPEC-CSO-GDL-01 to 03, -05, -06), fisher denning habitat, and for habitat connectivity (SPECPF-STD-01 to 04, SPEC-PF-GDL-01; SPEC-PF-GDL-02 to 03). The direction for protected 

activity centers is similar to alternative A but with some increased consideration of restoration 

needs to increase resilience to large high-intensity fires in areas at greatest risk. For example, in 

protected activity centers in focus landscapes where the dry vegetation type is restored, 

restoration is limited to one-third of the protected activity center per decade (SPEC-CSO-STD02). The rest of the protected activity center is not treated toward the dry vegetation type desired 

conditions. In this way, the potential for short-term risks is lessened and balanced with the need 

for restoration. 

Still, changes in forest structure to achieve resilience, particularly in the focus landscapes where 

there is a greater degree of flexibility to treat in wildlife habitat (see Table 82 and Table 83 above) 

can have short-term impacts on habitat condition. The magnitude of these impacts would be the 

subject of project-specific analyses and are beyond the scope of this programmatic analysis. In 

the focus landscapes, the majority (greater than 60 percent) of restoration under alternative B is 

prioritized for the dry vegetation type. Although many mature forest-associated species, 

especially fisher and owl, are strongly associated with dense canopies more typical of moist 

mixed conifer habitat, some protected activity centers and suitable fisher target cells occur in 

areas with dry vegetation types. For example, dry mixed conifer forest comprises an estimated 21 

percent (21,000 acres) of all habitat within California spotted owl protected activity centers on the 

Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, and 45 (20 percent) of all California spotted owl protected 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

376

activity centers contain more than 50 percent of the dry mixed conifer type. This dry vegetation 

type is now characterized by unusually dense stand conditions and canopies that have resulted 

from decades of fire suppression (Safford 2013). As a result, many species that would typically 

not nest, den, or roost in dry vegetation types may now use this habitat. It is possible that this 

trend of increasingly dense stand conditions, especially in the dry vegetation type, has unnaturally 

increased the distribution of owl and fisher habitat on the landscape. Where this dry vegetation 

type is treated to move closer to the desired conditions in the focus landscape, which could 

include substantial reductions in canopy cover (down to possibly 30 percent average cover in 

some patches) and removal of some large trees, temporary local declines in owl and fisher 

abundance may occur. However, fine-filter plan components limit the acreage of California 

spotted owl protected activity centers and number of suitable fisher target cells (and percent of 

each) that may be treated for the dry vegetation type (see Table 82 above), thereby retaining 

important habitat elements like dense canopy cover and large trees where they exist throughout 

much of their habitat. Outside of the fire protection zones, the diameter limit restricting harvest of 

trees greater than 30 inches for other than safety or very limited operational issues remains 

(TERR-FW-STD-01). This is the same as in alternative A, but in alternative B it only applies to 

areas outside of the fire protection zones. In all areas, there are specific desired conditions for 

large tree densities (TERR-OLD-DC-04 to 05) and direction to retain older, decadent trees 

(TERR-FW-GDL-01 to 02).

Some moist vegetation sites, more typical of those supporting mature forest species like Pacific 

fisher and California spotted owl, would also be treated where they are outside the natural range 

of variation, especially to increase heterogeneity (TERR-FW-GDL-01 to 02). There would be less 

change in canopy cover compared to the dry vegetation type but there would be potential for 

considerable thinning of various diameter trees to improve heterogeneity, complexity, provide 

competitive release for the growth of the largest trees, and reduce stand density to improve 

resilience to large-scale disturbances. There is some risk to habitat condition in the short term 

under this alternative where the canopy is reduced and where large-diameter trees are removed in 

areas in the two wildfire protection zones. Such changes could reduce prey abundance in the short 

term, increase predation by opening up the canopy and forest, and remove potential denning, 

nesting, and roosting structures. However, a one-size-fits-all quantitative limit on canopy cover 

retention may prevent managers from restoring vegetation heterogeneity (North et al. 2007). This 

may limit enhancing long-term habitat condition and may perpetuate the risk of habitat loss from 

large, high-intensity wildfire (Collins and Skinner 2014). This may be the case especially in some 

areas that were railroad logged at the turn of the century where entire stands are dominated by 

young large trees (see “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section). There are many fine-filter plan 

components (especially desired conditions, see Table 83) that clearly describe the value of canopy 

cover (and large trees) for these habitats, including where they occur outside of the focus 

landscapes.

There is a potential for the loss of large-diameter trees by both management actions and largescale disturbance (like high-intensity wildfire) in this zone under alternative B. This is analyzed 

in the “Old Forest” subsection of the “Terrestrial Ecosystem Processes and Functions” section. 

Here, additional analysis on the implications for wildlife habitat is described. Effects of largediameter tree loss from management actions in the two wildfire protection zones are anticipated 

to be greater than alternatives A and C, which propose limited removal, but less than alternative 

D, which proposes twice the numbers of acres restored. There is a strict 30-inch diameter limit in 

alternative A and outside the fire protection zones in alternative B. In alternative C, there are 

diameter limits but with specific exceptions for restoration purposes within fisher habitat. In the 

community and general wildfire protection zones in alternative B and in all areas in alternative D, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

377

there is no diameter limit but management is focused on desired conditions for large tree 

densities. Large-tree removal can have short-term impacts on mature-forest-associated wildlife 

species, but overall, the removal of large-diameter trees under this alternative and alternative D is 

expected to improve long-term habitat condition in these zones. Removal of large-diameter trees 

could temporarily alter prey abundance, reduce canopy cover, remove potential or unidentified 

nest, roost, den, or rest sites, increase potential for predation, or influence thermal conditions 

within treated stands. Known nest, dens, roosts, rest sites, and any trees providing immediate 

protection of these sites (such as thermal or predatory cover) would not be removed. Although 

such short-term impacts could occur, the removal of some large-diameter trees is expected to 

improve long-term habitat condition in these zones as vegetation treatments would be designed to 

promote the growth and vigor of existing large or larger trees, improve resilience, and increase 

heterogeneity, all of which are described in the desired conditions. Importantly, the flexibility to 

remove a large-diameter tree would not be a relied upon tool to achieve restoration under this 

alternative.

The removal of large-diameter trees (greater than 30 inches in diameter) would be an exception 

and considered as part of project-level planning and design with desired conditions for vegetation 

(TERR-OLD-DC-01 to 02; TERR-OLD-GDL-01) and wildlife habitat condition (SPEC-FWGDL-01) in mind. Removal is generally intended over the long term to improve the health and 

vigor of existing large or older trees, increase heterogeneity in severely homogenized forests, 

improve resilience to stressors, restore and sustain old forest conditions, or, in the short term, to 

address health and safety risks. Large trees would not be removed to favor the growth of much 

smaller trees. Such projects would be planned by an interdisciplinary team (including a wildlife 

biologist) and based on site-specific conditions. Treatments would generally not reverse seral 

stage development (that is, convert late-seral to mid-or early-seral stands by removing large and 

old trees). Canopy may be opened by removing individual trees but canopy cover would not drop 

below median values for vegetation types (dry and moist) or drop below desired conditions for 

wildlife habitat except as permissible in the portions of focus landscapes and community buffers 

that are in the community wildfire protection zone or general wildfire protection zone. Projects

would retain clumps of trees where project objectives can be achieved. Projects would also retain 

known nest, den, or roost trees or adjacent trees that provide necessary conditions for these trees 

as well as large trees with deformities, cavities, open tops, or other complex features that are 

identified as providing habitat features for wildlife. Few large-diameter trees would be removed 

through management actions in the wildfire restoration and wildfire maintenance zones, except 

those trees specifically designed to restore other ecological conditions, such as aspen or hardwood 

stands, or to address tree diseases or health and safety risks.

Within these zones, removal of large-diameter trees would primarily occur in portions of focus 

landscapes, community buffers, and roads and ridges that are within the two wildfire protection 

zones. In these areas, standards and guidelines exist, particularly for the focus landscapes, to build 

sidebars relevant to wildlife habitat protection into the project design.

Areas outside of the focus landscapes and community buffers would have less intensive 

restoration and retain more canopy cover due to treatment limitations in fisher and owl habitat 

(see Table 84). Large trees would be minimally treated, with the only exceptions being for 

equipment operability and safety. Examples of specific restoration treatments would be to remove 

conifers to improve aspen or hardwood stands or to treat small areas affected by tree diseases. 

Although this constraint could substantially reduce the potential for short-term impacts, this 

management approach risks the loss of large trees to wildfires and other large-scale disturbances, 

and degradation of habitat condition where the flexibility to treat even-aged, dense, homogenized 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

378

stands is severely limited. Although this risk would be greater under alternatives A and C due to 

the predicted increase in large, high-intensity wildfires and high risk of drought, and insect- and 

pathogen-related mortality, this still constitutes a long-term risk under alternative B. Large trees 

outside these zones may continue to be at risk of large-scale disturbances where some removal 

could improve the vigor and health of existing larger trees but is precluded.

When conducted on a landscape scale and guided by best available science and monitoring, 

restoration efforts focused on old forest conditions that move forest vegetation toward the natural 

range of variation and reduce the risk of large-scale habitat loss would have a long-term benefit to 

species associated with mature forest conditions like the spotted owls and fishers that would

outweigh short-term effects (less than 5 years after implementation).

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Similar to alternative A, the landscape under alternative C would continue to be at a low 

resilience to large, high-intensity fire. This alternative is slightly better than alternative A by 

increasing the amount of prescribed burning and areas where wildfires are managed to meet 

resource objectives, which would help restore the ecological function of fire but not as 

successfully as alternatives B and D at improving overall resiliency to climate change stressors.

This alternative emphasizes restoring fire as an ecosystem process in fire-adapted ecosystems 

(ponderosa and Jeffrey pine, and mixed conifer). However, there is reduced emphasis on the use 

of mechanical equipment for restoration and any treatment would focus on the removal of small 

diameter trees. It is uncertain how much fire could be restored without first mechanically treating 

areas. Dense forest conditions would severely limit the ability to safely use fire (prescribed and 

managed wildfire) as a restoration tool.

Thinning would be more limited within habitat of Pacific fisher and California spotted owls than 

in alternative B because this alternative incorporates relevant recommendations in the “Draft 

Interim Recommendations for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National 

Forest System Lands” (USDA FS 2015a) and the “Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Conservation 

Strategy” (Spencer et al. 2016). Incorporating this guidance in whole may facilitate greater 

habitat protection and connectivity for species in the short term. However, under changing 

climate conditions in the long term, the greater resilience of forest habitat under alternative B is 

anticipated to maintain relatively greater levels of habitat connectivity for forest dependent 

species by facilitating species movements into suitable future habitat, as compared to alternative 

C. Alternative C encourages higher levels of heterogeneity in and around California spotted owl 

habitat for both direct (foraging) and indirect (habitat resilience) goals (USDA FS 2015a), but 

given the restrictions in the owl recommendations it is unlikely that these levels of heterogeneity 

could be reached (see “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section).

Alternative C is likely to have the least potential for short-term impacts to habitat condition given 

the limitations on vegetation restoration and salvage. Under this alternative, hand treatments 

would be emphasized and mechanical treatments rare. There would be no exceptions to treat owl 

habitat in the wildland-urban intermix defense zone as there are under alternative A. No overstory 

trees could be removed in designated owl habitat (most vegetation within a 1.5-mile radius of owl 

activity centers with greater than 50 percent canopy cover) regardless of diameter. No salvage 

could occur in California spotted owl protected activity centers or suitable fisher target cells other 

than limited hazard tree removal (mostly along major roads). Large-diameter tree removal in 

fisher target cells would be extremely rare and driven only by the need to improve fisher habitat, 

on a case-by-case basis, and guided by the fisher conservation strategy. Due to the multitude of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

379

restrictions, management would rarely occur in California spotted owl protected activity centers 

and suitable fisher target cells leading to virtually no short-term adverse impacts on habitat 

condition from management activities. Forest density would continue to increase and canopy 

cover would be relatively unaffected. Habitat elements important to these species like large snags, 

down woody debris, dense canopy cover, and large trees would continue to persist on the 

landscape in the short term. However, the long-term adverse consequences due to a lack of guided 

and thoughtful restoration of at least some habitat elements would outweigh the tradeoff of little 

to no short-term adverse impacts. Similar to alternative A, the lack of restoration under this 

alternative would continue to move the forests to increasingly dense conditions where vertical 

complexity of the forest structure and understory complexity would be reduced over time. 

Likewise, heterogeneity of the landscape would decrease. There would be an increased 

vulnerability of habitat loss from drought stress, severe fire, competition, and climate change. 

This alternative, like alternative A, would be unable to move enough of the landscape to a higher 

resilience to large high-intensity wildfires and climate change stressors and represents a long-term 

risk to mature forest-associated species in the montane zone. 

Similar to alternative A, alternative C has a high likelihood of continuing large, high-intensity 

wildfires that would create complex early seral habitat on the landscape. Large disturbance 

events, particularly high-intensity wildfires, are expected to increase under this alternative, 

creating more post-disturbance habitat than under alternatives B and D. Where this habitat is 

created, reforestation would be very limited because of the emphasis on minimal post-fire salvage 

and manipulation of burned forest areas. Providing for complex early seral forest habitat would 

be the primary consideration in post-fire restoration projects. No salvage would be allowed in owl 

protected activity centers. This approach would benefit wildlife habitat quantity and creation 

similar to that described under alternative B but could increase the risk of future wildfires with 

high-severity effects where this habitat does not receive some treatment to reduce some snags and 

shrubs, particularly under prolonged drought conditions (Coppoletta et al. 2016).

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

As stated previously, alternative D is similar to B but increases the pace and scale of restoration. 

More focus landscapes would be treated, much of them in this zone, and it is anticipated that 20

to 60 percent of the landscape in the montane zone would be treated under this alternative. It 

reduces the risk of habitat loss to wildfire and degradation of habitat condition from increasingly 

dense stand conditions more than any other alternative.

As with all alternatives, tradeoffs exist. Alternative D emphasizes long-term habitat conservation, 

recognizing the short-term tradeoff that there may be some impacts to species associated with 

mature forest conditions. This alternative assumes that it is too risky to wait to restore resilience 

to forests until there is scientific certainty about the consequences of management actions given 

the expected losses of habitat to wildfires under the other alternatives. This alternative has the 

greatest potential for treatment-related impacts as described under alternative B but the greatest 

potential to preserve existing mature forest habitat for at-risk terrestrial wildlife species in the 

long-term. This alternative also has the greatest potential to improve condition of currently 

unoccupied habitat that could support at-risk terrestrial wildlife species in the future. The 

perceived benefit of improving current and potential future habitat condition, enhancing the 

distribution of potential habitat on the landscape, and reducing the risk of widespread vegetation 

mortality is estimated to outweigh the potential for short-term impacts. Alternative D would 

continue to implement fine-filter plan components for many mature forest-associated species 

(Table 83) with some minor adjustments that would reduce the potential for short-term impacts. 

These changes include:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

380

• Pacific fisher standard 02 (SPEC-PF-STD-02) under alternative B allows mechanical 

treatment in up to one-third of all suitable target cells in a 10-year period but alternative D 

allows mechanical treatment in up to one-half of all suitable fisher target cells in a 10-year 

period. 

• California spotted owl guideline 03 (SPEC-CSO-GDL-03) under alternative B prohibits 

vegetation treatments during the breeding season within approximately 0.25 mile of the 

known nest site or, where the nest site is not known, the most recent known roost site, 

unless surveys confirm that California spotted owls are not nesting. Under alternative D, 

any portion of the 0.25 mile buffer that is not included in the protected activity center can 

be treated using hand, mechanical, or prescribed fire treatments after June 1. 

• California spotted owl standard 06 (SPEC-CSO-STD-06) under alternative B allows 

salvage if more than half of a protected activity center burns at very high severity with 

greater than 90 percent basal area tree mortality. Alternative C would have limited salvage 

overall and would avoid salvage in protected activity centers regardless of the amount 

burned except for hazard trees. Alternative D has the same direction as alternative B but has 

more emphasis on reforestation and recovery of burned forests so more burned protected 

activity centers would potentially be treated.

Although alternative D has the greatest flexibility to remove large-diameter trees, the need to 

conduct such an activity would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and driven by the need to 

promote the growth and vigor of existing large or larger trees, improve resilience, and increase 

heterogeneity. In addition, although more large trees may be removed in the wildfire restoration 

and maintenance zones under this alternative, more large trees would potentially be maintained 

on the landscape due to the predicted decrease in large, high-intensity wildfires.

This alternative is anticipated to produce less complex early seral habitat than the other

alternatives over time because under the natural range of variation there would be fewer 

widespread tree mortality events (fewer large high-intensity wildfires and less risk of insects 

killing large areas of trees). There is some uncertainty about how much burned areas would be 

salvaged because it is dependent upon the amount of area burned at high severity and the capacity 

of lumber mills and market demand to purchase burned trees. Under this alternative, treatment of 

large areas of dead trees would be focused on short- and long-term restoration and on leveraging 

the economic recovery of the value of dead trees to maximize the amount of restoration 

accomplished. This alternative has the same requirement as alternative B to retain at least 10 

percent of burned areas to provide for complex early seral forests. To the extent that more areas 

are treated by removing dead trees and are restored by reforesting with conifers, there could be 

more short-term impacts on species that benefit from this habitat type but greater long-term 

benefits to species that use mature conifer forests than the other alternatives. Over time, this 

alternative is expected to shift more areas toward having fire regimes similar to the natural range 

of variation with more frequent patches of mixed fire severity. This would result in more areas of 

complex early seral habitat being distributed more widely in smaller and more variable patches 

across the forests, providing habitat conditions more similar to those present prior to widespread 

fire suppression. 

Alternative D is anticipated to have long-term benefits to habitat condition and quantity that 

outweigh short-term impacts. However, the monitoring program would evaluate if adjustments in 

plan components or the pace or scale of restoration may be needed to ensure removing largediameter trees, salvaging trees after a large disturbance, and restoring landscapes at a larger scale 

and faster pace provides the ecological conditions that support the persistence of at-risk species. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

381

Upper Montane Forests, Subalpine, and Alpine Vegetation

Under all alternatives, vegetation treatments are not prioritized in the upper montane zone except 

where needed around communities, developed recreation sites, and various assets like 

communication towers, water supplies, and powerlines. Much of this zone is in designated 

wilderness or has limited access. Habitat within wilderness areas would remain generally 

undisturbed by management activities because natural processes are the primary mechanism of 

habitat maintenance in these areas. Relatively low amounts of mechanical treatment are expected 

and a heavier focus is on the use of wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. There is very 

little to no mechanical treatment expected in subalpine and alpine zones. Natural features like 

rock outcrops, areas of talus, or barren areas that are naturally open with little to no vegetation 

and fuels.

The following species are supported by habitat and/or specific habitat elements in this zone:

• California condors nest in a variety of habitats including rock crevices, behind rock slabs, 

on large ledges in high, isolated rocky outcrops often in steep rugged areas. 

• Sierra Nevada red fox fulfill all of their life history requirements in high elevation barren, 

conifer, fir, and pine habitat, and shrub habitat. 

• Pacific fisher may persist in habitat in the upper montane zone (3 percent and 9 percent of 

suitable fisher target cells on the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests, respectively). 

• Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep is exclusively associated with rugged, rocky terrain in the 

upper montane, subalpine and alpine zones. 

• Sierra marten is highly associated with red fir and lodgepole pine forests. 

• Some snails prefer rocky outcrops and talus areas at high elevations.

• Butterflies are associated with high elevation meadows, rocky areas, riparian woodlands 

and forests, and lakes and ponds.

• Bi-state sage-grouse occur in the subalpine zone of the White Mountains, which is 

dominated by sagebrush and includes some meadow systems.

• California spotted owls persist in some upper montane forests (11 percent and 26 percent of 

protected activity centers on the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests, respectively).

• Yellow blotched salamander typical habitat includes coniferous forest, deciduous forest, 

oak woodland, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral under logs, bark, moss, leaf litter, and talus 

or in animal burrows. 

This section compares the environmental consequences of the four alternatives on the dominant 

habitat types associated with the at-risk terrestrial wildlife that inhabit this zone, such as red fir 

and conifer forests, sagebrush (White Mountains), rocky terrain, and barren habitat. 

Environmental consequences for high elevation aquatic habitats such as meadows, riparian 

woodlands and forests, and lakes and ponds are described below in the “Aquatic Habitat” effects 

analysis within this section.

The ability of fine-filter plan components to provide habitat for the persistence of Pacific fisher 

and California spotted owls are described in the montane zone.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

382

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Limited mechanical treatment would occur in forested portions of these zones. Fine-filter plan 

components addressing management in Sierra marten would continue. This includes limited 

operating periods in known den sites, consideration of connectivity in project planning, and 

mitigating impacts of existing disturbance to den sites from recreation, trail and road use. Where 

restoration is conducted, the emphasis would be on the use of managed wildfire. However, due to 

extremely limited restoration treatments under this alternative and excessively heavy fuel 

volumes, vegetation in these zones would likely have the lowest resilience to climate change and 

large, high-intensity wildfire, except in the Kern Drainage on the Sequoia National Forest (see the 

“Fire Trends” section). In alternative A, habitat conditions would be furthest from the natural 

range of variation of all alternatives. Condition of forested habitat would be more vulnerable to 

degradation than under other alternatives. Although management under this alternative is 

generally prohibited from removing large-diameter trees, these trees are at a greater risk of dying 

from insect outbreaks, spread of diseases and pathogens, competition, and large wildfire with 

high severity impacts. Although wildfires in forested areas in these higher elevation zones tend to

occur less frequently than in lower elevations and most are small with mixed severity effects, 

under alternative A, burned area, fire size, and fire intensity are predicted to increase two to four 

fold (see the “Fire Trends” section). 

Habitat condition and quantity would continue to be influenced by climate change due to the 

relatively low restoration rates and naturally high climate exposure of this region. Ecosystems in 

these zones are among the most vulnerable to climate change and would continue to have low 

resilience to climate change (see “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section), especially under 

alternative A because of the limited ability to restore habitat in these zones. Warming 

temperatures and drought conditions have the potential to seriously degrade habitat condition 

over time, including drying of high alpine water sources that are particularly important to the 

Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep and of higher elevation meadow systems important to sage-grouse 

brood-rearing.

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

Restoration under alternative B would result in improved structure and resilience of habitat 

condition in these zones because it would provide a greater opportunity to treat vegetation and 

uses more managed wildfire for resource benefit than alternative A (chapter 2, Table 6 through 

Table 8). Although fires are naturally infrequent in the upper montane, subalpine and alpine zones, 

they are an important part of the disturbance regime (see “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” section). 

Restoration would promote greater structural heterogeneity of forested habitat and a trend toward 

achieving the desired conditions. This alternative also has specific desired conditions for these 

habitats to more clearly direct management actions (TERR-UPPR-DC-01 to 03; TERR-RFIRDC-01 to 07; TERR-UMJF-DC-01 to 07; TERR-MCHP-DC-01 to 02; TERR-MJF-DC-01 to 07; 

TERR-SAGE-DC-01 to 04; TERR-ALPN-DC-01 to 04). Overall this alternative would be better 

at improving and sustaining the condition of wildlife habitat over the long term than alternative A.

Some species that inhabit these zones tend to be found along ridges and restoration treatments 

under this alternative place a strong emphasis on treating vegetation along ridges (except in the 

Inyo National Forest) to restore vegetation conditions and provide an anchor for conducting 

prescribed burns and managing wildfires to meet resource objectives. Given that most of the ridge 

top areas are in the dry vegetation type, the canopy in these areas would tend to be more open, 

similar to the natural range of variation. Overall this restoration emphasis would improve habitat 

conditions for raptors and other species hunting prey in these habitats such as the great gray owl.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

383

Conversely, where ridges intersect dry vegetation that has become unnaturally dense and the 

canopy is opened, such treatments could adversely affect habitat condition for mature forest 

associated species like the Sierra Nevada red fox, California spotted owl, Sierra marten and 

Pacific fisher. However, these treatments are strategically placed to try and prevent loss of large 

areas of habitat from large wildfire and there are plan components to incorporate consideration of 

habitat fragmentation and connectivity at fine scales during project design (SPEC-PF-STD-04; 

Sequoia: TERR-FW-GDL-05; SPEC-CSO-GDL-01, SPEC-PF-GDL-01; SPEC-PF-GDL-02). 

With this tradeoff in mind, it is likely that strategically placed treatments at ridges would not 

constitute a long-term adverse effect to habitat for mature-forest-associated species.

Although the emphasis of treatments in the upper montane zone under alternative B is mostly on 

Jeffrey pine forests, this emphasis is not anticipated to adversely affect habitat condition or 

quantity for species more strongly associated with other forest types. There would also be some 

restoration in red fir forests and in white pine stands at risk from white pine blister rust (TERRUPPR-DC-03) that are greatly deviated from desired conditions and at high risk from climate 

change. Jeffrey pine forests are more departed from desired conditions (and the natural range of 

variation) than many of the other forest types in this zone. Therefore, treatments focused on this 

forest type (and particularly on reclaiming the dominance of Jeffrey pine trees) would likely

benefit many terrestrial wildlife species, particularly where these treatments also improve 

heterogeneity, structural complexity, and resilience. 

However, treatments would be relatively less focused in habitats that are known to support some 

at-risk terrestrial wildlife species like the Sierra Nevada red fox that uses open canopy red fir 

forests but also relies on closed canopy red fir and lodgepole pine forest, and California spotted 

owl and Sierra marten that are associated with high elevation closed canopy red fir forest. These 

forest types will be restored in this zone for structural complexity, heterogeneity, and resilience 

but not to the degree that Jeffrey pine forests will be restored. These habitats are generally not as 

far departed from desired conditions as Jeffrey pine forests and can continue to support wildlife 

needs. Still, focused treatments in these forests to promote resilience would be conducted with the 

needs of these species in mind during project development, such as considering Sierra marten 

habitat strategies. These restoration treatments would promote resilience to large-scale 

disturbances like high-intensity fire that can remove large areas of habitat. 

In the Kern Drainage, where upper montane forests (Jeffrey pine, red fir, lodgepole pine, aspen) 

have been restored in the last 15 years through wildfires managed for resource objectives (FitesKaufman et al. 2003, Ewell et al. 2012, Vaillant 2009, Meyer 2015), at least one-third to one-half 

of the area is similar to desired conditions (see “Fire-Trends” and “Terrestrial Vegetation 

Ecology” sections). Most of this area is in the wildfire maintenance zone and would continue to 

have wildfires managed for resource objectives to maintain and further restore conditions similar 

to the natural range of variation for vegetation, fire, and climate resilience. Habitat in these areas 

would be resilient.

Alternative B includes desired conditions for climate change resiliency in subalpine and alpine 

ecosystems. Although the more rapid pace and larger scale of restoration under alternative B

(especially the use of managed wildfire) is anticipated to create more resilience to climate change

in the upper montane, subalpine, and alpine zones, the zones would continue to have low 

resilience to climate change overall (but better than under alternative A) because of limited 

restoration rates and the high climate exposure of these areas (see “Terrestrial Vegetation 

Ecology” section).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

384

Alternative B adds fine-filter plan components for Sierra marten (SPEC-SM-DC-01 to 03; SPECCSO-PF-SM-DC-01; SPEC-FW-GOAL-04; SPEC-CSO-PF-SM-GDL-01; SPEC-SM-GDL-01) 

to provide for habitat at local scales and connectivity at broader scales. This includes the 

following potential management approaches:

Maintain or increase understory heterogeneity in marten denning habitat to promote 

“hiding cover” such as shrub patches, coarse woody debris, and slash piles following 

vegetation treatments. Design projects to have non-linear edges.

Reduce human-caused mortalities associated with illegal marijuana growing and 

rodenticide use, road-related mortalities, and mortalities associated with water pipes and 

tanks.

Avoid or remediate habitat modifications that unnaturally increase marten susceptibility 

to predation.

Emphasize vegetation treatments in focus landscapes (10,000 to 80,000 acres in size) to 

move terrestrial ecosystems toward desired conditions and increase resilience of old 

forest habitat, while limiting impacts to California spotted owl, Pacific fisher and Sierra 

marten.

Alternative B adds fine-filter plan components for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (SPEC-SHPSTD-01; SPEC-SHP-GDL-01) to more clearly direct management emphasis on protecting habitat 

for this species. There is also the following potential management approach:

If reintroduced bighorn sheep establish themselves in drainages outside the reintroduction 

sites, take advantage of opportunities to extend bighorn sheep range, consistent with other 

resource activities. (Inyo National Forest)

The desired condition for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep emphasizes the structure, composition, 

and heterogeneity of habitat that supports this species as well as the risk of disease transmission 

on the Inyo National Forest (SPEC-SHP-DC-01). This fine-filter desired condition can better 

enable managers to propose projects that emphasize improving habitat for this species and 

manage grazing to avoid spreading disease to Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep on the Inyo National 

Forest. Currently, the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests do not issue permits for domestic sheep 

grazing and do not propose to permit such activities during the life of their plans. Although this 

species is relatively less abundant and widespread on these national forests, the lack of this 

desired condition in those forest plans could translate to reduced habitat condition and increased 

risk of disease transmission over time (new agency staff may not be aware of the informal policy 

to avoid issuing new grazing permits in allotments in bighorn sheep habitat and the limited ability 

to build habitat for this species into restoration projects).

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Overall, treatments to increase upper montane heterogeneity and resilience, and improve 

conditions for whitebark pine under this alternative have a greater potential than alternative A but 

less than B to improve habitat condition for terrestrial wildlife species because of limited 

treatment rates. Habitat under this alternative would continue to be at risk to large, high-intensity 

wildfire similar to alternative A. Although alternative C emphasizes prescribed fire and wildfire

managed to meet resource objectives, techniques that are most likely to be used in the wildfire 

maintenance and general wildfire zones, this alternative proposes fewer total acres of treatment 

than alternative B. There is additional area in recommended wilderness, increasing the proportion 

of upper montane and subalpine zones in areas with limited management (wilderness, wild and 

scenic river corridors, and inventoried roadless areas) from 74 to 79 percent of the upper montane 

zone as compared to alternative A. With 98 percent of the subalpine and alpine zone already in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

385

less managed areas, these combined areas would provide for more extensive connecting area for 

wide-ranging species like Sierra marten.

Alternative C also has less ability than alternatives A, B, and D to use mechanical techniques that 

could better reassert Jeffrey pine trees as the dominant tree type in these forests and promote 

overall heterogeneity and structural diversity. This alternative also does not treat at the landscape 

scale like alternative B. Landscape treatments (focus landscapes) have a greater potential to 

restore resilience. This alternative would result in lower climate change resilience than alternative

B due to the lower treatment rates. It would have slightly better climate change resilience than 

alternative A by focusing some treatment to improve conditions for whitebark pine. Overall this 

alternative is not as able as alternative B to improve habitat condition for at-risk terrestrial 

wildlife species.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

Effects to the condition of habitats that support at-risk terrestrial wildlife species under this 

alternative are the same as described under alternative B but the increased pace and scale of 

restoration under this alternative is anticipated to more rapidly achieve resilience, heterogeneity, 

structural complexity, and composition than alternative B (chapter 2, Table 6 through Table 8). 

This alternative is also anticipated to have the greatest resilience to climate change, and large 

high-intensity fires (followed by alternative B) because of the faster restoration rates and more 

acres treated (see “Fire Trends” and “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” sections). More short-term 

(implementation-related) impacts could occur to habitat as a result of the faster pace and scale of 

restoration treatments. But as described under alternative B, these potential impacts are intended 

to improve long-term habitat condition and reduce the risk of loss from the landscape. Such 

impacts would be project- and site-specific and would be evaluated during project development. 

Cave, Cave-like, and Cliff Habitat

The amount of cliff, cave, and cave-like habitat is not expected to change under any alternative 

because management activities would not substantially affect cliff, cave, or cave-like structures.

Structures such as adits or buildings that support cave-associated species could be altered or 

removed by project-level decisions but this potential action would not differ by alternative and is 

beyond the scope of this programmatic analysis. New plan components have been drafted that 

improves overall direction for managing habitat for species dependent on these areas. 

The following species are supported by cave, cave-like, or cliff habitat:

• American peregrine falcons nest and roost primarily in remote cliffs that are near aquatic 

habitat such as rivers, streams, or lakes. 

• Pacific fringe-tailed bats roost in caves and cave-like structures such as mines, rock 

crevices, and structures. 

• Townsend’s big-eared bats roost almost exclusively in caves and cave-like habitat (such as

mines, adits, and structures. 

• Pseudoscorpions are strongly associated with caves.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Under this alternative, vegetation management (including prescribed fire and managed wildfire) 

is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on cliff condition since this habitat is generally not 

vegetated. The condition of caves and cave-like structures for bats and pseudoscorpions can be 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

386

adversely affected during vegetation management activities where nearby vegetation removal 

alters climate conditions inside these habitats and/or where smoke from prescribed fire and 

unmanaged and managed wildfire engulfs these habitats, particularly adits and above ground 

cave-like structures. However, these activities would be evaluated on a project level where 

measures to protect such resources would be incorporated into project design.

Under this alternative, there are no fine-filter plan components for protecting habitat for at-risk 

terrestrial wildlife species from vegetation management or from recreation impacts on bats. Many 

of these species are highly sensitive to human disturbance. Under this alternative, peregrine 

nesting areas may be closed to recreation by a Forest Order as needed to protect nesting sites 

from disturbance. There is no formal direction related to bat roost protection from vegetation 

treatments or recreation but some of the caves and abandoned mines in the planning area are 

currently gated and closed to the public to prevent disturbance.

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

This alternative incorporates more fine-filter plan components than alternative A to provide 

habitat for species that use cliffs, caves, cave-like structures. For example, there is a new desired 

condition that the landscape has a mosaic of structures that provide habitat, movement, and 

connectivity for bats that use caves and cave-like structures (TERR-FW-DC-04). This desired 

condition provides more opportunity to incorporate protections for these habitats in project 

design. Other desired conditions for special habitats are aimed at the persistence of these habitats 

and conditions on the landscape (TERR-SH-DC-01 to 02). This alternative also includes plan 

components to consider special habitat in project design (TERR-SH-STD-01) and to install bat 

gates at entrances of caves and mines when bat hibernacula or maternity colonies may be 

adversely affected by various types of activities (SPEC-BAT-GDL-01). All of these fine-filter 

components more aptly recognize the value of these habitats to at-risk terrestrial wildlife species 

than alternative A and are expected to protect long-term habitat condition and quantity.

The increased pace and scale of restoration under this alternative could incur more short-term 

impacts to the habitat of terrestrial wildlife species, particularly where vegetation management 

activities directly disturb bat roosts from noise, vibration, and general human presence or alter 

climate conditions. However, these activities would be evaluated during a project-level analysis

where measures to protect such resources could be incorporated into project design.

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

The types of effects on habitat for these species are similar to those described under alternative B.

However, this alternative proposes less overall vegetation treatments which could incur fewer 

short-term effects to bat roosts and cave and cave-like structures for bats and pseudoscorpions. 

Although this alternative emphasizes the use of prescribed fire and managed wildfire more than 

any other alternative, which could affect caves and cave-like structures through smoke impacts, 

there is a high uncertainty about the feasibility of treating landscapes with fire under this 

alternative without the use of mechanical treatment to prepare the landscape (reduce fuels) for the 

safe application of fire.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

The specific effects to habitat condition under this alternative are the same as those described 

under alternative B but the increased pace and scale of restoration has a greater potential for 

incurring those effects as a result of vegetation treatments, all of which would be evaluated at a 

project level.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

387

Aquatic Habitat (meadows, lakes and ponds, riparian vegetation) 

All alternatives would retain riparian conservation areas and critical aquatic refuges that would 

protect aquatic habitat, including habitat that supports at-risk terrestrial wildlife species. All 

alternatives would continue to implement priority watershed restoration as funding permits. All 

alternatives would allow hand treatments in aquatic habitat. The following species are supported 

by aquatic habitat and/or specific aquatic habitat elements:

• Valley elderberry longhorn beetle relies on elderberry shrubs primarily in riparian 

woodlands and savannahs. 

• Least Bell’s vireo persists in riparian and willow dominated habitat that has a dense shrub 

and understory component. 

• Southwestern willow flycatcher prefers riparian and wetland habitat with a dense mosaic of 

trees and shrubs with high canopy cover and dense foliage. 

• Western yellow-billed cuckoo is supported by large blocks of riparian woodlands and 

cottonwood habitat with a strong willow component. 

• Invertebrates (butterflies) are associated with meadows, and vegetation around lakes and 

ponds. 

• Willow flycatcher (species of conservation concern subspecies) depend on dense willow 

thickets in large wet meadows. 

• Kern red-winged blackbirds are associated with freshwater cattail and tule marshes, 

riparian forests near wetlands and wet pastures. 

• Tricolored blackbirds breed in freshwater marshes. 

• Greater sage-grouse in the bi-state distinct population segment depend on wet meadows 

and riparian areas as foraging habitat for young. 

• Sierra marten and Sierra Nevada Red fox use riparian stringers within mature forests. 

• Bald eagles roost and nest near and forage in large waterbodies.

• American peregrine falcons nest and roost primarily in remote cliffs that are near aquatic 

habitat such as rivers, streams, or lakes. 

• Great gray owls forage in meadows. 

• Pacific fringe-tailed bats forage in a variety of habitats that are near an open water source. 

• Townsend’s big-eared bats, foraging generalists, are known to use riparian corridors and 

other bodies of water to capture prey. 

• Kern Canyon slender salamander is found near streams in shaded, narrow canyons, and on 

ridges and hillsides, particularly in narrow ravines. 

All alternatives would continue to implement the current protection of great gray owls, including 

foraging habitat and key prey species. Therefore, the ability of these fine-filter plan components 

to provide foraging habitat that supports the persistence of the species is not compared among the 

alternatives. 

This section focuses solely on riparian and aquatic habitat elements that support terrestrial 

wildlife species and not on habitats or habitat elements that support fish, reptiles, or amphibians 

which are the topic of the aquatics section (see aquatic and riparian ecosystems section). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

388

Therefore, when the word “aquatic” is used in this evaluation, it is intended to represent the 

vegetation within and surrounding riparian woodlands and forests, meadows, marshes, and lakes 

and ponds. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Risks to the amount and condition of aquatic habitat are greatest under this alternative due to 

treatment restrictions, limited acres of habitat proposed for maintenance or improvement, and 

inadequate desired conditions related to climate change. This alternative does not substantially 

improve the resilience of the overall landscape to wildfire given the limited amounts of treatment. 

Therefore, under this alternative, the amount and condition of aquatic habitat is anticipated to be 

adversely influenced by the increasing trend in large, high-intensity wildfire, climate-related 

stressors (drought), encroaching conifers, invasive species, and legacy impacts from past 

management (such as water diversion). 

The proposed number of meadows and acres of riparian habitat maintained or improved is the 

lowest of all alternatives. This alternative has some of the most restrictive constraints on use of 

restoration tools. Direct fire ignitions are prohibited in this alternative within the riparian 

conservation areas, which reduces the ability of fire managers to reintroduce fires safely in these 

landscapes and create a patchy mosaic of fire effects with an overall low risk of high-severity 

burn areas. There is less control of fire intensity and spatial pattern of fires when they back into 

riparian areas and meadows compared to when fire managers are allowed to directly use ignition 

patterns to more closely control the fire behavior. Mechanical treatment to remove large conifers 

that are out-competing native trees in riparian areas and encroaching on wet meadows is also 

generally constrained. These limitations are predicted to result in a continued trend toward a 

decrease in heterogeneity and condition of hardwoods and other native species. Conifers and 

invasive species would continue to encroach and out-compete native species. Meadows would 

continue to be lost or degraded by further conifer ingrowth. 

Without restoration and maintenance, the condition of aquatic habitat would continue to 

deteriorate from stressors. There could be a loss of structural heterogeneity and species diversity 

where invasive species or encroaching conifers move in and replace native species that typically 

support terrestrial wildlife species. Large high-intensity wildfire may completely remove large 

swaths of riparian and meadow vegetation or adjacent forests. Continued drought stress 

compounded by denser forests from previous fire suppression may lead to widespread loss of 

trees and shrubs from wildfires or insects. 

Where limited maintenance, improvements, or enhancements occur in riparian habitat and 

meadows under this alternative, benefits may be short-lived because these treatments are largely 

limited to hand tools, which may only be able to temporarily suppress a stressor rather than 

remove it all together. Hand tools may not be able to remove large seed source conifers 

encroaching in meadows or riparian woodlands like mechanical equipment can. Removal of some 

smaller trees with hand tools may temporarily relieve competition with native plants for limited 

resources (such as space, light, nutrients, and water) but this relief would be short lived without 

the ability to remove larger trees. 

Lack of direct fire ignitions in this habitat restricts the ability of fire managers to control how the 

fire behaves and create a patchy mosaic of low and moderate severity fire effects. Without the 

ability to use mechanical treatments to prepare the landscape for prescribed fire, restoration and 

maintenance activities cannot adequately reduce fuel volumes in riparian ecosystems to safely 

incorporate prescribed fire or reduce the threat of wildfire spread. Although managed wildfire is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

389

considered a tool under this alternative, the unnaturally dense conditions of aquatic habitats and 

adjacent uplands make the use of this tool for the benefit of biological resources somewhat 

unrealistic.

This alternative has the least potential to build adaptive capacity to climate change, which makes 

native species less able to compete against conifers and invasive species for limited resources and 

makes these systems more vulnerable to wildfire outside the natural range of variation (see the 

“Climate, Ecological Vulnerability and Adaptation” section). The desired conditions under the 

current management approach do not specifically consider climate change or climate-related 

stressors. Without addressing climate change stressors and the influence of various adjacent 

ecosystems on a larger (landscape) spatial scale, this alternative presents a relatively greater risk 

for protecting and improving the condition of riparian habitat. 

Although high elevation (upper montane, subalpine, and alpine) meadows and riparian areas are 

generally not prioritized for maintenance or improvement under any alternative, the focus on 

wildland-urban intermix treatments under this alternative (as opposed to landscape-level 

treatments under alternative B) makes it even more difficult to treat high elevation meadows and 

riparian areas that are used by many at-risk terrestrial wildlife species.

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

In alternative B, most of the riparian, meadow, and aquatic plan components are the same as in 

alternative A (see chapter 2). However, there are more specific ecological desired conditions and 

specific objectives to restore riparian and aquatic ecosystems (MA-RCA-DC-02 to 03, -11, -13, -

15; RCA-MEAD-DC-02 to 03, -05, -07; RCA-LPP-DC-01; RCA-SPR-DC-01 to 03; RCAMEAD-OBJ-01; MA-RCA-OBJ-01). Riparian and meadow vegetation restoration under this 

alternative would be for the purpose of moving vegetation toward the desired conditions and 

would be intended primarily to restore native species composition, heterogeneity, resilience, and 

reduce the ingrowth of conifers where appropriate. The end result of the treatments under this 

alternative would generally be improved riparian hardwood composition and structure and 

increased herbaceous density, vigor, and structural complexity. 

Alternative B proposes to designate 16 additional critical aquatic refuges on the three national 

forests and this translates into more land designated for the protection of aquatic habitat. Plan 

components (desired conditions, standards, and guidelines) are similar across alternatives B, C, 

and D and primarily represent those plan components carried forward from the current direction 

for critical aquatic refuges. Although additional designation is a benefit, more critical aquatic 

refuges do not necessarily translate into improved habitat condition throughout these designated 

areas. For example, if treatments are needed in these areas to remove encroaching conifers, 

control invasive plants, or increase structural diversity and habitat heterogeneity, even wellintended restrictions on treatments may incur indirect adverse consequences by the inability to 

remove these stressors.

The management approach under alternative B proposes to maintain, enhance, or improve more 

acres of riparian habitat and more meadows than alternative A and with a greater variety of 

restoration tools (mechanical thinning, prescribed fire, and wildfire managed to meet resource 

objectives). Overall this alternative allows for flexibility to use more prescribed burning and 

where necessary, mechanical and hand treatments that would prepare these areas for burning

(MA-RCA-STD-18b). This includes the following potential management approach: 

At either the landscape or project-scale, determine if the ecological conditions within 

riparian conservation areas are outside of the natural range of variation for the vegetative 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

390

community including age class, structural diversity, composition, and cover of riparian 

vegetation. Include consideration of the ecological role of fire. If conditions are outside 

the natural range of variation, consider implementing mitigation and/or restoration 

actions that will result in an upward trend. Actions could include restoration of aspen or 

other riparian vegetation where conifer encroachment is identified as a problem, using 

fire, hand or mechanical treatments.

Alternative B allows for direct ignition during prescribed fires in riparian areas, which is 

predicted to greatly improve the resilience of this habitat because it introduces fire spread and 

intensity that is controlled with a greater ability to achieve a desirable mosaic. All restoration that 

results in a reduction of upland conifers in riparian areas would restore riparian vegetation 

composition and structure. This would increase sunlight for riparian hardwoods and shrubs that 

are often shaded out by upland trees and shrubs. Prescribed fire and wildfire managed primarily 

for resource benefit would improve the condition, vigor and health of most native riparian plants 

that support forage and nesting habitat for a variety of species. Increased structural diversity of 

these habitats would favor use by a variety of species strongly associated with complex 

understory and overstory. Increased fire would result in increased sprouting, health, condition, 

and vigor of hardwood and understory plants, including host plants for a variety of invertebrates. 

The trend in composition and structural heterogeneity of native species would increase.

Alternative B is anticipated to improve habitat condition at the landscape scale. Riparian habitats 

would be treated where they are adjacent to upland habitat that is being restored. The synergistic 

benefit of restoring neighboring riparian and upland habitats can benefit species that use both 

habitat types to meet life history requirements. In addition, treating these features in the upland 

and riparian areas can reduce the ingrowth of conifers and invasive species in both these habitats. 

Removal of some of these conifer species in aquatic habitats, particularly lodgepole pine, can 

increase the water table and provide better wet meadow and marsh habitat condition for species 

like willow flycatcher, kern red-winged blackbird, and tricolored blackbird. Increased standing 

water in meadows can both improve the vegetation structure and complexity and also prevent nest 

predation. 

This alternative would move the landscape from a low to a moderate resilience to large highintensity wildfire (See the “Terrestrial Ecosystem Processes and Functions” section). Warming 

trends and drought conditions can cause a variety of stressors for many habitats, but particularly 

aquatic habitats. These habitats have suffered directly from drought and warming conditions but 

also indirectly by the ability of many invasive species to move into aquatic habitats, 

outcompeting native species for space, water, sunlight, and nutrients that support many terrestrial 

wildlife species. Using treatments to set the trajectory of these habitats toward their natural range 

of variation would relieve competitive pressure on aquatic vegetation (such as willow, aspen, and 

cottonwood) that provide specific habitat elements needed for communities of wildlife species.

This perceived benefit is based on the assumption that restoration would not only improve 

physical habitat elements such as vegetation diversity and structural complexity but also achieve 

restoration of natural processes that help ecosystem functions and maintain wildlife habitat over 

the long term. The restoration of riparian vegetation facilitates the major functions of riparian 

habitats such as physical filtering of water, stabilization of banks and floodplains, and water 

storage, all of which benefit wildlife species (George and Zack 2001).

Although treatments are expected to have a variety of long-term benefits, there is potential for 

short-term effects during and immediately following project implementation. In general, 

manipulating more habitat under this alternative as opposed to alternative A would translate into 

more potential for disturbance to individuals and temporary disturbance to habitat condition from 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

391

the use of equipment and fire, until the habitat recovers. Although mechanical equipment use in 

riparian habitat could occur under this alternative, these treatments would be for the purpose of 

preparing the area to allow the use of prescribed fire. Overall, over the long term, these 

restoration actions are anticipated to provide more productive site conditions, which would result 

in improved habitat conditions. 

Although all alternatives propose to maintain, enhance, or restore a certain number of meadows 

and acres of riparian vegetation, no alternative proposes to restore all aquatic habitat during the 

next 10 to 15 years, which would be infeasible given funding levels and other limitations. In 

recognition of this, alternative B includes an increased emphasis on partnerships to accomplish 

meadow restoration. Under this alternative, there is also greater potential for stewardship funding 

to address meadow and riparian restoration work. In the montane zone, much of the aquatic 

habitat is threatened by large fires with high-severity effects, overcrowding by conifers, 

homogeneity of vegetation structure and composition, and the continued spread of invasive 

species. These areas would experience more treatments than other zones, although treatment 

intensity would be relatively light. In the upper elevations like upper montane, subalpine, and 

alpine zones, treatments of upland habitat are not prioritized and therefore aquatic habitat would 

receive fewer treatments. The habitat in this area is not as far outside of the natural range of 

variation as some areas, and therefore stressors that could be alleviated by vegetation treatment 

are not as crucial as those lower elevation habitats. Much of these high elevation zones are in 

designated wilderness or have limited access. 

Under alternatives B, C, and D, nests of bald eagles are protected from vegetation management 

activities. The changes in plan components for these species from alternative A are anticipated to 

continue to protect these species that either have very specific habitat requirements or are

sensitive to disturbances.

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Alternative C proposes to designate 37 additional critical aquatic refuges on the three national 

forests. Therefore, there would be more emphasis on protection of aquatic habitat in these 

designated areas than under alternatives A and B. As described under alternative B, restrictions on 

treatments in these areas could unintentionally prevent needed restoration work that removes or 

mitigates stressors within these systems.

This alternative proposes to maintain, improve, or enhance the most meadows on the Inyo and 

Sequoia National Forests and the second most meadows on the Sierra National Forest of any 

alternative. More restoration is proposed because hand equipment, prescribed fire, and managed 

wildfire may more rapidly treat smaller meadows with less severe conifer encroachment, invasive 

species, and issues related to water retention. In contrast, alternatives B and D may tackle larger 

meadows with more complex issues because these alternatives can use mechanical equipment as 

a precursor to burning. This alternative emphasizes the use of prescribed fire and managed 

wildfire to accomplish restoration and proposes to use more prescribed fire and managed wildfire 

than alternative A. Therefore, the treatments under this alternative have a greater potential than 

alternative A, but less than B, to restore structural conditions.

However, the use of prescribed fire under alternative C to reduce stand density and create more 

open, safe burning conditions would be constrained because of the species-specific protections 

and inability to prepare the landscape with mechanical treatments first. This alternative does not 

treat at the landscape scale, which would make patches more vulnerable to a variety of stressors 

adjacent to this habitat as well as upstream and downstream of this habitat, including loss of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

392

habitat elements from wildfire, ingrowth of conifers in adjacent upland units, and spread of 

invasive species. Because this alternative has a lower ability than alternative B to move the 

landscape toward resilience to climate change and large high-intensity wildfire, aquatic habitat 

under this alternative would be at a greater risk to degradation from unabated stressors and largescale disturbances. The long-term effects may be more negative if fire destroys vegetation that 

supports specialized species (like butterflies), and the availability of nest trees and shrubs. Fewer 

landscape treatments may require more suppression of wildfires, which could allow conifers to 

grow into meadows. 

Alternative C includes the same increased emphasis on partnerships as alternatives B and D. 

However, there may be fewer opportunities for stewardship funding under this alternative due to 

the fewer acres of upland vegetation to be treated. Funding of meadow maintenance, 

enhancement, or improvement may be a substantial constraint under this alternative.

Although there is less potential for short term, implementation-related impacts under this 

alternative, the long-term negative impacts on habitat conditions because of the treatment 

limitations and lack of a landscape scale approach under this alternative could be greater than 

under the other alternatives.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

By increasing the amount of ecological restoration overall under this alternative, more 

opportunities exist for implementing watershed restoration projects than any other alternative. 

Alternative D would maintain, enhance or improve more meadows than alternatives A and B 

(except on the Inyo where B and D propose the same number) and more meadows than 

alternative C on the Sierra National Forest. More treatment within watersheds should reduce the 

acreage that wildfire burns at high severity, move the landscape to a greater resiliency to climate 

change, and more rapidly achieve improvements to structure, composition, and heterogeneity than 

any other alternative.

Similar to alternatives B and C, alternative D also includes an increased emphasis on 

partnerships. Therefore, this alternative (followed by B) should have the most funding to improve 

aquatic habitat condition and at a landscape scale.

The tradeoff of increased pace and scale of restoration, including the use of mechanical 

equipment, is the potential for more short-term impacts than any other alternative. For example, 

this alternative has the greatest potential to spread invasive species as a result of more acres 

treated. As with all alternatives, the potential short-term impacts of treatment proposed under this 

alternative would be evaluated on a project-specific basis as projects are developed. 

Cumulative Effects 

The proposed management approaches under each of the four alternatives are generally consistent 

with management of other lands within the cumulative effects analysis area. Although the 

alternatives vary in their ability and pace to achieve the desired conditions and some alternatives 

present more risk than others, it is not expected that the management approach under any 

alternative, combined with actions on other lands, would have an adverse cumulative effect on 

terrestrial wildlife habitat within the analysis area.

The majority of the land within the analysis area is managed by Federal agencies, primarily 

Forest Service, National Park Service (west side), and Bureau of Land Management (east side) 

and these agencies have individual resource management plans or shared, collaborative programs 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

393

in place to guide the protection of natural resources, particularly in the face of changing climate 

conditions and large, high-intensity wildfires. The new focus of the 2012 Planning Rule on 

ecosystem integrity, resilience, and diversity is in close alignment with new direction for the 

National Park Service, which is to build ecosystem resilience for coping with changing climates.

Park units are now obligated to consider climate change adaptation and manage for climateresilient forests. The “Strategic Framework for Science in Support of Management in the South 

Sierra Nevada Ecoregion” was developed collaboratively by Federal land managers in the 

Southern Sierra Nevada ecoregion (including the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests and Giant 

Sequoia National Monument) to help mitigate impacts from, and adapt to, climate change 

(Nydick and Sydorlak 2011a, 2011b). The framework contains four goals: understanding where 

and why changes occur, anticipating possible futures, developing tools required to take effective 

action, and providing easy access to and delivery of information to target audiences. The 

framework will be carried out by the Southern Sierra Conservation Cooperative, a collaborative 

group of Government agencies and nonprofit organizations in the Southern Sierra Nevada 

Ecoregion. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Sequoia National Forest, and Giant 

Sequoia National Monument are the first group of resource managers working together under the 

framework to carry out a pilot project to develop the capacity to manage fire under a “new lens” 

and to revise fire management objectives, tools, and methods. Therefore, given that the majority 

of the land in the analysis area is managed by Federal agencies and guided by individual resource 

management plans, as well as stronger, more relevant multi-agency partnerships, these strong 

consistencies in management direction are expected to provide for landscape-level resilience.

Large, high-intensity wildfires pose the most significant threat to wildlife habitat in the analysis 

area and many Federal agencies in this Southern Sierra Nevada ecoregion are working in 

partnership (and separately) to improve landscape resiliency to climate change and wildfires. The 

National Park Service uses managed wildfire and prescribed fire as resource tools where feasible 

and safe. The National Park Service has worked with the Sequoia National Forest in the past to 

manage wildfires for resource benefit, resulting in a high level of restoration (and lessened fire 

risk) in the area where the national forest meets the national park. The Inyo National Forest has 

an interagency fire program with the Bureau of Land Management in which staff from both 

agencies participate in the planning of vegetation projects because of the proximity of lands, 

especially in the wildland-urban intermix. 

Although each of the four alternatives attempts to reduce the spread of large, high-intensity 

wildfires, improved resilience to such wildfires is anticipated to be achieved under some but not 

all alternatives. Under alternatives A and C, wildfires are anticipated to have an increasing trend 

in burned area, fire size, and fire intensity. Although alternative C places a heavy emphasis on the 

use of fire to achieve vegetation restoration, resilience to fire over much of the plan area would 

remain at the same low and very low resilience because of the more limited areas where fuels are 

reduced lowering the risks of managing wildfires or the complexity of conducting prescribed 

burns. The Endangered Species Act defines “cumulative effects” as the “effects of future State or 

private activities, not involving Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the 

action area of the Federal action subject to consultation.” The National Environmental Policy Act 

gives “cumulative impacts” a broader meaning, which includes the impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and future actions, regardless of the agency or person undertaking 

the action. Therefore, while alternatives A and C might provide less benefit to resilience than 

alternatives B and D, they do not constitute adverse conditions under either the Endangered 

Species Act or the National Environmental Policy Act simply from a lack of action. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

394

Vegetation management activities are conducted on land managed by Bureau of Land 

Management, National Parks, and some State-managed lands. Both mechanical treatments and 

prescribed fire are used as management tools as they are on National Forest System lands.

However, in national parks, the primary treatment methods include prescribed fire and managed 

wildfire; mechanical treatments are limited. Relatively fewer vegetation management projects are 

undertaken on county and privately owned land. The pace of restoration under alternatives B and 

D in treating both upland and aquatic systems may be more aggressive than those undertaken on 

other land ownerships in the analysis area but are expected to help more rapidly set the trajectory 

for a positive trend in ecosystem resilience (especially alternative D). Conversely, under 

alternatives A and C there is a greater risk of not being able to achieve desired conditions in a 

timely manner for ecosystem integrity, resiliency, and diversity of upland and aquatic systems 

because of the limit on tools that can be effectively used and constraints on habitat modifications 

related to canopy cover and large trees in upland systems and the use of mechanical equipment in 

aquatic systems.

Climate change resulting in higher temperatures, greater moisture evaporation, and prolonged 

drought will continue to affect ecosystems that support terrestrial wildlife species throughout the 

analysis area. Unlike alternatives B, C and D that formally provide direction to manage the 

landscape and various ecosystems and watersheds for resilience to climate change, alternative A 

presents the greatest risk to the ability of habitat within the analysis area to sustain wildlife habitat 

as climate conditions change. Alternative A recognizes the need to address density of forests to reduce 

the risk of trees dying due to stresses related to prolonged droughts but this alternative is limited in the 

ability to treat terrestrial habitat at a rapid and large enough pace to substantially reduce the risk.

Furthermore, the desired conditions for aquatic and riparian ecosystems in alternative A that 

support many terrestrial wildlife species and their prey do not specifically consider the change in 

temperature and precipitation related to climate change and other climate stressors to these

systems. Management under this alternative could put more pressure on adjacent lands to support 

resilient habitat or influence habitat in adjacent lands where widespread climate-induced changes 

(such as massive tree mortalities, meadow desiccation, or large high-intensity wildfires) spread 

beyond the borders of the three national forests. 

In contrast, alternatives B, C, D include desired conditions that emphasize improving watershed 

resilience to wildfire and climate change by treating vegetation and reducing fuels over larger 

areas, and mitigating and restoring impacts from unmaintained roads when they impair watershed 

function. These alternatives also include direction to manage for an increased risk of insects and 

diseases and changed fire patterns and cycles, and include desired conditions that recognize 

climate stressors on aquatic and riparian systems. These alternatives all consider and incorporate 

at least some recommendations from various climate vulnerability assessments and adaptation 

strategies and as a result have a better ability than alternative A (which supports fewer climate 

assessments and strategies) to build adaptive capacity into the climate change approach on 

National Forest System lands in the analysis area.

For various species strongly associated with certain plants for foraging or nesting habitat (like

butterflies, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, Kern red-winged blackbird, tricolored blackbird, 

willow flycatcher [three subspecies], least Bell’s vireo, or yellow-billed cuckoo) the spread of 

invasive plant species threatens this habitat. Management direction under any alternative is not 

expected to have an adverse cumulative effect on the existence or spread of invasive species in 

the analysis area, but alternatives B, C and D have specific plan components that address the 

prevention, control, and possible eradication of terrestrial invasive species more formally than the 

current plans. However, alternative D has the greatest indirect risk of spreading invasive species 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

395

because of the increase in acres treated, particularly acres mechanically treated. Nonetheless, the 

spread of invasive species is not anticipated to have an adverse cumulative effect in the analysis 

area because of mitigation required under each of the three alternatives. Both Bureau of Land 

Management and National Park Service also conduct invasive weed treatments. Invasive species 

exist on State, county and privately owned land and treatments there are varied.

Within the analysis area, grazing is permitted on lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management, and county and private lands. Grazing can be a management tool used for 

restoring habitats such as grassland important to various species (such as some invertebrates) but 

also has the potential to reduce habitat quantity and condition for other associated species. Some 

domestic sheep transmit life-threatening diseases to various native bighorn sheep. Allotments on 

National Forest System lands are managed following Forest Service utilization standards and this 

management direction does not vary by alternative. However, alternatives B, C, and D more 

formally incorporate an implementation plan on the Inyo National Forest that focuses on reducing 

the risk of transmission of disease among domestic and native sheep. Domestic sheep and goats 

are found on private and county-managed lands adjacent to occupied Sierra bighorn sheep and 

therefore the risk of disease transmission in these areas is high regardless of management on 

National Forest System lands. In this way, under all alternatives, but especially B, C and D, 

grazing on National Forest System lands is not expected to have an adverse cumulative effect on 

habitat or disease transmission elsewhere in the analysis area.

The entire analysis area receives a great deal of recreational use. Recreation can have varying 

degrees of adverse impacts on terrestrial wildlife such as habitat loss, degradation, and 

fragmentation; disruption of behavior (such as foraging or reproduction); reduction or change in 

supply and availability of food and cover; direct physical harm to individuals and offspring (eggs

or young); and increased garbage, human food sources, noise, and pet presence. Roads and trails 

can be particularly problematic where they traverse otherwise undisturbed or minimally disturbed 

habitat, are unmaintained so they degrade habitat or inadequately contain users, or where a 

variety of user-created trails exist. Although recreation and access can adversely affect terrestrial 

wildlife and their habitat, the recreation approaches described under any of the alternatives are 

not likely to have an adverse cumulative impact on wildlife habitat in the analysis area. The 

approaches proposed under the various alternatives focus on addressing deferred maintenance 

(such as retrofitting existing sites to accommodate need, maintaining existing system trails) rather 

than creating new development or trails. Addressing deferred maintenance could improve wildlife 

habitat condition where sites or trails are degrading habitat (like passing through a meadow or 

wetland) and are upgraded or moved to higher capability lands. All alternatives continue to 

protect at-risk species from known threats associated with recreation. For example, all 

alternatives contain plan components to prevent nesting raptors from being disturbed from a 

variety of activities, including recreation activities.

Cumulative Effects under the Endangered Species Act. There are no foreseeable cumulative 

effects identified for federally listed or candidate species as well as critical habitat at this time. 

Those effects are not the same as how cumulative effects are defined under the National 

Environmental Policy At. Cumulative effects under the Endangered Species Act will be addressed 

fully in the biological assessment prepared for consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service prior to issuing a decision on the proposed forest plans.

Analytical Conclusions

Alternatives A and C have the most limited ability to mitigate the continuing increase in large, 

high-intensity wildfires and build adaptive capacity of ecosystems to climate change, although 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

396

alternative C is better than alternative A at addressing climate change. Large wildfires with 

expansive areas of high-severity impacts are a major threat to many at-risk terrestrial wildlife 

species because they completely remove important habitat elements from a large portion of the 

landscape (like large living trees, dense canopy cover, down woody debris, riparian vegetation, 

and structural complexity). Climate change is influencing all species and their habitats in far more 

complex ways. Therefore, alternatives A and C present a greater risk to the quantity and condition 

of habitat to contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species, conservation of 

proposed species, and support the persistence of species of conservation concern. 

Although alternatives B, C, and D all focus on moving the vegetation types toward desired 

conditions, alternatives B and D are better positioned to achieve these desired conditions in a 

shorter timeframe because they focus on restoring resilience at a large landscape scale using a 

variety of tools that effectively decrease the expected amount of crown fire and large patches of 

high-severity fire effects toward the levels expected in the natural range of variation. The 

treatment pace and scale under alternative B is assumed to move the landscape to a moderate fire 

resilience within the first 10 years of plan adoption. The pace and scale of restoration proposed 

under alternative D is expected to surpass alternative B in the ability to move the landscape to a 

more resilient position. These alternatives are also better than alternative A and slightly better 

than alternative C in building adaptive capacity of the ecosystems to climate change.

Alternative B represents a balance between alternatives A and C in that it proposes to restore 

ecosystems toward their natural range of variation faster and more effectively than alternatives A 

and C because of the landscape level approach, more acres proposed for treatment, and a wider 

variety of restoration tools that can be applied. Alternative B provides a more cautious approach 

than alternative D by tempering the pace of restoration and implementing more fine-filter plan 

components, including more stringent limited operating periods, to protect reproducing 

individuals and habitat for at-risk terrestrial wildlife species in the short term. Ultimately, though, 

habitat for at-risk terrestrial wildlife species under alternative B continues to be at risk of loss due 

to large, high-intensity wildfires. Alternative D would more quickly achieve resilience of the 

landscape to large-scale disturbances (such as insect outbreaks, high-severity wildfire effects, and 

drought-related tree mortality), thereby providing a greater long term benefit to terrestrial wildlife 

habitat quantity and condition. However the management approach has greater potential for shortterm impacts to achieve improved habitat condition. The evaluation of such a tradeoff for both 

alternatives would best be evaluated over time by a robust monitoring program. 

Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Wildlife Species

Determinations

For all threatened and endangered species, we have determined that the management approach 

under all alternatives at the programmatic level of the plans may affect but is not likely to 

adversely affect the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow 

flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, California condor, and Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep.

For the Sierra Nevada red fox, a candidate for listing, we have determined that management 

approaches under all alternatives at the programmatic level of the plans may affect individuals, 

but are not likely to contribute to the need for Federal listing or result in a loss of viability in the 

forest plan areas.

Critical habitat has been designated for the California condor, southwestern willow flycatcher, 

and Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, and proposed for the yellow-billed cuckoo. We have 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

397

determined that none of the alternatives are likely to result in destruction or adverse modification 

of that critical habitat.

Wildlife Species of Conservation Concern Outcomes

Adjustments to emerging ecosystem plan components, additional species-specific plan 

components, or both, when carried out, would provide the necessary ecological conditions to 

maintain a viable population of ALL species of concern in the plan areas with the exception of 

Nelson’s desert bighorn sheep. Differences in the effects of alternatives suggests minor to major 

differences as to which would favor a particular species or group of species under the different 

alternatives. This determination depends upon the assumptions of treatments reducing the rate of 

habitat loss from large, high-intensity wildfires while providing for sufficient ecological 

conditions to meet the short-term needs of at-risk species. All determinations rely upon an 

adaptive approach to learning and making appropriate changes over time. 

Due to circumstances that are neither within the authority of the Forest Service nor consistent 

within the inherent capability of the land, the plan area is unable to provide the ecological 

conditions necessary to maintain a viable population of the Nelson’s desert bighorn sheep. The 

reasons for this are that there is no authorized livestock grazing or permitting of uncontrolled 

domestic goats or sheep that are known to be in contact with the White Mountain bighorn sheep 

herd. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has documented co-mingling of stray 

domestic goats with this bighorn population on private property (CDFW 2015b). Because of this, 

the potential for population die-off is not caused by actions and cannot be addressed under Forest 

Service authority.

At-risk Aquatic Species

Background

This section summarizes current conditions of at-risk aquatic vertebrate and invertebrate species 

on the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests, and the consequences to at-risk species of 

implementing the draft forest plans or the alternatives.

The sections above on “Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems” and “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” 

cover the general ecological integrity of the ecosystems upon which aquatic at-risk species 

depend. 

This evaluation was completed by examining conditions of and threats to individual at-risk 

aquatic species, and also by examining the collective distribution patterns of at-risk aquatic 

species within the planning area, by watershed and by ecosystem. This approach assisted in 

understanding the broad relationship between a programmatic land management plan and the 

desired conditions identified for the at-risk species in the planning area. Desired conditions for atrisk aquatic species emphasize habitat that supports self-sustaining populations, precluding the 

need for listing, and improving conditions for these species (Forestwide SPEC-FW-DC 01, 02, 

03). 

Analysis and Methods

This analysis uses the same coarse-filter and fine-filter approach as the “At-risk Terrestrial 

Wildlife” analysis to assess the alternatives’ potential for providing the habitat characteristics to 

support wildlife diversity and the persistence of native species in the plan area. The coarse filter 

approach assumes that diversity is broadly dependent upon the integrity of the function, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

398

composition, and structure of the forest’s terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems to provide 

the ecological conditions that support the abundance, distribution, and long-term persistence of 

native species. This analysis compares the current abundance and condition of various habitats 

with ecological reference conditions (natural range of variability) based on the dynamic nature of 

ecosystems, recognizing they are not static (Landres et al. 1999). It recognizes that disturbances 

or processes (fire, flooding, insects, and disease) and responses to those are part of the natural 

processes. However, because integrity of whole ecosystems does not necessarily address all 

species’ needs, additional fine filter analyses were conducted to ensure that persistence is 

provided for at-risk a species. 

The analysis area includes all National Forest System lands within the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra 

National Forests. In some cases, the best available scientific information for at-risk species’ 

ecological relationships originated outside the analysis area. However, indicator measures and 

threat information from within the analysis area were used in making conclusions. Because of 

differences in available biological and threat information to federally recognized threatened, 

endangered, proposed, and candidate species versus species of conservation concern, and because 

the Forest Service Handbook outlines different procedures to identify plan components necessary 

to provide for the two groups of species, different approaches were used in their analyses.

Assumptions

• Land management plans do not have direct effects. They do not authorize or mandate any 

site-specific projects or activities (including ground-disturbing actions). However, there 

may be implications, or longer term environmental consequences, of managing the forests 

under this programmatic framework. As a result, all effects discussed in this section are 

considered indirect effects.

• Site-specific projects and activities will be planned and implemented consistent with 

relevant and applicable plan components.

• All project activities that will be implemented under all alternatives that may affect 

threatened, endangered or proposed species will require separate, site-specific evaluations 

and consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, following agency 

procedures. 

• The planning timeframe for the effects analysis is 10 to 15 years; other timeframes may be 

specifically analyzed depending on the resource and potential consequences.

• Monitoring identified in the plan monitoring program and any broader-scale monitoring 

will occur and the land management plan will be amended, as needed during the life of the 

plan. 

• There will be a general increase in recreational demand as the human population size 

increases.

• Funding levels will be similar to the past 5 years.

Species Evaluated

Federally listed, Candidate, and Proposed Aquatic Species

The following table shows at-risk federally listed aquatic species on the three national forests, 

providing common name, scientific name, listing status (threatened or endangered) and the 

national forests where it is known to occur or has habitat. There are no proposed or candidate 

aquatic species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

399

Table 85. At-risk federally listed aquatic species on the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests

Common Name Scientific Name Status National Forest

Lahontan cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi Threatened Inyo, Sierra 

Paiute cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris Threatened Inyo, Sierra 

Little Kern Golden trout Oncorhynchus aquabonita whitei Threatened Sequoia

Owens tui chub Gila bicolor snyderi Endangered Inyo

California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii Threatened Sierra 

Yosemite toad Anaxyrus canorus Threatened Inyo, Sierra 

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged 

frog 

Rana sierrae Endangered Inyo, Sierra 

Northern distinct population 

segment mountain yellowlegged frog

Rana muscosa Endangered Inyo, Sequoia

Critical Habitat

There is only one aquatic species, the Little Kern golden trout on the Sequoia National Forest, for 

which critical habitat is designated.

Aquatic Species of Conservation Concern

For the coarse-filter approach, we grouped species by coarse-scale ecosystems described in the 

“Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems” section on page 263. The environmental consequence 

findings of that section also compared existing and foreseeable future conditions of ecosystems to 

desired conditions, and this comparison was used as the basis of the coarse-filter evaluation. This 

coarse-filter approach assumes that viability of species of conservation concern is broadly 

dependent upon the integrity of the ecosystems where they currently occur. However, because 

integrity of whole ecosystems does not necessarily ensure persistence of all species of 

conservation concern, particularly those with very limited distribution, we conducted additional 

fine-filter evaluations (species-specific and by special habitat) to ensure persistence is provided 

for all aquatic species of conservation concern.

The fine-filter evaluation was conducted by analyzing (1) special habitats that support suites of 

some species of conservation concern on the national forests, and (2) known threats to each 

individual species of conservation concern. We grouped species by fine-scale habitats where 

possible, to enable a fine filter look at ecological conditions that affect populations. We also 

discussed documented threats that influence species trends in distribution and viability.

There are 15 aquatic species of conservation concern across the three national forests with some 

species occurring on more than one national forest. Table 86 lists aquatic amphibian species, 

Table 87 lists fish species, and Table 88 lists aquatic invertebrate species. Note that terrestrial 

amphibian and invertebrate species are discussed in the “At-risk Terrestrial Wildlife” section.

Table 86. Aquatic amphibian species of conservation concern 

Common Name Scientific Name Applicable National Forest

Black Toad Anaxyrus exsul Inyo

Relictual Slender Salamander Batrachoseps relictus Sequoia

Kern Plateau Salamander Batrachoseps robustus Inyo, Sequoia

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Rana boylii Sierra, Sequoia
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

400

Table 87. Fish species of conservation concern

Common Name Scientific Name Applicable National Forest

California Golden Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 

aguabonita

Inyo, Sequoia

Kern Brook Lamprey Lampetra hubbsi Sierra 

Central Valley Hitch Lavinia exilicauda exilicauda Sierra, Sequoia

Hardhead Mylopharodon conocephalus Sierra, Sequoia

Kern River Golden Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gilberti Sequoia

Table 88. Aquatic invertebrate species of conservation concern 

Common Name Scientific Name Applicable National Forest

Western Pearlshell Mussel Margaritifera falcata Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra

Denning's Cryptic Caddisfly Cryptochia denningi Inyo

An Isopod Calasellus longus Sierra 

California Sallfly Sweltsa resima Inyo

Wong's Springsnail Pyrgulopsis wongi Inyo

Owens Valley Springsnail Pyrgulopsis owensensis Inyo

Indicators and Measures

For all at-risk aquatic species, we chose the extent and condition of habitat as indicators because 

they are direct measures of ecological conditions needed to contribute to the recovery of federally 

listed species and support the persistence of species of conservation concern by maintaining 

viable populations within the plan area. A viable population is defined as (36 CFR 219.19): 

A population of a species that continues to persist over the long term with sufficient 

distribution to be resilient and adaptable to stressors and likely future environments. 

Furthermore, for most species, evaluation of the extent and condition of habitat typically 

constitute the best available scientific information indicating whether such populations will 

continue to persist with sufficient distribution in the planning area. Finally, we selected extent and 

condition of habitat as indicators because relative differences among alternatives could be readily 

compared. 

We made qualitative, rather than quantitative, comparisons. To evaluate extent and condition of 

habitat, we relied upon findings for environmental consequences from the “Aquatic and Riparian 

Ecosystems” section. In other words, the extent and condition of each ecosystem or special type 

served as the habitat indicator for individual species, and for assemblages of at-risk species and 

overall diversity. However, the ecosystem types outlined in the “Aquatic and Riparian 

Ecosystems” section are roughly, but not exactly aligned with watershed characteristics to which 

at-risk aquatic species populations are often associated. Therefore, we also discussed the extent 

and condition of the watershed characteristics to reflect the habitat indicators.

The amount of habitat provides a relative quantitative measure of habitat condition and extent to 

maintain species viability and is also an appropriate measure for a programmatic-level analysis. 

The condition of habitat is used as an indicator only when it can be estimated adequately at the 

programmatic-level, such as assessing not only the amount of impact from wildfire but also the 

type of fire and the resulting effects on habitat quality. These estimates of habitat quality are 

derived from the analyses in the “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” and “Fire Trends” sections.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

401

Affected Environment

Aquatic ecosystems include standing waterbodies such as lakes, ponds, tarns, springs and 

reservoirs, and flowing waterbodies such as rivers, creeks, and streams. Meadows and riparian 

areas are also important features of aquatic ecosystems.

The El Niño Southern Oscillation is partially responsible for approximately a decade long interannual precipitation pattern in the southern Sierra Nevada. Drought years alternate with normal 

and extremely wet years during these decade-long oscillations. In recent years, the pattern has 

increased in variability. Within the same year, the Mediterranean climate may have long dry 

summer periods and highly seasonal winter precipitation. 

The following sections describe the aquatic environment of each national forest, as well as the 

topography, climate, and other factors that influence the aquatic ecosystems and habitats found 

there.

Rivers and Streams

Inyo National Forest: The eastern side of the Sierra Nevada lies in the rain shadow of these 

mountains, which reach their highest elevations on the Inyo National Forest. This has created a 

dry, precipitation-dependent and precipitation-driven aquatic system. Streamflow is dependent on 

total precipitation and timing of snowmelt. Water flows can vary greatly from one year to the 

next, depending on precipitation levels. Some years, streams can be completely dry. Climate 

change is likely to magnify these shifts in two ways: with decreasing precipitation resulting in 

more dry years, and with earlier snowmelt and shifts in seasonal timing of flows (Hunsaker and 

Long 2014). The rain-snow interface zone is predicted to occur at higher elevations, causing 

warming of streams earlier in the season. Rivers in valleys usually provide a consistent, abundant 

flow of water throughout the year, and support more complex faunal ecosystems.

Large rivers are predominately absent from the eastern Sierra Nevada mountains. There are 

several along valley bottoms including the upper Owens River, the South Fork of the Kern River, 

and the San Joaquin River. There are many larger and smaller, sometimes seasonally flowing 

streams. Larger streams include Pine Creek, Bishop Creek, Big Pine Creek, and Rock Creek. An 

estimated 1,640 miles of perennial streams are on the Inyo National Forest.

Many of the stream systems on the Inyo National Forest were fishless prior to stocking of nonnative trout, except the South Fork Kern River and Golden Trout Creek and their tributaries, 

which are the native range of the California golden trout. Native species found in these systems 

include a variety of stream-dwelling macro-invertebrates (the aquatic life-cycle stage of many 

aquatic insects), such as caddis flies, mayflies, and stone flies.

Sequoia National Forest: The three rivers that produce the most water from the Sequoia 

National Forest, the Kern River, Tule River, and White River produce approximately 835,000 

acre feet of water per year on average. The variability in flows from year to year makes it difficult 

to detect whether the quantity of water flowing from the Sequoia is outside the natural range of 

variation. In the past, the snowpack stored part of the winter precipitation into the drier summer 

months. A well-documented shift toward earlier runoff in recent decades has been attributed to a 

decreasing trend in snow precipitation and earlier snowmelt (Hunsaker et al. 2014). The rainsnow interface zone is predicted to occur at higher elevations, causing warming of streams earlier 

in the season.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

402

Eleven fish species were native historically but most waters were barren of fish prior to 

transplanting activities starting in the late 19th Century. Much of the west slope of the Sierra 

Nevada range above 5,000 feet was historically fishless due to glaciation during the Pleistocene 

and due to steep topography (Moyle 2002). However, it is noted that trout may have occurred up 

to 7,200 feet in the Middle Fork of the Kings River (Moyle et al 1996). Habitats are characterized 

as having more riffle than pools, with water temperatures seldom exceeding 70 degrees 

Fahrenheit. Elevations less than 2,500 feet are generally part of the pikeminnow-hardhead-sucker 

assemblage which occurred within Sierra Nevada foothill streams (Moyle 2002). Water 

temperatures within this transitional area may exceed 70 degrees Fahrenheit during the summer, 

especially during “dry and critically dry” water years. Trout species may persist within these 

areas, but water temperatures limit the populations and introduced centrarchids (sunfish family) 

are better adapted to these habitat conditions. 

Sierra National Forest: The water that originates on the Sierra National Forest drains to the San 

Joaquin River system via the Merced, Chowchilla, Fresno and Kings Rivers, along with the 

mainstem San Joaquin River. Aquatic habitat includes an estimated 2,000 miles of perennial 

streams and rivers. The Sierra National Forest aquatic systems provide habitat for 31 species of 

fish, with approximately 1,580 miles of stream occupied by fish. Perennial waters also provide 

potential habitat for a variety of amphibian and reptile species, as well as benthic 

macroinvertebrates.

Review of 40 benthic aquatic invertebrate datasets during the Forest Watershed Condition 

Assessment indicated 29 samples represented “functioning properly,” 9 indicated “functioning at 

risk,” and 2 indicated “impaired” aquatic systems. There are 155 miles of stream on the Sierra 

National Forest subject to minimum in-stream flows downstream of hydroelectric dams, which 

can impair habitat for aquatic invertebrates.

Lakes and Ponds

Historically the lakes of the high Sierra Nevada were fishless and supported native fauna such as 

amphibians, aquatic insects, abundant zooplankton and phytoplankton. The mountain yellowlegged frog was an abundant resident of these lakes, with a life cycle that accommodated the 

seasons of ice in the high country (Knapp et al. 2007). Currently, many of the high-elevation 

lakes support introduced trout species of brook, brown, rainbow and golden trout, which has had 

an impact on frog populations (Knapp et al. 2007; Knapp and Matthews 2000a, Knapp and 

Matthews 2000b). The historic introduction of trout into lakes throughout the Sierra Nevada 

mountain range has had the effect of eliminating the mountain yellow-legged frog from over 95 

percent of its historic range (Vredenburg et al. 2007). The introduction of trout into these lakes 

has also altered the life cycle and reduced the population numbers of macro-invertebrates and 

zooplankton within the lake (Knapp 2005, Schindler et al. 2001). This reduction or elimination 

also affects the intensity of insect hatches, which has been shown to affect bird migration 

patterns. The trout are popular for recreational use, which is an important source of economic 

sustainability in the area. Climate change is expected to disrupt habitat for lake associated 

species. Mountain yellow-legged frog populations are impacted by the fungal pathogen 

commonly referred to as chytrid fungus (Briggs et al. 2005, Rachowicz et al. 2006, Reeder et al. 

2012) in addition to introduced trout, climate change and other stressors (Bradford et al. 2011, 

Davidson and Knapp 2007). 

Ponds and other small waterbodies, such as tarns and pools, occur throughout the higher 

elevations within the Sierra Nevada Mountains. For the purpose of this discussion, waterbodies 

less than 2 acres were identified as ponds, of which there are 1,372 on the Inyo National Forest, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

403

with a total of 662 acres. Due to the shallow nature of these waterbodies, they are 

characteristically warmer during the summer months than lakes or streams. These features 

provide breeding habitat for the Yosemite toad and Pacific chorus frogs, which prefer meadow 

edges without deep water or adjacent steep terrain (Davidson and Fellers 2005). Most ponds 

occur in wilderness areas in the Sierra Nevada portion of the forest. Little to no information is 

available on their condition or trend. Impacts have been observed, but not measured

systematically, from recreation, grazing, or pack stock. 

Inyo National Forest: Lakes on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains range in size 

from one acre to hundreds of acres. No lakes occur in the White Mountains, Inyo Mountains or 

Glass Mountains. Approximately 479 lakes larger than 2 acres occur on the Inyo National Forest, 

totaling about 46,000 acres. 

Sequoia National Forest: The Sequoia National Forest has only a few natural lakes and all of 

them are in wilderness. These are Maggie Lakes, Weaver Lake, Silver Lake and Coyote Lake. 

Some lakes, such as Silver Lake, have remained with no introduced fish. These lakes provide a 

last refuge for the mountain yellow-legged frog. In previously fishless lakes, the effects of 

introduced fish caused the loss of frogs from the area. In addition, air pollution from the Central 

Valley or metropolitan areas may influence water chemistry. Lake Isabella provides reservoir 

fisheries.

Sierra National Forest: There are 11 large reservoirs (greater than 150 acres), and 21,550 acres 

of lakes distributed across the Sierra National Forest providing a variety of angling opportunities. 

The Sierra provides reservoir fisheries, high mountain lake fisheries, and both warm and 

coldwater fisheries. Lakes above approximately 2,500 feet elevation are generally considered 

“coldwater” fisheries (water temperatures less than 70 degrees Fahrenheit), where anglers may 

catch rainbow trout, golden trout, brown trout, or eastern brook trout. 

Reservoir fisheries exist where dams established as part of hydroelectric power development or 

flood control has created lakes. Kokanee salmon are popular at several large reservoirs above this 

elevation. However, both Bass and Shaver Lakes develop temperature thermoclines over the 

course of the summer, which provide temperatures suitable for species from the bass/sunfish 

(centrarchid) and catfish families.

Forest waters less than 2,500 feet in elevation are considered “transitional” or “warmwater” 

fisheries and are more likely to be occupied by fish from the bass/sunfish and catfish families, 

although stocked Chinook salmon may be caught on Pine Flat Reservoir, along with occasional 

brown or rainbow trout at other sites below 2,500 feet. Angler experience and success may be 

affected by the time of year since stream and lake levels may be influenced by spring runoff of 

snowmelt, low summer/fall flows, drought, or drawdown of hydroelectric and flood control 

reservoirs in the fall.

Meadows, Seeps, and Springs

Meadows, seeps, and springs in the drier southern Sierra Nevada Mountains provide important 

habitat diversity and habitat for plants and animals.

Wet meadows are wetland habitats associated with groundwater seeps, stream and lake edges, and 

margins of seasonal drainages. This plant community is dominated by grass and grass-like species 

growing with varying combinations of herbaceous perennials and intermixed with the other 

habitat types noted in this section. Meadows play important roles in hydrology, erosion control,
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

404

nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat, and recreation. Meadows are also important in maintaining 

hydrological processes downstream, conserving stream flows, channel erosion, and nutrient loads.

Fens are continually wet areas where soils rich in organic material form.

Springs are small areas of water that come to the surface, and are fed by groundwater (Sada and 

Pohlmann 2002). Their water temperature is relatively constant and provides the only water over 

vast areas. Because of this, they are usually biodiversity hotspots, supporting many species that 

only occur there.

Meadows, seeps and fens are dependent on snowpack to sustain the water throughout the long dry 

period of summer. There is little information about the current trends for springs. As the rainsnow interface changes, lower elevation meadows and fens will be increasingly at-risk. 

Restoration of these systems holds great potential to provide multiple ecological and social 

benefits, despite their small share of the landscape. Evaluating the role of natural processes such 

as wildfire and management practices such as watershed restoration, on a larger, watershed scale, 

could aid the design of more effective strategies to promote long term resilience of these valuable 

systems.

Inyo National Forest: The Inyo National Forest has over 25,000 acres of meadows larger than 1 

acre. Meadows on the Inyo National Forest are experiencing increasing conifer densities and 

canopy cover over the past several decades that likely exceed the natural range of variability 

(Gross and Coppoletta 2013). Researchers sampled 10 randomly selected meadows on the Inyo 

National Forest as part of a Sierra Nevada study (Fryjoff-Hung and Viers 2013). This study found 

vegetation cover and bare ground cover ranged from natural condition to moderately or heavily 

altered, depending on location. Encroachment (the ingrowth of trees) was the most common 

impact, with 60 percent moderately impacted and 10 percent slightly impacted. 

Unpublished Inyo National Forest data indicate that all stream reaches through meadows in 

grazed and rested allotments fell within expected values for width and width-to-depth ratios, 

except for Monache Meadow, which showed that widths were wider and depths shallower than 

they should be for a functioning hydrologic system. In the past 20 years, much restoration work 

has been completed in meadows on the Inyo, especially the Kern Plateau. Observations by 

national forest staff suggest that, even in allotments that remain open to livestock grazing, 

restoration and changes in grazing management appear to have improved stream and meadow 

condition overall (USDA FS 2013a).

Little information is available on springs and seeps on the Inyo National Forest. Springs are 

scattered throughout the national forest, throughout different habitats. Existing information 

indicates that there are approximately 1,472 springs on the national forest. Stressors on these 

systems include spring development, recreation use, concentrated livestock grazing use, 

diversions and unauthorized off-highway-vehicle use. Groundwater pumping can affect springs 

even miles away from the pumping source, causing springs to cease flowing. Many springs have 

been fenced from livestock use, and this is expected to improve function and condition of these 

springs. Even with predicted decrease in water throughout the area as a result of climate change, 

it is expected that springs will persist, but they may be the only water sources available for 

animals. Springs could receive additional impacts from species such as mule deer, burros, wild 

horses, and other animals as other stream sources dry, especially in the White and Inyo Mountains 

and Pizona area.

Sequoia National Forest: There are an estimated 556 meadows on the Sequoia National Forest. 

Currently, biodiversity indicators such as fish and amphibians indicate some meadows are not in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

405

good condition and would benefit from restoration (Frissell et al. 2012, Moyle and Randall 1998, 

Purdy et al. 2012, USFWS 2015, Viers and Rheinheimer 2011, Vredenburg et al. 2007).

Sierra National Forest: Meadows on the Sierra National Forest range from extremely large to 

tiny meadows around springs. Large diverse meadow complexes are found in the wetter areas of 

the national forest and also the drier portions, because of persistent snowpack and extensive 

shallow groundwater systems. There are an estimated 15,750 acres of meadow on the Sierra 

National Forest (USDA FS 2001, 2004). 

Riparian Ecosystems

Riparian ecosystems are a critically important component of biodiversity, supporting a higher 

concentration of species diversity than most terrestrial ecosystems. They serve in part as a link 

between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and play numerous important roles within the broader 

landscape (such as providing for wildlife habitat including habitat corridors, nutrient cycling, and 

proper watershed function). Because they are cool and moist in the hot summer, they are also 

attractive for many uses such as grazing, camping, fishing, and hydropower production. Despite 

their importance Kattelmann and Embury (1996) estimated that riparian vegetation currently 

makes up less than 1 percent of the Sierra Nevada bio-region. 

Riparian ecosystems are formed by the interacting effects of flooding, soil wetness, water table 

level, proximity to streams, height above water level, sediment, and ice scouring. Meadows are 

areas where grasses, sedges and rushes are dominant and flowering plants common. Willows, 

alders, cottonwoods and other woody vegetation dominate non-meadow riparian ecosystems, but 

flowering plants, sedges, and grasses are often present. Aspen is often present in riparian 

ecosystems.

Riparian habitat is associated with the margins of seasonal and perennial drainages, and with

seeps and wet meadow margins at scattered locations in the three national forests. Riparian 

habitat is dominated by willows including Lemmon’s willow (Salix lemmonii), Sierra willow (S. 

eastwoodii), Scouler’s willow (S. scouleriana), and mountain alder (Alnus incana spp. tenuifolia), 

with occasional quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides).

Riparian areas consist of vegetation commonly associated with standing or flowing water, such as 

willows, alders, aspen, and meadows (Manley et al. 2000). Riparian areas have an exceptionally 

high value for many wildlife species. However, many of the montane riparian communities in the 

three national forests are currently grown in with conifers. Riparian areas provide water, thermal 

cover, migration and movement corridors and diverse nesting and feeding opportunities for many 

species (Grenfell 1988).

The aquatic ecosystem types shown in Table 77 give an overview of the distribution of diversity 

in the planning area and assisted with a broad, qualitative analysis by applying a coarse filter 

approach of grouping species by aquatic habitat types they are most commonly associated with. 

All at-risk species occur in at least one of the ecosystems and many occur in two or more. Many 

species do not have a strict affinity to the ecosystem types as designated below; precise adherence 

to ecosystem type associations is not possible to determine and species may occupy multiple and 

additional ecosystem types.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

406

Table 89. Aquatic at-risk species by ecosystem type

Common and Scientific Name Ecosystem types

Lahontan cutthroat trout

(Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi)

Rivers and streams

Paiute cutthroat trout

(Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris)

Rivers and streams

Little Kern golden trout

(Oncorhynchus aquabonita whitei)

Rivers and streams, lakes, ponds

Owens tui chub

(Gila bicolor snyderi)

Rivers and streams, seeps, springs

California red-legged frog

(Rana aurora draytonii)

Rivers and streams

Yosemite toad

(Anaxyrus canorus)

Meadows

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

(Rana sierrae)

Rivers and streams, lakes, ponds, seeps, 

springs, riparian areas

Northern DPS mountain yellow-legged frog

(Rana muscosa)

Rivers and streams, lakes, ponds, riparian 

areas

Black toad

(Anaxyrus exsul)

Seeps, springs

Relictual slender salamander

(Batrachoseps relictus)

Seeps, springs

Kern Plateau salamander

(Batrachoseps robustus)

Seeps, springs, riparian areas

Foothill yellow-legged frog

(Rana boylii)

Rivers and streams

California golden trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita)

Rivers and streams

Kern brook lamprey

(Lampetra hubbsi)

Rivers and streams

Central Valley hitch

(Lavinia exilicauda exilicauda)

Rivers and streams, lakes, ponds

Hardhead

(Mylopharodon conocephalus)

Rivers and streams, lakes, ponds

Kern River golden trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss gilberti)

Rivers and streams

Western pearlshell mussel

(Margaritifera falcate)

Rivers and streams

Denning's cryptic caddisfly

(Cryptochia denningi)

Rivers and streams, seeps, springs

An isopod

(Calasellus longus)

Seeps, springs

California sallfly

(Sweltsa resima)

Rivers and streams, seeps, springs

Wong's springsnail

(Pyrgulopsis wongi)

Seeps, springs

Owens Valley springsnail

(Pyrgulopsis owensensis)

Seeps, springs
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

407

Environmental Consequences to At-risk Aquatic Species

Consequences Common to all Alternatives

Currently, major drivers of aquatic ecosystems include climate change, shifting hydrologic 

patterns and increasingly dense and unhealthy forest conditions. Climate change is expected to 

alter the overall hydrologic regime in the Sierra Nevada by decreasing surface flows and 

increasing water temperatures. Warming air temperatures will bring about less snowfall, more 

intermittent snowpack at all but the highest elevations, more rain-on-snow events, reduced spring 

snowmelt, earlier and likely lower peak spring runoff, and higher evapotranspiration rates for 

vegetation (Podolak et al, 2015). The higher evapotranspiration rates over large landscapes will 

reduce percolation into shallow groundwater storage and reduce baseflow in streams that are 

groundwater dependent (Bales et al, 2011). Climate changes may alter riparian habitats 

substantially (Perry et al. 2015), especially those that have deviated from natural ranges of 

variation. 

All alternatives provide direction for aquatic ecological restoration and attempt to mitigate effects 

of climate change at varying scales across the three national forests. All alternatives include 

removal of vegetation through hand thinning, mechanical treatments, prescribed fire, and wildfire 

managed to meet resource objectives as a means to improve the resilience of vegetation to 

stressors and move vegetation and ecosystem functions toward the natural range of variation. Two 

key water quality indicators critically important to aquatic species and functioning aquatic 

systems are water temperature and fine sediment delivery. All alternatives seek to mitigate these 

effects through restoration to maintain or reduce water temperatures and prevent erosion for the 

benefit of at-risk aquatic species.

All alternatives would retain riparian conservation areas and critical aquatic refuges that protect 

aquatic habitats by providing guidance for ground-disturbing management activities in riparian 

and upland areas. Projects developed under all alternatives would be guided by desired conditions 

and would implement standards and guidelines for these management areas, including equipment 

limitations closest to water and riparian vegetation. In addition, established best management 

practices to protect water quality would be applied to all ground-disturbing projects (USDA FS 

2011, 2013). Based on results of past monitoring, best management practices are expected to 

reduce both short- and long-term adverse impacts from non-point source pollution to less than 

significant levels. Staff at the three national forests would continue to follow agency direction to 

implement an annual best management practices evaluation and adaptive management program, 

following established agency monitoring protocols. Riparian areas are high in biodiversity due to 

the water, relative humidity, cooler temperatures and complex cover provided. They also serve as 

important corridors for species dispersal.

All alternatives would promote priority watershed restoration focused on maintaining or 

improving watershed conditions using the Watershed Condition Framework as funding permits. 

The Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests and their partners are actively implementing 

restoration actions to reduce erosion on roads, trails, dispersed camping areas, grazed areas, and 

other developed and dispersed recreation sites. These efforts are expected to continue, resulting in 

improved water quality and improved aquatic habitat conditions by reducing erosion. Managers at 

the three national forests have identified priority watersheds to focus restoration work that results 

in overall benefits to a watershed, rather than restoring separate unconnected locations across the 

national forests. The three national forests have developed water restoration action plans for all 

priority watersheds. The water restoration action plans identify essential projects to restore legacy 

erosion sites, and degraded aquatic and riparian habitats (including streams and meadows) and are 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

408

designed to improve overall aquatic habitat conditions. Additionally, restoration of aquatic 

ecosystems is a regional priority for the three national forests following the “Ecological

Restoration Leadership Intent” established by the Regional Forester.

All alternatives would maintain the same level of livestock grazing as the current plans 

(alternative A) and each national forest proposes to manage grazing similar to current practices.

Specific decisions on the numbers, types, seasons, and level and intensity of livestock grazing are 

made during site-specific allotment management planning. Alternative D proposes a new sitespecific system to determine appropriate management strategies in areas occupied by the 

Yosemite toad during the breeding and rearing season.

Operations of various hydropower facilities and other dams and diversions on the three national 

forests would continue under all alternatives. Hydropower operations have recently undergone 

relicensing from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and have changed some operating 

procedures, including maintaining downstream baseline flows to support aquatic ecosystems. 

Higher flows from these dams, especially where the stored water is cooler than the ambient 

stream water, can help maintain cooler water temperatures for the benefit of at-risk aquatic 

species. All alternatives would minimize the effects of stream diversions or other flow 

modifications on at-risk species for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, State and other 

authorized water use planning, water rights, and relicensing on the national forests. 

All alternatives would include Forest Service participation in the development of total maximum 

daily loads and total maximum daily loads implementation plans for waters designated as Clean 

Water Act section 303(d) “water quality limited” to improve water quality.

Consequences Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

Nonnative invasive aquatic species are a serious threat to all aquatic habitats. Non-native fish and 

bullfrogs are present within the planning area and their presence has been detrimental to native 

species, especially amphibians (Schwartz et al. 2013). The New Zealand mud snail is established 

in the Owens River watershed and has been found to cause significant disruptions in stream food 

chains throughout the western states (Moore et al. 2012). It is anticipated that aquatic invasive 

species will continue to spread throughout streams, rivers, and reservoirs in the San Joaquin 

valley on boats, fishing equipment, and other water sports gear (CDFG 2008). 

When a new aquatic invasive species invasion occurs in a locality, it often requires research and 

observation time before reliable inferences can be made regarding spread patterns, specific 

effects, and potential containment strategies. A baseline often is lacking to predict how an aquatic 

invasive species from another region or continent will respond when introduced into a new 

environment. Since a local environment contains a unique assemblage of thousands of 

interconnected components and processes, the results in one area can vary slightly or significantly 

from previously infected areas. 

If an aquatic invasive species becomes established, elimination may be nearly impossible and 

efforts for containment can be very difficult, time consuming, and expensive. Thus, preventing 

invasions is of paramount importance in land and natural resource management. This involves 

recognizing the ways the invasive species is introduced to an area and how it spreads and 

implementing safeguards or resource protection measures to minimize and prevent its 

transmission and establishment. An example of something that could introduce an aquatic 

invasive species is the use of pumps and other fire equipment that come into contact with water. 

This equipment is increasingly used and transported globally between projects. Microbes, spores, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

409

planktonic larval and adult stages, and plant materials can easily be spread on this and other 

equipment, introducing invasive species to water. Requiring effective sanitation and inspection 

measures would be appropriate resource protection measures.

For alternatives B, C, and D, there are forestwide desired conditions to control, or eradicate when 

possible, and prevent establishment of new populations of aquatic invasive species (INV-FW-DC01 to 02). There are also similar riparian conservation area desired conditions including direction 

to work with State and Federal wildlife agencies to reduce impacts of invasive species to native 

aquatic species populations (MA-RCA-DC-01). In addition, all alternatives include the forestwide 

standard to clean equipment when moving from waterbodies with known aquatic invasive species 

(INV-FW-STD-01).

Plan Components Developed for Aquatic At-risk Species

Table 90 lists the threats and principal habitats for each aquatic at-risk species and the primary 

applicable plan components that provide for the ecological conditions necessary to ensure 

persistence of the species. While many other plan components may also provide generally for 

ecological conditions that would benefit a species, only the primary plan components are 

identified. The plan components are generally the same between each of the draft forest plans; 

however, some plan components are identified by national forest where needed for clarity.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

410

Table 90. Plan components addressing the identified potential threats to at-risk aquatic species

Species Known Threats to Persistence Principal Habitats Primary Associated Plan Components Addressing Known Threats

Lahontan 

cutthroat trout

(Oncorhynchus 

clarki henshawi) 

Hybridization and competition 

with introduced trout species; 

alteration in stream channels and 

morphology; loss of spawning

habitat due to pollution due to 

sediment inputs from a variety of 

sources (wildfires, logging, 

mining, and livestock grazing); 

changes in hydrologic 

connectivity, and concentrations 

of chemical components in lakes 

and demands of over fishing.

Perennial, cold water 

streams and rivers.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-03; GDL: 01

Animals and plants (SPEC-FW): DC: 02; GDL: 04; Sierra GDL: 07

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01; GDL: 02-06

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03; GDL: 05

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-03; STD: 01-02; GDL: 01-02

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-16; STD: 01-02, 04-14; 

GDL: 01-10

Rivers and Streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Critical aquatic refuges (MA-CAR): DC: 01-03

Paiute cutthroat 

trout

(Oncorhynchus 

clarki seleniris) 

Limited distribution increase 

vulnerability. Destruction or 

modification of habitat and input 

of sediment into habitat, disease 

or predation, over fishing, and 

introgression with both rainbow 

and Lahontan cutthroat trout.

Perennial, cold water 

streams and rivers

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-03; GDL: 01

Animals and plants (SPEC-FW): DC: 02; GDL: 04

Invasive species (INV-FS): DC: 01-02; STD: 01; GDL: 02-06

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03; GDL:05

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-03; STD: 01-02; GDL: 01-02 

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-16; STD: 01-02, 04-14; 

GDL: 01-10

Rivers and Streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Critical aquatic refuges (MA-CAR): DC: 01-03

Little Kern 

golden trout

(Oncorhynchus 

aquabonita 

whitei) 

Introduction of non-native 

species and hybridization with 

non-native fish species; climate 

change; degradation of stream, 

meadow, and upland riparian 

habitats from land uses.

Cold streams, rivers and 

lakes.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-05; STD: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 02-03; GDL: 04

Invasive species (INV-FW-DC): 01-02; STD: 01; GDL: 02-05

Fire (FIRE-FW): GDL: 05, 07, 10

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-03, 05; STD: 01

Wilderness (MA-WILD): DC: 02, 05; GDL: 01, 03

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-08, 10-15; STD: 01-02, 04-

19; GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01-08

Lakes, Pools, Ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Critical aquatic refuges (MA-CAR): DC: 01-02
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

411

Species Known Threats to Persistence Principal Habitats Primary Associated Plan Components Addressing Known Threats

Owens Tui chub

(Gila bicolor 

snyderi) 

Habitat loss and alteration, 

predation, disease, competition, 

inbreeding depression, genetic 

drift, hybridization, population 

loss from stochastic events, and 

climate change.

Currently restricted to six 

sites, all of which have been 

artificially created. Prefers 

slow-moving water, with 

submerged vegetation and 

cover (rocks, undercut 

banks).

Watershed conditions ( WTR-FW): DC: 01-05; STD: 01; GDL: 01

Animal and plants (SPEC-FW): DC: 02-03; GDL: 03-06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01; GDL: 02 -06

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03; GDL: 05

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-03; GDL: 01-02

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-03, 05, 07-16; STD: 01-02, 

04-07, 09-10, 13-14; GDL: 01-07

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03

California redlegged frog

(Rana aurora 

draytonii) 

Degradation of habitat from land 

development and use activities; 

habitat invasion by non-native 

aquatic species such as bull 

frogs, and centrarchid fishes. 

Cold-water ponds and 

stream pools with 

overhanging vegetation such 

as willows, as well as 

emergent and submergent 

vegetation. Breeding habitat 

includes pools, backwaters 

with streams and wetlands.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-03; GDL: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 04-06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01; GDL: 02-05

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03; GDL: 05

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-04; STD: 01-05, 10-11

Wild and scenic river (MA-WSR): DC: 01-02; STD: 01-02; GDL: 01-03

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-15; GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 02

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, and ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03

Yosemite Toad

(Anaxyrus 

canorus) 

Degradation of meadow 

hydrology resultant from land 

uses, encroachment of meadow 

habitats, disease factors, and 

climate change.

Associated with wet 

meadow habitats and 

lakeshores, surrounded by 

forests ranging from 6,400 to 

11,000 feet in elevation.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-03; GDL: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 03-06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-04; STD: 01, 04-09

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-18; GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC:01-08

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, and ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03

Yosemite toad (SPEC-YT): GDL: 01-02
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

412

Species Known Threats to Persistence Principal Habitats Primary Associated Plan Components Addressing Known Threats

Sierra Nevada 

yellow-legged 

frog 

(Rana sierra) 

Introduction of non-native fish, 

habitat fragmentation, disease, 

climate change, and the effects 

of small isolated populations. 

Streams, ponds, pools, 

springs, lakes, and riparian 

wetlands.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-03; GDL: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 04-06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01; GDL: 02-05

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03; GDL: 05

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-04; STD: 01, 03-07

Wild and scenic river (MA-WSR): DC: 01-02; STD: 01-02; GDL: 01-03

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-18; GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01-08

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, and ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03

Critical aquatic refuges (MA-CAR) DC: 01-03

Mountain 

yellow-legged 

frog, northern 

distinct 

population 

segment

(Rana 

muscosa) 

Introduction of non-native fish, 

habitat fragmentation, disease, 

climate change, and the effects 

of small isolated populations.

Streams, ponds, pools, 

lakes, and riparian wetlands.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-05; GDL: 01

Animals and plants species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 04-06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01; GDL: 01-05

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03; GDL: 05, 08

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-03, 05; STD: 01-03

Wild and scenic rivers (MA-WSR): DC: 01-02; STD: 01-02; GDL: 01-02

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-13, 18-19; 

GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01-08

Rivers and Streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03

Critical aquatic refugees (MA-CAR): DC: 01-03

Black Toad

(Anaxyrus 

exsul) 

Potential threats are water table 

alteration.

Watercourses/marshes 

(grass, sedge, dwarf 

bulrush, and watercress), 

formed by springs, 

surrounded by desert with 

low bushes. Short plant 

cover and unobstructed 

access to still or slowly 

flowing water. Rodent 

burrows in winter. Breeds in 

shallow marsh and pond 

waters.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-03; GDL: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 03-06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-04; STD: 01, 04-09

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-18; GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC:01-08

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, and ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

413

Species Known Threats to Persistence Principal Habitats Primary Associated Plan Components Addressing Known Threats

Relictual 

slender 

salamander

(Batrachoseps 

relictus) 

Fire, timber harvest, any direct or 

indirect ground or water 

disturbing impacts to habitat.

Associated with downed 

logs and bark rubble in moist 

conifer forest, frequently 

near seepages and springs 

where surface moisture 

persists through the 

summer. At elevations of 

1,675–2,130 m.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-05; GDL: 01

Terrestrial ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC: 01-04; GDL: 01-2, 04-05

Animals and plants species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 04-06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03; GDL: 05, 08

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-03, 05; STD: 02

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-14, 17-19; 

GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01-06

Rivers and Streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03

Critical aquatic refugees (MA-CAR): DC: 01-03

Kern Plateau 

salamander

(Batrachoseps 

robustus) 

Road construction, timber 

harvesting activities, or forest fire 

suppression efforts. Habitat 

degradation through capping of 

springs or alterations of spring 

water or habitat. Prolonged 

drought and climate change 

could alter habitat.

Restricted to areas of 

permanent or seasonal 

surface moisture. 

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-05; GDL: 01

Animals and plants species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 04-06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03; GDL: 05, 08

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-03, 05; STD: 02

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-14, 17-19; 

GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01-06

Rivers and Streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03

Critical aquatic refugees (MA-CAR): DC: 01-03

Foothill yellowlegged frog

(Rana boylii) 

Adversely affected by seasonal 

pulse flows; large physical 

barriers (highways); and invasive 

species.

Small to mid -sized streams 

with some shallow, flowing 

water.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-05; GDL: 01

Animals and plants species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 04-06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01; GDL: 01-05

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03; GDL: 05, 08

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-03, 05; STD: 01-03

Wild and scenic rivers (MA-WSR): DC: 01-02; STD: 01-02; GDL: 01-02

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-14, 17-19; 

GDL: 01-08

Rivers and Streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03

Critical aquatic refugees (MA-CAR): DC: 01-03
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

414

Species Known Threats to Persistence Principal Habitats Primary Associated Plan Components Addressing Known Threats

California 

golden trout

(Oncorhynchus 

mykiss 

aquabonita) 

Introduction of non-native 

species and hybridization; 

climate change; historic livestock 

grazing; connectivity disrupted by 

water diversions. Hybridization 

with non-native fish species. 

Catastrophic events due to 

drought, fire, over-fishing.

Cold, clear streams Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-05; STD: 01-05; GDL: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 05

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01; GDL: 01-05

Fire (FIRE-FW): GDL: 05

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-03, 05; STD: 01

Wild and scenic rivers (MA-WSR): DC: 01-02; STD: 01-02; GDL: 01-03

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-02, 04- 19; 

GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01-08

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, ponds (RCA-LPP): DC:01

Critical aquatic refuges (MA-CAR): DC: 01-03

Kern Brook 

lamprey

(Lampetra 

hubbsi) 

Has declined proportionally with 

habitat loss, degradation, 

fragmentation, and potentially 

impacts from non-native fish 

predators. Trend over the past 

10 years or three generations is 

uncertain, but distribution and 

abundance are declining.

Cool streams, rivers Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-05; STD: 01-05; GDL: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 05

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01; GDL: 01-05

Fire (FIRE-FW): GDL: 05

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-03, 05; STD: 01

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-02, 04-19; 

GDL: 01-08

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Central Valley 

hitch

(Lavinia 

exilicauda 

exilicauda) 

Many dams on rivers fragment 

watersheds and often create 

unfavorable conditions below 

them, either because of too little 

water or too much cold water. 

High predation by centrarchid 

fishes (bass and sunfish) may be 

a problem.

Warm lowland streams, 

sloughs lakes 

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-05; STD: 01-05; GDL: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 05

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01; GDL: 01-05

Fire (FIRE-FW): GDL: 05

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-03, 05; STD: 01

Wild and scenic rivers (MA-WSR): DC: 01-02; STD: 01-02; GDL: 01-03

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-02, 04- 19; 

GDL: 01-08

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, ponds (RCA-LPP): DC:01

Critical aquatic refuges (MA-CAR): DC: 01-03
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

415

Species Known Threats to Persistence Principal Habitats Primary Associated Plan Components Addressing Known Threats

Hardhead

(Mylopharodon 

conocephalus) 

Dams and diversions have 

eliminated habitat and left many 

populations isolated and 

vulnerable to local extinction due 

to unsuitable stream 

temperatures and flows. 

Centrarchid fishes (bass and 

sunfish) threaten if not eliminate 

populations in foothill streams 

and reservoirs.

Cool streams, rivers Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-05; STD: 01-05; GDL: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 05

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01; GDL: 01-05

Fire (FIRE-FW): GDL: 05

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-03, 05; STD: 01

Wild and scenic rivers (MA-WSR): DC: 01-02; STD: 01-02; GDL: 01-03

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01-08; STD: 01-02, 04- 19; GDL: 01-08

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, ponds (RCA-LPP): DC:01

Critical aquatic refuges (MA-CAR): DC: 01-03

Kern River 

golden trout

(Oncorhynchus 

mykiss gilberti) 

Hybridization with non-native 

fish. Other threats include dams, 

reservoirs, diversions, aqueducts 

or ditches (many off-Forest) 

influencing aquatic organism 

passage and connectivity. 

Historical or more recent impacts 

have included grazing, logging, 

road building, floods, fires and 

drought.

Cold, clear streams Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-05; STD: 01-05; GDL: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 05

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01; GDL: 01-05

Fire (FIRE-FW): GDL: 05

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-03, 05; STD: 01

Wild and scenic rivers (MA-WSR): DC: 01-02; STD: 01-02; GDL: 01-03

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-02, 04- 19; 

GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01-08

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, ponds (RCA-LPP): DC:01

Critical aquatic refuges (MA-CAR): DC: 01-03

Western 

pearlshell 

mussel

(Margaritifera 

falcate) 

Changing hydrology, increasing 

stream temperatures.

Rivers and large streams 

with trout or salmon

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-03; GDL: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 03-06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-04; STD: 01, 04-09

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-18; GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01-08

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, and ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

416

Species Known Threats to Persistence Principal Habitats Primary Associated Plan Components Addressing Known Threats

Denning’s 

cryptic caddisfly

(Cryptochia 

denningi) 

Water quality, increased water 

temperature, increased 

sedimentation. Species is highly 

specific to water temperature, 

velocity, dissolved oxygen levels 

and substrate characteristics.

Streams, springs Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-03; GDL: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 03-06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-04; STD: 01, 04-09

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-18; GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC:01-08

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, and ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03

An Isopod 

Invertebrate

(Calasellus 

longus) 

Channel modification; changes in 

water quantity or quality; habitat 

loss; competition and predation 

from invasive species. 

Cold dark water 

spring/Shaver lake

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-03; GDL: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 03-06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-04; STD: 01, 04-09

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-18; GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC:01-08

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, and ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03

California sallfly

(Swelta resima) 

Poor water quality, increasing 

water temperatures

Streams, springs Watershed conditions (WTR-FW): DC: 01-04; STD: 01-03; GDL: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 03-06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-04; STD: 01, 04-09

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-18; GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC: 01-08

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, and ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03

Wong’s 

springsnail

(Pyrgulopsis 

wongi) 

Climate change effects of springs 

and small streams

Watercress (Roripaa) beds 

Perennial seeps and small 

to moderate sized spring-fed 

streams. Owens Valley, 

Conway Summit, Pine Creek 

in White Mountains, locally 

abundant at a few sites.

Watershed conditions (WTR-FW) DC: 01-04; STD: 01-03; GDL: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 01-03; GDL: 03-06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-04; STD: 01, 04-09

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-15; STD: 01-18; GDL: 01-08

Meadows (RCA-MEAD): DC:01-08

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, and ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

417

Species Known Threats to Persistence Principal Habitats Primary Associated Plan Components Addressing Known Threats

Owens Valley 

springsnail

(Pyrgulopsis 

owensensis) 

Habitat modification, water 

diversion and ground water 

pumping, excessive livestock 

grazing

Isolated springs along 

escarpments of the White 

and Inyo Mountain. Typically 

on watercress (Rorippa), 

travertine deposits and or 

stones, restricted distribution 

but locally abundant.

Watershed conditions ( WTR-FW): DC: 01-05; STD: 01; GDL: 01

Animal and plant species (SPEC-FW): DC: 02-03; GDL: 03-06

Invasive species (INV-FW): DC: 01-02; STD: 01; GDL: 02 -06

Fire (FIRE-FW): DC: 03; GDL: 05

Range (RANG-FW): DC: 02-03; GDL: 01-02

Riparian conservation areas (MA-RCA): DC: 01-03, 05, 07-16; STD: 01-02, 

04-07, 09-10, 13-14; GDL: 01-07

Rivers and streams (RCA-RIV): DC: 01-02

Lakes, pools, ponds (RCA-LPP): DC: 01

Springs and seeps (RCA-SPR): DC: 01-03
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

418

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

In alternative A, management would continue to follow the current forest plans of the Inyo, 

Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan

Amendment (USDA FS 2004). 

Rivers and Streams, Lakes and Ponds

Risks to the amount and condition of aquatic habitat are greatest under this alternative due to

limited acres of habitat proposed for maintenance or improvement, and treatment restrictions 

within riparian conservation areas and critical aquatic refuges. Improvement of aquatic habitat 

conditions is primarily related to mitigating the effects of roads and addressing hydrologic 

connectivity. While hydrologic connectivity is addressed under this alternative, maintenance of 

aquatic habitat connectivity was only emphasized for some aquatic species. Restoration of aquatic 

habitat connectivity by improving road crossings or mitigating water diversions would be 

expected to occur at a slow pace. Under this alternative, the limited implementation of restoration 

is expected to leave many areas containing native at-risk aquatic species untreated. Critical 

aquatic refuges would remain unchanged, protecting areas around some, but not all, rare species.

Direction under this alternative has allowed for improvements to stream habitats by reducing 

erosion risk with actions such as decreasing trail and road density in riparian areas and meadows 

and removing or mitigating effects of dispersed camping from the edges of meadows and streams. 

These actions, along with best management practices, have helped to protect most stream habitats 

from non-point source pollution including accelerated fine sediment delivery. Additionally, this 

alternative would continue to provide direction for priority watershed restoration as funding 

permits with goals to decrease or eliminate sediment sources and other non-point pollution 

sources, and goals to improve aquatic habitat conditions. 

This alternative does not substantially improve the resilience of the overall landscape to wildfire 

given the limited amounts of fuel reduction treatment. The burned area under this alternative is 

predicted to increase two to four times and much of the change would be in increasingly larger 

fires that are predicted to have large patches of high-intensity and high-severity fire (see the “Fire

Trends” section), which is more likely to remove large areas of riparian vegetation (Elliot et al. 

2010). High-severity fire can dramatically increase overland water flow and peak flows, 

triggering severe flooding and erosion (DeBano et al. 1998, Neary et al. 2005). High-severity 

wildfires increase runoff and erosion rates by two or more orders of magnitude (Elliot et al. 

2010). Therefore, under this alternative, more acres of aquatic habitat and the condition of that

habitat is anticipated to be adversely affected by the increasing trend in large, high-intensity 

wildfire and the resulting increases in surface erosion and sediment delivery to aquatic habitats. 

The desired conditions under the current management approach do not specifically consider 

climate change or climate-related stressors. Without addressing climate change stressors and the 

influence of various adjacent ecosystems on a larger landscape scale, this alternative presents a 

relatively greater risk for protecting and improving the condition of riparian habitat. This 

alternative is also least able to adapt to changing climate conditions. 

Alternative A does not include standards for the prevention of aquatic invasive species or 

measures to prevent new infestations or control of aquatic invasive species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

419

Meadows, Seeps, and Springs

Alternative A proposes the fewest number of meadows maintained, enhanced or improved and 

has some of the most restrictive constraints on use of restoration tools. There would continue to 

be limited restoration of meadow riparian vegetation and few areas would have conifers removed 

to restore riparian vegetation where conifers have grown into meadow habitats, a condition that is

outside the natural range of variation. This alternative also has the least potential to build adaptive 

capacity to climate change, which makes native aquatic species less able to compete against 

conifers and aquatic invasive species for limited resources, and makes meadow, seep, and spring 

habitats more vulnerable to high-intensity wildfire.

Mechanical treatment to remove large conifers that are out-competing native trees in riparian 

areas and encroaching on wet meadows is also generally constrained. Where maintenance, 

improvements or enhancements do occur in meadows under this alternative, benefits may be 

short-lived because treatments are largely limited to the use of hand tools. Removal of smaller 

trees with hand tools may temporarily reduce competition with native plants for limited resources 

like space, light, nutrients, and water. Large seed source conifers are difficult to remove by hand; 

thus, hand treatments may only be able to temporarily suppress that stressor rather than remove it. 

These limitations are predicted to result in a continued trend toward a decrease in heterogeneity 

and condition of hardwoods and other native species. Conifers and invasive species would 

continue to grow into on meadow habitats and out-compete native species. Meadows would 

continue to be lost or degraded as conifers continue to grow in. 

Although high-elevation meadows and riparian areas are generally not prioritized for 

maintenance or improvement under any alternative, the focus on wildland-urban intermix

treatments under this alternative (as opposed to landscape-level treatments under alternative B) 

makes it even more difficult to treat high elevation meadows and riparian areas that are used by 

many at-risk aquatic species.

This alternative has standards and guidelines that exclude livestock grazing within occupied areas 

during Yosemite toad breeding and rearing seasons. Livestock exclusion from these areas can be 

waived with a site-specific management plan incorporated into allotment plans and relevant 

special use permits.

Riparian Ecosystems

The proposed number of acres of riparian habitats maintained or improved is the lowest under 

this alternative. There would continue to be limited restoration of riparian vegetation. The aquatic 

management strategy would continue to be used to manage riparian habitats according to the 

riparian conservation objectives to maintain the ecology of riparian areas to buffer sediment from 

entering aquatic habitats. Standards and guidelines in the current plans emphasize protecting 

water quality and protecting riparian conservation areas by limiting active management within a 

variable buffer distance around riparian features. There is some ability to restore riparian 

vegetation structure and composition in alternative A but it is limited by restritions on mechanical 

treatments within riparian conservation areas. 

Restrictions on mechanical treatments also limit the ability to adequately reduce fuel volumes in 

riparian conservation areas to safely incorporate prescribed fire and reduce the threat of wildfire 

spread in riparian habitats. Additionally, prescribed fire restrictions in riparian areas limit direct 

fire ignitions, which reduces the ability of fire managers to create a patchy mosaic within riparian 

areas to lower the risk of riparian vegetation burning at high intensity during wildfires. There is 

less control of fire intensity and spatial burn patterns when fire is only allowed to back down into 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

420

riparian areas compared to fire managers using direct ignition methods to more closely control the 

fire burn patterns and fire behavior. Lack of direct fire ignitions in this habitat restricts the ability 

of fire managers to control how the fire behaves and create a patchy mosaic of low and moderateseverity fire effects. Although managed wildfire is considered a tool under this alternative, the 

unnaturally dense vegetation conditions of riparian habitats and mechanical treatment restrictions 

make the use of this tool for the benefit of riparian habitat improvement unrealistic.

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

Rivers and Streams, Lakes and Ponds

Alternative B is anticipated to improve aquatic habitat conditions at the landscape scale. The 

increased pace and scale of restoration under this alternative, along with a focus on landscapelevel improvements and an emphasis on prescribed fire and wildfire managed to meet resource 

objectives is predicted to result in forest landscapes with a stronger resilience to large, highintensity fires. The ability to use more mechanical treatments and natural fire tools under this 

alternative translates into a greater ability to adapt to climate change than alternative A. The focus 

on a landscape treatment approach, combined with riparian conservation area direction, is 

designed to reduce the negative effects of wildfire on aquatic habitats more effectively than the 

scattered treatment approach of alternative A and the limited treatment approach of alternative C.

Although treatments are expected to have a variety of long-term benefits, there is potential for 

short-term effects during and immediately following project implementation. In general, 

manipulating more habitat under this alternative as opposed to alternative A would translate into 

more potential for disturbance to aquatic species and temporary disturbance to aquatic habitat 

conditions from the use of equipment and fire, until the habitat recovers. Treatments to improve 

fire resilience in both upland and riparian ecosystems over the long term would be guided by 

desired conditions, standards and guidelines that protect water temperature, riparian vegetation 

and other components that provide quality habitat for aquatic species over the short term.

Alternative B proposes to designate 11 additional critical aquatic refuges on the Sierra National 

Forest and one additional critical aquatic refuge on the Inyo National Forest to protect additional 

at-risk aquatic species habitats. The direction for managing critical aquatic refuges is similar to 

Alternative A. Although additional designation may be a benefit, more critical aquatic refuges do 

not necessarily translate into improved aquatic habitat conditions within the designations. 

Restrictions on treatment options and constraints on the use of restoration tools would continue to 

limit restoration opportunities and reduce the potential to build adaptive capacity to climate 

change for some at-risk species.

Species-specific proposed plan direction for Yosemite toad is similar to existing plans under 

Alternative A for the Inyo National Forest and the Sierra National Forest. Yosemite toad is not 

located on the Sequoia National Forest. 

Meadows, Seeps, and Springs

Alternative B proposes to maintain, enhance or improve more meadows than Alternative A, a 

similar number of meadows as Alternative D, and fewer meadows than Alternative C. Riparian 

and meadow vegetation restoration under this alternative would be for the purpose of moving 

vegetation toward desired conditions and would be intended primarily to restore native species 

composition, heterogeneity, resilience, and reduce the ingrowth of conifers. Removal of conifer 

species in meadow habitats, particularly lodgepole pine, can increase the water table and provide 

better wet meadow, seep and spring habitat conditions. Increased standing water in meadow 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

421

habitats would improve the vegetation structure and complexity, thereby improving habitats for 

at-risk aquatic species. The end result of the treatments under this alternative would generally be 

improved riparian hardwood composition and structure, increased herbaceous density, vigor and 

structural complexity, and increased amounts of surface water.

Alternative B includes an increased emphasis on partnerships to accomplish meadow restoration. 

Under this alternative there is also greater potential for stewardship funding to address meadow 

and riparian restoration work. 

Riparian Ecosystems

This alternative manages the same riparian conservation areas as alternative A and uses the full 

suite of plan components (desired conditions, standards and guidelines, goals, and potential 

management approaches) to better move riparian ecosystems toward resilience to fire and climate 

change. The management approach under alternative B proposes to maintain, enhance, or 

improve more acres of riparian habitat than alternative A and with a greater variety of restoration 

tools including mechanical thinning, prescribed fire, and wildfire managed to meet resource 

objectives. 

Alternative B modifies direction in Alternative A by allowing more flexibility to use prescribed 

burning and more mechanical and hand treatments to improve riparian resilience to fire, drought 

and climate change. Although mechanical equipment use in riparian habitat could occur under 

this alternative, these treatments would be for the purpose of reducing high fuel loads to prepare 

riparian areas to be treated by prescribed fire methods. Overall, over the long term, these 

restoration actions are anticipated to result in providing more productive site conditions, which 

would result in improved aquatic habitat conditions. 

Alternative B also allows for direct ignition of prescribed fire in riparian areas which is predicted 

to greatly improve the resilience of riparian habitats because fire is introduced back onto the 

landscape in a controlled and purposeful way. All restoration that results in a reduction of upland 

conifers in riparian areas would restore riparian vegetation composition and structure. This would

increase sunlight for riparian hardwoods and shrubs that are often shaded out by upland trees and 

shrubs. Prescribed fire and wildfire managed to meet resource objectives would improve the 

condition, vigor and health of most native riparian plants that support a variety of riparian system 

functions. Increased structural diversity of these habitats would enhance use by a variety of 

species strongly associated with complex understory and overstory. Increased fire would result in 

increased sprouting of native vegetation, and improved health, condition, and vigor of hardwood 

and understory plants, including host plants for a variety of invertebrates. The trend in 

composition and structural heterogeneity of native species would increase under this alternative.

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Rivers and Streams, Lakes and Ponds

Alternative C proposes to reduce high-intensity fire risk by increasing the use of prescribed fire 

and wildfire managed to meet resource objectives instead of mechanical treatments. The pace and 

scale of treatments are not sufficient to reduce the long-term negative effects from high-intensity 

wildfire across the landscape. Since climate change is likely to increase the risk of high-intensity 

wildfire, overall watershed function would decline under alternative C (see “Fire Trends”

section).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

422

Similar to Alternative A, this alternative does not substantially improve the resilience of the 

overall landscape to wildfire given the limited amounts of fuel reduction treatment. This 

alternative treats only a small proportion of the lands needing treatment to substantially reduce 

the risk of large-scale high-intensity wildfires. The burned area under this alternative is predicted 

to increase and result in increasingly larger fires with large patches of high-intensity and highseverity fire (see “Fire Trends” section). This is more likely to remove large areas of riparian 

vegetation (Elliot et al. 2010), dramatically increase overland water flow and peak flows, and 

potentially trigger severe flooding and erosion. Therefore, under alternative C, more acres of 

aquatic habitat and the condition of that habitat is anticipated to be adversely affected by the 

increasing trend in large, high-intensity wildfire and the resulting increases in surface erosion and 

sediment delivery to aquatic habitats. 

Although there is less potential for short-term, implementation-related impacts under this 

alternative because of fewer mechanical treatments, there could be long-term negative impacts on 

habitat conditions because of the treatment limitations and lack of a landscape scale approach 

compared to the other alternatives.

Alternative C proposes to designate 37 additional critical aquatic refuges on the three national 

forests; 8 on the Inyo National Forest, 2 on the Sequoia National Forest, and 27 on the Sierra 

National Forest. Therefore, there would be protection of more aquatic habitat in these designated 

areas than under alternatives A and B. Overall this is viewed as a positive improvement over 

alternatives A and B but not without potential consequences. As described under alternative B, 

restrictions on treatments in these areas could unintentionally prevent needed restoration work 

that removes or mitigates stressors within these systems.

Meadows, Seeps and Springs

This alternative proposes to maintain, improve, or enhance the most meadows. More restoration 

is proposed because hand equipment, prescribed fire, and wildfire managed to meet resource 

objectives may more rapidly treat smaller meadows with less severe conifer encroachment, 

invasive species, and issues related to water retention. In contrast, alternative B may treat larger 

meadows with more complex issues because mechanical treatments can be used as a precursor to 

burning. Alternative C emphasizes the use of prescribed fire and wildfire managed to meet 

resource objectives to accomplish restoration and proposes to use more prescribed fire and 

managed wildfire than alternative A. Therefore, the treatments under this alternative have a 

greater potential than alternative A, but less than B to restore or improve meadow habitat 

conditions. 

Since alternative C does not limit watershed restoration and could use additional sources of 

funding and assistance through partnerships to address aquatic habitat conditions, the pace and 

scale of meadow restoration may increase as new opportunities and funding sources develop. 

However, where meadow and other aquatic restoration activities would remain at their current 

pace and scale, surface water would increase only where meadow restoration has been completed 

and there would generally be a decline of meadow habitats.

Species-specific proposed plan direction for Yosemite toad is similar to existing plans under 

Alternative A for the Inyo National Forest and the Sierra National Forest. Yosemite toad is not 

located on the Sequoia National Forest. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

423

Riparian Ecosystems

Alternative C does not modify direction to allow flexibility to use more prescribed burning, 

mechanical treatments, or hand treatments for riparian resilience to fire, drought, and climate 

change. Under this alternative, the use of prescribed fire to treat riparian areas would be 

constrained because of species-specific protections (not a landscape approach) and excessive fuel 

loading in riparian areas that could not be treated with mechanical treatments before using 

prescribed fire. This alternative has the most area with a passive management approach and uses 

repeated prescribed fire treatments in riparian areas. This alternative does not treat at the 

landscape scale, making habitat patches more vulnerable to a variety of stressors adjacent to 

riparian zones, including loss from wildfire, ingrowth of conifers from adjacent upland units, and 

spread of invasive species. This alternative has a lower ability than alternative B to move the 

landscape toward resilience to climate change and continues to have a low resiliency to large 

high-intensity wildfire. As a result, aquatic habitat under this alternative would be at a greater risk 

to degradation from untreated stressors and large-scale disturbances.

Riparian and aquatic restoration work to help offset impacts of climate change on stream 

temperatures and availability of water would likely be limited to existing and new priority 

watersheds and to completing essential projects within those watersheds. The riparian element 

would not likely change in the short term but would decline over the long term due to the limited 

pace and scale of ecological restoration of adjacent uplands, except where restoration of riparian 

structure and native species occurs.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

Alternative D proposes to double ecological restoration across the three national forests compared 

to alternative B. Similar to alternative B, this alternative uses a landscape approach, which is 

expected to be more effective at improving aquatic habitat conditions over the long term than a 

scattered treatment approach. This alternative best achieves landscape scale reductions to the risk 

of high-severity wildfire and provides the greatest resilience to the effects of climate change.

Rivers and Streams, Lakes and Ponds

By increasing the amount of ecological restoration overall under this alternative, more 

opportunities exist for implementing watershed restoration projects than any other alternative. 

More treatment within watersheds should reduce the acreage that wildfire burns at high severity, 

would make the landscape more resilient to climate change, and in the long term, achieve the 

greatest improvements to aquatic habitats than any other alternative. 

The long-term potential for indirect impacts of sediment flows to streams from wildfire is lower 

than all other alternatives considered in detail (See “Fire Management” section). The emphasis on 

low- and medium-intensity fires across the landscape including within the riparian areas limits the 

accumulation of fuels, and encourages healthy functioning aquatic habitats. 

Similar to alternatives B and C, alternative D also includes an increased emphasis on 

partnerships. By increasing the amount of ecological restoration overall, more opportunities exist 

for implementing watershed restoration projects than alternatives B or C. Therefore, this 

alternative (followed by alternative B) should have the most funding to improve aquatic habitat 

conditions and at a landscape scale.

Under this alternative, critical aquatic refuges would be similar to alternative B.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

424

Meadows, Seeps, and Springs

Under alternative D, water quality and aquatic habitats would be improved where restoration of 

watersheds occurs, especially in meadows and associated riparian areas. This alternative would 

provide the most improvements to groundwater storage, base flows, and surface water due to 

slightly higher infiltration rates across the landscape. This in turn would result in lower water 

temperatures during the dry season. Encouraging shallow groundwater storage potentially 

mitigates some of the impacts from climate change by increasing aquatic ecosystem resilience, 

providing more stable stream flows, and benefitting aquatic species dependent on springs. 

Alternative D would maintain, enhance, or improve more meadows than alternatives A and B 

(except on the Inyo where alternatives B and D propose the same number) and more meadows 

than alternative C on the Sierra National Forest. 

Alternative D proposes a new system to determine appropriate management strategies for 

livestock grazing in areas occupied by the Yosemite toad during the breeding and rearing season. 

Known occupied sites or an occupancy probability model are used with existing meadow habitat 

conditions to guide a matrix of grazing management strategies ranging from no grazing to grazing 

standards in alternative A. Since this approach would require a site-specific evaluation to 

determine appropriate management strategies, it would be expected to provide equivalent or 

better management for the ecological conditions needed to contribute to the recovery of the 

Yosemite toad.

Riparian Ecosystems

Increased use of mechanical equipment in the riparian conservation areas would be designed to 

improve conditions of riparian areas, especially to restore fire within the landscape and riparian 

areas. Alternative D would reduce the risk of uncharacteristically large wildfires, thus reducing 

the risk of undesirable short-term impacts to aquatic habitats from high-intensity wildfire while 

still allowing for the historically beneficial role of fire to be expressed. Restoration and protection 

of aquatic habitat would improve resilience as in alternatives B and C but on an increased number 

of acres under alternative D. Increased fire resilience would result in long-term benefits to 

watersheds and riparian areas more than all other alternatives.

An increase in ecosystem restoration could have short-term negative consequences to aquatic 

species, particularly where mechanized treatments are used to restore riparian vegetation. This 

alternative may have short term impacts for aquatic species habitats from ground-disturbing 

activities. These short-term consequences on riparian species diversity are balanced favorably 

against the long-term benefits of creating more sustainable landscapes that have more resilience 

to changes from wildfire, climate change, and other stressors.

Cumulative Effects 

As stated previously, the analysis area on the three national forests are part of the greater southern 

Sierra Nevada ecosystem and are administered or owned by the several Federal agencies, the 

State of California, water and power utilities, several Native American tribes, and thousands of 

private landowners. The present and foreseeable actions of these public land management 

agencies and private landowners will determine the cumulative consequences to aquatic habitat 

conditions. 

The majority of the land within the analysis area is managed by the Federal land management 

agencies, which have individual resource management plans or shared, collaborative programs in 

place to guide the protection of natural resources, particularly in the face of changing climate 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

425

conditions and large, high-intensity wildfires. The focus of the 2012 Planning Rule on ecosystem 

integrity, resilience, and diversity is in close alignment with new direction for the National Park 

Service, which is to build ecosystem resilience for coping with changing climates. The “Strategic 

Framework for Science in Support of Management in the South Sierra Nevada Ecoregion” was 

developed collaboratively by Federal land managers in the Southern Sierra Nevada ecoregion 

(including the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests and Giant Sequoia National Monument) to 

help mitigate impacts from, and adapt to, climate change (Nydick and Sydorlak 2011a, 2011b). 

The framework contains four goals: understanding where and why changes occur, anticipating 

possible futures, developing tools required to take effective action, and providing easy access to 

and delivery of information to target audiences. The framework will be carried out by the 

Southern Sierra Conservation Cooperative, a collaborative group of government agencies and 

nonprofit organizations in the Southern Sierra Nevada Ecoregion. 

The Forest Service will continue to work with the states in developing total maximum daily load 

strategic action plans for the 303(d) listed streams. If sources of impairment are identified related 

to Forest Service management, the total maximum daily loads plans may identify mitigation 

strategies including implementation of best management practices, maintenance or 

decommissioning of facilities, roads, and trails, implementation of currently planned restoration 

projects, and removal of existing stressors. The operators of the various dams associated with 

rivers in the analysis area adapt their operations to meet Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

relicensing requirements and to address effects of climate change on runoff and baseflows. All 

alternatives minimize the effects of stream diversions or other flow modifications on at-risk 

species for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, State and other authorized water use 

planning, water rights, and relicensing on the national forests. The Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission and the power companies in conjunction with the Forest Service will need to 

continue working collaboratively to address issues as they arise in the future. 

The proposed management approaches under each of the four alternatives are generally consistent 

with management of other public lands within the cumulative effects analysis area. Although the 

alternatives vary in their ability and pace to achieve the desired conditions and some alternatives 

present more risk than others, it is not expected that the management approach under any 

alternative would have an adverse cumulative effect on aquatic habitats on other lands within the 

analysis area. Therefore, given that the majority of the land in the analysis area is managed by 

Federal agencies and guided by individual resource management plans as well as stronger, more 

relevant multi-agency partnerships, these strong consistencies in management direction are 

expected to provide for landscape-level resilience.

Analytical Conclusion

The alternatives considered in detail outline different approaches to achieving the same overall set 

of goals for maintaining and enhancing aquatic habitats and watershed health. This section 

summarizes how well these alternatives are expected to achieve these goals expressed in terms of 

the quality and quantity of aquatic habitats. 

To the extent possible, the coarse-filter plan components (broad ecosystem desired conditions) 

provide for the broad ecosystem fabric that supports a sufficient distribution of the minimum 

number of reproductive individuals of species of conservation concern and their habitat so that 

species remain viable. In other words, species distribution is partially provided for by the fact that 

plan components aim to maintain or restore the diversity and connectivity of ecosystems and 

habitat types throughout the plan area. Fine-filter (special habitat-specific) plan components 

complement that direction by maintaining individuals of species that rely on smaller scale 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

426

habitats or have very limited distribution. Finally, when necessary, project-level protections are an 

option. As a result, each threat in each ecosystem for each species of conservation concern 

identified has been addressed or mitigated in at least one plan component in the respective plan, 

so that the persistence of each species is provided for. 

If, during the life of a plan, it is found that plan components are not sufficient to ensure the 

persistence of species of conservation concern, the monitoring program developed for the plan 

should detect this and changes to the plan components would be considered to address the issue.

Rivers and Streams, Lakes and Ponds

The area burned by wildfires under alternatives A and C is predicted to increase and result in 

increasingly larger fires with large patches of high-intensity and high-severity fire. This is 

expected to remove large areas of riparian vegetation, increase overland water flow and peak

flows, and potentially trigger severe flooding and erosion. The pace and scale of restoration 

treatments under these two alternatives are not considered sufficient to reduce the long-term 

negative effects from high-intensity wildfire across the landscape. Therefore, under alternatives A 

and C, more acres of aquatic habitat and the condition of that habitat is anticipated to be adversely 

affected by the increasing trend in large, high-intensity wildfire and the resulting increases in 

surface erosion and sediment delivery to aquatic habitats.

The focus on landscape treatment approaches under alternatives B and D, combined with the 

riparian conservation area direction, is designed to reduce the long-term negative effects of 

wildfire on aquatic habitats more effectively than the scattered and limited approaches of 

alternatives A and C. While the negative effects of large-scale wildfires are expected to be 

significantly reduced, the increased pace of treatments under alternative B and the most 

treatments proposed under alternative D, translates into a higher risk of short-term disturbance to 

aquatic species and temporary disturbance to aquatic habitat conditions from mechanical and 

prescribed fire treatment actions until the habitat recovers. In the long term both these alternatives 

substantially improve the resilience of the overall landscape to wildfire, result in more long-term 

beneficial effects to aquatic species, and better promote the long-term sustainability of aquatic 

habitats and greater ability of these habitats to adapt to climate change.

Meadows, Seeps, and Springs

Alternative A proposes the fewest number of meadows maintained, enhanced or improved and 

has some of the most restrictive constraints on use of restoration tools. Few areas would have 

conifers removed to restore more open meadow habitats. This alternative leaves meadow, seep, 

and spring habitats more vulnerable to wildfire outside the range of natural variability.

Alternatives B, C and D propose to maintain, enhance or improve more meadows than alternative 

A and would move vegetation toward desired conditions and reduce the ingrowth of conifers. 

Removal of conifer species in meadow habitats can increase the water table and provide better 

wet meadow, seep, and spring habitat conditions and increase amounts of surface water in 

meadow habitats. Alternatives B and D would reduce evapotranspiration at a landscape scale, 

provide improvements to ground water storage, base flows, and surface water, and would likely 

increase the opportunities for infiltration across many watersheds. 

Riparian Ecosystems

Alternative A proposes the lowest number of acres of riparian habitats maintained or improved. 

Alternative C does not modify direction to allow more prescribed burning, mechanical treatments, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

427

or hand treatments in riparian areas to promote resilience to fire, drought and climate change. 

Under Alternatives A and C, there would continue to be limited restoration of riparian vegetation 

and limited ability to adequately reduce fuel volumes in riparian conservation areas. As a result, 

aquatic habitat under these alternative would be at a greater risk to degradation from untreated 

stressors and large-scale disturbances.

Alternative B proposes to maintain, enhance, or improve more acres of riparian habitat than 

alternatives A and C and with a greater variety of restoration tools including mechanical thinning, 

prescribed fire, and wildfire managed to meet resource objectives. Alternative D proposes to treat 

the most amount of acres with increased use of mechanical treatments designed to improve 

riparian habitat conditions. Alternatives B and D also allow for direct ignition of prescribed fire in 

riparian areas, which is predicted to greatly improve the resilience of riparian habitats because 

fire is introduced back onto the landscape in a controlled and purposeful way. The increased fire 

resilience under alternatives B and D is expected to result in long-term benefits to riparian areas 

and watersheds that are more resilient to changes from wildfire, climate change, and other 

stressors.

Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Aquatic Species Determinations

For all threatened and endangered species, it is determined that the management approach under 

all alternatives at the programmatic level of the plan may affect but is not likely to adversely affect

the Lahontan cutthroat trout, Paiute cutthroat trout, Little Kern golden trout, Owens tui chub, 

California red-legged frog, Yosemite toad, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, and the northern 

distinct population segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog.

Critical habitat has been designated for the Little Kern golden trout. It is determined that none of 

the alternatives are likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of that critical habitat. 

Aquatic Species of Conservation Concern Outcomes

Adjustments to emerging ecosystem plan components, additional species-specific plan 

components, or both, when carried out in alternatives B and D, would provide the necessary 

ecological conditions to maintain a viable population of: black toad, relictual slender salamander, 

Kern Plateau salamander, foothill yellow-legged frog, California golden trout, Kern brook 

lamprey, Central Valley hitch, hardhead, Kern River golden trout, western pearlshell mussel, 

Denning's cryptic caddisfly, an isopod (Calasellus longus), California sallfly, Wong's springsnail, 

and Owens Valley springsnail. This outcome is supported by the long-term improved resilience to 

large, high-intensity fire and climate change and the associated monitoring program that would 

occur in these alternatives. 

Adjustments to emerging ecosystem plan components, additional species-specific plan 

components, or both, when carried out in alternatives A and C, may be less successful than 

alternatives B and D at providing the necessary ecological conditions to maintain a viable 

population of: black toad, relictual slender salamander, Kern Plateau salamander, foothill yellowlegged frog, California golden trout, Kern brook lamprey, Central Valley hitch, hardhead, Kern 

River golden trout, western pearlshell mussel, Denning's cryptic caddisfly, an isopod (Calasellus 

longus), California sallfly, Wong's springsnail, and Owens Valley springsnail, due to the low 

resilience to large high-intensity fire and climate change that threatens the long-term persistence 

of enough habitat of sufficient condition to support these species. This outcome is due to the 

slower pace and smaller scale of restoration that would occur, which delays achieving the longterm improved resilience to large, high-intensity fire and climate change and leaves more areas at 

risk of large and high-intensity fires over the plan period.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

428

At-risk Plant Species

Background

This section summarizes current conditions of at-risk plant species on the Inyo, Sequoia, and 

Sierra National Forests, and the consequences to at-risk plants of implementing the draft forest 

plans or the alternatives.

The sections on “Terrestrial Ecosystems” and “Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems” covers the 

ecological integrity of the ecosystems upon which at-risk species depend and also evaluate the 

consequences of implementing the draft forest plans or its alternatives on various taxa30 by 

integrating an analysis of wildlife, aquatic, invertebrate, and plant species.

This evaluation was completed by examining conditions of and threats to individual at-risk 

species, and also by examining the collective distribution patterns of at-risk flora within the 

planning area, by biogeographic region and by ecosystem. This approach assists in understanding 

the broad relationship between a programmatic land management plan and the desired conditions 

identified for at-risk species in the planning area. Desired conditions for at-risk plants emphasize 

habitat that supports self-sustaining populations, precluding the need for listing, and improving 

conditions for these species (SPEC-FW-DC-01 to 03). 

Analysis and Methods

The analysis area includes all National Forest System lands within the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra 

National Forests. In some cases, the best available scientific information for at-risk species’ 

ecological relationships originated outside the analysis area. However, we used indicator 

measures and threat information from within the analysis area in making conclusions. Because of 

differences in available biological and threat information to federally recognized threatened, 

endangered, proposed, and candidate species versus species of conservation concern, and because 

the Forest Service Handbook outlines different procedures to identify plan components necessary 

to provide for the two groups of species, we used different approaches in their analyses.

Assumptions

• Land management plans do not have direct effects. They do not authorize or mandate any 

site-specific projects or activities (including ground-disturbing actions). However, there 

may be implications, or longer term environmental consequences, of managing the 

national forests under this programmatic framework. As a result, all effects discussed in 

this section are considered indirect effects.

• Law, policy, and regulations will be followed when planning or implementing sitespecific projects and activities.

• Plan components will be followed when planning or implementing site-specific projects 

and activities.

• The planning timeframe for the effects analysis is 10 to 15 years; other timeframes may 

be specifically analyzed depending on the resource and potential consequences. 

• Monitoring identified in the plan monitoring program and any broader-scale monitoring 

will occur and the land management plan will be amended as needed during the life of the 

plan. 

 

30 Groups or ranks in a biological classification into which related organisms are classified. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

429

• Relevant considerations to the analysis that are common to all alternatives include (1) 

existing wilderness will continue to be managed as such, (2) there will be a general 

increase in recreational demand as the human population size increases, (3) weeds and 

weed seeds will continue to be deposited and spread onto and within the planning area, 

and (4) climate change trends will continue as projected, with warming temperatures and 

reduced snowpack. 

• Funding will be available to implement restoration measures proposed, including nonnative invasive plant treatments.

Indicators and Measures

For all at-risk plant species, we identified the extent and condition of habitat as indicators because 

they are direct measures of ecological conditions needed to maintain viable populations. 

Furthermore, for most species, extent and condition of habitat typically constitute the best 

available scientific information indicating whether such populations will continue to persist with 

sufficient distribution in the planning area (2012 Rule Sec. 219.19). Finally, we selected extent 

and condition of habitat as indicators because relative differences among alternatives could be 

readily compared.

We made qualitative, rather than quantitative, comparisons. To evaluate extent and condition of 

habitat, we relied strongly upon the findings for environmental consequences in the “Terrestrial 

Ecosystems” and “Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems” sections. In other words, the extent and 

condition of each ecosystem or special type served as the habitat indicator for individual species, 

and for assemblages of at-risk species and overall floristic diversity. However, the ecosystem 

types outlined in the “Terrestrial Ecosystems” and “Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems” sections 

are roughly, but not exactly aligned with floristic geographic subdivisions (Baldwin et al. 2012), 

to which at-risk plant populations are often associated. Therefore, the extent and condition of 

floristic geographic subdivisions themselves were also discussed to reflect the habitat indicators.

For whitebark pine, an at-risk plant species that is also a candidate species for federal listing, an 

additional indicator, population trend, was also evaluated. For this species, where trend 

information related to management activities has been documented in the plan area, quantitative, 

species-specific information was available for analysis.

Determinations for each species consisted of a viability evaluation, which examined whether plan 

components provide ecological conditions necessary to maintain a viable population of each 

species of conservation concern in the plan area (see the Botany supplemental report).

The viability evaluation was conducted using both a coarse filter and a fine filter approach, again 

using habitat extent and condition as indicators. For the coarse filter approach, species were 

grouped by coarse-scale ecosystems described in the “Terrestrial Ecosystems” and “Aquatic and 

Riparian Ecosystems” sections, and discussed below. The environmental consequence findings of 

those sections also compared existing and foreseeable future conditions of ecosystems to desired 

conditions, and this comparison was used as the basis of the coarse filter evaluation. This coarse 

filter approach assumes that viability of species of conservation concern is broadly dependent 

upon the integrity of the coarse ecosystems where they currently occur. However, because

integrity of whole ecosystems does not necessarily ensure persistence of all species of 

conservation concern, particularly those with very limited distribution, we conducted additional 

fine filter analyses (by special habitat and species-specific) to ensure that persistence is provided 

for all plant species of conservation concern. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

430

The fine filter viability evaluation was conducted by analysis of (1) special habitats that support 

suites of some species of conservation concern on the three national forests, and (2) known 

threats to each individual species of conservation concern. Species were grouped by fine-scale 

habitats where possible, to enable a fine filter look at ecological conditions that affect 

populations. Documented threats that influence species trends in distribution and viability were 

also given. The Botany supplemental report lists each species’ ecosystem, NatureServe rank, 

threats, and the number of occurrences. Known threats to species of conservation concern were 

compared qualitatively by alternative.

Finally, for species that were previously listed as Forest Service sensitive species for the Pacific 

Southwest Region, but which were not identified as at-risk species under the 2012 Planning Rule, 

the rationale for this determination and an overview of those species are presented in the Botany 

supplemental report. 

Affected Environment

Floristic Diversity

The flora of the planning area is notably diverse, reflecting the area’s complex geology, 

topography, and climate. The close juxtaposition of such variable habitats has created 

opportunities for genetic isolation and subsequent evolution. As a result, the area has an 

exceptionally high level of endemic species (unique to a place or region) relative to other regions 

of the United States (CNPS 2015). The planning area is situated at the intersection of California’s 

three major floristic provinces (Baldwin et al. 2012): California Floristic Province, Great Basin, 

and Desert (Table 91).

Because many species of conservation concern have a greater affinity for floristic geographic 

subdivisions (like provinces) than for ecosystems, some detail is provided here on the 

subdivisions, which assisted in the evaluation of habitat condition and extent. The three major 

provinces and their respective regions that occur in the planning area host relatively distinct 

floras. However, the transitions are not necessarily abrupt, resulting in some overlap, particularly 

where mountain passes or drainages support connectivity. 

Figure 40 and Table 91 show the floristic geographic subdivisions represented in the planning 

area (Baldwin et al. 2012). Spatial datasets are used with permission from the Jepson Herbarium 

(Jepson Flora Project 2015). The Sierra Nevada region, which occupies the majority of the 

planning area is characterized by primarily igneous geology. The Sierra Nevada Foothills 

subregion borders the Great Central Valley region to the west, and is characterized by blueoak/foothill-pine woodlands and chaparral. It contains some serpentine areas, but is mainly 

differentiated from the rest of the Sierra Nevada by its distinct flora, rather than climate or 

geology (Baldwin et al. 2012). The High Sierra Nevada subregion is topographically complex, 

spanning nearly 10,000 feet in elevation. Vegetation may be dominated by ponderosa pine, mixed 

conifer, Jeffrey pine, red fir, lodgepole pine, mountain hemlock, whitebark pine, foxtail pine, or 

western white pine. Treeless alpine areas, meadows, and riparian areas, are also common. The 

southern High Sierra Nevada subregion supports some pinyon pine and sagebrush. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

431

Figure 40. Floristic geographic subdivisions in the planning area
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

432

Table 91. Floristic geographic subdivisions represented in the planning area (Baldwin et al. 2012)

Province Region Subregion1

No. Plant 

Species in 

CNDDB

Area 

(acres) National Forest

California 

Floristic 

Province 

Sierra 

Nevada

High Sierra Nevada (Central 

or Southern)

168 3,145,457 Inyo, Sequoia, 

Sierra 

California 

Floristic 

Province 

Sierra 

Nevada

Sierra Nevada Foothills 

(Central or Southern)

45 251,225 Sequoia, Sierra 

Great 

Basin 

Eastern 

Sierra 

Nevada

White and Inyo Mountains 78 471,017 Inyo (also includes 

Nevada portions 

of Inyo) 

Great 

Basin 

Eastern 

Sierra 

Nevada

Other Eastern Sierra Nevada 

(Mono Basin, Glass Mts., 

Eastern escarpment)

59 665,889 Inyo (also includes 

Nevada portions 

of Inyo) 

Desert Mojave 

Desert

Mojave Desert (exc. Desert 

Mts.)

3 14,787 Inyo

CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, 2014).

1. Spatial dataset used with permission from the Jepson Herbarium (Jepson Flora Project 2015).

In the Eastern Sierra Nevada Region, the 10,000-foot elevation gradient is abrupt, creating rapid 

transitions from desert and sagebrush vegetation at the lowest elevations, to pinyon pine 

woodlands, coniferous forests, and alpine areas. The region includes most conifers found on the 

west side of the Sierra Nevada, but mixed conifer is relatively uncommon. This region is 

geologically complex, with significant volcanic, sedimentary, and metamorphic bedrock and soils 

represented. The White and Inyo Mountains subregion is situated in the rain shadow of the Sierra 

Nevada, and receives less precipitation, as evident in the arid-adapted vegetation, including 

pinyon-juniper, mountain mahogany, sagebrush, bristlecone and limber pine, and large expanses 

of high alpine areas. 

At-risk Plant Species

A total of 177 at-risk plant species were identified on the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National 

Forests, including two federally listed (one threatened and one endangered) species and one

candidate species (Table 92), and 174 species of conservation concern (Table 96). Ramshaw 

Meadows abronia (Abronia alpina) was recently removed from consideration as a candidate 

species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,31 but due to the concern for its persistence in the 

plan area, has been added to the list of species of conservation concern considered on the Inyo 

National Forest. 

Although some hotspots of diversity can be identified on the three national forests (like the high 

alpine of the White Mountains on the Inyo National Forest, or the Merced River Canyon 

metamorphic soils and subalpine carbonate soils on the Sierra National Forest), at-risk plant 

species can be found in all floristic geographic subdivisions, and in all ecosystem types. The 

special habitats, or ecosystem types called out in the “Terrestrial Ecosystems” and “Aquatic and 

Riparian Ecosystems” sections can sometimes host a number of at-risk plant species, though this 

is not always the case.

 

31 Federal Register: 80 FR 60834, Oct. 8, 2015
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

433

Table 92. At-risk federally listed and candidate plant species in the planning area

Scientific Name Common Name Status National Forest

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark pine Candidate Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra

Opuntia basilaris var. treleasii Bakersfield cactus Endangered Sequoia

Calyptridium pulchellum Mariposa pussy-paws Threatened Sierra 

Federally Listed Plant Species

Two federally listed species are found within the plan area: the endangered Bakersfield cactus on 

the Sequoia National Forest and the threatened Mariposa pussy-paws on the Sierra National 

Forest. Two other species were examined but found to not meet the criteria for being considered 

at-risk species. The threatened Springville clarkia, occurs only within the Giant Sequoia National 

Monument. Therefore, it was not included as an at-risk plant species in this analysis for the 

Sequoia National Forest because it is managed under the 2012 Monument management plan. 

Designated critical habitat for Keck’s checkerbloom occurs just outside the Sierra National 

Forest, but no plants are known to occur in the plan area. Therefore, Springville clarkia and 

Keck’s checkerbloom will not be discussed further in this analysis. 

Bakersfield cactus is a beavertail cactus that occurs in blue oak woodlands and riparian 

woodlands on the Sequoia National Forest. Its primary threats are habitat loss, hydrologic 

alterations, off-road vehicle use and non-native invasive plants. Approximately one-third of the 

historical occurrences of Bakersfield cactus have been eliminated, and the remaining populations 

are highly fragmented. Conservation measures have focused on habitat acquisition through land 

transfers. The population on the Sequoia National Forest occurs in a steep rocky canyon, and is 

largely excluded from effects of land management activities, although there may be some 

trampling or soil compaction resulting from recreational activities.

Mariposa pussy-paws is an annual plant that occurs in chaparral or woodland vegetation in the 

southern Sierra Nevada foothills (Guilliams and Clines 2012). Major threats include habitat loss 

due to development and off-highway vehicle use, competition from non-native plant species, and 

possibly atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Two populations occur on national forest lands. One 

population (element occurrence 6) has fluctuated about a mean number of individuals of 329, 

with a minimum of 23 and a maximum of 770 in 1992. This population has been fenced to protect 

it from livestock trampling. With a recent population count of 513 in 2011, the long-term 

potential viability of this element occurrence is considered good. The other population (element 

occurrence 10) has been monitored less frequently, with an apparent downward trend. Measures 

to address threats to this population have included invasive plant treatment, installing and 

improving fencing to exclude cattle, and soil stabilization to prevent erosion on adjacent areas 

(Guilliams and Clines 2012).

Candidate Plant Species

Candidate species are plants and animals for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but for which development of a proposed listing 

regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. No plant species in the plan area 

are proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Whitebark pine occurs in the plan area on each of the three national forests and is the only at-risk 

candidate plant species (Table 92). A full species account with literature citations was provided 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

434

during the assessment phase for forest plan revision and is included in the project record (USDA 

FS 2013). A brief summary is given here. As noted above, Ramshaw Meadows abronia was 

removed from consideration as a candidate species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service since 

the time that the assessment was conducted.

Whitebark pine is known to occur in the western mountains of the United States and Canada. In 

California, it occurs in the Klamath Ranges, High Cascade Range, Warner Mountains, and the 

Sierra Nevada. It is a slow-growing, long-lived conifer that tolerates poor soils, steep slopes, and 

windy exposures and is found at treeline and subalpine elevations throughout its range. The plan 

area hosts approximately 44 percent of the extent of whitebark pine in California, with a majority 

on the Inyo National Forest (Table 93; Slaton et al. 2014).

Across the plan area, approximately 88 percent of whitebark pine occurs within wilderness (Table 

93). The remaining 12 percent occurs primarily either within ski areas, near high elevation 

reservoirs where day use activities are popular (Lake Sabrina, Saddlebag Lake, South Lake), or at 

the lower elevations of the whitebark pine zone, where campgrounds and trailheads are often 

found (such as Onion Valley, Bishop Creek, and Rock Creek developed recreation sites on the 

Inyo National Forest).

Table 93. Distribution of whitebark pine in the planning area and California

Region Acres

Inyo National Forest 138,829

Sequoia National Forest 2,285

Sierra National Forest 24,472

Planning Area - Total 165,586

In Wilderness within Planning Area – Total 145,403

California - Total 372,035

Whitebark pine serves a number of important ecological functions, including snow retention, 

runoff regulation, soil temperature moderation, early colonization of disturbed sites, and forage 

and habitat for birds and mammals (Meyer 2013). There are several major threats to whitebark 

pine, including bark beetle attack, climate change, fire suppression, and white pine blister rust 

(Meyer 2013). Although each threat individually is problematic, the combined impacts pose a 

significant threat to species viability. To date, the whitebark pine in the plan area has been 

relatively resistant to invasion by white pine blister rust, especially on the east side of the Sierra 

Nevada crest.

Plant Species of Conservation Concern

There are 174 plant species of conservation concern across the three national forests, with some 

species occurring on more than one national forest (Table 94). A complete list of species, by 

national forest is shown in Table 96, and is also in the Botany supplemental report, and the 

respective draft forest plans.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

435

Table 94. Numbers of plant species of conservation concern, by national forest and by life form

National 

Forest

Number of

flowering 

plants

Number of

ferns

Number of

mosses

Number of

lichens

Number of

conifers

Total 

number of

plants

Inyo 97 5 2 1 0 105

Sierra 28 5 5 0 0 38

Sequoia 61 3 5 0 1 70

The floristic geographic subdivisions shown in Table 91 give an overview of the distribution of 

diversity in the planning area and assisted with a broad, qualitative analysis. For further detailed 

analysis, plant species were aligned with ecosystem types classified in the “Terrestrial 

Ecosystems” and “Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems” sections. This coarse-filter approach of 

grouping species is displayed in Table 95. All species of conservation concern occur in at least 

one of the ecosystems and many occur in two or more.

Table 95. Summary of the number of plant species of conservation concern that occur in each 

ecosystem type

Ecosystem Type

Number of 

species, Inyo 

National Forest

Number of 

species, Sequoia 

National Forest1

Number of 

species, Sierra 

National Forest1

Alpine 24 1 0 

Aquatic/Riparian 0 2 12

Black oak 0 2 1 

Blue oak-Interior live oak woodland 0 11 6

Chaparral-Live Oak 0 8 15

Complex Early Seral Habitat 0 0 1 

Jeffrey Pine 3 1 0

Lodgepole pine 1 2 0 

Meadow 16 10 0

Mixed conifer 1 8 0 

Montane 0 13 21

Montane chaparral 0 2 0

Mountain mahogany 4 0 0 

Pinyon-juniper 21 17 0

Red fir 0 2 0 

Sagebrush 39 2 0 

Special type 24 24 15

Subalpine 46 8 8 

Upper montane 0 8 22

Xeric shrub/blackbrush 10 3 0 

1. Many species do not have a strict affinity to the ecosystem types as outlined above; therefore, precise adherence to the 

ecosystem list was not possible. As examples, montane on the Sierra National Forest includes both montane chaparral 

and other montane vegetation; Jeffrey pine on the Sequoia may occur in dry or moist mixed conifer; in those cases, 

plan direction for all applicable types would apply.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

436

Table 96. Plant species of conservation concern for Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests

Scientific Name Common Name

Applicable 

National Forest Known Threats to Persistence Principal Habitats

Eriastrum tracyi Tracy's eriastrum Sequoia, Sierra Invasive species, fuels treatments Blue-Oak Interior Live Oak 

Woodland, Chaparral-Live Oak

Carpenteria californica Tree-anemone Sequoia, Sierra Invasive species, fuels treatment, 

altered fire regime, roads, climate 

change

Chaparral-Live Oak, Black oak, 

Montane

Viburnum ellipticum Oval-leaved viburnum Sequoia, Sierra Rarity, fuels treatment, invasive 

species, roads, fire suppression 

activities

Chaparral-Live Oak, Montane 

(Ponderosa Pine, Black Oak)

Mimulus gracilipes Slender-stalked 

monkeyflower

Sequoia, Sierra Recreation (OHV), roads, climate 

change, invasive species, fuels 

management

Rock Outcrop, Complex Early Seral 

Habitats, Blue-Oak Interior Live Oak 

Woodland, Chaparral-Live Oak, 

Montane 

Calochortus striatus Alkali mariposa lily Sequoia Urbanization, grazing, trampling, 

roads, hydrologic alterations, 

horticultural collecting, invasive 

species

Alkali Spring/Meadow, Xeric shrub 

and blackbrush

Cryptantha circumscissa 

var. rosulata

Rosette cushion cryptantha Inyo, Sequoia Grazing, recreation Alpine, Subalpine, Dry Forb

Symphyotrichum 

defoliatum

San Bernardino aster Sequoia Roads, invasive species Aquatic/Riparian

Bruchia bolanderi Bolander's bruchia Inyo, Sequoia, 

Sierra 

Grazing, hydrologic alteration, roads, 

trails, restoration projects

Aquatic/Riparian, Montane, Upper 

Montane, Subalpine

Brodiaea insignis Kaweah brodiaea Sequoia Grazing, development Blue oak savanna

Mimulus pictus Calico monkeyflower Sequoia Grazing, recreation, recreation 

(OHV), trail maintenance, invasive 

species

Blue-Oak Interior Live Oak Woodland

Fritillaria striata Striped adobe-lily Sequoia Non-native plants; grazing; fire 

suppression activities; vehicles; road 

maintenance

Blue-Oak Interior Live Oak Woodland

Mielichhoferia shevockii 

(Schizymenium shevockii)

Shevock's copper moss Sequoia, Sierra Rarity Rock Outcrops, Blue-Oak Interior 

Live Oak Woodland, Chaparral-Live 

Oak

Layia heterotricha Pale-yellow layia Sequoia Recreation, horticultural collection Blue-Oak Interior Live Oak Woodland

Heterotheca shevockii Shevock's golden aster Sequoia Roads, recreation Blue-Oak Interior Live Oak Woodland
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

437

Scientific Name Common Name

Applicable 

National Forest Known Threats to Persistence Principal Habitats

California macrophylla Roundleaf stork's bill Sequoia Urbanization, roads, feral pigs, 

invasive species, grazing

Blue-Oak Interior Live Oak Woodland

Mimulus norrisii Kaweah monkeyflower Sequoia, Sierra Rarity, invasive species Rock Outcrop, Blue-Oak Interior Live 

Oak Woodland, Chaparral-Live Oak

Iris munzii Munz's iris Sequoia Roads, grazing, recreational 

development, fire suppression

Blue-Oak Interior Live Oak 

Woodland, Chaparral-Live Oak

Leptosiphon serrulatus Madera leptosiphon Sequoia, Sierra Invasive species, roads, livestock 

overuse

Blue-Oak Interior Live Oak 

Woodland, Chaparral-Live Oak, 

Montane

Deinandra mohavensis Mojave tarplant Sequoia Grazing, hydrologic alteration, 

recreation, roads

Chaparral

Lewisia congdonii Congdon's lewisia Sequoia, Sierra Mining, roads Chaparral-Live Oak, Montane, Upper 

Montane

Ribes menziesii var.

ixoderme

Canyon gooseberry Sierra Fire suppression, fuel reduction, 

invasive plants

Foothill chaparral, oak woodland

Dicentra nevadensis Sierra bleeding heart, Tulare 

County bleeding heart

Sequoia Developed recreation, road 

maintenance

Lodgepole Pine, Depressions

Astragalus lentiginosus 

var. kernensis

Kern Plateau milk-vetch Inyo, Sequoia Vehicles, roads, grazing Subalpine, Lodgepole, Dry Forb, 

Meadows

Calochortus westonii Shirley Meadows star-tulip, 

mariposa lily

Sequoia Logging, roads Meadow, Mixed Conifer, Black oak

Meesia uliginosa Meesia moss Sierra, Sequoia grazing, hydrologic alteration Aquatic/Riparian, Meadows, 

Montane, Upper Montane

Navarretia peninsularis Baja navarretia Sequoia Roads, recreation Meadows, Montane, Montane 

Chaparral

Nemacladus twisselmannii Twisselmann's nemacladus Sequoia grazing, fire suppression activities, 

fuels treatments

Mixed conifer

Fritillaria brandegeei Greenhorn fritillary Sequoia Logging, grazing Mixed Conifer, Black oak

Erythronium pusaterii Hocket Lakes fawn lily, 

Kaweah Lakes fawnlily

Sequoia Rarity, climate change Montane

Horkelia tularensis Kern Plateau horkelia Sequoia Recreation, roads, infrastructure 

(campgrounds)

Montane
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

438

Scientific Name Common Name

Applicable 

National Forest Known Threats to Persistence Principal Habitats

Githopsis tenella Tube flower bluecup Sequoia Ground disturbance; grazing; fire 

suppression

Montane Chaparral

Astragalus shevockii Little Kern or Shevock's milkvetch

Sequoia Grazing, recreation, fire suppression Montane Jeffrey Pine

Botrychium minganense Mingan moonwort Inyo, Sequoia, 

Sierra 

Hydrologic alteration, trampling, 

recreation (OHV) ), grazing, trails, 

climate change

Aquatic/Riparian, Meadows, Upper 

Montane, Subalpine

Botrychium crenulatum Scalloped moonwort Inyo, Sequoia, 

Sierra 

Hydrologic alteration, trampling, 

recreation (OHV), severe soil 

disturbance, grazing, recreation 

(livestock trampling), climate change

Aquatic/Riparian, Meadows, Upper 

Montane, Subalpine

Botrychium montanum Western goblin or mountain 

moonwort

Sequoia, Sierra Grazing, hydrologic alteration, conifer 

encroachment, recreation, trails, 

climate change

Aquatic/Riparian, Meadows,

Montane, Upper Montane, Subalpine

Opuntia treleasei 

(O. basilaris treleasei)

Bakersfield cactus Sequoia Rarity Outcrops, Blue-Oak Interior Live Oak 

Woodland

Orthotrichum spjutii Spjut's bristle moss Sequoia Recreation, grazing Outcrops, Pinyon-juniper

Erigeron aequifolius Hall's daisy, Hall's fleabane Sequoia Fuels treatment Pinyon-juniper

Nemacladus calcaratus Chimney Creek nemacladus Sequoia Recreation, grazing Pinyon-juniper

Astragalus ertterae Walker Pass milk-vetch Sequoia Recreation, trails, grazing Pinyon-juniper

Streptanthus cordatus var. 

piutensis

Piute Mountains jewel-flower Sequoia Roads, recreation (OHV), fire 

suppression activities

Pinyon-juniper

Navarretia setiloba Piute Mountains navarretia Sequoia Recreation, development Pinyon-juniper, Blue-Oak Interior Live 

Oak Woodland

Hesperocyparis 

nevadensis

Piute cypress Sequoia Recreation, horticultural collection, 

fire suppression activities

Pinyon-juniper, Chaparral-Live Oak

Trifolium kingii ssp. 

dedeckerae 

(T. dedeckerae)

Dedecker's clover Inyo, Sequoia Grazing, invasive species Alpine, Subalpine, Sagebrush, 

Montane

Phacelia nashiana Charlotte's phacelia Inyo, Sequoia Grazing, mining, recreation (OHV), 

roads, very few populations

Xeric Shrub/Blackbrush, Pinyonjuniper, sagebrush

Mimulus shevockii Kelso Creek monkeyflower Sequoia Rarity Pinyon-juniper, Xeric Shrub and 

Blackbrush 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

439

Scientific Name Common Name

Applicable 

National Forest Known Threats to Persistence Principal Habitats

Cordylanthus eremicus 

ssp. kernensis

Kern Plateau bird's-beak Inyo, Sequoia Grazing, recreation Alpine, Subalpine, Pinyon-juniper, 

Xeric Shrub and Blackbrush, Upper 

Montane

Boechera tularensis Tulare rockcress Inyo, Sequoia, 

Sierra 

Grazing, climate change, extreme 

rarity 

Rock Outcrop, Montane, Upper 

Montane, Subalpine, Meadow, Red 

fir

Oreonana purpurascens Purple mountain-parsley Sequoia Grazing, recreation, development, 

trail maintenance

Red fir

Eriogonum nudum var. 

regirivum

King's River buckwheat Sequoia, Sierra Invasive species, trails Rock Outcrop, Carbonate, ChaparralLive Oak

Eriogonum breedlovei var. 

breedlovei

Breedlove's buckwheat, Piute 

buckwheat

Sequoia Recreation (OHV) Rock Outcrop, Carbonate, Mixed 

Conifer, Pinyon-juniper

Petrophyton acuminatum Marble rockmat Inyo, Sequoia Very few populations, invasive 

species

Mountain mahogany, Subalpine, 

Pinyon-juniper, Rock outcrop, 

carbonate, montane

Streptanthus fenestratus Tehipite Valley jewel-flower Sequoia, Sierra Trails, climate change, invasive 

species

Rock Outcrop, Chaparral-Live Oak, 

Montane, Upper Montane, Carbonate

Gilia yorkii Boyden Cave gilia Sequoia Fire suppression activities Rock Outcrop, Carbonate, PinyonJuniper

Eriogonum ovalifolium var. 

monarchense

Monarch buckwheat Sequoia Rarity, climate change Rock Outcrop, Carbonate, Pinyonjuniper

Dudleya cymosa ssp. 

costatifolia

Pierpoint Springs dudleya Sequoia Fuels treatments, fire regime 

alteration, mining, horticultural 

collection

Rock Outcrop, Chaparral-Live Oak, 

Carbonate

Astragalus subvestitus Kern County milk-vetch Inyo, Sequoia Grazing, livestock trampling, 

recreation (OHV)

Subalpine, Dry Forb, Rock outcrop, 

Jeffrey pine

Carlquistia muirii Muir's tarplant Sierra, Sequoia Fuels treatment, recreation, roads, 

logging

Rock Outcrop, Montane, Upper 

Montane, Mixed Conifer

Boechera shevockii Shevock's rockcress Sequoia Recreation (sport climbing) Rock Outcrop, Mixed Conifer

Lewisia disepala Yosemite lewisia Sequoia, Sierra Recreation (OHV), fuels treatment, 

recreation (trampling)

Rock Outcrop, Montane, Upper 

Montane

Allium shevockii Spanish Needle onion Sequoia Renewable energy development Rock Outcrop, Pinyon-juniper

Boechera evadens Hidden rockcress Inyo, Sequoia Very few populations, recreation, 

mining

Pinyon-juniper, Mountain mahogany, 

Rock outcrop, sagebrush
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

440

Scientific Name Common Name

Applicable 

National Forest Known Threats to Persistence Principal Habitats

Camissonia integrifolia Kern River evening primrose Sequoia Grazing; recreation (OHV); roads Sagebrush

Monardella beneolens Wweet-smelling monardella Inyo, Sequoia Recreation (trampling), grazing, very 

few populations, climate change

Alpine, Subalpine

Ivesia campestris Field ivesia Inyo, Sequoia Grazing Subalpine, Meadow

Helodium blandowii Blandow's bog moss Inyo, Sequoia hydrologic alteration, grazing Subalpine, Meadow

Hulsea brevifolia Short-leaved hulsea Inyo, Sequoia Roads, recreation (trampling), logging Mixed Conifer, Subalpine, Upper 

Montane

Eriogonum twisselmannii Twisselmann's buckwheat Sequoia Fuels treatments, fire suppression, 

recreation, trail work

Upper Montane

Ribes tularense Sequoia gooseberry Sequoia Rarity Upper Montane

Calyptridium pygmaeum Pygmy pusspaws Inyo, Sequoia, 

Sierra 

Climate change, recreation, 

trampling, very few populations

Rock Outcrop, Upper Montane, 

Subalpine, Alpine 

Oreonana vestita Woolly mountain-parsley Sequoia Grazing, recreation, trail maintenance Upper Montane, Talus

Boechera tiehmii (Arabis t.) Tiehm's rockcress Inyo Climate change Alpine

Polemonium chartaceum Mason's sky pilot Inyo Climate change, grazing, recreation Alpine

Potentilla morefieldii Morefield's cinquefoil Inyo Climate change, grazing, recreation 

(trampling)

Alpine

Carex tiogana Tioga Pass sedge Inyo Climate change, recreation Alpine

Draba sharsmithii Mt. Whitney draba Inyo, Sierra Climate change, recreation 

(trampling)

Alpine

Astragalus ravenii Raven's milk-vetch Inyo Climate change, very few populations Alpine

Claytonia megarhiza Fell-fields claytonia Inyo Climate change, very few populations Alpine

Draba monoensis White Mountains draba Inyo Climate change, very few populations Alpine

Eriogonum microthecum 

var. alpinum

Alpineslender buckwheat Inyo Climate change, very few populations Alpine

Carex stevenii Steven's sedge Inyo Climate change, very few 

populations, hydrologic alteration

Alpine

Streptanthus gracilis Alpine jewelflower Inyo, Sequoia Hydrologic alteration, climate change, 

recreation (trampling)

Alpine

Agrostis humilis Alpine bentgrass Inyo Recreation (trampling) climate 

change

Alpine
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

441

Scientific Name Common Name

Applicable 

National Forest Known Threats to Persistence Principal Habitats

Tonestus eximius Lake Tahoe serpentweed Inyo Very few populations, climate change Alpine

Townsendia leptotes Slender townsendia Inyo Very few populations, climate change Alpine

Jamesia americana var. 

rosea

Fivepetal cliffbush Inyo Climate change Alpine, Subalpine

Eriogonum wrightii var. 

olanchense

Olancha Peak buckwheat Inyo Very few populations, climate change Alpine, Subalpine

Lupinus duranii Mono Lake lupine Inyo Recreation (OHV), grazing Jeffrey Pine, Sagebrush, Dry Forb

Astragalus monoensis Mono milk-vetch Inyo Recreation (OHV), roads, grazing Jeffrey Pine, Sagebrush, Dry Forb

Cuniculotinus gramineus 

(Chrysothamnus g.)

Panamint rock-goldenrod Inyo Mining, invasive species Mountain mahogany, Subalpine, 

Carbonate

Allium atrorubens var. 

atrorubens

Great Basin onion Inyo Grazing, mining, very few populations Mountain mahogany, Subalpine, 

Pinyon-juniper

Streptanthus oliganthus Masonic mountain 

jewelflower

Inyo Grazing, mining Pinyon-juniper

Ranunculus 

hydrocharoides

Frog's-bit buttercup Inyo Hydrologic alteration Pinyon-juniper

Astragalus cimae var. 

sufflatus

Inflated Cima milk-vetch Inyo Invasive species, extreme rarity Pinyon-juniper

Phacelia monoensis Mono phacelia Inyo Invasive species, roads, mining Pinyon-juniper

Eriogonum mensicola Pinyon Mesa buckwheat Inyo Mining, recreation, invasive species Pinyon-juniper

Astragalus inyoensis Inyo milk-vetch Inyo Mining, vehicles Pinyon-juniper

Boechera bodiensis 

(Arabis b.)

Bodie Hills rockcress Inyo Very few populations Pinyon-juniper

Physocarpus alternans Nevada ninebark Inyo Invasive species, climate change Pinyon-juniper, Carbonate

Populus angustifolia Narrow-leaved cottonwood Inyo Hydrologic alteration Pinyon-juniper, Sagebrush

Hulsea vestita ssp. 

inyoensis

Inyo hulsea Inyo Roads, grading, mining Pinyon-juniper, Sagebrush

Thelypodium integrifolium 

ssp. complanatum

Foxtail thelypodium Inyo Very few populations Pinyon-juniper, Sagebrush

Mentzelia inyoensis Inyo blazing star Inyo Very few populations, invasive 

species

Pinyon-juniper, Sagebrush
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

442

Scientific Name Common Name

Applicable 

National Forest Known Threats to Persistence Principal Habitats

Ericameria gilmanii Gilman's goldenbush Inyo Very few populations, invasive 

species, mining

Pinyon-juniper, Subalpine

Hesperidanthus jaegeri Jaeger's hesperidanthus Inyo Very few populations, climate 

change, limited habitat, invasive 

species

Pinyon-juniper, Subalpine, Carbonate

Carex petasata Liddon's sedge Inyo Grazing, climate change Pinyon-juniper, Subalpine, Meadow

Astragalus serenoi var. 

shockleyi

Shockley's milk-vetch Inyo Mining, grazing, invasive species Pinyon-juniper, Xeric 

Shrub/Blackbrush

Delphinium purpusii Rose-flowered Larkspur Sequoia Recreation, recreation (OHV) Rock Outcrop, Carbonate, Pinyonjuniper, Chaparral-Live Oak

Polyctenium fremontii 

(williamsiae)

Williams' combleaf Inyo Climate change, limited habitat, 

grazing, recreation (OHV)

Sagebrush

Horkelia hispidula White Mountains horkelia Inyo Grazing Sagebrush

Stipa divaricata Small-flowered rice grass Inyo Grazing Sagebrush

Cymopterus globosus Globose cymopterus Inyo Grazing, hydrologic alteration, very 

few populations

Sagebrush

Viola purpurea ssp. aurea Golden violet Inyo Grazing, invasive species, roads Sagebrush

Phacelia inyoensis Inyo phacelia Inyo Grazing, roads, very few populations Sagebrush

Goodmania luteola Yellow spinecape Inyo Very few populations, grazing Sagebrush

Physaria ludoviciana Silver bladderpod Inyo Wild horses, very few populations Sagebrush

Astragalus lemmonii Lemmon's milk-vetch Inyo Grazing, hydrologic alteration, very 

few populations

Sagebrush, Alkali Flat

Crepis runcinata ssp. hallii Hall's meadow hawksbeard Inyo Grazing, recreation (OHV), hydrologic 

alteration

Sagebrush, Alkali Flat

Ivesia kingii var. kingii Alkali ivesia Inyo Grazing, recreation (OHV), hydrologic 

alteration

Sagebrush, Alkali Flat

Astragalus johannishowellii

Long Valley milk-vetch Inyo Limited habitat, grazing Sagebrush, Alkali Flat

Sphaeromeria 

potentilloides var. nitrophila

Fivefinger chickensage Inyo Vehicles, grazing Sagebrush, Alkali Flat, Meadow

Potentilla pulcherrima Beautiful cinquefoil Inyo Grazing, erosion, very few 

populations

Sagebrush, Alpine
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

443

Scientific Name Common Name

Applicable 

National Forest Known Threats to Persistence Principal Habitats

Draba californica California draba Inyo Grazing, roads Sagebrush, Alpine

Erigeron uncialis var. 

uncialis

Limestone daisy Inyo Very few populations Sagebrush, Carbonate

Lupinus padre-crowleyi Father Crowley's lupine Inyo Trampling, fire suppression Sagebrush, Jeffrey Pine

Sphenopholis obtusata Prairie wedge grass Inyo Grazing, hydrologic alteration Sagebrush, Pinyon-juniper

Eriogonum alexandrae (E. 

ochrocephalum var. 

ochrocephalum)

Ochre-flowered buckwheat Inyo Very few populations, invasive 

species, wild horses

Sagebrush, Pinyon-juniper

Mentzelia torreyi Torrey’s blazing star Inyo Very few populations, invasive 

species, wild horses

Sagebrush, Pinyon-juniper

Erigeron compactus Compact daisy Inyo Invasive species, climate change, 

limited habitat

Sagebrush, Pinyon-juniper, 

Carbonate, Alkali Flat

Chaetadelpha wheeleri Wheeler's dune-broom Inyo Limited habitat, climate change Sagebrush, Sand Dunes

Ladeania lanceolata 

(Psoralidium lanceolatum)

Lance-leaved scurf-pea Inyo Wild horse, grazing, very few 

populations

Sagebrush, Sand Dunes

Hackelia sharsmithii Sharsmith's stickseed Inyo Climate change, very few populations Sagebrush, Subalpine

Carex scirpoidea ssp. 

pseudoscirpoidea

Western single-spiked sedge Inyo Grazing, climate change Sagebrush, Subalpine

Carex vallicola Western valley sedge Inyo Hydrologic alteration, climate change Sagebrush, Subalpine

Hackelia brevicula Poison Canyon stickseed Inyo Hydrologic alteration, grazing Sagebrush, Subalpine

Lomatium foeniculaceum 

ssp. inyoense

Inyo biscuitroot Inyo Limited habitat, very few populations, 

climate change

Sagebrush, Subalpine

Carex idahoa Idaho sedge Inyo Grazing, climate change Sagebrush, Subalpine, Meadow

Carex duriuscula Spikerush sedge Inyo Grazing, hydrologic alteration Sagebrush, Subalpine, Meadow

Aliciella triodon Coyote gilia Inyo Grazing, invasive species Sagebrush, Xeric Shrub/Blackbrush

Sclerocactus polyancistrus Redspined fishhook cactus Inyo Horticultural collection, roads, 

recreation (OHV), grazing

Sagebrush, Xeric Shrub/Blackbrush

Grusonia pulchella Beautiful cholla Inyo Very few populations, grazing Sagebrush, Xeric Shrub/Blackbrush

Calochortus excavatus Inyo County star-tulip Inyo Grazing, hydrologic alteration Sagebrush, Xeric Shrub/Blackbrush, 

Meadow

Cryptantha roosiorum Bristlecone cryptantha Inyo Climate change, rarity, grazing Subalpine
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

444

Scientific Name Common Name

Applicable 

National Forest Known Threats to Persistence Principal Habitats

Astragalus kentrophyta var. 

elatus

Spiny-leaved milk-vetch Inyo Climate change, recreation, limited 

habitat

Subalpine

Taraxacum ceratophorum Horned dandelion Inyo Grazing, climate change Subalpine

Trichophorum pumilum Little bulrush Inyo Hydrologic alteration, grazing Subalpine

Dryopteris filix-mas Male fern Inyo Very few populations Subalpine

Solarina spongiosa Fringed chocolate chip lichen Inyo Very few populations, roads Subalpine

Boechera pinzliae Pinzl's rockcress Inyo Very few populations, wild horse 

trampling

Subalpine

Abronia alpina Ramshaw Meadows abronia Inyo Climate change, hydrologic alteration, 

conifer encroachment

Subalpine, Dry Forb

Oxytropis deflexa var. 

sericea

Blue pendant-pod oxytrope Inyo Grazing (currently not grazed), 

hydrologic alteration

Subalpine, Meadow

Carex praticola Northern meadow sedge Inyo Grazing, climate change Subalpine, Meadow

Carex davyi Davy's sedge Inyo Hydrologic alteration, grazing Subalpine, Meadow

Botrychium ascendens Upswept moonwort Inyo, Sierra Hydrologic alteration, trampling, 

recreation (OHV) ), severe soil 

disturbance, grazing, climate change

Aquatic/Riparian, Meadow, Upper 

Montane, Subalpine 

Botrychium lineare Common moonwort Inyo, Sierra Hydrologic alteration, trampling, 

recreation (OHV) ), severe soil 

disturbance, grazing, recreation 

(livestock trampling), climate change

Aquatic/Riparian, Meadow, Upper 

Montane, Subalpine

Kobresia myosuroides 

(K. bellardii)

Seep kobresia Inyo Recreation (trampling), climate 

change, limited habitat

Subalpine, Meadow

Plagiobothrys parishii Parish's popcornflower Inyo Climate change, rarity Xeric Shrub/Blackbrush

Boechera shockleyi 

(Arabis s.)

Shockley's rockcress Inyo Mining, vehicles Xeric Shrub/Blackbrush

Penstemon calcareus Limestone beardtongue Inyo Invasive species, burros Xeric Shrub/Blackbrush, Carbonate

Dedeckera eurekensis July gold Inyo Mining, recreation (OHV), invasive 

species

Xeric Shrub/Blackbrush, Carbonate

Collomia rawsoniana Flaming trumpet Sierra Altered fire regime, fuels treatment Aquatic/Riparian (Rivers and 

Streams), All Montane 

Fissidens aphelotaxifolius Fissidens moss Sierra Extreme rarity, hydrologic alteration Aquatic/Riparian, Montane, Upper 

Montane 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

445

Scientific Name Common Name

Applicable 

National Forest Known Threats to Persistence Principal Habitats

Pohlia tundrae Tundra pohlia moss Sierra Grazing, hydrologic alteration Aquatic/Riparian (Meadows), Upper 

Montane, Subalpine 

Trifolium bolanderi Bolander's clover Sierra Grazing, hydrologic alteration Aquatic/Riparian (Meadows), Upper 

Montane

Platanthera yosemitensis Yosemite bog orchid Sierra Grazing, hydrologic alteration, 

invasive species

Aquatic/Riparian (Meadows), 

Montane, Upper Montane

Eriophyllum congdonii Congdon's eriophyllum, 

Congdon's woolly sunflower

Sierra Invasive species, mining, trails Rock Outcrop, Chaparral-Live Oak

Camissonia sierrae ssp. 

alticola

Mono Hot Springs eveningprimrose Sierra Invasive species, recreation 

(trampling), roads/trails

Rock Outcrop, Montane, Upper 

Montane

Clarkia biloba ssp. australis Mariposa clarkia Sierra Invasive species, roads Chaparral-Live Oak

Clarkia lingulata Merced clarkia Sierra Invasive species, roads Chaparral-Live Oak

Calyptridium pulchellum Mariposa pussy-paws Sierra Livestock trampling; invasive plants, 

infrastructure maintenance

Blue-Oak Interior Live Oak Woodland

Cypripedium montanum Mountain lady's slipper Sierra Rarity, climate change, fire regime 

alteration, logging, invasive species

All montane

Tauschia howellii Howell's tauschia Sierra Rarity, infrastructure 

(communications site)

Rock Outcrop, Montane, Upper 

Montane

Erythronium pluriflorum Shuteye Peak fawn lily, 

manyflower fawnlily

Sierra Recreation (OHV) Upper Montane, Subalpine

Lewisia kellogii ssp. 

kelloggii

Kellogg's lewisia Sierra Recreation (OHV) Rock Outcrop, Montane, Upper 

Montane

Lupinus citrinus var. 

citrinus

Orange lupine Sierra Recreation (OHV), roads, climate 

change, invasive species

Rock Outcrop, Blue-Oak Interior Live 

Oak Woodland, Chaparral-Live Oak, 

Montane 

Allium yosemitense Yosemite onion Sierra Trails, invasive species, mining Rock Outcrop, Chaparral-Live Oak, 

Montane, Upper Montane
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

446

Environmental Consequences to At-risk Plant Species

Consequences Common to all Alternatives

The suitability of lands for various uses (like livestock grazing, timber harvest, or recreation 

opportunity) are the same in all alternatives, and so will not be discussed further in this analysis. 

However, there are some variations in the amount of land suitable for each use due to differences 

in the areas administratively recommended for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. Where relevant to at-risk plant persistence, consequences that differ by alternative are 

discussed below. 

Travel management and the authorized route system will be the same under all alternatives, and 

there will be no changes to the current direction for mining and grazing management practices.

Consequences Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

Floristic Biogeographic Subdivisions

Though none of the alternatives authorize specific actions that may affect individual species, the 

analysis takes an integrated look at potential effects to floristic biogeographic subregions and 

diversity that might be most affected by the alternatives. In addition, differences between 

alternatives in effects to special habitats that host at-risk plants are analyzed.

Compared to alternative A, the emphasis in the rest of the alternatives on increasing the pace and 

scale of restoration using fire may affect montane forests more strongly than other ecosystems, 

because ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and Jeffrey pine forests are more strongly departed from 

desired conditions. These ecosystems, most common in the High Sierra Nevada floristic 

biogeographic region, host the greatest total number of at-risk plant species. However, because 

this region is also the largest in size, the density of at-risk populations is not high in comparison 

to other regions. Therefore, effects to floristic diversity in this region would not be 

disproportionately greater under alternatives B, C, and D. 

Subalpine areas of the High Sierra Nevada and special habitats in all broad ecosystems 

(meadows, special soil types, etc.) also host particularly high densities of at-risk plant species. 

Among the threats identified to species in these ecosystems is climate change. Alternatives B, C, 

and D include plan components aimed at preventing loss of at-risk species viability in the face of 

climate change (SPEC-FW-DC 01). Each alternative also includes plan components designed to 

provide for the persistence of at-risk species in special habitats, and to provide for continued 

diversity in meadows and riparian areas. Plan components accomplish this by addressing specific 

threats to persistence, which were identified for at-risk species (Table 98 on page 451).

Because the plan components were developed with the intent of protecting special habitats as the 

ecological fabric to maintain viability of a large group of at-risk plant species, it is expected that 

alternatives B, C, and D would have minimal short-term negative effects to the habitat extent and 

quality for those at-risk species that depend on them. Restoration efforts under these alternatives, 

particularly in meadows and other herb-dominated communities, would likely have positive, 

long-term effects for the many at-risk plant species dependent upon these systems. Examples 

include species dependent on meadows and special habitats (such as moonworts, sedges, meesia 

moss, Mono Lake lupine, Mono milkvetch, King’s river buckwheat, Monarch buckwheat, and

Boyden Cave gilia). The full list of special habitat species, including scientific names and the 

national forest where each occurs is provided in the Botany supplemental report.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

447

Under alternatives B, C, and D, dispersed and developed recreation are expected to increase to 

some degree due to increasing human populations and recreation demand. Some special habitats 

(meadows, riparian, rock outcrops), are often places where recreation is more frequent or intense. 

Consequent trampling (by people or packstock), increased vectors for invasive species, or habitat 

changes are all activities that can have direct negative effects to at-risk plant habitat extent or 

quality, or can have indirect negative effects through the introduction of invasive plants. Because 

special habitats may host at risk-plants, and because these areas may have especially high 

concentrations of recreational activities, plan components were developed to provide for the 

continued persistence of at-risk species that occur there. Examples for all three national forests 

include a guideline that fire suppression activities (like fire line construction and construction of 

helicopter landing sites) are to be avoided in special habitats (FIRE-FW-GDL-06), and a standard 

that special habitats are to be considered in project design (TERR-SH-STD-01). 

Federally Listed Plant Species

Under alternatives B, C, and D, most identified threats to listed species would still exist, 

including threats from invasive species, climate change, and development. However, under each 

alternative, specific effects from management activities would be analyzed at the project level. At 

a broad scale, habitat restoration to control invasive species and to restore ecosystem structure 

and function would have beneficial effects for Bakersfield cactus and Mariposa pussy-paws. Plan 

components addressing climate change would benefit Mariposa pussy-paws in particular, but all 

species would benefit from potential restoration efforts aimed at maintaining native plant 

diversity and resilient ecosystems in the face of climate change.

Coarse filter plan components, along with direction to assess at-risk species at the project level 

for specific activities, were found to be sufficient to provide for the viability of these species.

Candidate Plant Species

Under alternatives B, C, and D, most known threats to whitebark pine would still exist (climate 

change, bark beetle, and white pine blister rust). Compared to alternative A, however, these three 

alternatives would reduce the threat of high-intensity fire, and to some degree other threats, 

because of the emphasis on ecosystem restoration though the use of prescribed and wildfire 

managed to meet resource objectives. The latter is especially beneficial for whitebark pine 

because this is the primary restoration treatment in wilderness areas where much of the whitebark 

pine occurs. As a result, there would be a positive effect to whitebark pine habitat quality and 

population trend to the extent that fire is restored within the natural range of variation. 

Whitebark Pine

For each national forest, and under all three of these alternatives, desired conditions TERRUPPR-DC-03 and TERR-ALPN-DC-03 provide for healthy whitebark pine, including resilience 

to moisture stress, drought, and bark beetles, and resistance to white pine blister rust (see Botany 

supplemental report a more detailed list of plan components). The desired condition TERRALPN-DC-04 provides for protection and conservation of genetic diversity through the 

maintenance of mature cone-bearing trees. A potential management approach is also included to 

develop a regional whitebark pine conservation and restoration strategy in collaboration with 

other Federal agencies, research organizations, and other partners. Another potential management 

approach is proposed to collect and archive seeds, and proactively manage or restore whitebark 

pine to improve resilience after disturbance. These are all in contrast to alternative A, which has 

general direction to protect the diversity of plant communities and seral stages, but has no 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

448

direction specific to whitebark pine. As a result, these three alternatives would have some positive 

short- and long-term effects to whitebark pine habitat extent and condition. 

In addition to habitat extent and condition, whitebark pine population trend information was 

available for consideration. Work conducted on the Inyo National Forest in the vicinities of June 

Mountain and Rock Creek indicate that beetle attacks result in high mortality among medium- to 

large-diameter trees, but high survivorship among small trees (Meyer et al. 2014). As a result to 

date, while there has been a trend of changing stand structure in some whitebark pine stands, 

there has been no clear evidence of range retraction or expansion. Additional published findings 

show whitebark pine is continuing to regenerate following the death of older trees (Perkins 2015). 

Therefore, under alternatives B, C, and D, potentially greater acreage of wildfire managed to meet 

resource objectives may result in improved regeneration of whitebark pine. This factor and the 

adaptive management techniques outlined in the proposed management strategy are expected to 

result in a moderate, but site-specific upward trend in whitebark pine vigor and reproduction. 

Plant Species of Conservation Concern

A total of 174 plant species of conservation concern were identified in the planning area (Table 

96). The list is identical in alternatives B, C, and D, and differs from the current Forest Service 

sensitive plant list, which includes 132 plant species in the planning area. The species of 

conservation concern list includes most of the Forest Service sensitive plant species as under 

alternative A, but excludes some, either due to lack of information to support a substantial 

concern for the species persistence in the plan area, or due to recent detection of more populations 

of the species.

The proposed increased pace and scale of fuels treatments, especially where mechanical thinning

would be used, is likely to have some site-specific negative effects to at-risk plant habitat extent 

and quality, particularly for species dependent on those ecosystems and floristic biogeographic 

subdivisions identified above as being most affected (mixed conifer and Jeffrey pine, in the High 

Sierra Nevada region). These negative effects can include soil erosion, soil compaction, or 

trampling. All these effects would be mitigated through design features at the project level, but 

mitigations may not eliminate effects altogether. Some examples of species that may be affected 

include Muir’s tarplant (Carlquistia muirii) on the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, and 

Cypripedium montanum, mountain lady’s slipper on the Sierra National Forest. However, longterm, landscape restoration of forested ecosystems, including restoring fire regimes within the 

natural range of variation, would have positive effects to at-risk plant habitat and quality, 

including for short-leaved hulsea (Hulsea brevifolia) on the Inyo and Sequoia National Forests, 

and Father Crowley’s lupine (Lupinus padre-crowleyi) on the Inyo National Forest. Meadow 

restoration would also provide benefit to species dependent upon those habitat, especially for 

those that have been negatively affected by hydrologic changes. A complete list of plant species 

potentially affected by fuels treatments, mechanical thinning, and other activities are identified in 

the Botany supplemental report, along with those species most likely to benefit from restored fire 

regimes. A summary is provided in Table 97. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

449

Table 97. Known threats to plant species of conservation concern, as documented in 

best available scientific information 

Threat

Number of Species Documented 

to be Affected by Threat

Change in fire regime/fire suppression 4 

Climate change 48

Conifer encroachment 1

Development/urbanization 7 

Fuels treatment or timber harvest 14

Grazing 74

Horticultural collection 5 

Hydrologic alteration 30

Insects and disease** 1 

Invasive plants 39

Mining 17

Motorized travel 24

Rarity* 50

Recreation 51

Recreation (trails, trampling) 14

Wild horses, burros, feral pigs 5 

Note: Some species are affected by more than one threat.

*All species of conservation concern are considered rare to some degree, but those species associated 

with the rarity threat were considered to have such small populations or restricted ranges that a single 

unpredictable event at a project or landscape scale could threaten its persistence in the planning area.

**The insects and disease threat is only known to affect whitebark pine, which is an at-risk species, but 

not a species of conservation concern.

Alternatives B, C, and D would result in short-term and long-term increases in invasive plant 

species, due to increased vegetation management activity, and an increase in the use of fire, which 

creates habitat for several invasive species, including cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and yellow 

starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). These increases would be offset to some extent by treatment 

actions proposed under each alternative, but it is not expected that treatments would result in total 

eradications during the lifetime of the plans. Invasive plant species compete with native plant 

species, and can change the fire regime in an area, leading to negative effects to some species of 

conservation concern. Although restoring the fire regime to the natural range of variation is 

generally beneficial to species of conservation concern, there is no historic proxy for a fire regime 

under the current condition of non-native invasive plant species infestation. Thus, it is unknown if 

restoring the fire regime would also result in less impact to native species from invasive species. 

Adaptive management would be essential to ensure that the increased use of fire does not result in 

negative effects to species of conservation concern from the indirect effects of invasive plant 

species introduction and spread.

Adaptive procedures under the 2012 Planning Rule provide for continued consideration of the 

species included on the species of conservation concern list, and revisions of that list if necessary. 

Under alternatives B, C, and D, if new information indicates that an additional species meets the 

criteria for being added as a species of conservation concern, the responsible official for the 

national forest where the species occurs may recommend the addition to the Regional Forester for 

the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service and determine if a change in forest plan 

direction is needed. Likewise, new information on species of conservation concern may lead to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

450

their removal from the list if there is no longer a substantial concern for its persistence in the plan 

area or the addition, removal, or changes in coarse or fine-filter plan components.

Many proposed plan components other than those specifically aimed at species of conservation 

concern would have potential effects to these species, primarily the plan components under 

revision topics of sustainable recreation and recreation designated areas, fire, ecological integrity, 

and designated areas (Table 98). Overall, alternatives B, C, and D have greater potential shortterm negative effects to species of conservation concern compared to alternative A, due to the 

increased pace and scale of restoration, but they also have more potential for long-term positive 

effects due to restoration of resilience to ecosystems. However, there are some differences 

between individual alternatives with respect to effects of these plan components on species of 

conservation concern, which are discussed by alternative in Table 98. 

Plan components specifically aimed at maintaining plant species of conservation concern viability 

are consistent across alternatives B, C, and D. The Botany supplemental report provides a more 

detailed list of all applicable plan components that provide for necessary ecological conditions for 

species of conservation concern. For example, all Forests have a Forest-wide desired condition 

reinforcing that ecological conditions support the persistence of species of conservation concern. 

In addition, many coarse-filter plan components provide for species dependent upon each 

ecosystem (such as mixed conifer, subalpine, sagebrush, and others). As an example, both the 

Inyo and Sequoia National Forests have a standard for xeric shrub/blackbrush, which states that 

projects must include design measures to minimize damage to biological soil crusts. The intent is 

to maintain areas resistant to non-native plant invasions, identified as a threat to many species of 

conservation concern that occur in this ecosystem.

For cases where the coarse filter components were not found sufficient to provide for species 

persistence, fine-filter plan components were included, which are shown in Table 99. These 

included desired conditions and guidelines for meadows, special type habitats, and for projectlevel work that may affect some species of conservation concern. For example, all three national 

forests have a desired condition for special habitats (such as limestone, alkali flats, and rock 

outcrops), which states that the composition, diversity, and structure of these habitats are resilient 

to disturbances such as recreation and grazing. Also, for cases where programmatic planning (like

desired conditions for coarse or fine scale ecosystems) is not sufficient to ensure persistence of 

species of conservation concern, all three national forests have a guideline that states projects 

should protect species of conservation concern by considering them early in the project planning 

process. This is especially important for species with extremely limited distributions, for which a 

single management action has the potential to affect an entire population. Additional detail on 

special habitats is given above in the section titled “Floristic Biogeographic Subdivisions.” 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

451

Table 98. Overview comparing alternatives, with focus on identified potential threats to plant species of conservation concern

Topic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Fire Wildland-urban intermix

defense and threat zones

Four risk-based management 

areas: community and general 

wildfire protection zones; 

wildfire restoration and 

maintenance zones. 

Keep wildland-urban intermix 

defense zone as alternative A, 

use maintenance zone as in 

alternative B, rest in general 

wildfire zone; minimize 

mechanical pre-treatment. 

Same four risk-based 

management areas as 

alternative B; use prescribed 

fire and mechanical as much as 

possible; emphasize landscape 

treatment. 

Ecosystems coarse 

filter

General diversity emphasis; 

eastside vegetation type 

direction absent. 

Emphasize heterogeneity; 

eastside types recognized. 

Emphasize heterogeneity, but 

avoid work in dense forest 

canopy cover; eastside types 

recognized. 

Emphasize heterogeneity by 

focus on gap/group retention; 

eastside types recognized. 

Ecosystems fine 

filter

132 sensitive plants recognized; 

management direction for 

meadows and riparian. 

174 plant species of 

conservation concern 

recognized; management 

direction for all special habitats, 

including meadow/riparian

areas.

174 plant species of 

conservation concern 

recognized; management 

direction for all special habitats, 

including meadow/riparian

areas.

174 plant species of 

conservation concern 

recognized; management 

direction for all special habitats, 

including meadow/riparian

areas.

Recreation Existing recreation opportunity 

spectrum (ROS). 

Update ROS; improved 

recreation opportunities due to 

vegetation management and 

watershed restoration. 

Update ROS; improved 

recreation opportunities due to 

vegetation and watershed 

restoration. 

Update ROS; greatest increase 

in rec opportunities due to 

vegetation management and 

watershed restoration. 

Wilderness No new recommended 

wilderness. 

New recommended for Inyo 

National Forest only. 

All national forests add 

recommended wilderness. 

No new recommended 

wilderness. 

Invasive plants Invasive plants increasing as 

fire regime becomes more 

departed from desired 

condition. 

Short-term increase as pace 

and scale is increased, but less 

in long-term as fire size and 

severity approach desired 

condition

Same as alternative B. Similar to alternative B, but 

greater potential for short and 

long-term increase due to 

challenge of invasive species

control keeping pace with

ecosystem restoration. 

Climate change Not addressed. Resilient ecosystems 

emphasized; monitoring 

strategy. 

Similar to alternative B. Similar to alternative B. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

452

To provide an overview of the applicable plan components that provide for species of 

conservation concern persistence, Table 99 lists the threats addressed by each applicable plan 

component. 

Table 99. Plan components addressing the identified potential threats to at-risk plants

Threat Addressed

Applicable

National Forest Plan Component

Altered fire regime Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra Terrestrial Ecosystems (TERR-FW): -OBJ 01

Altered fire regime Sequoia Black oak/canyon live oak (TERR-BLCK): DC-01

Ponderosa pine (TERR-POND): DC 01

Montane chaparral (TERR-MCHP): DC 01

Altered fire regime Sierra Black oak/canyon live oak (TERR-BLCK): GDL 01

(Inyo: TERR-OAK): GDL 01

Altered fire regime, 

hydrologic changes

Sequoia Red fir (TERR-RFIR): DC 01

Altered fire regime, insects 

and disease, hydrologic 

changes, climate change

Sequoia All montane veg. types (TERR-MONT): DC 01, 06

All upper montane veg types (TERR-UPPR): DC

01, 02

Altered fire regime, 

invasive species

Inyo, Sequoia Pinyon-Juniper (TERR-PINY): DC 01, 02, 03, 04

Altered fire regime, 

invasive species

Inyo Mountain mahogany (TERR-MOMA): DC 01, 02

Altered fire regime, timber 

harvest

Inyo Montane Jeffrey pine (TERR-MJF): DC 01, 02, 03

Altered fire regime, timber 

harvest

Sequoia Lodgepole pine (TERR-LDGP): DC 01, 02

Moist mixed conifer (TERR-MMC): DC 01

Climate change, 

hydrologic changes, 

insects and disease, 

altered fire regime

Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra Subalpine and alpine (TERR-ALPN): DC 01, 02,

03, 04

Climate change, insects 

and disease, hydrologic

changes

Sierra All upper montane veg types (TERR-UPPR): DC

01, 03

Development and 

urbanization, rarity

Sequoia Blue-oak interior live oak woodland (TERR-BLU): 

DC 01, 02, 03

Development and 

urbanization, rarity

Sierra Blue-oak interior live oak woodland (TERR-BLU): 

DC 01, 03

Fuels treatment, invasive 

species

Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra Terrestrial Ecosystems (TERR-FW): GDL-01,02

Fuels treatment, invasive 

species

Inyo, Sequoia Xeric shrub/blackbrush (TERR-XER): STD-01,02

Fuels treatment, invasive 

species

Sierra All montane veg types (TERR-MONT): DC-01,03, 

04,06

Black oak/canyon live oak (TERR-BLCK): DC-01

Grazing Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra Range (RANG-FW): DC 01

Grazing Inyo Range (RANG-FW): STD 01

Grazing Sequoia, Sierra Range (RANG-FW): STD 01-11

Grazing, altered fire 

regime, invasive species, 

climate change, conifer 

encroachment

Inyo, Sequoia Xeric shrub/blackbrush (TERR-XER): DC-01, 02, 

03, 04
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

453

Threat Addressed

Applicable

National Forest Plan Component

Grazing, recreation, 

invasive species, climate 

change, conifer 

encroachment

Inyo, Sequoia Sagebrush (TERR-SAGE): DC-01, 02, 03

Hydrologic changes, 

grazing, recreation

Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra Watershed Conditions (WTR-FW): DC 01, 02, 03,

04

Hydrologic changes, 

recreation, rarity

Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra Watershed Conditions (WTR-FW): STD 02

Invasive species Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra Invasive Species (INV-FW): DC 01, 02; GDL 01,

02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07; OBJ 01

Invasive species, altered 

fire regime

Sequoia, Sierra Chaparral-live oak (TERR-CHAP): DC-01,02 

Invasive species, fuels 

treatment

Inyo Pinyon-juniper (TERR-PNY): GDL-02

Invasive species, fuels 

treatment

Sequoia Pinyon-juniper (TERR-PINY): GDL-01,03

Mining Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra Minerals and Geology (GEO-FW): GDL 02

Rarity, all threats Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra Animal and Plant Species (SPEC-FW): DC 01, 02,

03; GDL 03, 05, 06

Terrestrial Ecosystems (TERR-FW): DC 01, 02,

03, 04

Special Habitats (TERR-SH): STD 01

Rarity, development and 

urbanization, recreation

Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra Special habitats (TERR-SH): DC-01,02

Timber harvest, altered 

fire regime

Inyo, Sequoia Dry mixed conifer (TERR-DMC): DC-01

Wildfire management 

activities

Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra Fire (FIRE-FW): GDL 06, 10

Ramshaw Meadows abronia

There is additional management guidance for Ramshaw Meadows abronia on the Inyo National 

Forest, the only national forest where it occurs. A conservation agreement between the Inyo 

National Forest and the Sacramento Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was signed in 

2015 for this species (USDA FS and USFWS 2015), and that agreement is currently in place and 

listed in appendix G of the draft Inyo National Forest Plan. Among the management actions in the 

agreement designed to protect the species are: 

1. protection of the Ramshaw Meadow ecosystem, 

2. management of adverse effects of camping and hiker and packstock trampling, 

3. management of past and potential future livestock grazing (at the present date, livestock 

grazing is not permitted in the area), 

4. management of conifer encroachment, and 

5. study of climate change effects. 

Regular species monitoring is an essential component of the agreement. As a result, these three 

alternatives would have positive short- and long-term effects to Ramshaw Meadows abronia 

habitat extent and quality. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

454

Since 1985, species monitoring of Ramshaw Meadows abronia has occurred at least every 3 

years, with total population estimates ranging from about 50,000 to 160,000 (USDA FS and 

USFWS 2015). No significant correlation has been detected between population trend and 

precipitation or potential threats identified to the species, although approximate 10-year cycles in 

peak population numbers are evident during this time period. As a result, alternatives B, C, and D 

are not expected to lead to a change in population trend. 

Summary

To the extent possible, the coarse filter plan components (broad ecosystem desired conditions) 

provide for the broad ecosystem fabric that supports sufficient distribution of a minimum number 

of reproductive individuals of species of conservation concern and their habitat so that species 

would remain viable. In other words, species distribution is partially provided for by plan 

components that aim to maintain or restore the diversity and connectivity of ecosystems and 

habitat types throughout the plan area (FSH 1909.12.20.13). Fine filter plan components (special 

habitat-specific) complement that direction by maintaining individuals of species that rely on 

smaller scale habitats or have very limited distribution. Finally, when necessary, project-level 

protections are an option. As a result, each threat in each ecosystem for each species of 

conservation concern identified has been addressed or mitigated in at least one plan component in 

each of the respective plans, to provide for the persistence of each species.

If, during the life of the plans, new information indicates that plan components are not sufficient 

to ensure the persistence of species of conservation concern, changes to the plan components 

would be considered to address the issue.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Federally Listed Plant Species

As discussed above, there are no species-specific plan components for listed plant species in any 

alternatives. There would be no difference in short-term effects to at-risk listed species habitat 

extent and condition between alternatives, because activities would be analyzed and mitigated 

similarly at the project level during consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as 

required under the Endangered Species Act. However, because broad-scale restoration of 

ecosystem structure and function would be more limited under this alternative, there may be longterm negative effects to federally listed species under this alternative compared to the other 

alternatives.

Candidate Plant Species

Alternative A would have no plan direction specifically compelling restoration or conservation of 

whitebark pine. Without specific plan direction, implementation would be addressed at the project 

level with potentially variable results. Short-term effects would be minimal to whitebark pine, 

because small-scale restoration projects and species monitoring would continue to occur under 

this alternative. In comparison to the other alternatives, alternative A would least provide the 

ecological conditions necessary to conserve candidate species and to maintain or restore their 

habitats in the plan area which would contribute to preventing them from being federally listed. 

Plant Species of Conservation Concern

Under alternative A, the three national forests would continue to manage a total of 132 Forest 

Service sensitive plant species (see Botany supplemental report). At the programmatic level, 

species management guides are developed for Forest Service sensitive species with 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

455

recommendations for management and monitoring. In general, avoidance, rather than restoration, 

of Forest Service sensitive species at the project level is emphasized. This alternative would 

consider fewer rare plants in the project planning process compared to the other alternatives. 

However, alternatives B, C, and D rely more strongly on the achievement of desired conditions at 

the ecosystem scale to maintain species viability, with project-level protections applied when 

necessary. Also under alternative A, there would be no specific management direction compelling 

the implementation of the Ramshaw Meadows abronia Conservation Agreement 

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

Federally Listed Plant Species

Differences between alternative A and the other alternatives were outlined in Table 98 on page 

451. Alternatives B and C would have very similar short- and long-term consequences for at-risk 

listed plant habitat extent and quality. Both alternatives would mitigate short-term negative effects 

to at-risk listed plants, because the effects to habitat from potential activities would be evaluated 

at the project scale. However, there would be some long-term positive effects resulting from 

broad-scale restoration of ecosystem structure and function, such as through the reintroduction of 

fire, or from watershed restoration.

Candidate Plant Species

In addition to the management strategy for whitebark pine proposed under alternatives B, C, and 

D, alternative B would allow for vegetation management in whitebark pine to improve habitat 

quality and stand structure, providing improved viability. Compared to alternative C, greater 

potential for mechanical pre-treatment would allow for more acreage to be treated and restored 

under alternative B (see chapter 2 for comparison). These areas are still relatively limited, but 

include some whitebark stands in the vicinity of ski areas and other nonwilderness, high-elevation 

sites. As a result, there would be some beneficial effects for habitat condition and population 

trend under this alternative.

Plant Species of Conservation Concern

Differences between alternative A and the other alternatives were outlined in Table 98 on page 

451. Alternatives B and C would have very similar short- and long-term consequences for plant 

species of conservation concern habitat extent and condition. Both alternatives would result in 

some short-term negative effects to species of conservation concern habitat extent and condition, 

as a result of vegetation management and recreational activities. However, there would be some 

long-term positive effects resulting from restoration of ecosystem structure and function, such as 

through the reintroduction of fire, or from meadow restoration. The recommended wilderness on 

the Inyo under this alternative would provide benefit to some plant species of conservation 

concern that occupy these areas, such as species that occupy xeric shrub and blackbrush habitats 

(like Charlotte’s phacelia), or the special carbonate habitat type (such as Nevada ninebark).

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Federally Listed Plant Species

Differences between alternative A and the other alternatives were outlined above. Alternative C 

would have identical effects for at-risk listed plant species as described for alternative B.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

456

Candidate Plant Species

Effects to at-risk candidate plant species would be very similar between alternatives B and C. 

Under alternative C, there may be slightly fewer opportunities for whitebark pine restoration 

using prescribed fire, because greater restrictions for mechanical pre-treatment may preclude the 

introduction of fire that would be safe and of low to moderate severity. As a result, there would be 

fewer positive effects for whitebark pine habitat condition and population trend. 

Plant Species of Conservation Concern

Due to less intensive vegetation management, alternative C would likely have the fewest shortterm negative effects to plant species of conservation concern, particularly those dependent on 

mixed conifer and Jeffrey pine ecosystems. New invasive plant species infestations and spread 

would be least likely under this alternative, resulting in the fewest negative effects to species of 

conservation concern habitat quality. Recreation site improvements would also be slightly fewer 

under this alternative compared to alternatives B and D, resulting in fewer impacts from those 

localized projects to plant species of conservation concern. The greater area of recommended 

wilderness under this alternative would provide benefit to some plant species of conservation 

concern that occupy these areas, such as species on the Inyo National Forest that occupy xeric 

shrub and blackbrush habitats or the special carbonate habitat type as mentioned in alternative B. 

Additional recommended wilderness on the Inyo National Forest under this alternative would also 

benefit some species of conservation concern that occur in the Glass Mountains (such as Raven’s 

milk-vetch), which are negatively affected by unauthorized off-highway vehicle use. This 

assumes that enforcement and signage aimed at preventing unauthorized motorized vehicle use 

would be effective. Additional examples of species of conservation concern that may benefit from 

recommended wilderness under alternative C are Yosemite onion and Congdon’s lewisia in the 

Devil Gulch area on the Sierra National Forest and field ivesia and Kern Plateau horkelia on the 

South Sierra wilderness additions of the Sequoia National Forest. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

Federally Listed Plant Species

Under alternative D, short-term negative effects to at-risk listed plants would be mitigated when 

the effects to habitat from potential activities are evaluated at the project scale. There would be 

some long-term positive effects resulting from restoration of ecosystem structure and function, 

such as through the reintroduction of fire, or from watershed restoration. However, the greater 

acreage for vegetation management could lead to an increase in habitat impacts such as reduction 

in habitat connectivity and introduction of invasive species. This would be due to the increase in 

soil disturbances from mechanical treatments. Increases in invasive species would be addressed at 

the project level, but the large amount of acres being treated may lead to a long-term effect to atrisk species. Overall there would also be long-term positive effects resulting from moving 

ecological conditions toward the natural range of variation. 

Candidate Plant Species

Effects to at-risk candidate plant species would be very similar between alternatives B and D, 

with slightly greater potential for whitebark pine restoration projects that require mechanical pretreatment under alternative D. Under this alternative, there would be slightly greater opportunity 

for proactive restoration in whitebark, at least in the 12 percent of that ecosystem type that occurs 

outside wilderness. However, those same areas outside wilderness tend to be in or very near 

developed recreation sites, such as campgrounds, trailheads, boating, fishing, ski areas. Therefore, 

positive effects under this alternative would be at least partially counteracted by negative impacts, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

457

such as associated soil compaction and greater potential for insect and disease vectors, especially 

on the eastside.

Plant Species of Conservation Concern

Alternative D proposes more intensive vegetation management, especially within the mixed 

conifer and Jeffrey pine ecosystems. These activities result in a higher risk for new invasive plant 

species infestations, through the disturbance of soils and removal of vegetation cover. Restoration 

as defined under the 2012 Planning Rule includes the maintenance of native species composition, 

and by inference, the exclusion or control of non-native species. However, though project design 

features minimize such introductions, they cannot eliminate the risk of introductions altogether.

Project design features would minimize invasive plant species introduction and spread, but the 

risk of invasions as the result of soil disturbance and loss of vegetation cover would be greater 

than under other alternatives B and C. The section above on “Consequences Common to 

Alternatives B, C, and D” provides an overview of potential negative and positive effects of both 

vegetation management to species of conservation concern. The 11 species identified in Table 97

as potentially threatened by fuels treatment and the 51 species potentially affected by recreational 

activities may have a greater number of short-term negative effects to habitat extent and condition 

under this alternative. 

However, the greater acreage of restoration proposed under this alternative would benefit some 

species, especially those that are threatened by altered fire regimes, such as short-leaved hulsea

(see Botany supplemental report). 

Cumulative Effects

At-risk plant species are affected by management activities that occur both within the plan area 

and on adjacent land under Federal, State, local agency, or private management. The 

consequences of these actions are cumulative across boundaries. These cumulative actions

could produce positive results, such as increased at-risk plant habitat extent or improved 

condition as restoration measures are taken. Similarly, there may be negative impacts, such as 

habitat loss, or degradation, such as by the introduction or spread of invasive plant species.

Reasonably foreseeable management activities on private, State, or other Federal land would be 

similar to vegetation management performed on the national forest—prescribed burning to

restore fire disturbance regimes or the thinning or removal trees to reduce the risk of highseverity wildfire, with short-term impacts and long-term benefits similar to those described

above.

Many restoration activities and project design features aimed at protecting at-risk species are 

shared by adjacent landowners, in particular the National Park Service and Bureau of Land 

Management. For example, efforts to use weed and seed-free plant material for animal feed or 

bedding, soil stabilization and land rehabilitation complements similar efforts in the adjacent 

Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park. Combined and coordinated efforts in these areas would

improve ecological conditions that provide for at-risk species viability.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

458

Analytical Conclusions

Determinations and Plan Evaluation Outcomes

Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Plant Species Determination

All alternatives would provide ecological conditions necessary to provide for the viability of atrisk listed plant species, therefore, all alternatives may affect but are not likely to adversely affect

the Mariposa pussy-paws and Bakersfield cactus. This is primarily because none of the 

alternatives authorize specific activities, and because the listed species occupy such limited 

habitat that is most appropriately addressed at the project level. For alternatives B, C, and D, this 

determination is also based on the coarse-scale ecosystem benefits provided by the alternatives. 

These plan components are collectively listed in the Botany supplemental report and summarized 

in Table 98 on page 451. 

Some key considerations in making this determination for Bakersfield cactus are: (1) plan 

components aimed at controlling non-native invasive plant species will help reduce threats, (2) 

new developments and trails should be located outside of rare plant habitat, and (3) numerous 

plan components aimed at restoring riparian areas are included.

Some key considerations for making this determination for Mariposa pussy-paws are: (1) plan 

components aimed at controlling non-native invasive plant species will help reduce threats, (2) 

emphasis on management that considers the effects of climate change will benefit this species, 

and (3) some fuel reduction projects may benefit individuals. 

Candidate Plant Species Determination 

All alternatives would provide ecological conditions necessary for the viability of whitebark pine, 

therefore, all alternatives may affect individuals, but is not likely to contribute to the need for 

Federal listing or result in a loss of viability in the forest plan area. 

Under all alternatives, restoration activities aimed at maintaining a viable population of whitebark 

pine would provide for the persistence of that species, as would species monitoring, to assist with 

developing management strategies to protect whitebark pine. In addition, the management 

approach under alternatives B, C, and D that outlines the potential development of a whitebark 

pine conservation and restoration strategy could identify more specific actions to be taken to 

protect this species. Alternative B would have the most beneficial short- and long-term effects for 

whitebark pine, resulting from an emphasis on forest restoration. Alternative C would have 

beneficial effects, but the restoration extent would be somewhat limited. Alternative D would 

have some beneficial effects, but those would be counter-acted to some extent as a result of 

greater effects from invasive species. In alternative A, the current forest plan for the Inyo National 

Forest does not emphasize development of the whitebark pine conservation and restoration 

strategy, which does not preclude its development, but adds uncertainty about when and if it may 

be developed.

Plant Species of Conservation Concern Outcomes

The emerging plan components under alternatives B, C, and D when carried out would provide 

the necessary ecological conditions to maintain viable populations of plant species of 

conservation concern. These alternatives include coarse filter plan components aimed at 

protecting the broad habitats upon which these species depend. Fine filter (species-specific and 

special ecosystem type-specific) plan components are also included in all alternatives to ensure 

species persistence. Alternative A would provide the necessary ecological conditions to maintain
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

459

viable populations of plant species of conservation concern by relying primarily on project-level 

surveys and mitigations of adverse effects. Alternative B would provide the most long-term 

benefits to species of conservation concern habitat extent and quality, resulting from ecological 

and hydrologic restoration, invasive species control, recommendation of wilderness that would 

protect some species of conservation concern plants, and from the emphasis on ecosystem 

resilience to climate change. Alternative C would also provide many long-term benefits, but some 

limits to landscape scale restoration may also limit potential long-term benefits to species of 

conservation concern, primarily in mixed conifer ecosystems. Alternative D would result in some 

long-term benefits to species of conservation concern, but effects from potential greater acreages 

of activities such as mechanical thinning would have negative effects for habitat extent and 

condition of some species of conservation concern. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

460

Revision Topic 3: 

Sustainable Recreation and Designated Areas

The following section provides the analysis for recreation and scenery, heritage, wilderness, wild 

and scenic rivers, and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail. Wilderness and the Pacific Crest 

National Scenic Trail are discussed with the recreation and scenery resource because of their key 

roles within the larger context of sustainable recreation. Maps showing the recreation opportunity 

spectrum, recreation places and scenic integrity objectives are located in appendix A of the draft 

forest plans.

Sustainable Recreation and Scenery

The need to provide sustainable recreation was a key topic of interest at public meetings and 

during public engagement. Sustainable recreation is the set of recreation settings and 

opportunities on National Forest System lands that are ecologically, economically, and socially 

sustainable for present and future generations. 

Analysis and Methods

Indicators and Measures

• Percentage of recreation opportunity spectrum class by alternative.

• Change in partnerships due to areas being recommended for wilderness.

• Change in miles of system trails that allow mechanized transport within areas 

recommended for wilderness. 

• Acres and kind of fuel treatment to reach the desired vegetation condition that reflects the 

natural range of variation which leads to scenic stability and relative protection of scenic 

character.

• Percentage of scenic integrity objectives on each forest by scenic integrity objectives.

Methods

For comparison purposes, we mapped the desired recreational opportunity spectrum across the 

national forests for each alternative. Then each alternative was analyzed for the total number of 

acres and percentage of the desired recreation opportunity spectrum settings on each national 

forest. We used geographic information systems data to calculate the number of acres in each 

setting.

We completed a review of existing partnerships in areas recommended for wilderness on the three 

national forests to see if specific partnerships that focused on recreation uses not suitable for 

recommended wilderness would be incompatible and would need to shift to other areas of the 

national forests.

For comparative purposes, we analyzed each alternative for the total number of miles where 

mechanized transport would not be suitable in areas recommended for wilderness. We used

geographic information systems data to calculate the number of miles for each alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

461

For comparative purposes, we mapped the desired scenic integrity objectives for alternatives B, 

C, and D. The geographic information system was used to calculate the number of acres in each 

scenic integrity objective class. For scenic stability, we compared the amount and kind of fuel 

treatment needed to reach the desired vegetation condition that reflects the natural range of 

variation (which leads to scenic stability). 

Assumptions

In the analysis for this resource, we made the following assumptions:

• Partnerships and volunteer opportunities are viable options to maintain, and in places, 

increase forest capacity. However, attempts to increase partnerships beyond certain levels 

may be constrained by agency capacity.

• Conservation education and interpretative services can play a key role in fostering a greater 

connection between people and nature and helping to create an understanding of sense of 

place.

• Recreation demand is increasing across the forests.

• Deferred maintenance on developed recreation sites and infrastructure is continuing to 

outpace budgets. 

• Funding and agency recreation staffing are anticipated to decline throughout the planning 

cycle.

• Effective interpretive techniques and public information services can help to inform and 

motivate the public into becoming stewards of the forest (California State Parks 2002, 

NARRP 2009).

• Scenic integrity is maintained in places people visit and view.

• Restoration treatment of fuels (prescribed fire, mechanical treatment) that moves vegetative 

condition toward the natural range of variation faster has a positive effect to scenic stability 

ultimately sustaining scenic character; mechanical treatment of fuels moves vegetative 

condition toward the natural range of variation faster than prescribed fire.

• Climate change is predicted to produce warmer temperatures and drier conditions 

influencing snowpack, drought, and hydrologic flow. Activities dependent on snow and 

snow melt would be affected. Warmer temperatures could cause recreationists to shift their 

activities to higher elevations during the summer months (Morris and Walls 2009).

• Climate change may increase the frequency of large high-intensity wildfires or areas with 

high levels of insect or disease tree mortality that most likely would impact recreational 

settings, use, and scenic character.

Affected Environment

Background

Outdoor recreation contributes to human health and well-being by offering a variety of physical 

and mental health benefits. Eighty-four percent of the Californians polled in the most recent 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan statewide survey said outdoor recreation was an 

“important” or “very important” contributor to their quality of life (Roberts et al. 2009). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

462

Areas adjacent and within the national forests boundaries are projected to continue to increase in 

population. This growth is expected to increase recreation demand in these national forests, and 

increase the numbers of visitors in the future (English 2014). With projected growth, increase in 

use levels can potentially increase conflicts, such as crowding, which can lead to unmet visitor 

expectations for recreation experiences and can influence public satisfaction at recreation sites.

In addition to growth, increases in culturally diverse populations will likely be reflected in 

outdoor recreation (Winter et al. 2014). Two groups whose growth is expected to have the most 

influence on outdoor recreational styles and participation patterns in the future are Latinos and 

Asian Americans (Roberts et al. 2009). Current recreation infrastructure may not meet the needs 

of these two groups which include larger developed group sites with picnic tables, grills, trash 

cans and flush toilets picnicking that support day-long activities, hiking and walking, and 

opportunity to be with family (Roberts et al. 2009).

Increase in recreational use, particularly unmanaged recreation, impacts ecosystems by causing 

changes in habitat through vegetation trampling as well as the spread of noxious or invasive plant 

species to new locations. Unmanaged recreation can include areas that are difficult to manage, 

areas where inappropriate dispersed recreation is occurring or areas that have unmonitored 

nontraditional recreation activities (Pond 2007). Impacts from unmanaged recreation are often 

found in riparian areas, areas adjacent to the urban interface, areas of intense recreation use, and 

outside of developed recreation sites on the national forests. Examples of unmanaged recreation 

include development of rock climbing routes at newly discovered crags, user-created mountain 

bike trails, dispersed camping in sensitive ecosystems such as riparian areas, and motorized 

vehicle use outside of designated travel routes. Unmanaged recreation can also adversely affect 

visitor experience as a result of conflicting or competing uses and overcrowding. Ecosystem 

impacts may ultimately have a reciprocal effect on recreation if impacts on the land create 

conditions where recreation use can no longer be supported.

To ensure sustainable recreation on the three national forests, adaptive management will be 

necessary. This is particularly true for unmanaged recreation, where timely response to new uses 

that have potential ecological effects will be necessary. Given the expected increase in population 

and recreation demand, tradeoffs will need to be made to ensure that resources are managed 

sustainably.

National forest scenery contributes to the identity and sense of place for local communities by 

serving as the backdrop and backyard to residents. The scenery of each national forest is a 

significant attraction to visitors and creates a sense of place and connection to the land. The 

magnificent vistas, meandering rivers, and forested settings are featured by State and local 

tourism and marketing efforts, and contribute to the economic sustainability of communities. The 

scenic character of a national forest is a combination of physical, biological, and cultural images 

that gives an area its visual and cultural identity and helps to define a “sense of place.” Scenic

character provides a frame of reference from which to determine scenic attractiveness and to 

measure scenic integrity.

Sustainable Recreation

Recreation Facility Analysis and National Forest Niche Statements

In 2007 and 2008, recreation facility analyses were conducted to address growing concern about 

the Forest Service’s ability to maintain recreation sites to meet the needs of the public (USDA FS 

2007a, 2007b, 2008). The goal was to align management of recreation sites and facilities with 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

463

each national forest’s recreation program niche and economic capability. The recreation programs 

on the three national forests have been guided by recreation program niche statements and 

complementary niche settings developed through the recreation facility analysis process. Niche 

statements broadly define the scope of a national forest’s recreation program and highlight those 

aspects that are distinctive.

Recreation Settings and Opportunities

People choose a specific setting for recreation activities to achieve a desired set of experiences. 

For example, camping in a large undeveloped area with few facilities offers a sense of solitude, 

challenge, and self-reliance. In contrast, camping in a setting having easy access and developed 

facilities such as restrooms and tables offers more comfort, convenience, security, and 

opportunities for social interaction. The national forests provide opportunities for recreationists to

obtain satisfying recreation experiences through choices in both the types of settings and use 

(levels and types of use), and conditions provided by management (developments, roads, 

regulations).

Recreation settings allow a range of experiences to be achieved, from remote and challenging to 

easily navigated and supported by tourism services in surrounding communities. The “recreation 

opportunity spectrum” offers a framework for understanding these settings and experiences. It is 

aligned with scenic character and scenery settings that support the value of recreation 

opportunities and the ability to connect people with nature. The recreation opportunity spectrum 

has six distinct classes in a continuum to describe settings that range from highly modified and 

developed to primitive and undeveloped (Clark and Stankey 1979). The six classes are described 

below and illustrated in Figure 41. 

• Primitive (P) – An unmodified natural environment with very high probability of 

experiencing solitude. Motorized use within the area is generally not permitted.

• Semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM) – A predominantly natural or natural-appearing 

environment with high probability of experiencing solitude. Motorized use is generally not 

permitted. 

• Semi-primitive motorized (SPM) – A predominantly natural or natural-appearing 

environment with moderate probability of experiencing solitude. Motorized use is generally 

permitted. 

• Roaded natural (RN) – A predominantly natural-appearing environment with moderate 

evidence of the sights and sounds of other humans. Motorized use is provided for in 

construction standards and design of facilities. 

♦ Roaded modified (subclass of roaded natural) – A substantially modified natural 

environment except for campsites. Motorized use is provided for in construction 

standards and design of facilities.

• Rural (R) – A substantially modified natural environment. Sights and sounds of people are 

readily evident, and the interaction between users is often moderate to high.

• Urban (U) – A substantially urbanized environment, although the background may have 

natural-appearing elements. Sights and sounds of people onsite are predominant. Large 

numbers of users can be expected, both onsite and in nearby areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

464

Figure 41. Graphic showing how the spectrum of recreation opportunity shifts from primitive to urban

The recreation opportunity spectrum is a key component of sustainable recreation. It incorporates 

not only access and visitor experience but integrates other resource values such as areas with 

wildlife concerns, or areas that are at risk of high-severity fire. The physical, social and 

managerial components within the recreation opportunity spectrum framework combine to define 

the types of outdoor experience the public desires and to identify the desired class of the spectrum 

each area of the national forests would be managed towards. 

The existing recreation opportunity spectrum map (volume 3) was updated to correct for 

unintended data errors from data migration and technology improvements over time, and to 

reflect changes adopted by forest plan amendments that had not yet been updated in the recreation 

opportunity spectrum data system. 

Use and Activities

Despite differences in recreation preferences across demographic groups and changes that have 

occurred over time, the core set of activities preferred by the majority of people have generally 

been nonmotorized activities like walking, picnicking, swimming, riding bicycles, and viewing 

and learning about nature. These activities are some of the easiest and least expensive to provide 

and address the needs of a broad group of people (Watts and Fisher 2010). Nonmotorized 

activities are popular on the three national forests and have maintained some of the highest 

participation rates according to national visitor use monitoring data. Motorized activities and use 

of motor vehicles to travel to and engage in nonmotorized activities are also important and are 

discussed in the context of access below. 

Access

Recreation access consists of trails, roads, and other transportation that connect people to 

recreation settings and opportunities. Recreation access to and within the national forests is 

provided by state highways, county roads, and a designated system of National Forest System

roads and trails. Roads and trails not only provide access to recreation opportunities, but are 

themselves a recreation experience as driving for pleasure increases in popularity. Forest roads 

offer scenic views and provide direct access to trailheads, vistas, staging areas, campgrounds, and 

picnic facilities. Roads referred to as “maintenance level 1” are closed to motorized use and are 

maintained in storage and for future access needs. Maintenance level 2 roads are managed to 

accommodate travel by off-highway and high-clearance vehicles. Maintenance level 3, 4 and 5 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

465

roads are managed to accommodate passenger cars and other licensed vehicles (these are closed 

to unlicensed off-highway vehicles, unless specifically designated). 

In this analysis, the term “mechanized transport” is defined as transport powered by a living or 

non-living power source and includes such things as bicycles and game carts. The term bicycle is 

used to represent mechanized transport in the discussion below. Bicycle use is allowed on 

designated motorized trails in addition to designated nonmotorized trails except within wilderness 

areas as described above.

Nonmotorized trails are open to nonmotorized uses including mechanized transport outside of 

wilderness unless otherwise closed by a Forest Service closure order. The Pacific Crest National 

Scenic Trail is closed by a regional closure order to mechanized transport. Electric bicycles are 

considered motorized vehicles and are allowed on designated motorized routes. 

The three national forests are open to motorized and nonmotorized winter recreation activities. 

Over-snow vehicles are allowed on routes and open areas outside of designated wilderness. 

Existing over-snow-vehicle use is not suitable in recommended wilderness areas. After sitespecific analysis through subpart C of the Travel Management Rule is completed, over-snow 

motorized use would be prohibited by future Forest Service orders inside recommended 

wilderness areas. These open areas and routes are or will be shown on over-snow vehicle use 

maps as winter travel management analyses are completed in the future. Designated winter routes 

can be groomed, and open areas, which are not groomed, consist of natural snowpack that ranges 

from powder to spring freeze conditions. 

Partnerships

Partnerships and volunteerism are key components of sustainable recreation and allow the Forest 

Service to forge valuable relationships that help to provide a means of leveraging the agency’s

financial investment in recreation, while connecting people to the natural environment. It is 

generally through outdoor recreation activities, partnerships, and volunteerism that visitors 

interact with nature and experience the intrinsic values of the national forest.

Scenery Resources

To evaluate scenery resources, the current forest plans used the Visual Management System, 

which was a systematic approach to inventory, analyze, and monitor scenic resources, but did not 

recognize or incorporate natural disturbance processes such as fire, insects, and disease. The 

Forest Service has been transitioning from the Visual Management System to the newer Scenery 

Management System, which uses different scenery evaluation terminology. A cross-walk between 

the two systems terminology is shown in Table 100. 

Table 100. Cross-walk between Visual Management System and Scenery 

Management System terminology

Visual Management System

Terminology

(Visual Quality Objectives) 

Scenery Management System

Terminology

(Scenic Integrity Objectives)

Preservation Very High

Retention High

Partial retention Moderate

Modification Low

Maximum modification Very Low
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

466

Scenic Character

Scenic character is defined as the combination of the physical, biological, and cultural images that 

gives an area its scenic identity and contributes to its sense of place. Scenic character provides a 

frame of reference from which to determine scenic attractiveness and to measure scenic integrity. 

All landscapes have definable scenic character attributes. In most national forest settings, scenic 

character attributes are positive natural elements such as landform, vegetative patterns, and water 

characteristics. In pastoral or rural settings, positive cultural elements may include historic 

elements such as split rail fences, stone walls, barns, orchards, hedgerows, and cabins. In urban 

settings, scenic character attributes may include a fabric of architectural styles. A combination of 

these attributes define scenic character. The concept of scenic character is embodied in the “image

of an area.”

Descriptions of different types of scenic character include:

• Naturally Evolving – Scenic character expressing the natural evolution of biophysical 

features and processes, with very limited human intervention. These landscapes are largely 

associated with wilderness areas.” 

• Natural Appearing – Scenic character that expresses predominantly natural evolution, but 

also human intervention including cultural features and processes. 

• Cultural – Scenic character expressing built structures and landscape features that display 

the dominant attitudes and beliefs of specific human cultures. These landscapes are largely 

associated with areas containing recreation site development, administrative sites, or public 

uses under special use permits. 

• Pastoral – Scenic character expressing dominant human-created pastures, meadows and 

associated structures, reflecting valued historic land uses and lifestyles. Pastoral lands also 

occur on private lands outside of the national forest administrative boundary, where they 

may be viewed while traveling on forest roads or trails.

• Agricultural – Scenic character expressing dominant human agricultural lands uses 

producing food crops and domestic products. These landscapes generally occur on private 

lands that are outside of the National Forest System administrative boundary, but may be 

visible while traveling on national forest roads or trails.

• Historic – Scenic character expressing valued historic features that represent events and 

period of human activity in the landscape. 

• Urban – Scenic character expressing concentrations of human activity, primarily of 

commercial, cultural, education, residential, transportation structures, and supporting 

infrastructure. These landscapes generally occur on private lands, but may be visible while 

visiting a national forest.

Scenic Integrity

Scenic integrity measures the degree to which a landscape is free from visible disturbances that 

detract from the natural or socially valued appearance, including any visible disturbances from 

human activities or extreme natural events outside of the natural range of variation. Scenic 

integrity measures these disturbance effects in degrees of consistency, harmony, dominance and 

contrast with the valued scenic character.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

467

Scenic integrity uses a graduated scale of five levels ranging from very high integrity to low 

integrity. It is emphasized within view of travelways, use areas, and special places. These levels 

include: 

• Very High Integrity – The valued scenery appears natural or unaltered. Only minute visual 

disturbances to the valued scenery, if any, are present.

• High Integrity – The valued scenery appears natural or unaltered, yet visual disturbances 

are present; however, they remain unnoticed because they repeat the form, line, color, 

texture, pattern and scale of the valued scenery

• Moderate Integrity – The valued scenery appears slightly altered. Noticeable disturbances 

are minor and visually subordinate to the valued scenery because they repeat its form, line, 

color, texture, pattern and scale. 

• Low Integrity – The valued scenery appears moderately altered. Visual disturbances are 

co-dominant with the valued scenery, and may create a focal point of moderate contrast. 

Disturbances may reflect, introduce or “borrow” valued scenery attributes from outside the 

landscape being viewed. 

• Very Low Integrity – The valued scenery appears heavily altered. Disturbances dominate 

the valued scenery being viewed; and they may only slightly borrow from, or reflect, 

valued scenery attributes within or beyond the viewed landscape.

Many of the landscapes that include wilderness areas and areas within the primitive nonmotorized 

and semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation opportunity spectrum classes have high to very high 

scenic integrity. Common developments that alter scenic integrity include but are not limited to 

powerlines, communication sites, substations, propane tanks, geothermal developments, ski areas, 

hydropower facilities, reservoirs, recreation facilities, resorts, and temporary conditions like dust 

and smoke. 

Scenic integrity objectives are developed in coordination with recreational settings, management 

direction and scenic classes. Scenic classes represent the relative landscape value by combining 

visibility mapping inventories and scenic attractiveness inventories. Generally, scenic classes 1 

and 2 have high public value; classes 3, 4, and 5 have moderate value; and classes 6 and 7 have 

low value. 

Scenic Stability

Scenic stability measures the degree to which the scenic character and its scenery attributes can 

be sustained through time and ecological progression. In other words, it looks at the ecological 

sustainability of the valued scenic character and its scenery attributes. Because attributes such as 

rock outcroppings and landforms change relatively little over time, scenic stability focuses on the 

dominant vegetation scenery attributes. Scenic stability recognizes major changes to the 

landscape that are outside of the natural range of variation, such as large wildfires and land 

clearing for developments, but it also includes subtle, incremental changes that can severely 

diminish or eliminate scenic character.

The natural range of variation can be used to assess the scenic stability of forest landscapes. This 

can be measured in terms of the landscape’s departure from the natural range of variation. 

Insufficient fire or too much fire on the landscape can determine the level of departure from the 

natural range of variation. Departures in fire regime, insect outbreaks, and other disturbances 

from the natural range of variation help assess scenic stability.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

468

Inyo National Forest

Sustainable Recreation

Niche Statement for the Inyo National Forest

The Inyo National Forest is characterized by large magnificent mountains that attract and inspire 

visitors locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally. The word Inyo is Paiute for “dwelling 

place of a great spirit.” This stunning landscape is home to well-known attractions such as Mount 

Whitney, Mono Lake, the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, and Mammoth Mountain. These icons, 

along with the Inyo’s proximity to other recreation attractions, make the national forest a 

destination place for visitors who typically drive at least 4 hours to experience this amazing place. 

Travelers on routes and trails pass through contrasting landscapes that intrigue them to learn 

more. Year-round trail use provides the means to high-quality recreation; from hiking, mountain 

biking, and equestrian use, to skiing, snowmobiling, and other motorized uses (such as 4-wheeldrive vehicles and motorcycles). Conservation education and interpretation focus on developing a 

land ethic as part of the recreation experience. Staffed visitor centers and Forest Service 

employees at renowned attractions help people learn about and connect with this special place.

Recreation Settings and Opportunities

Table 101 shows the allocation of the existing recreation opportunity spectrum classes on the Inyo 

National Forest. The largest four recreation opportunity spectrum classes are primitive (53 

percent), roaded natural (15 percent), semi-primitive motorized (14 percent), and semi-primitive 

nonmotorized (12 percent). The nonmotorized setting accounts for 65 percent of the national 

forest; this is primarily due to designated wilderness areas (46 percent of the forest) and large 

amounts of inventoried roadless areas (836,583 acres). The motorized setting occurs on 31 

percent of the national forest.

Table 101. Existing recreation opportunity spectrum classes, Inyo National Forest 

Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum Class Acres Percent Total Acres

Primitive 790,306 53

Semi-primitive 

nonmotorized 

471,686 12

Semi-primitive motorized 331,964 14

Roaded natural 335,756 15

Roaded modified 62,507 2 

Rural 15,545 1 

Urban 0 0 

No assigned class 93,483 4 

Some lands were transferred to the Inyo National Forest after the release of the forest plan in 

1988 as a result of the National Forest and Public Lands of Nevada Enhancement Act, and a 

decision was made to wait until the next round of planning to do recreation opportunity spectrum 

mapping. Those areas are shown as “not assigned.” 

The primitive recreation opportunity spectrum setting on the Inyo National Forest provides large, 

remote, and predominately unmodified landscapes where there is no motorized activity while 

providing for solitude with few facilities or developments. Most of these primitive settings are in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

469

wilderness areas. Semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation opportunity spectrum settings include 

areas of the Inyo managed for nonmotorized use although mountain bikes and other mechanized 

equipment can be present. Rustic facilities (like wooden bridges over wet areas) are present for 

the primary purpose of protecting the natural resources of the area. Semi-primitive nonmotorized

settings offer opportunities for exploration, challenge, and self-reliance.

Sixteen percent of the Inyo National Forest consists of semi-primitive motorized recreation 

opportunity spectrum settings, which are managed for backcountry motorized use on designated 

routes. Routes are designed for off-highway vehicles and other high-clearance vehicles. This 

setting offers visitors motorized opportunities for exploration, challenge, and self-reliance. 

Mountain bikes and other mechanized equipment are also sometimes present. Rustic facilities are 

present for the primary purpose of protecting the natural resources of the area or providing portals 

to adjacent areas of primitive, or semi-primitive, nonmotorized areas.

The roaded natural setting, on 16 percent of the Inyo National Forest, is managed as natural 

appearing with corridors and destinations that support developments and concentrated use, user 

comfort, and social interaction. Corridors include roads such as the Ancient Bristlecone Scenic 

Byway, Horseshoe Meadow road, and Eureka Valley road. Destinations can include trailheads 

such as Bloody Canyon, Pine Creek, or Baxter Pass or campgrounds such as Hartley Springs or 

Inyo Craters. The road system is generally well defined in this setting and can typically 

accommodate sedan travel. National Forest System roads also provide access to other recreation 

opportunity spectrum settings of semi-primitive motorized, semi-primitive nonmotorized and 

primitive areas.

The smallest recreation opportunity spectrum setting on the Inyo is rural (1 percent). The rural 

setting represents the most developed recreation sites and modified natural settings. Facilities like 

picnic areas and campgrounds are designed primarily for user comfort and convenience. The rural 

setting is characterized by a substantially developed environment although the background may 

have natural appearing elements. There is no urban recreation opportunity setting on the Inyo 

National Forest. 

Use and Activities

The top 10 most popular activities in terms of visitor participation on the Inyo National Forest 

stayed relatively constant between 2006 and 2011, though rankings have changed over time. They 

include: 

• viewing natural features

• relaxing 

• downhill skiing

• hiking/walking

• viewing wildlife

• driving for pleasure

• nature center activities

• developed camping 

• picnicking (in 2011) 

• resort use (in 2011) 

• fishing (in 2006) 

• visiting historic sites (in 2006)

Nonmotorized activities such as downhill skiing, hiking, and walking are popular on the Inyo and 

have maintained some of the highest participation rates according to national visitor use 

monitoring data (USDA FS 2011a). The majority of areas on the Inyo National Forest provide for 

nonmotorized activities. These areas largely coincide with the designated wilderness which is 46 

percent of the national forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

470

The Inyo National Forest has a total of 455 developed recreation sites, the majority of which are 

found in the roaded modified and rural recreation opportunity spectrum classes. They include 70 

campgrounds, 16 group camping areas, 2 horse camps, 28 picnic or day use areas, 5 boating sites, 

and 1 swimming site. Many of the campgrounds are operated under special use permit by 

concessionaires.

Dispersed recreation activities occur throughout the forest in undeveloped or general forest areas 

where there are few or no facilities. Dispersed recreation includes a wide range of outdoor 

motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities that are available throughout the year. 

Activities may include camping, hiking, off-highway-vehicle driving or riding, rock climbing, 

mountain biking, wildlife viewing, fishing, hunting, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, visiting 

historic sites and scenic areas, and exploring the forest. Dispersed recreation opportunities are 

found in all recreation opportunity spectrum classes. 

The Inyo National Forest currently manages 504 active special use authorizations; of those, 69 

percent are recreation residence authorizations, 10 percent are outfitter and guide permits, and 8 

percent are boat docks and wharf permits.

Key recreation sites or areas on the Inyo National Forest include Mount Whitney, Mammoth 

Mountain and June Mountain Ski Areas, Mammoth Lakes Basin, Mono Lake, June Lake, Coyote 

Flat, Bishop Creek, Whitney Portal, Papoose Flat, the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, Reds 

Meadow, Buttermilk climbing area, the Kern Plateau, Ansel Adams and John Muir Wilderness 

Areas, and Rock Creek. Many of these key recreation sites or areas receive high amounts of 

concentrated recreation use.

Access

The Inyo National Forest offers a lot of nonmotorized access. Out of the 1,612 miles of 

designated trails on the Inyo, 999 miles are standard nonmotorized trails, and 48 miles are oversnow nonmotorized trails. Bicycle use is allowed on 475 miles of trails. There are 340 miles of 

motorized trails, and 86 miles of snow motorized trails. 

Seventy-five percent of the national forest trails are located in designated wilderness, where only 

primitive means of travel is permitted, such as hiking, horseback, ski mountaineering or 

snowshoeing; motorized use and mechanized transport such as mountain bikes, are not allowed. 

The remaining 25 percent of the trails offer a wider variety of nonmotorized travel options, such 

as mountain biking, and bicycling or roller blading on paved paths. Approximately 33 percent of 

the snow trails are groomed by permit holders as an authorized special use. All of the 

nonmotorized system snow trails are located outside of wilderness, and have a variety of 

nonmotorized activities, including Nordic skiing, snowshoeing, or walking. Nonmotorized use 

such as Nordic skiing or backcountry skiing is acceptable in designated wilderness. 

The Inyo National Forest provides motorized access through conventional two-wheel-drive roads, 

four-wheel-drive roads, motorized trails, and motorized snow trails. Access to the Inyo National 

Forest is also provided by partners, agencies that manage adjoining public lands, and private land 

owners. Forest roads offer scenic views and provide direct access to trailheads, staging areas, 

campgrounds, and picnic facilities. The Inyo National Forest has approximately 1,945 miles of 

national forest transportation system roads; 126 miles of which are designated at a maintenance 

level for all passenger cars that are street legal (maintenance level 3, 4, and 5). The remaining 

1,819 miles are designated at a maintenance level recommended for high clearance, four-wheel 

drive vehicles (maintenance level 2).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

471

The current transportation system of National Forest System motorized roads and trails open to 

public access are guided by the Travel Management Rule32 and implemented through the use of 

Forest Service orders. This would not change in any of the alternatives. 

Partnerships

Partnerships, volunteerism, and new management strategies have played an increasing role in 

maintaining and improving developed recreation facilities and trails, and restoring and 

rehabilitating landscapes on the Inyo National Forest. These efforts are critical to meeting 

recreation demand in the future. Partners and volunteers willing to help meet and manage 

recreation demand will help mitigate or off-set the negative impacts of unmanaged recreation. 

Concessionaires, or private businesses that operate and maintain government recreation facilities 

under a special use permit, operate approximately 101 developed family campgrounds, as well as 

group campgrounds, day use facilities, and cabin rentals on the Inyo National Forest. The Federal 

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act has increased the funds available for some recreation 

facilities and opportunities that the Forest Service manages. Under this Act, the Forest Service 

collects use fees at 10 campgrounds and 3 day-use sites on the Inyo National Forest. The fees 

collected at these sites help provide services and make improvements that benefit the visitors who

pay these fees. Outfitter guides, organizational camps, and special recreation events operate under 

special use permits to provide recreation opportunities to the public. The level of facilities and 

programs currently available to the public are dependent on these partnerships with commercial 

and private operators. Under the Recreation Enhancement Act, 90 percent of the fees collected 

from outfitter-guides and for special recreation events are returned to the Inyo National Forest to 

provide and improve the recreation experience of visitors. 

Partnerships and volunteerism play an important role in maintaining trails and restoring and 

rehabilitating landscapes and watersheds on the Inyo National Forest. Between 2010 and 2015, 

Inyo National Forest partners and volunteers contributed 203,787 hours; of those, 94,119 were 

wilderness and nonwilderness trail maintenance, and 4,479 hours were restoration and 

rehabilitation. Partners and volunteers play an important role in maintaining trails as well; 

approximately 579 miles of trails were maintained on the Inyo National Forest in 2015. 

Scenery Resources on the Inyo National Forest

The scenic character of the Inyo National Forest is diverse and is representative of the three major 

biological provinces within this area: the Sierra Nevada, the Great Basin, and the Mojave Desert. 

With elevations ranging from 3,800 to 14,495 feet, this shapes the scenic character of this area. 

The topographic relief is extreme, and 10,000 foot vertical gradients are found in the Sierra 

Nevada, White and Inyo Mountains. Opportunities for scenic overlooks are found throughout the 

area and allow visitors to experience the large expanses of undeveloped land; rare geologic 

formations like the Mono Craters and Obsidian Dome; wilderness areas such as the Ansel Adams 

and John Muir Wildernesses; and diverse ecosystems from alpine, mixed-conifer, Jeffrey pine, 

sagebrush steppe, to desert. Some of the most outstanding visual attractions include Mono Lake 

with geologic formations like tufa, and Mount Whitney, the highest peak in the continental 

United States at 14,494 feet in elevation. These are areas where visitors are expected to have a 

high concern for scenic values and changes to scenery.

 

32 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295 (Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; 

Final Rule)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

472

The most common developments on the Inyo National Forest that alter scenic integrity include 

powerlines, communication sites, substations, propane tanks, geothermal development, ski areas, 

hydropower facilities, reservoirs, recreation facilities, resorts, and temporary conditions like dust 

and smoke. 

On the Inyo National Forest, many of the valued vegetation scenery attributes are at high risk of 

being impaired or seriously threatened due to dense vegetation conditions, ecosystem stressors 

such as insect and disease outbreaks, and fire return interval conditions that render landscapes 

susceptible to severe wildfire (see “Terrestrial Vegetation Ecology” and “Fire Trends” sections). 

Forest landscapes characterized by these conditions are considered to have low scenic stability. 

Many of the landscapes include wilderness areas and areas have high to very high scenic 

integrity. 

Sequoia National Forest

Sustainable Recreation

Niche Statement for the Sequoia National Forest

The Sequoia National Forest, named for the world’s largest trees, celebrates the greatest 

concentration of giant sequoia groves in the world. The Sequoia’s landscape is as spectacular as 

its trees. Soaring granite monoliths, glacier-carved canyons, caves, roaring world-class 

whitewater, and scenic lakes and reservoirs characterize the Sierra Nevada's southern reach. 

Elevations range from 1,000 feet in the lower canyons to peaks over 12,000 feet on the crest of 

the Sierra, providing visitors with spectacular views in a dramatic range of settings. These 

mountains stand in contrast to California’s San Joaquin Valley, providing cool relief for families 

from the scorching heat of summer and welcome blue skies and sun during the cold fog of winter. 

These spectacular features provide an attractive overnight destination for visitors from far and 

near.

Recreation Settings and Opportunities

Table 102 shows the allocation of the existing recreation opportunity spectrum classes on the 

Sequoia National Forest. The largest four recreation opportunity spectrum classes are roaded 

natural (48 percent), semi-primitive motorized (22 percent), semi-primitive nonmotorized (19 

percent) and primitive (10 percent). Approximately 345,583 acres are inventoried roadless areas 

on the Sequoia. The nonmotorized setting accounts for 29 percent of the Sequoia National Forest 

and the motorized setting is found on 71 percent of the national forest.

Table 102. Existing recreation opportunity spectrum classes, Sequoia National Forest

Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum Class Acres Percent Total Acres

Primitive 106,931 10

Semi-primitive 

nonmotorized

202,863 19

Semi-primitive motorized 244,090 22

Roaded Natural 527,340 48

Rural 10,916 1 

Urban 0 0 

No assigned class 3,916 <1
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

473

Some lands were transferred to the Sequoia National Forest after the release of the forest plan in 

1988 in the area around Lake Isabella, and a decision was made to wait until the next round of 

planning to do recreation opportunity spectrum mapping. Those areas are shown as “not 

assigned.”

Use and Activities

The top 10 most popular activities in terms of visitor participation on the Sequoia National Forest 

stayed relatively constant between 2004 and 2011, though rankings have changed over time. 

According to national visitor use monitoring data from fiscal year 2011 (USDA FS 2011b), which 

was the latest round of surveys, the total estimate of national forest visits on the Sequoia National 

Forest was estimated at 626,000. The 10 most popular activities that visitors participated in were:

• fishing

• relaxing 

• hiking/walking

• viewing wildlife

• driving for pleasure

• viewing natural features

• developed camping

• picnicking

• nature center activities (in 2011)

• other nonmotorized 

• nonmotorized water (in 2006) 

Relaxing, viewing wildlife, hiking and walking, and driving for pleasure have consistently 

remained the top five most popular activities. Fishing had the highest percentage of participation 

(48 percent) in 2011. Nationally, increases in site-based activities, such as camping in developed 

sites and family gatherings, and in viewing and photographing nature occur (Watts and Fisher 

2010).

The Sequoia National Forest is an overnight destination, rather than a day use destination. 

Overnight visitors typically choose to camp in developed sites rather than primitive sites. Because 

overnight visitors spend more time using recreation resources and require more support services 

such as restrooms, drinking water, and trash service, they require more Forest Service resources 

than day use visitors (Doucette and Cole 1993). According to national visitor use monitoring data, 

most of the recreation on the Sequoia happens in the summer, and is especially heavy on holidays 

and weekends. Many visitors looking for relief from the summer heat are attracted to waterbodies

and cooler temperatures at higher elevations. During winter months, most of the higher elevation 

areas become inaccessible due to snow covered roads.

The majority of visitors to the Sequoia National Forest prefer developed recreation sites. There 

are 115 developed recreation sites on the Sequoia National Forest, and 52 developed recreation 

sites within the Giant Sequoia National Monument. 

The Sequoia National Forest currently manages 259 active special use authorizations. There are: 

10 organization camps (9 in the Monument), 206 recreation residences (148 in the Monument), 5 

resorts (3 in the Monument), 1 airport, 4 marinas, 2 permits for concession campgrounds, 22 

outfitting and guiding services, 1 winter recreation resort, 1 target range, 1 golf course, 1 cavern, 

5 recreation events, and 1 noncommercial group use.

Access

The Sequoia National Forest offers a variety of nonmotorized access: Out of the 1,056 miles of 

designated trails on the Sequoia, 687 miles are nonmotorized trails, and 5 miles are nonmotorized 

snow trails. Bicycle use is allowed on 300 miles of nonmotorized trails on the national forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

474

There are 370 miles of trails for motorized use. Motor vehicle use is restricted to designated 

routes that can include paved highways and roads, gravel or dirt National Forest System roads, 

and trails designated for motor vehicle travel.

According to the national visitor use monitoring data, driving for pleasure is the most popular 

motorized activity on the Sequoia National Forest, with about one-third or more visitors 

participating in this activity in 2006 and 2011. Off-highway-vehicle use occurs in areas such as 

the Greenhorn Mountains, Piutes, and Kern Plateau. Off-highway-vehicle use is often associated 

with four-wheel-drive and all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, and other high-clearance vehicles.

The Sequoia National Forest provides motorized access on the national forest through 

conventional two-wheel-drive roads, four-wheel-drive roads, motorized trails, and motorized 

snow trails. Forest roads offer scenic views and provide direct access to trailheads, staging areas, 

campgrounds, and picnic facilities. The Sequoia National Forest has approximately 1,382 miles 

of National Forest System roads; 440 miles of which are designated at a maintenance level for all 

passenger cars that are street legal (maintenance level 3, 4, and 5). The remaining 942 miles are 

designated at a maintenance level recommended for high clearance, four-wheel drive vehicles 

(maintenance level 2).

Partnerships

Partnerships, volunteerism, and new management strategies have played an increasing role in 

maintaining and improving developed recreation facilities and trails on the Sequoia National 

Forest. Concessionaires, or private businesses operate approximately 30 developed family 

campgrounds, as well as group campgrounds, day use facilities, and cabin rentals. The Federal 

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act allows the Forest Service to collect use fees at nine 

campgrounds and four day-use sites on the Sequoia National Forest. The fees collected at these 

sites help the Sequoia National Forest provide services and make improvements that benefit the 

visitors that pay these fees. Outfitter guides, organizational camps, and special recreation events 

operate under special use permits to provide recreation opportunities to the public. The level of 

facilities and programs currently available to the public are dependent on these partnerships with 

commercial and private operators.

Between 2010 and 2015, partners and volunteers for the Sequoia National Forest contributed 

134,782 hours; 41,354 hours were for system trails and 959 hours were for restoration and 

rehabilitation of landscapes and watersheds. Partners and volunteers helped to maintain

approximately 249 miles of trail on the Sequoia National Forest in 2015. 

Scenery Resources on the Sequoia National Forest 

Scenic character on the Sequoia National Forest is diverse. The Sequoia occupies the most 

southern reaches of the Sierra Nevada Bio-region and is split into two sections north and south of 

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. The Sequoia is a unique place, highly valued by its 

neighbors, visitors, and distant admirers. Giant sequoias are a symbolic vestige of the wild Sierra, 

evoking a deep emotional response, even from people who have never experienced their grandeur 

firsthand. The Sequoia National Forest offers a wide range of scenic features that include desertlike, foothill and mid- to high-elevation landscapes. Elevations vary from 1,000 feet to over 

12,400 feet above sea level, an indication of the diversity of the area’s visual resource. Some of 

the most outstanding visual attractions include the Kings River Canyon with high, steep walls and 

massive rocky ridges; the Little Kern River drainage characterized by many streams, small lakes, 

and alpine meadows surrounded by majestic mountain peaks; and the North Fork Kern River with 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

475

steep canyon walls and clear water flowing in cascades over bedrock and into deep pools. 

Numerous geologic features that are aesthetically significant combined with diverse vegetation 

types form the valued images of the Sequoia National Forest. These are areas where visitors are 

expected to have a high concern for scenic values and any changes to scenery. 

The most common developments on the Sequoia National Forest that alter scenic integrity 

include powerlines, communication sites, substations, propane tank storage, geothermal 

development, ski areas, hydropower facilities, reservoirs, recreation facilities, resorts, and 

temporary conditions like dust and smoke. 

On the Sequoia National Forest, many of the valued vegetation scenery attributes are at high risk 

of being impaired or seriously threatened due to dense vegetation conditions and encroachment, 

ecosystem stressors such as insect and disease outbreaks, and fire return interval conditions that 

render landscapes susceptible to severe wildfire, to name a few (see “Terrestrial Vegetation 

Ecology” and “Fire Trends” sections). Forest landscapes characterized by these conditions are 

considered to have low scenic stability. Many of the landscapes include wilderness areas and 

areas that have high to very high scenic integrity.

Sierra National Forest

Sustainable Recreation

Niche Statement for the Sierra National Forest

From lakeside camping and picnicking to wilderness solitude, the Sierra National Forest is 

destination recreation. With intensely used and highly developed lakes and the world famous 

Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses, the Sierra provides the extreme ends of recreation 

settings. These sharp contrasts provide destinations for visitors to escape from the heat and 

routine urban life, connect with nature, family and friends. Given the proximity to large, diverse 

and growing urban areas, the Forest Service has a responsibility to provide heritage and 

conservation education to sustain this incredible landscape for future generations.

Recreation Settings and Opportunities

Table 103 below shows the allocation of the existing recreation opportunity spectrum classes on 

the Sierra National Forest. The largest two recreation opportunity spectrum classes are primitive

(45 percent) and roaded natural (43 percent). Approximately 171,395 acres are inventoried 

roadless areas on the national forest. The nonmotorized setting accounts for 48 percent of the 

Sierra National Forest and the motorized setting is found on 52 percent of the national forest.

Table 103. Existing recreation opportunity spectrum classes, Sierra National Forest

Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum Class Acres Percent Total Acres

Primitive 515,780 45

Semi-primitive 

nonmotorized

132,080 3 

Semi-primitive motorized 45,769 3 

Roaded Natural 606,386 43

Rural 133,002 6 

Urban 0 0 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

476

Use and Activities

Recreation opportunities are affected by recreational trends and the mix of outdoor activities 

chosen by the public, which continuously evolve (USDA FS 2012). Visitor use and visitor 

satisfaction can help us understand what types of activities people are interested in and the quality 

of their experiences. According to national visitor use monitoring data from fiscal year 2012 

(USDA FS 2012) which was the latest round of surveys, the total estimate of national forest visits 

on the Sierra National Forest was estimated at 726,000 thousand. The 10 most popular activities 

that visitors participated in were:

• relaxing (60 percent)

• viewing natural features (53 percent)

• hiking/walking (39 percent)

• viewing wildlife (37 percent)

• driving for pleasure (30 percent) 

• picnicking (22 percent)

• other nonmotorized activities (17

percent) 

• developed camping (17 percent) 

• fishing (12 percent)

Overall visitor satisfaction was high on the Sierra National Forest: 76 percent of visitors were 

very satisfied with their visit and 19 percent were somewhat satisfied.

The Sierra National Forest offers a range of developed recreation across 14 areas of the forest. 

Some facilities are open year round and others are open from Memorial Day through Labor Day 

weekend. About 62 percent of facilities have site modification levels that provide visitor 

convenience and comfort. The other 38 percent have site modification levels where rustic or 

rudimentary modifications may be provided for resource protection. 

The Sierra National Forest currently manages 647 active special use authorizations that cover 12 

different types of specials uses. By far, recreation residences account for the greatest number of 

special use authorizations (75 percent) that occur on the national forest.

Access

The Sierra National Forest offers nonmotorized access: Out of the 1,241 miles of designated trails 

on the Sierra, 830 miles are nonmotorized trails, and 13 miles of nonmotorized snow trails.

Bicycle use is allowed on 454 miles of nonmotorized trails on the national forest.

The forest provides 388 miles of trails for motorized use. Motor vehicle use is restricted to 

designated routes that can include paved highways and roads, gravel or dirt Forest Service roads, 

and trails designated for motor vehicle travel.

The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail is the only congressionally designated trail on the Sierra 

National Forest. There are five national recreation trails, including Black Rock, Kings River, 

Lewis Creek, Rancheria Falls, and Shadow of the Giants that have been designated by the Forest 

Service.

According to the national visitor use monitoring data, driving for pleasure is one of the most 

popular motorized activity on the Sierra National Forest, with about a third of visitors 

participating in this activity in 2012. State Highways 41, 140, and 168 provide views of 

mountains, rock formations, and forests. County roads such as Dinkey Creek, Huntington Lake, 

Miami Mountain, and Chowchilla Mountain provide access from the state highway to forest 

opportunities. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

477

The Sierra National Forest provides motorized access to areas of the national forest through 

conventional two-wheel drive roads, four-wheel drive roads, motorized trails, and motorized 

snow trails. Access to the Sierra National Forest is also provided by partners, agencies that 

manage adjoining public lands, and private land owners. Forest roads offer scenic views and 

provide direct access to trailheads, staging areas, campgrounds, and picnic facilities. The Sierra 

National Forest has approximately 2,313 miles of national forest transportation system roads; 364 

miles of which are designated at a maintenance level for all passenger cars that are street legal 

(maintenance level 3, 4, and 5). The remaining 1,949 miles are designated at a maintenance level 

recommended for high clearance, four-wheel drive vehicles (maintenance level 2).

Partnerships

Partnerships, volunteerism and new management strategies have played an increasing role in 

maintaining and improving developed recreation facilities and trails and restoring landscapes and 

watersheds on the Sierra National Forest. These efforts will be critical to meeting recreation 

demand in the future. Concessionaires, or private businesses that operate and maintain 

government recreation facilities under a special use permit, operate approximately 61 developed 

campgrounds, as well as group campgrounds, day use facilities, and cabin rentals. The Federal 

Land Recreation Enhancement Act has increased the funds available for some recreation facilities 

and opportunities that the Forest Service manages. Under this Act, the Forest Service collects use 

fees at 53 campgrounds and 9 day-use sites on the Sierra National Forest. The fees collected at 

these sites help provide services and make improvements that benefit the visitors that pay these 

fees. Outfitter guides, organizational camps, and special recreation events operate under special 

use permits to provide recreation opportunities to the public. The level of facilities and programs 

currently available to the public are dependent on these partnerships with commercial and private 

operators. Under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, 90 percent of the fees collected 

from outfitter guides and for special recreation events are returned to the forest to provide and 

improve the recreation experience of visitors.

Partnerships and volunteerism play an important role in maintaining trails and landscapes and 

watersheds on the Sierra National Forest. Between 2010 and 2015 Sierra National Forest partners 

and volunteers contributed 258,704 hours, 91,364 were for trail maintenance and 496 hours were 

for landscape and watershed restoration. Partners and volunteers play an important role in 

maintaining trails; approximately 687 miles of trails were maintained on the Sierra National 

Forest in 2015. 

Scenery Resources on the Sierra National Forest

The scenic character of the Sierra National Forest is one of its greatest assets. The Sierra National 

Forest is the gateway to the Sierra Nevada, including the heavily visited Yosemite and Kings 

Canyon National Parks. The national forest exhibits diverse and distinctive landscape qualities 

highly suited to scenic appreciation. The forest landscape ranges from steeply rolling chaparral 

and grass-woodland foothills, to barren windswept crags on the Sierra Crest. Dominant scenery 

attributes on the national forest and essential to its valued image are the lakes and reservoirs that 

define the lakes recreation niche setting. This setting is also noted for its open, park-like conifer 

and mixed-conifer forests, dominated by large trees, which people tend to have a preference for 

(Ryan 2005). Other dominant scenery attributes are rivers and streams, wilderness areas, sharp 

granite peaks, rock outcroppings, and visual access through the forest understory. 

Scenic integrity uses a graduated scale of six levels ranging from very high integrity to no 

integrity. Nearly 50 percent of the Sierra National Forest contains naturally evolving landscapes 

with limited human intervention (preservation and retention). These landscapes are largely 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

478

wilderness and within the semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation opportunity spectrum class and 

have very high to high scenic integrity. For the landscapes outside the wilderness, the Sierra 

National Forest has natural appearing landscapes. Although it is on these landscapes that 

development occurs, they are expected to have a high scenic integrity. There are a few areas 

where developments such as powerlines, hydroelectric facilities, transportation systems, and ski 

runs are visual disturbances because they are noticeable and slightly detract from the form, line, 

color, texture, pattern, and scale of the surrounding landscape. However, other developments 

contribute to the enhancement of the scenery experience. For example, the hydroelectric facilities 

have led to the construction of reservoirs. These reservoirs have contributed to the lakes 

recreation setting.

Many of the valued vegetation scenery attributes on the Sierra National Forest are at high risk of 

being impaired or seriously threatened due to dense vegetation conditions and encroachment, 

ecosystem stressors such as insect and disease outbreaks, and fire return interval conditions that 

render landscapes susceptible to severe wildfire, to name a few (see “Terrestrial Vegetation 

Ecology” and “Fire Trends” sections). Forest landscapes characterized by these conditions are 

considered to have low scenic stability. Many of the landscapes include wilderness areas and 

areas that have high to very high scenic integrity. Departures in fire regime, insect outbreaks, and 

other disturbances from the natural range of variation help assess scenic stability. Insufficient fire 

or too much fire on the landscape can determine the level of departure from the natural range of 

variation. 

Environmental Consequences to

Sustainable Recreation and Scenery Resources

Inyo National Forest

Sustainable Recreation

Alternatives B, C, and D contain the following plan components to help achieve sustainable 

recreation:

• REC-FW-DC-02: The condition and function of recreation facilities reflect the diversity of 

cultures and activities in our community.

• REC-FW-DC-04: Visitors can connect with nature, culture and history through a full range 

of inclusive and sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities. 

• REC-FW-DC-08: Developed recreation sites and infrastructure provide for the planned use, 

are managed for public safety, and are maintained for ecological, social and economic 

sustainability.

• REC-FW-OBJ-02 states, within 10 years of plan approval, convert 10 percent of existing 

recreation sites to group sites.

The plan objective helps the Inyo to meet the needs of Latinos and Asian Americans whose 

recreational styles and participation patterns tend to use larger developed group sites with picnic 

tables, grills, trash cans, and flush toilets that support day-long activities, hiking and walking, and 

opportunities to be with family.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

479

Recreation Settings and Opportunities

Alternatives B, C, and D contain the following plan components to help address recreation 

settings:

• REC-FW-DC-01: The diverse landscapes of the forest offer a variety of year-round 

recreation settings for a broad range of nature-based recreation opportunities, derived from 

assigned recreation opportunity spectrum classes and recreation places management areas. 

Management focuses on settings that enhance the forest recreation program niche.

• REC-FW-DC-14: Recreation settings provide a range of opportunities as described by the 

recreation opportunity spectrum. The desired distribution of recreation opportunity 

spectrum settings are shown in Table 104, and displayed in maps in volume 3. 

In addition to the recreation opportunity spectrum classes that were changed as described for 

alternative A, additional changes were made to assign a class to areas where lands were acquired 

but a class was not formally assigned. In this last situation, recreation opportunity spectrum 

classes were assigned to be generally consistent with how the areas have been currently managed.

Table 104 below shows the recreation opportunity spectrum classes for the existing forest plan 

(alternative A) and for alternatives B, C, and D, which present variations of the desired recreation 

opportunity spectrum. In alternative A, lands were transferred to the Inyo National Forest after the 

release of the forest plan in 1988 as a result of the National Forest and Public Lands of Nevada 

Enhancement Act and a decision was made to wait until the next round of planning to do 

recreation opportunity spectrum mapping. Those areas are shown as not assigned. Since these 

areas are not assigned a recreation opportunity spectrum class, caution should be used when

comparing alternative A to the other alternatives. Maps of the recreation opportunity spectrum 

classes for the Inyo National Forest can be found in volume 3. 

Table 104. Existing (alternative A) and desired (alternatives B, C, D) recreation opportunity spectrum 

classes in acres and percent of national forest by alternative, Inyo National Forest

Class Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Primitive 790,306

53%

1,089,745

55%

1,320,540

67%

1,081092

55%

Semi-primitive 

nonmotorized

471,686

12%

218,817

11%

97,503

5%

226,727

11%

Semi-primitive 

motorized

331,964

14%

364,328

18%

270,546

14%

364,924

18%

Roaded Natural 335,756

15%

239.287

12%

224,504

11%

239,432

12%

Roaded 

Modified

62,507

2%

47,645

2%

47,016

2%

47,645

2%

Rural 15,545

<1% 

19,300

1%

19,012

1%

19,300

1%

Urban 0 0 0 0 

Not assigned 93,483

4%

0 0 0 

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

In the current plan, the largest recreation opportunity spectrum class on the Inyo National Forest 

is primitive at 53 percent followed by roaded natural (15 percent), and then by semi-primitive 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

480

motorized (14 percent) and roaded natural (16 percent). When the two nonmotorized settings are 

combined (primitive and semi-primitive nonmotorized), this alternative provides 65 percent of the 

national forest in a nonmotorized setting. Combining the motorized setting (semi-primitive 

motorized, roaded natural, roaded modified and rural), this alternatives provides 31 percent of the 

national forest in a motorized setting. The amount of nonmotorized setting in this alternative is 

higher than alternative B and less than alternatives C and D. The amount of motorized setting in 

this alternative is also higher than alternative B and lower than alternatives C and D.

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

In alternative B, the largest recreation opportunity spectrum class on the Inyo National Forest 

would be primitive at 55 percent of the forest followed by semi-primitive motorized (18 percent), 

and then by roaded natural (12 percent). When the two nonmotorized settings are combined, this 

alternative would result in 66 percent of the Inyo in a nonmotorized setting. Combining the 

motorized settings, this alternative would provide a motorized setting on 33 percent of the 

national forest. The amount of nonmotorized setting in this alternative would be the same as 

alternative D, and less than alternative C. The amount of motorized setting in this alternative 

would be the same as alternative D but higher than alternative C. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

In alternative C, the largest recreation opportunity spectrum class on the Inyo National Forest 

would be primitive at 67 percent, followed by semi-primitive motorized (14 percent), and then by 

roaded natural (11 percent). When the two nonmotorized settings are combined, this alternative

would result in 72 percent of the Inyo in a nonmotorized setting. Combining the motorized 

setting, this alternative would provide a motorized setting on 28 percent of the national forest. 

The amount of nonmotorized setting in this alternative would be the highest of all alternatives. 

Conversely, the amount of motorized setting in this alternative would be the lowest of all 

alternatives.

The change in settings in alternative C is due largely to the increase in recommended wilderness 

in this alternative; the nonmotorized setting would increase from 65 percent to 72 percent, which 

offers more opportunity for nonmotorized settings that provide quiet solitude, and reduce 

probabilities of seeing or hearing other people in remote and predominately unmodified 

landscapes. Motorized settings would decrease from 31 percent to 28 percent of the national 

forest, which would provide less opportunity in settings that are more developed and in roaded 

areas of the Inyo that allow motorized activities.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

In alternative D, the largest recreation opportunity spectrum class would be primitive at 55 

percent of the Inyo National Forest, followed by semi-primitive motorized (18 percent), and then 

by roaded natural (12 percent). When the two nonmotorized settings are combined, this 

alternative would result in 66 percent of the Inyo in a nonmotorized setting. Combining the 

motorized settings, this alternative would provide a motorized setting on 33 percent of the 

national forest. The amount of nonmotorized setting in this alternative would be higher than 

alternative B and less than alternative C. Conversely, the amount of motorized setting in this 

alternative would be the same as alternative B and higher than alternative C.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

481

Partnerships

Consequences Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

The following plan components provide an emphasis on partnerships and volunteers and are 

common to alternatives B, C, D: 

• VIPS-FW-DC-01: The Inyo National Forest has a network of dependable partners and 

volunteers who provide additional capacity to effectively and efficiently meet plan desired 

conditions and deliver services to the public.

• VIPS-FW-DC-01: The Inyo National Forest uses partnerships to build local capacity for 

providing information and content using the best available methods, including, but not 

limited to, advances in technology.

• VIPS-FW-GOAL-03: Maintain and expand contracting and partnering opportunities with 

local governments, businesses, and organizations. Develop partnerships that leverage 

different sources of funding to support opportunities to contribute to the economic and 

social sustainability of local communities.

• VIPS-FW-GOAL-04: Work with partners and volunteers to provide recreation 

opportunities, maintain and enhance recreation settings, collect and manage data on 

recreation use and demand, and contribute to socioeconomic benefits associated with 

recreation and tourism.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Under the current forest plan, partnerships, volunteers, grants, and agreements help maintain and 

improve developed recreation facilities and trails on the Inyo National Forest. Most developed 

campgrounds and fee day-use sites are managed under a concessionaire contract. Some sites and 

facilities not under concessionaire management have partnership agreements with local non-profit 

organizations and user groups. These partnerships, volunteers, and agreements assist with 

maintenance on motorized and nonmotorized trails, wilderness patrols, and facilities operation 

and maintenance. Non-profit organizations help remove graffiti and trash, and provide visitor 

information and interpretive programs along river corridors, popular dispersed recreation sites, 

and developed recreation sites. These partnerships and agreements are often made possible with 

funding (such as green sticker funds, resource advisory council grants, the Federal Lands 

Recreation Enhancement Act, stewardship council, and other sources) that supplements 

appropriated dollars. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

There would be four new recommended wilderness areas in this alternative. The wilderness 

polygons do not include any existing motorized uses and roadways; therefore, existing 

partnerships centered on motorized use would not be affected. There would be an opportunity for 

partnerships and volunteerism focused on wilderness stewardship and trails in the new

recommended wilderness areas. Partnerships, volunteerism grants and agreements that help 

maintain or improve developed recreation facilities could increase. The pace and scale of ecologic 

restoration may increase or decrease partnerships and volunteerism in the short term depending 

on location and type of treatment. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

There would be six new recommended wildernesses areas in this alternative. The wilderness 

polygons do not include any existing motorized uses and roadways, similar to alternative B. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

482

However, mechanized transport such as bicycle use would not be suitable on 43 miles of trails 

that currently allow bicycles, which could affect existing and future partnerships and 

volunteerism by groups focused on mechanized use. The bicycle partnerships and volunteerism 

could shift to other locations on the Inyo National Forest. There is a potential for types and 

locations of partnerships and volunteerism to change due to the addition of recommended 

wilderness. There is an opportunity for partnerships and volunteerism focused on wilderness 

stewardship and trails in the new recommended wilderness areas. Partnerships, volunteerism, 

grants and agreements that help maintain or improve developed reaction facilities could increase.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

There would not be any recommended wilderness areas in this alternative. The pace and scale of 

ecologic restoration may have a greater increase or decrease on partnerships and volunteerism in 

the short term depending on location and type of treatment than what is proposed in alternative B. 

Partnerships, volunteerism, grants and agreements that help maintain or improve developed 

reaction facilities could increase.

Access

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

There is no recommended wilderness in this alternative; therefore, there would be no change in 

miles of system trails that allow bicycle use. Existing recreation opportunity spectrum settings 

would not limit future motorized or mechanized transport recreation opportunities from the 

existing condition. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

There would be four recommended wilderness areas in this alternative and none contain any 

system trail that allows bicycle use; therefore, there would be no change in miles of system trails 

that allow mechanized transport. Within the four recommended wilderness areas there would be 

no designated motor vehicle routes or open areas; therefore there would be no changes in miles of 

system trails, roads, or open areas allowing motorized use. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

There would be six recommended wilderness areas in this alternative that contain 43 miles of 

system trails that currently allow bicycle use. A plan component (MA-WILD-SUIT-04) makes 

mechanized transport unsuitable in recommended wilderness areas; therefore, bicycle use would 

be decreased by 43 miles on system trails, which is a 9 percent reduction in nonmotorized trails 

open to bicycles compared to alternatives A and D. A site-specific decision to close trails within 

recommended wilderness areas would need to be completed before an enforceable closure could 

be made to prohibit bicycle use. Hence, system roads, trails, and areas that allow for motorized 

and mechanized use would remain open until a project-level decision was completed. If sitespecific decisions were made, bicycle use on system trails could decrease by 43 miles within

recommended wilderness areas and mechanized transport would be allowed on 432 miles of 

nonmotorized system trails across the entire Inyo National Forest.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

There would not be any recommended wilderness in this alternative; therefore, there would be no 

change in miles of system trails that allow bicycle use. Recreation opportunity spectrum settings 

for motorized and mechanized transport would be the same as alternative B.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

483

Scenery Resources on the Inyo National Forest 

Alternatives B, C, and D would add the following specific plan components relevant to scenery: 

• SCEN-FW-DC-01: The forest provides a variety of ecologically sound, resilient and 

visually appealing forest landscapes that sustain scenic character, supporting the forest 

recreation program niche in ways that contribute to visitors’ sense of place and connection 

with nature.

• SCEN-FW-DC-02: Scenic character is maintained and/or adapted to changing conditions to 

support ecological, social and economic sustainability on the national forest and in 

surrounding communities. 

• SCEN-FW-DC-04: The Forest’s scenery provides a range of scenic quality as described by 

the scenic integrity objectives. The desired distribution of scenic integrity objectives is 

displayed in figure 15, appendix a. 

• SCEN-FW-OBJ-01: Within 10 years of plan approval, improve scenic stability by treating 

500 acres of vegetation in areas with a high likelihood of large, high-intensity wildfire, that 

depart from the natural range of variation. 

• REC-FW-DC-12: Developed recreation facilities sites are situated in areas resilient to large, 

high-intensity wildfires.

• REC-FW-OBJ-01: Within 10 years of plan approval, complete fuel treatment restoration 

activities on 200 acres at recreation sites that are in areas with a high risk of large, highintensity wildfire. 

All alternatives would help move vegetation conditions toward the natural range of variation but 

the amount and scheduling of restoration to move toward the natural range of variation would 

vary between alternatives. Mechanical treatments for restoration may have short-term impacts to 

scenic integrity compared to hand treatments or prescribed fire, but over the long term, scenic

character would benefit through increased scenic stability. There would be short-term scenic 

integrity losses with fire, but long-term potential increases in scenic integrity, especially with the 

reestablishment of the role of fire on the landscape.

Scenic Stability and Character

Embedded within the restoration treatment discussed for each alternative is the objective SCENFW-OBJ-01, which focuses some fuel treatment restoration activities on recreation sites that are 

in areas with a high risk of large, high-intensity wildfire. This plan component helps focus 

restoration treatment at high-risk recreation sites to become more resilient to large, high-intensity 

fires, thus increasing scenic stability.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Under the existing plan, this alternative would increase scenic stability across the Inyo National 

Forest, which in turn improves scenic character; however it would be less than alternatives B and 

D, but more than the lower range of alternative C. Mechanical treatment achieves the natural 

range of variation quicker and with more precision, lessening the short-term visual impacts of 

treatment compared to prescribed fire or wildfire managed to meet resource objectives. This 

alternative has slightly less mechanical treatment than alternatives B and D but slightly more than 

alternative C. This alternative would trend vegetation toward achieving the natural range of 

variation but at a substantially slower rate than alternatives B and D and slightly less than 

alternative C, thus providing the lowest protection for scenic character.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

484

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

This alternative would increase scenic stability across the landscape, which in turn would 

improve scenic character more than alternatives A and C, and less than alternative D. This 

alternative would have about the same amount to slightly more mechanical treatment than 

alternative A and up to two and a half times as much mechanical treatment as alternative C. In 

contrast to the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, there are fewer opportunities to substantially

increase the amount of mechanical thinning to restore vegetation and reduce fuels because of the 

costs associated with treatment and lack of wood products infrastructure serving the Inyo 

National Forest. Much of the restoration would be to restore sagebrush and Jeffrey pine 

ecosystems, or reduce fuels around communities and other infrastructure. This alternative would 

manage about five time more wildfire area to meet resource objectives, which would increase 

scenic stability by lessening the consequences of large high-intensity wildfire. This alternative 

would help trend vegetation toward achieving the natural range of variation at about twice the 

rate of alternative A but at about two-thirds the rate of alternative D, providing the second highest 

protection for scenic character.

Consequences Specific to Alternative C 

This alternative would increase scenic stability across the landscape, which in turn would 

improve scenic character less than alternatives B and D, and similar to alternative A. Although 

this alternative would manage wildfires to meet resource objectives on about twice as many acres 

as compared to alternative A, it would treat about one-half to three-quarters as many areas with 

mechanical treatments and up to twice as much areas with prescribed fire than alternative A. As 

with alternative B, mechanical treatment opportunities are more limited on the Inyo National 

Forest than the other two national forests, but where used, it can reduce the short-term visual 

impacts to scenery compared to the multiple treatments with fire to achieve the same level of fuel 

reduction. This alternative would have similar amounts of mechanical treatment as other 

alternatives and would still help trend vegetation toward achieving the natural range of variation, 

but at a slightly greater rate of achieving the natural range of variation as alternative A, thus 

providing the second to lowest protection for scenic character. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

This alternative would increase scenic stability across the landscape across the largest area and 

faster, which in turn would improve scenic character more than alternatives A, B and C. This 

alternative would have the most amount of mechanical treatment of all the alternatives, which 

would increase the rate of achieving the natural range of variation more quickly and with more 

precision. Alternative D would increase the amount of area restored with mechanical treatments 

about three times more than alternative A and about twice as much as alternative B. However, the 

greatest increase in area restored would be from increasing the amount of prescribed burning 

about two to three times and increasing the amount of area where wildfire is managed to meet 

resource objectives. With all restoration combined, the area restored would be about 10 times 

more than alternatives A and C and about twice as much as alternative B.

Scenic Integrity Objectives

Future developments that have the potential to affect scenic integrity on the Inyo National Forest

include powerline development and replacement, geothermal and alternative energy development, 

and periodic smoke and dust events. In addition, there may be potential negative short-term 

impacts to scenic integrity from fuel reduction restoration projects, especially those that are 

accomplished by mechanical means. This is primarily due to the more open vegetation on much 

of the Inyo National Forest and the greater visibility from high points. Short-term negative 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

485

impacts would be off-set by long-term benefits where vegetation conditions are moving toward

the natural range of variation to reduce impacts to scenic character from high-intensity fires and 

increased vegetation density caused by fire suppression. 

Table 105 shows the acres and percent of the Inyo National Forest for each scenic integrity 

objective by alternative. The visual quality objectives for alternative A were converted to scenic 

integrity objectives as shown in the cross-walk in Table 100. Because alternative A does not 

include approximately 44,600 acres of lands that were added to the Inyo National Forest from the 

National Forest and Public Lands of Nevada Enhancement Act of 1988, caution should be used 

when comparing alternative A to the other alternatives.

The table shows that alternative C would have the highest percentage of very high scenic integrity 

objective compared to all alternatives, mainly due to the higher acreage of recommended 

wilderness and increase in the Pacific Crest Trail width in this alternative. Alternative B would 

have a slightly higher percentage of very high scenic integrity objective compared to alternative 

D, mainly due to the acreage of recommended wilderness. In alternative D, those areas would be 

managed to meet mostly high and very high desired scenic integrity objectives. Alternative A 

would have the highest amount of low scenic integrity objective of all alternatives, primarily 

because of the difference in approaches to mapping the older visual quality objectives.

Table 105. Desired scenic integrity objectives by acres and percent of forest and alternative, Inyo

National Forest

Scenic Integrity 

Objective Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Very high 751,860

37%

1,001,596

50%

1,276,987

64%

964,564

49%

High 537,540

26%

669,545

34%

459,070

23%

701,768

35%

Moderate 716,375

35%

301,095

16%

237,812

12%

305,903

15%

Low 35,470

2%

11,661

1%

10,028

1%

11,661

1%

Very Low* 5 

<1%

0 0 0 

* Although the maximum modification objective was used in the visual management system, the current scenery 

management system tends to not have desired objectives for very low scenic integrity. Thus, the maximum 

modification/very low objective will not be compared to alternatives B, C, and D. 

Cumulative Effects for the Inyo National Forest 

Areas modified by vegetation treatments, powerlines and other infrastructure would continue to 

appear highly managed over the next 10 to 15 years and scenic integrity would remain moderate 

to very low in those areas. Vegetation treatments and infrastructure development on adjacent 

private, State and Federal lands may influence overall scenic integrity. Restoration treatments 

across the landscape would trend vegetation toward the natural range of variation and protection 

of the scenic character. Driving for pleasure and other scenery dependent activities on the Inyo

National Forest could be affected slightly by human disturbance to areas under other 

administrations. Wildfire and other disturbance processes, if large in scale and intensity, may 

result in lowered scenic character in those areas affected by the disturbance. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

486

Sequoia National Forest

Sustainable Recreation

Alternatives B, C, and D contain the following plan components to help achieve sustainable 

recreation:

• REC-FW-DC-02: The condition and function of recreation facilities reflect the diversity of 

cultures and activities in our community.

• REC-FW-DC-04: Visitors can connect with nature, culture and history through a full range 

of inclusive and sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities. 

• REC-FW-DC-08: Developed recreation sites and infrastructure provide for the planned use, 

are managed for public safety, and are maintained for ecological, social and economic 

sustainability.

• REC-FW-OBJ-02 states, within 10 years of plan approval, convert 10 percent of existing 

recreation sites to group sites. 

The plan objective helps the Sequoia National Forest to meet the needs of Latinos and Asian 

Americans whose recreational styles and participation patterns tend to use larger developed group 

sites with picnic tables, grills, trash cans, and flush toilets that support day-long activities, hiking 

and walking, and opportunities to be with family. 

Recreation Settings and Opportunities

Alternatives B, C, and D contain the following plan components to help address recreation 

settings:

• REC-FW-DC-01: The diverse landscapes of the forest offer a variety of year-round 

recreation settings for a broad range of nature-based recreation opportunities, derived from 

assigned recreation opportunity spectrum classes and recreation places management areas.

Management focuses on settings that enhance the forest recreation program niche. 

• REC-FW-DC-14: Recreation settings provide a range of opportunities as described by the 

recreation opportunity spectrum. The desired distribution of recreation opportunity 

spectrum settings are shown in Table 106 and displayed on maps in volume 3. 

In addition to the recreation opportunity spectrum classes that were changed as described for 

alternative A, additional changes were made to assign a class to areas where lands were acquired 

but a class was not formally assigned. In this last situation, recreation opportunity spectrum 

classes were assigned to be generally consistent with how the areas have been currently managed.

Table 106 shows the recreation opportunity spectrum classes for the existing forest plan 

(alternative A) and for alternatives B, C, and D, which present variations of the desired recreation 

opportunity spectrum. In alternative A, lands were transferred to the Sequoia National Forest after 

the release of the forest plan in 1988 and a decision was made to wait until the next round of 

planning to do recreation opportunity spectrum mapping. Since these areas are not assigned a 

recreation opportunity spectrum class and are not shown in the table, caution should be used 

when comparing alternative A to the other alternatives. Maps of the recreation opportunity 

spectrum classes for the Sequoia National Forest can be found in volume 3. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

487

Table 106. Existing (alternative A) and desired (alternatives B, C, and D) recreation opportunity 

spectrum classes in acres and percent of national forest by alternative, Sequoia National Forest

Class Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Primitive 329,034

30% 

329,034

30%

535,899

48%

329,034

30%

Semi-primitive 

nonmotorized

57,085

5%

57,085

5%

57,614

5%

57,085

5%

Semi-primitive 

motorized

174,455

16%

250,541

22%

133,631

12%

250,541

23%

Roaded Natural 529,338

48%

453,379

41%

363,983

33%

453,379

41%

Rural 10,643

1%

24,711

2%

23,624

2%

24,711

2%

Urban 0 0 0 0 

No assigned 

class

3,916

<1

0 0 0 

The acreage difference on the Sequoia National Forest in alternatives B, C, and D is because of additional land (around 

Lake Isabella) that was acquired after the release of the forest plan and a decision was made to wait until the next round 

of planning to do recreation opportunity spectrum mapping.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

In the current plan, the largest recreation opportunity spectrum class on the Sequoia National 

Forest is roaded natural at 48 percent followed by primitive (30 percent), and then by semiprimitive motorized (16 percent). When the two nonmotorized settings are combined (primitive 

and semi-primitive nonmotorized), this alternative provides 35 percent of the national forest in a 

nonmotorized setting. Combining the motorized setting (semi-primitive motorized, roaded 

natural, roaded modified and rural), this alternatives provides a motorized setting on 65 percent of 

the national forest. The amount of nonmotorized setting in this alternative is the same as 

alternatives B and D, and less than alternative C. The amount of motorized setting in this 

alternative is the same as alternatives B and D, and higher than alternative C. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

In alternative B, the largest recreation opportunity spectrum class on the Sequoia National Forest 

is roaded natural at 41 percent followed by primitive (30 percent), and then by semi-primitive 

motorized (22 percent). When the two nonmotorized settings are combined, this alternative would 

result in 35 percent of the Sequoia in a nonmotorized setting. Combining the motorized settings, 

this alternative would provide a motorized setting on 65 percent of the national forest. The 

nonmotorized setting in this alternative would be the same as alternatives A and D, and less than 

alternative C. The motorized setting in this alternative would be the same as alternatives A and D, 

and higher than alternative C. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

In alternative C, the largest recreation opportunity spectrum class on the Sequoia National Forest 

would be primitive at 48 percent followed by roaded natural (33 percent), and then by semiprimitive motorized (12 percent). When the two nonmotorized settings are combined, this 

alternative would result in 53 percent of the Sequoia in a nonmotorized setting. Combining the 

motorized settings, this alternative would provide a motorized setting on 47 percent of the 

national forest. The nonmotorized setting in this alternative would be the highest of all 

alternatives. Conversely, the motorized setting in this alternative would be the lowest in all 

alternatives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

488

The change in settings in alternative C is due largely to the addition of recommended wilderness 

acreage in this alternative; the nonmotorized setting would increase from 35 percent to 53 

percent, which offers more opportunity in settings that provide quiet solitude and reduce 

probabilities of seeing other people in remote and predominately unmodified landscapes. 

Motorized settings would decrease from 65 percent to 47 percent of the forest, which would 

provide less opportunity in settings in more developed and roaded areas of the forest that allow 

motorized activities.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

In alternative D, the largest recreation opportunity spectrum class would be roaded natural at 41 

percent of the forest followed by primitive (30 percent), and then by semi-primitive motorized 

(23 percent). When the two nonmotorized settings are combined, this alternative would result in

35 percent of the national forest in a nonmotorized setting. Combining the motorized settings, this 

alternative would result in a motorized setting on 65 percent of the national forest. The 

nonmotorized setting in this alternative is the essentially the same as alternatives A and B (semiprimitive motorized is 23 percent in this alternative as opposed to 22 percent in alternatives A and 

B) and less than alternative C. Conversely, the motorized setting in this alternative is the same as 

alternatives A and B, and higher than alternative C. 

Partnerships

The following plan components provide an emphasis on partnerships and volunteers and are 

common to alternatives B, C, D: 

• VIPS-FW-DC-01: The Sequoia has a network of dependable partners and volunteers who 

provide additional capacity to effectively and efficiently meet plan desired conditions and 

deliver services to the public.

• VIPS-FW-DC-02: The Sequoia uses partnerships to build local capacity for providing 

information and content using the best available methods, including advances in 

technology. 

• VIPS-FW-GOALS-01: Maintain and expand contracting and partnering opportunities with 

local governments, businesses, and organizations. Develop partnerships that leverage 

different sources of funding to support opportunities to contribute to the economic and 

social sustainability of local communities.

• VIPS-FW-GOALS-02: Work with partners and volunteers to provide recreation 

opportunities, maintain and enhance recreation settings, collect and manage data on 

recreation use and demand, and contribute to socioeconomic benefits associated with 

recreation and tourism.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Under the current forest plan, partnerships, grants, and agreements help maintain trails and 

recreation sites on the Sequoia National Forest. Most developed campgrounds and fee day-use 

sites are managed under a concessionaire contract. Many sites and facilities not under 

concessionaire management have partnership agreements with local non-profit organizations and 

user-groups. These partnerships, volunteers, and agreements assist with maintenance on 

motorized and nonmotorized trails, wilderness patrols, and facilities operation and maintenance. 

Non-profit organizations help remove graffiti and trash, and provide visitor information and 

interpretive programs along river corridors, popular dispersed recreation sites, and developed 

recreation sites. Some of these partnerships and agreements are often made possible with funding 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

489

(such as green sticker funds, resource advisory council grants, the Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act, stewardship council, and other sources) that supplements appropriated dollars.

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

There would not be any new recommended wilderness areas in this alternative. The pace and 

scale of ecologic restoration may increase or decrease partnerships and volunteerism in the short

term depending on location and type of treatment. Partnerships, volunteerism, grants and 

agreements that help maintain or improve developed reaction facilities could increase.

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

There would be nine new recommended wildernesses areas in this alternative. The wilderness 

polygons do not include any existing motorized uses and roadways. However, mechanized 

transport such as bicycle use would not be suitable on 125 miles of trails that currently allow 

bicycles, which could affect existing and future partnerships and volunteerism from groups

focused on mechanized use. Bicycle use partnerships and volunteerism could shift to other 

locations on the national forest. There is a potential for types and locations of partnerships and 

volunteerism to change due to the addition of recommended wilderness. There is an opportunity 

for partnerships and volunteerism focused on wilderness stewardship and trails in the new 

recommended wilderness areas to occur. Partnerships, volunteerism, grants and agreements that 

help maintain or improve developed reaction facilities could increase.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D 

There would not be any new recommended wilderness areas in this alternative. The pace and 

scale of ecologic restoration may have a greater increase or decrease on partnerships and 

volunteerism in the short term depending on location and type of treatment than found in 

alternative B. Partnerships, volunteerism, grants and agreements that help maintain or improve 

developed reaction facilities could increase.

Access

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

There is no recommended wilderness in this alternative; therefore, there would be no change in 

miles of system trails that allow bicycle use. Existing recreation opportunity spectrum settings 

would not limit future motorized recreation opportunities from what currently exists. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

There would be no recommended wilderness areas in this alternative; therefore, there would be

no change in miles of system trails that allow bicycle use.

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

There would be nine recommended wilderness areas in this alternative that contain 125 miles of 

system trails that currently allow for bicycle use. The plan component MA-WILD-SUIT-04 

makes mechanized transport unsuitable in recommended wilderness areas, therefore bicycle use 

would be decreased by 125 miles on system trails, which is a 42 percent reduction in 

nonmotorized trails open to bicycles compared to alternatives A, B, and D. A site-specific 

decision to close trails within recommended wilderness areas would need to be completed before 

an enforceable closure could be made to prohibit bicycle use. Hence, system roads, trails, and 

areas that allow for motorized and mechanized use would remain open until a project-level 

decision was completed. If site-specific decisions were made, bicycle use on system trails could 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

490

decrease by 125 miles within recommended wilderness areas and mechanized transport would be 

allowed on 175 miles of nonmotorized system trails across the entire Sequoia National Forest.

Recreation opportunity spectrum settings for motorized use would be reduced from 65 percent to 

47 percent of the Sequoia National Forest. Existing designated motor vehicle routes and areas 

have been accommodated by adjusting recommended wilderness boundaries and including the 

Sirretta Trail as a corridor.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

There would not be any recommended wilderness in this alternative; therefore, there would be no 

change in miles of system trails that allow bicycle use.

Scenery Resources on the Sequoia National Forest

Alternatives B, C, and D would add the following specific plan components relevant to scenery:

• SCEN-FW-DC-01: The forest provides a variety of ecologically sound, resilient and 

visually appealing forest landscapes that sustain scenic character, supporting the forest 

recreation program niche in ways that contribute to visitors’ sense of place and connection 

with nature.

• SCEN-FW-DC-02: Scenic character is maintained and/or adapted to changing conditions to 

support ecological, social and economic sustainability on the national forest and in 

surrounding communities. 

• SCEN-FW-DC-04: The Forest’s scenery provides a range of scenic quality as described by 

the scenic integrity objectives. The desired distribution of scenic integrity objectives is 

displayed in figure 20, appendix a.

• SCEN-FW-OBJ-01: Within 10 years of plan improve scenic stability by treating 2,000 

acres of vegetation in areas with a high likelihood of large, high-intensity wildfire, that 

greatly depart from vegetation desired conditions, and that conform most closely to the 

forest recreation program niche.

• REC-FW-DC-12: Developed recreation facilities sites are situated in areas resilient to large, 

high-intensity wildfires.

• REC-FW-OBJ -01: Within 10 years of plan approval, complete fuel treatment restoration 

activities on 200 acres at recreation sites that are in areas with a high risk of large, highintensity wildfire. 

All alternatives would help move vegetation conditions toward the natural range of variation but 

the amount and scheduling of restoration to move toward the natural range of variation would 

vary between alternatives. Mechanical treatments for restoration may have a short-term impacts 

to scenic integrity compared to hand treatments or prescribed fire but over the long term, scenic 

character benefits through increased scenic stability. There would be short-term scenic integrity 

losses with fire, but long-term potential increases in scenic integrity, especially with the 

reestablishment of the role of fire on the landscape. 

Scenic Stability

Embedded within the restoration treatment discussed for each alternative is SCEN-FW-OBJ-01, 

which focuses some fuel treatment restoration activities on recreation sites that are in areas with a 

high risk of large, high-intensity wildfire. This plan component helps focus restoration treatment 

at high-risk recreation sites to become more resilient to large, high-intensity fires, thus increasing 

scenic stability.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

491

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Under the existing plan, this alternative would increase scenic stability across the Sequoia 

National Forest, which in turn improves scenic character; however, it would be less than 

alternatives B and D, but more than the lower range of alternative C. Mechanical treatment 

achieves the natural range of variation quicker and with more precision. This alternative would 

have less mechanical treatment than alternatives B and D but more than C. This alternative would 

help trend vegetation toward achieving the natural range of variation but at a slower rate than 

alternatives B and D thus, providing the third highest protection for scenic character.

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

This alternative would increase scenic stability across the landscape which, in turn would 

improve scenic character more than alternatives A and C, and less than alternative D. This 

alternative would have about the same amount to about one and a half times more mechanical 

treatment as alternative A, and two to three times as much mechanical treatment as alternative C. 

This alternative would allow two to two and a half times more area of wildfire managed to meet 

resource objectives, which would increase scenic stability by lessening the consequences of large 

high-intensity wildfire. This alternative would help trend vegetation toward achieving the natural 

range of variation at about half the rate of alternative D, thus providing the second highest 

protection for scenic character.

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

This alternative would increase scenic stability across the landscape, which in turn would 

improve scenic character less than alternatives B and D, but similar to alternative A. Although 

this alternative would have slightly more acres for managing wildfires to meet resource objectives 

compared to alternative A, it would treat about one-quarter to one-half as many areas with 

mechanical treatments and about one-quarter to one-half as much areas with prescribed fire than 

alternative A. This substantial reduction in treatment is due to the more limited treatment 

opportunities and steeper terrain coupled with direction for Pacific fisher and California spotted 

owls, limiting both mechanical treatment and prescribed burning opportunities. Mechanical 

treatment achieves the natural range of variation quicker and with more precision, reducing the 

short-term visual impacts to scenery that would be needed with multiple treatments with fire to 

achieve the same level of fuel reduction. This alternative would have the least amount of 

mechanical treatment of all the alternatives. Although it would still help trend vegetation toward

achieving the natural range of variation, it would have the slowest rate of achieving the natural 

range of variation, thus providing the lowest protection for scenic character. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

This alternative would increase scenic stability across the landscape across the largest area and 

faster, which in turn would improve scenic character more than alternatives A, B and C. This 

alternative would have the most amount of mechanical treatment of all the alternatives, which 

would increase the rate of achieving the natural range of variation more quickly and with more 

precision. Alternative D would increase the amount of area restored with mechanical treatments 

about two to three times more than alternative A and about twice as much as alternative B. 

However, the greatest increase in area restored would be from increasing the amount of 

prescribed burning about two times and increasing the amount of area where wildfire is managed 

to meet resource objectives. With all restoration combined, the area restored would be about four 

times more than alternatives A and C and about one and one-half as much as alternative B, thus 

providing the highest protection for scenic character. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

492

Scenic Integrity Objectives

Table 107 shows the acres and percent of the Sequoia National Forest for each scenic integrity 

objective by alternative. The visual quality objectives for alternative A were converted to scenic 

integrity objectives as shown in the cross-walk in Table 100. Because alternative A does not 

include approximately 254,000 acres of lands that were added to the Sequoia National Forest in 

the Lake Isabella area, caution should be used in comparing alternative A to the other alternatives. 

Table 107. Desired scenic integrity objectives by acres and percent of forest and alternative, Sequoia

National Forest

Scenic Integrity 

Objective Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Very high 255,574

24%

300,627

37%

425,341

52%

300,627

37%

High 159,734

15%

345,247

43%

238,699

29%

345,247

43%

Moderate 394,009

37%

163,182

20%

145,019

18%

163,182

20%

Low 191,680

18%

1,487

<1%

1,485

<1%

1,487

<1%

Very Low* 63,893

6%

0 0 0 

* Although the maximum modification objective was used in the visual management system, the current scenery 

management system tends to not have objectives for very low scenic integrity. Thus, the maximum modification/very low 

objective will not be compared to alternatives B, C, and D. 

Cumulative Effects for the Sequoia National Forest 

Areas modified by vegetation treatments, powerlines and other infrastructure will continue to 

appear highly managed over the next 10 to 15 years and scenic integrity will remain moderate to 

very low in those areas. Vegetation treatments and infrastructure development on adjacent 

private, state and federal lands may influence overall scenic integrity. Restoration treatments 

across the landscape will trends toward the natural range of variation and protection of the scenic 

character. Driving for pleasure and other scenery dependent activities on the Sequoia National 

Forest could be affected slightly by human disturbance to areas under other administrations. 

Wildfire and other disturbance processes, if large in scale and intensity, may result in lowered 

scenic character in those areas affected by the disturbance.

Sierra National Forest

Sustainable Recreation

Alternatives B, C, and D contain the following plan components to help achieve sustainable 

recreation:

• REC-FW-DC-02: The condition and function of recreation facilities reflect the diversity of 

cultures and activities in our community.

• REC-FW-DC-04: Visitors can connect with nature, culture and history through a full range 

of inclusive and sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities.

• REC-FW-DC-08: Developed recreation sites and infrastructure provide for the planned use, 

are managed for public safety, and are maintained for ecological, social and economic 

sustainability.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

493

• REC-FW-OBJ-02 states, within 10 years of plan approval, convert 10 percent of existing 

recreation sites to group sites.

The plan objective helps the Sierra National Forest to meet the need of Latinos and Asian 

Americans whose recreational styles and participation patterns tend to use larger developed group 

sites with picnic tables, grills, trash cans, and flush toilets that support day-long activities, hiking 

and walking, and opportunities to be with family.

Recreation Settings and Opportunities

Alternatives B, C, and D contain the following plan components to help address recreation 

settings:

• REC-FW-DC-01: The diverse landscapes of the forest offer a variety of year-round 

recreation settings for a broad range of nature-based recreation opportunities, derived from 

assigned recreation opportunity spectrum classes and recreation places management areas. 

Management focuses on settings that enhance the forest recreation program niche.

• REC-FW-DC-14: Recreation settings provide a range of opportunities as described by the 

recreation opportunity spectrum. The desired distribution of recreation opportunity 

spectrum settings are shown in Table 108 and displayed on maps in volume 3. 

Table 108 shows the recreation opportunity spectrum classes for the existing forest plan 

(alternative A) and for alternatives B, C, and D, which present variations of the desired recreation 

opportunity spectrum. Maps of the recreation opportunity spectrum classes for the Sierra National 

Forest can be found in volume 3. 

Table 108. Existing (alternative A) and desired (alternatives B, C, and D) recreation opportunity 

spectrum classes in acres and percent of national forest by alternative, Sierra National Forest

Class Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Primitive 587,287

45%

567,482

43%

773,519

59%

567,482

43%

Semi-primitive 

nonmotorized

36,077

3%

44,760

3%

9,531

1%

44,760

3%

Semi-primitive 

motorized

44,724

3%

57,999

4%

17,493

1%

57,999

4%

Roaded Natural 564,980

43%

524,049

40%

402,744 

31%

524,049

40%

Rural 82,894

6%

121,671

9%

112,673

9%

121,671

9%

Urban 0 0 0 0 

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

In the current plan, the largest recreation opportunity spectrum class on the Sierra National Forest 

is primitive at 45 percent followed by roaded natural (43 percent), and then by rural (6 percent). 

When the two nonmotorized settings are combined (primitive and semi-primitive nonmotorized), 

this alternative provides 48 percent of the national forest in a nonmotorized setting. Combining 

the motorized setting (semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, roaded modified and rural) this 

alternatives provides a motorized setting on 52 percent of the national forest. The amount of 

nonmotorized setting in this alternative is higher than alternatives B and D and less than 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

494

alternative C. Conversely, the amount of motorized setting in this alternative is higher than 

alternative C and lower than alternatives B and D.

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

In alternative B, the largest recreation opportunity spectrum class on the Sierra National Forest 

would be primitive at 43 percent followed by roaded natural (40 percent), and then by rural (9 

percent). When the two nonmotorized settings are combined, this alternative would have 46 

percent of the national forest in a nonmotorized setting. Combining the motorized settings, this 

alternatives would provide a motorized setting on 53 percent of the national forest. The amount of 

nonmotorized setting in this alternative would be the same as alternative D, and less than 

alternatives A and C. Conversely, the amount of motorized setting in this alternative is the same 

as alternative D, and higher than alternatives A and C.

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

In alternative C, the largest recreation opportunity spectrum class on the Sierra National Forest 

would be primitive at 59 percent followed by roaded natural (31 percent), and then by rural (9 

percent). When the two nonmotorized settings are combined, this alternative would result in 60 

percent of the national forest in a nonmotorized setting. Combining the motorized setting (semiprimitive motorized, roaded natural, roaded modified and rural) this alternatives provides a 

motorized setting on 41 percent. The nonmotorized setting in this alternative is the highest of all 

alternatives. Conversely, the motorized setting in this alternative is the lowest of all alternatives.

The change in settings is due largely to the increase in recommended wilderness acreage and a 

larger corridor for the Pacific Crest Trail with this alternative; the nonmotorized setting increased 

from 48 percent to 60 percent which offers more opportunity in settings that provide quiet 

solitude and reduce probabilities of seeing other people in remote and predominately unmodified 

landscapes. Conversely, motorized settings are decreased from 52 percent to 41 percent of the 

forest which provide less opportunity in settings in more developed and roaded areas of the forest 

that allow motorized activities.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

The largest recreation opportunity spectrum class is primitive at 43 percent of the forest followed 

by roaded natural at 40 percent, and then by rural (9 percent). When the two nonmotorized 

settings are combined (primitive and semi-primitive nonmotorized), this alternative has 46 

percent in nonmotorized setting. Combining the motorized setting (semi-primitive motorized, 

roaded natural, roaded modified and rural) this alternatives provides a motorized setting on 53 

percent. The nonmotorized setting in this alternative is the same as alternative B and less than 

alternatives A and C. Conversely, the motorized setting in this alternative is the same as 

alternative B, and higher than alternatives A and C. 

Partnerships

The following plan components provide an emphasis on partnerships and volunteers and are 

common to alternatives B, C, D: 

• VIPS-FW-DC-01: The Sierra National Forest has a network of dependable partners and 

volunteers who provide additional capacity to effectively and efficiently meet plan desired 

conditions and deliver services to the public. 

• VIPS-FW-DC-02: The Sierra National Forest uses partnerships to build local capacity for 

providing information and content using the best available methods, including advances in 

technology. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

495

• VIPS-FW-GOAL-03: Maintain and expand contracting and partnering opportunities with 

local governments, businesses, and organizations. Develop partnerships that leverage 

different sources of funding to support opportunities to contribute to the economic and 

social sustainability of local communities. 

• VIPS-FW-GOAL-04: Work with partners and volunteers to provide recreation 

opportunities, maintain and enhance recreation settings, collect and manage data on 

recreation use and demand, and contribute to socioeconomic benefits associated with 

recreation and tourism.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Under the current forest plan, partnerships, volunteerism, grants, and agreements help maintain 

trails and recreation sites on the Sierra National Forest. Most developed campgrounds and fee 

day-use sites are managed under a concessionaire contract. Many sites and facilities not under 

concessionaire management have partnership agreements with local non-profit organizations and 

user-groups. These partnerships, volunteers, and agreements assist with maintenance on 

motorized and nonmotorized trails, wilderness patrols, and facilities operation and maintenance. 

Non-profit organizations help remove graffiti and trash, and provide visitor information and 

interpretive programs along river corridors, popular dispersed recreation sites, and developed 

recreation sites. Some of these partnerships are often made possible with funding (such as green 

sticker funds, resource advisory council grants, the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, 

stewardship council, and other sources) that supplements appropriated dollars. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

There would not be any new recommended wilderness areas in this alternative. The pace and 

scale of ecologic restoration may increase or decrease partnerships and volunteerism short-term 

depending on location and type of treatment. Partnerships, volunteerism, grants and agreements 

that help maintain or improve developed reaction facilities could increase. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

There would be 12 new recommended wildernesses areas in this alternative. The wilderness 

polygons do not include any existing motorized uses and roadways. However, mechanized 

transport such as bicycle use would not be suitable on 119 miles of mechanized trails that 

currently allow bicycles, which could affect existing and future partnerships and volunteerism by 

groups focused on mechanized use. Some bicycle use partnerships and volunteerism could shift to 

other locations on the national forest. There is a potential for types and locations of partnerships 

and volunteerism to change due to the addition of recommended wilderness. There is an 

opportunity for partnerships and volunteerism focused on wilderness stewardship and trails in the 

new recommended wilderness areas to occur. Partnerships, volunteerism, grants and agreements 

that help maintain or improve developed reaction facilities could increase. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

There would not be any new recommended wilderness areas in this alternative. The pace and 

scale of ecologic restoration may have a greater increase or decrease on partnerships and 

volunteerism in the short term depending on location and type of treatment than found in 

alternative B. Partnerships, volunteerism, grants and agreements that help maintain or improve 

developed reaction facilities could increase.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

496

Access

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

There is no recommended wilderness in this alternative; therefore, there would be no change in 

miles of system trails that allow bicycle use. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

Because there would not be any recommended wilderness areas in this alternative, there would be 

no change in miles of system trails that allow bicycle use. The recreation opportunity spectrum 

motorized settings would slightly increase to 53 percent of the forest.

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

There are 12 recommended wilderness areas in this alternative that contain 119 miles of system 

trails that allow for bicycle use. The plan component MA-WILD-SUIT-04 makes mechanized 

transport unsuitable in recommended wilderness areas, therefore bicycle use would be decreased 

by 119 miles on system trails, which is a 26 percent reduction in nonmotorized trails open to 

bicycles compared to alternatives A, B, and D. A site-specific decision to close trails within 

recommended wilderness areas would need to be completed before an enforceable closure could 

be made to prohibit bicycle use. Hence, system roads, trails and areas that allow for motorized 

and mechanized use would remain open until a project-level decision was completed. If sitespecific decisions were made, bicycle use on system trails could decrease by 119 miles within 

recommended wilderness areas and mechanized transport would be allowed on 335 miles of 

nonmotorized system trails across the entire Sierra National Forest.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

Because there would not be any recommended wilderness in this alternative, there would be no 

change in miles of system trails that allow bicycle use. The recreation opportunity spectrum 

motorized settings would slightly increase to 53 percent of the forest. 

Scenery Resources on the Sierra National Forest 

Alternatives B, C, and D add the following specific plan components relevant to scenery: 

• SCEN-FW-DC-01: The forest provides a variety of ecologically sound, resilient and 

visually appealing forest landscapes that sustain scenic character, supporting the forest 

recreation program niche in ways that contribute to visitors’ sense of place and connection 

with nature. 

• SCEN-FW-DC-02: Scenic character is maintained and/or adapted to changing conditions to 

support ecological, social and economic sustainability on the national forest and in 

surrounding communities. 

• SCEN-FW-DC-04: The Forest’s scenery provides a range of scenic quality as described by 

the scenic integrity objectives. The desired distribution of scenic integrity objectives is 

displayed in figure 20, appendix A.

• SCEN-FW-OBJ 01: Within 10 years of plan improve scenic stability by treating 2,000 acres 

of vegetation in areas with a high likelihood of large, high-intensity wildfire, that greatly 

depart from vegetation desired conditions, and that conform most closely to the forest 

recreation program niche.

• REC-FW-DC-12: Developed recreation facilities sites are situated in areas resilient to large, 

high-intensity wildfires.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

497

All alternatives would help move vegetation conditions toward the natural range of variation but 

the amount and scheduling of restoration to move toward the natural range of variation would 

vary between alternatives. Mechanical treatments for restoration may have short-term impacts to 

scenic integrity compared to hand treatments or prescribed fire, but over the long term, scenic

character would benefit through increased scenic stability. There would be short-term scenic 

integrity losses with fire, but long-term potential increases in scenic integrity, especially with the 

reestablishment of the role of fire on the landscape.

Scenic Stability

Embedded within the restoration treatment discussed for each alternative is SCEN-FW-OBJ-01, 

which focuses some fuel treatment restoration activities on recreation sites that are in areas with a 

high risk of large, high-intensity wildfire. This plan component helps focus restoration treatment 

at high risk recreation sites to become more resilient to large, high-intensity fires, thus increasing 

scenic stability.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Under the existing plan, this alternative would increase scenic stability across the Sierra National 

Forest, which in turn would improve scenic character less than alternatives B and D, but more 

than the lower range of alternative C. Mechanical treatment achieves the natural range of 

variation quicker and with more precision. This alternative would have less mechanical treatment 

than alternatives B and D but more than C. This alternative would help trend vegetation toward

achieving the natural range of variation but at a slower rate than alternatives B and D thus, 

providing the third highest protection for scenic character. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

This alternative would increase scenic stability across the landscape which, in turn would 

improve scenic character more than alternatives A and C, and less than alternative D. This 

alternative would have about the same amount to twice as much mechanical treatment than 

alternative A, and two to seven times as much mechanical treatment as alternative C. This 

alternative would allow substantially more area of wildfire managed to meet resource objectives, 

which would increase scenic stability by lessening the consequences of large high-intensity 

wildfire. This alternative would help trend vegetation toward achieving the natural range of 

variation about five times the rate of alternative A, but at about half the rate of alternative D, thus 

providing the second highest protection for scenic character. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

This alternative would increase scenic stability across the landscape which, in turn would 

improve scenic character less than alternatives B and D, but similar to alternative A. Although 

this alternative would have about 3 times as many acres for managing wildfires to meet resource 

objectives as compared to alternative A, it treats about one-third to one-half as many areas with 

mechanical treatments and up to twice as much areas with prescribed fire than alternative A. 

Mechanical treatment achieves the natural range of variation quicker and with more precision, 

reducing the short-term visual impacts to scenery that would be needed with multiple treatments 

with fire to achieve the same level of fuel reduction. This alternative would have the least amount 

of mechanical treatment of all the alternatives. Although it still would help trend vegetation

toward achieving the natural range of variation, it would have the slowest rate of achieving the 

natural range of variation, thus providing the lowest protection for scenic character. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

498

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

This alternative would increase scenic stability across the landscape across the largest area and 

faster, which in turn would improve scenic character more than alternatives A, B and C. This 

alternative would have the most amount of mechanical treatment of all the alternatives, which 

would increase the rate of achieving the natural range of variation more quickly and with more 

precision. Alternative D would increase the amount of area restored with mechanical treatments 

about three times more than alternative A and about twice as much area as alternative B. However 

the greatest increase in area restored is from increasing the amount of prescribed burning about 

two to three times and a substantial increase in the area where wildfire is managed to meet 

resource objectives. With all restoration combined, the area restored would be about 10 times 

more than alternatives A and C and about twice as much as alternative B, thus providing the 

highest protection for scenic character. 

Scenic Integrity Objectives

Table 109 shows the acres and percent of the Sierra National Forest for each scenic integrity 

objective by alternative. The visual quality objectives for alternative A were converted to scenic 

integrity objectives as shown in the cross-walk in Table 100. Alternative C would have the 

highest percentage of very high scenic integrity objective compared to all alternatives, mainly due 

to the higher acreage of recommended wilderness and increase in the Pacific Crest Trail width in 

this alternative. Alternatives B and D would have the same scenic integrity objectives. Alternative 

A has the highest amount of low scenic integrity objective of all alternatives, primarily to the 

difference in approaches to mapping the older visual quality objectives.

Table 109. Desired scenic integrity objectives by acres and percent of forest and alternative, Sierra

National Forest

Scenic Integrity 

Objective Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Very high 579,066

41%

552,902

43%

760,325

59%

552,902

43%

High 106,791

7%

539,741

42%

366,371

28%

539,741

42%

Moderate 264,255

19%

193,845

15%

159,809

12%

193,845

15%

Low 397,091

28%

5,223

<1%

5,195

<1%

5,223

<1%

Very Low* 70,905

5%

0 0 0 

* Although the maximum modification objective was used in the visual management system, the current scenery 

management system tends to not have objectives for very low scenic integrity. Thus, the maximum modification/very low 

objective will not be compared to alternatives B, C, and D. 

Cumulative Effects for Sierra National Forest

Areas modified by vegetation treatments, powerlines and other infrastructure will continue to 

appear highly managed over the next 10 to 15 years and scenic integrity will remain moderate to 

very low in those areas. Vegetation treatments, utilities and infrastructure development on 

adjacent private, state and federal lands may influence overall scenic integrity. Restoration

treatments across the landscape will trends toward the natural range of variation and protection of 

the scenic character. Driving for pleasure and other scenery dependent activities on the Sierra 

National Forest could be affected slightly by human disturbance to areas under other 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

499

administrations. Wildfire and other disturbance processes, if large in scale and intensity, may 

result in lowered scenic character in those areas affected by the disturbance.

Analytical Conclusions

Analytical Conclusions for the Inyo National Forest 

Table 110 provides a relative comparison of how the alternatives respond to several indicators for 

the Inyo National Forest. 

Table 110. Comparison of indicators by alternatives for the Inyo National Forest

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Comparison of amount 

of nonmotorized

recreation opportunity 

spectrum setting

Lowest amount Moderate amount Highest amount Moderate amount

Comparison of 

motorized recreation 

opportunity spectrum 

setting

Second highest 

amount

Highest amount 

along with 

alternative D

Lowest amount Highest amount 

along with 

alternative B

Change in partnerships 

and volunteerism 

opportunities due to 

additional 

recommended 

wilderness

No change No change in 

motorized 

partnerships; 

Increase in 

partnerships 

relating to 

wilderness 

stewardship on 

Inyo National 

Forest

Decrease in 

mountain bike 

and motorized 

partnerships; 

Increase in 

partnerships 

relating to 

wilderness 

stewardship

No change

Change in partnerships 

due to increase in 

stewardship funding for 

recreation, based on 

pace and scale of 

restoration

Third highest 

increase

Second highest 

increase

Lowest increase Highest increase

Change in miles of 

mechanized transport 

(bicycle use)

No change No change Decrease of 43 

miles

No change

Protection of scenic 

character based on 

pace and scale of 

restoration

Third highest Second highest Lowest Highest
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

500

Comparison of recreation opportunity spectrum for the nonmotorized setting. Alternative A 

has the lowest amount of nonmotorized setting and the lowest amount of motorized setting but 

this is partly due to the recreation opportunity spectrum not being formally assigned to acquired 

lands. Alternatives B and D would have the highest amounts of motorized setting with alternative 

D having slightly more due to not having any recommended wilderness areas. Alternative C 

would have the highest amount of nonmotorized setting and the lowest amount of motorized 

setting due to the recommended wilderness areas.

Change in partnerships due to recommended wilderness. Alternative A would have no change 

in partnerships or volunteerism. Existing partnerships would likely continue and new partnerships 

would be considered as staffing and resources allow. In alternative B, there would be no change 

in motorized partnerships or volunteerism. There could be an increase in partnerships and 

volunteerism relating to wilderness stewardship and trails, and there could be increased

partnerships and volunteerism due to the pace and scale of ecological restoration that could help 

address recreation impacts and improve recreation settings, access, or scenery. Alternative C has 

the potential to change mechanized partnerships and volunteerism by reducing some opportunity 

and focusing on improving other opportunities. With the increase in recommended wilderness 

areas, there could be a potential increase in partnerships and volunteerism relating to wilderness 

stewardship and trails. Alternative D would have no change for motorized partnerships and 

existing partnerships would likely continue. Since there is a substantial increase in the pace and 

scale of ecological restoration, there could be a potential increase in partnerships and 

volunteerism to better provide for sustainable recreation. 

Change in protection of scenic character based on pace and scale of restoration. Alternative 

D would have the highest protection of scenic character because the pace and scale of mechanical 

treatment is the highest of all alternatives, which would increase the rate of achieving the natural 

range of variation, thus providing the highest protection for scenic character. Alternative D would 

increase the amount of area restored with mechanical treatments about three times more than 

alternative A and about twice as much area as alternative B. However, the greatest increase in 

area restored would be from increasing the amount of prescribed burning about two to three times 

and increasing the area where wildfire is managed to meet resource objectives. With all 

restoration combined, the area restored would be about 10 times more than alternatives A and C 

and about twice as much as alternative B. Alternative C would have the lowest amount of 

protection of scenic character as it would have the lowest amount of mechanical treatment.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

501

Analytical Conclusions for the Sequoia National Forest 

Table 111 provides a relative comparison of how the alternatives respond to several indicators for 

the Sequoia National Forest. 

Table 111. Comparison of indicators by alternatives for the Sequoia National Forest

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Comparison of amount of 

nonmotorized recreation 

opportunity spectrum 

setting

Lowest amount Moderate amount Highest 

amount 

Moderate 

amount

Comparison of motorized

recreation opportunity 

spectrum setting

Second highest 

amount

This alternative 

and alternative D 

have the highest 

amounts 

Lowest amount This alternative 

and alternative 

B have the 

highest amounts 

Change in partnerships 

and volunteerism 

opportunities due to 

additional recommended 

wilderness

No change No change in 

motorized 

partnerships; 

Increase in 

partnerships 

relating to 

wilderness 

stewardship 

Decrease in 

mountain bike 

partnerships; 

Increase in 

partnerships 

relating to 

wilderness 

stewardship

No change 

Change in partnerships 

due to increase in 

stewardship funding for 

recreation, based on 

pace and scale of 

restoration

Third highest 

increase

Second highest 

increase

Lowest 

increase

Highest 

increase

Change in miles of 

mechanized transport 

(bicycle use)

No change No change Decrease of 

125 miles 

No change

Protection of scenic 

character based on pace 

and scale of restoration

Third highest Second highest Lowest Highest

Comparison of recreation opportunity spectrum nonmotorized setting. Alternative A has the 

lowest amount of nonmotorized setting and the lowest amount of motorized setting but this is 

partly due to recreation opportunity spectrum not being formally assigned to acquired lands. 

Alternatives B and D would have the highest amounts of motorized setting with alternative D 

having slightly more due to not having any recommended wilderness areas. Alternative C would 

have the highest amount of nonmotorized setting and the lowest amount of motorized setting due 

to the recommended wilderness areas.

Change in partnerships due to recommended wilderness. Alternative A would have no change 

in partnerships or volunteerism. Existing partnerships would likely continue and new partnerships 

would be considered as staffing and resources allow. In alternative B, there would be no change 

in motorized partnerships or volunteerism; potential increase in partnerships and volunteerism 

relating to wilderness stewardship and trails but there would be the potential for increased

partnerships and volunteerism due to pace and scale of ecological restoration that could help to 

address recreation impacts and improve recreation settings, access, or scenery. Alternative C has 

the potential to change mechanized partnerships and volunteerism by reducing some opportunity 

and focusing on improving other opportunities. With the increase in recommended wilderness 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

502

areas, there could be a potential increase in partnerships and volunteerism relating to wilderness 

stewardship and trails. Alternative D would have no change for motorized partnerships and 

existing partnerships would likely continue. Since there is a substantial increase in the pace and 

scale of ecological restoration, there could be a potential increase in partnerships and 

volunteerism to better provide for sustainable recreation. 

Change in protection of scenic character based on pace and scale of restoration. Alternative 

D would have the highest protection of scenic character because the pace and scale of mechanical 

treatment is the highest of all alternatives. Mechanical treatment would increase the rate of 

achieving the natural range of variation, thus providing the highest protection for scenic character. 

Alternative D would increase the amount of area restored with mechanical treatments about two 

to three times more than alternative A and about twice as much area as alternative B. However, 

the greatest increase in area restored would be from increasing the amount of prescribed burning 

about two times and a substantial increase in the area where wildfire is managed to meet resource 

objectives. With all restoration combined, the area restored would be about four times more than 

alternatives A and C and about one and a half times as much as alternative B.

Analytical Conclusions for Sierra National Forest

Table 112 provides a relative comparison of how the alternatives respond to several indicators for 

the Sierra National Forest.

Table 112. Comparison of indicators by alternatives for the Sierra National Forest

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Comparison of amount of 

nonmotorized recreation 

opportunity spectrum 

setting

Lowest amount Moderate amount Highest 

amount 

Moderate 

amount

Comparison of motorized

recreation opportunity 

spectrum setting

Second highest 

amount

This alternative 

and alternative D 

have the highest 

amounts 

Lowest amount This alternative 

and alternative 

B have the 

highest amounts 

Change in partnerships 

and volunteerism 

opportunities due to 

additional recommended 

wilderness

No change No change in 

motorized 

partnerships; 

Increase in 

partnerships 

relating to 

wilderness 

stewardship 

Decrease in 

mountain bike 

and motorized 

partnerships; 

Increase in 

partnerships 

relating to 

wilderness 

stewardship

No change 

Change in partnerships 

due to increase in 

stewardship funding for 

recreation, based on 

pace and scale of 

restoration

Third highest 

increase

Second highest 

increase

Lowest 

increase

Highest 

increase

Change in miles of 

mechanized transport 

(bicycle use)

No change No change Decrease of 

119 miles 

No change

Protection of scenic 

character based on pace 

and scale of restoration

Third highest Second highest Lowest Highest
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

503

Comparison of recreation opportunity spectrum nonmotorized setting. Alternative A has the 

lowest amount of nonmotorized setting and the lowest amount of motorized setting. Alternatives 

B and D would have the highest amounts of motorized setting with alternative D having slightly 

more due to not having any recommended wilderness areas. Alternative C would have the highest 

amount of nonmotorized setting and the lowest amount of motorized setting due to the 

recommended wilderness areas.

Change in partnerships due to recommended wilderness. Alternative A would have no change 

in partnerships or volunteerism. Existing partnerships would likely continue and new partnerships 

would be considered as staffing and resources allow. In alternative B, there would be no change 

in motorized partnerships or volunteerism; potential increase in partnerships and volunteerism 

relating to wilderness stewardship and trails but there would be the potential for increased

partnerships and volunteerism due to pace and scale of ecological restoration that could help to 

address recreation impacts and improve recreation settings, access, or scenery. Alternative C has 

the potential to change mechanized partnerships and volunteerism by reducing some opportunity 

and focusing on improving other opportunities. With the increase in recommended wilderness 

areas, there could be a potential increase in partnerships and volunteerism relating to wilderness 

stewardship and trails. Alternative D would have no change for motorized partnerships and 

existing partnerships would likely continue. Since there is a substantial increase in the pace and 

scale of ecological restoration, there could be a potential increase in partnerships and 

volunteerism to better provide for sustainable recreation.

Change in protection of scenic character based on pace and scale of restoration. Alternative 

D would have the highest protection of scenic character because the pace and scale of mechanical 

treatment is the highest of all alternatives. Mechanical treatment would increase the rate of 

achieving the natural range of variation, thus providing the highest protection for scenic character. 

Alternative D would increase the amount of area restored with mechanical treatments about three 

times more than alternative A and about twice as much area as alternative B. However, the 

greatest increase in area restored would be from increasing the amount of prescribed burning 

about two to three times and a substantial increase in the area where wildfire is managed to meet 

resource objectives. With all restoration combined, the area restored would be about 10 times 

more than alternatives A and C and about twice as much as alternative B.

Heritage Resources

Background

This section summarizes the current heritage resources environment on the Inyo, Sequoia, and 

Sierra National Forests and the potential consequences to heritage resources from the draft forest 

plans and their alternatives.

Heritage resources (also sometimes referred to as “cultural resources”) are an object or definite 

location of human activity, occupation, or use identifiable through field survey, historical 

documentation, or oral evidence. Heritage resources are prehistoric, historic, archaeological, or 

architectural sites, structures, places, or objects and traditional cultural properties. Heritage 

resources include the entire spectrum of resources for which the Forest Service is responsible, 

from artifacts to cultural landscapes without regard to eligibility for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places. These resources represent past human activities or uses and, by their 

nature, are considered an irreplaceable and nonrenewable resource if not managed for 

preservation over the long term.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

504

Because heritage resources represent important cultural values, they are of special concern to the 

public. Interest in our heritage and concern over the destruction of archaeological sites has 

prompted the passage of national, state, and local levels of legislation that are designed to 

promote and protect these examples of our nation’s historical and traditional legacy. As a result, a 

variety of laws, regulations, and policies provide direction for managing and protecting heritage 

resources on National Forest System lands. This guidance is independent from forest plan 

direction and does not change across alternatives.

Every endeavor that results in ground disturbance or brings an increase of public or agency use 

has the potential to affect heritage resources. Activities that disturb the ground include such things 

as digging postholes for sign placement, timber harvest, constructing a new bathroom, enhancing 

a campground, laying fiber optic cable, large scale vegetation management, or fire prevention and 

suppression activities. In addition, projects may have indirect effects on areas of the landscape 

that are important for cultural and tribal values. The consequences to tribes and tribal resources 

are discussed separately in the “Tribal Relations and Uses” section.

Although the Forest Service Heritage program has operated under the premise of “flag and avoid” 

heritage resources during project implementation for years. A flag-and-avoid strategy works for 

protection of heritage resources on “small foot-print” types of projects because scheduling and 

heritage staff can be made available to accomplish compliance with section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. It is difficult and costly to implement for large landscape scale projects 

and has led to the conundrum the three national forests now face regarding heritage resources and 

project implementation. Sites that have been “flagged and avoided” usually have not been 

evaluated; thus until evaluated, they must be treated as if they are historic properties eligible for 

listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This presents a major management challenge 

given the number of sites already known and the increased numbers that will be discovered 

during surveys as larger landscape areas are being evaluated for restoration projects. Having to 

manage resources that may not be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, 

takes away valuable staff time which could be better spent on managing and monitoring those 

resources that are listed or eligible for listing, inventorying areas that have not been previously 

surveyed for heritage resources and providing recordation and evaluation for newly identified 

heritage assets.

Analysis and Methods

It is not possible to evaluate the impacts of the alternatives on specific heritage sites because a 

high percentage of known sites have not been evaluated and because the draft forest plans are 

programmatic in nature. Instead, the analysis is based on considering the amount of potential 

ground disturbance as a proxy for the potential for impacts to heritage resources. 

Indicators and Measures

The amount of ground disturbance that might occur under each alternative is used as an indicator 

because of the potential for ground disturbance to adversely affect heritage resources. This is 

complicated by the fact that the total occurrences of cultural sites are unknown due to the lack of 

complete survey and inventory in the three national forests. 

Affected Environment

Heritage resources on the three national forests represent a diversity of cultures and their uses of 

the landscapes, including native people, colonial California, late 19th and 20th century state history 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

505

(such as the Gold Rush) and American history, Civilian Conservation Corps history, and Forest 

Service history.

The area encompassed by the three draft forest plans has at least a span of 9,000 years of human 

occupation and use. People arrived in California more than 13,000 years ago (Johnson et al. 

2002). The exact date of Native American arrival is unknown. Occupation of the lower southern 

Sierra Nevada foothills began prior to 9,000 years ago and would have been limited in many 

locations due to high-elevation glaciation. As the climate and resource availability changed so did 

the people as they adapted to changing environmental conditions and the distribution of plants 

and animals used for sustenance and shelter. Archaeological research within the three national 

forests is limited but a chronological sequence of cultural transitions in adjacent areas is 

applicable as described below from McGuire and Garfinkle (1980). 

Paleoindian Period (9,000 to 6,000 years ago)

Most prehistoric sites on the national forests from this time period would have been associated 

with trans-Sierran travel and trade or seasonal big game hunting. Most prehistoric use of the land 

within the planning area during this period appears to have been pass-through travel or seasonal 

resource extraction. Generally, the forests were only used sporadically by nomadic groups during 

the Paleoindian period.

Lamont Phase or Little Lake Period (6,000 to 3,200 years ago) 

This was a dry time with sites located on ridges, saddles, and along meadow margins. Visits to 

the planning area were sporadic and associated with plant collecting and big game hunting. 

During the warm dry time, it is postulated that the stands of pinyon pine shifted and expanded 

providing additional plant foods for foraging peoples. Obsidian and other stone tool materials are 

common to this period. 

Canebrake Phase or Newberry Period (3,200 to 1,400 years ago) 

This time period saw a tremendous increase in Native American use of the pinyon pine stands and 

other plant foods. Milling equipment increased in both quantity and variety. Obsidian quarrying 

in the eastern Sierras intensified. Stone tool point styles were more varied and diverse. The spear 

and atlatl were the primary hunting weapons, as they were during the Paleoindian period. While 

populations remained highly mobile, a pattern of returning use began to emerge with suggestions 

of a more permanent settlement pattern becoming established throughout the lower western Sierra 

foothills. The first signs of intensive occupation are found in ecological boundary areas rich in 

plant and animal resources, such as the Kern River Valley.

Sawtooth Phase or Haiwee Period (1,400 to 700 years ago) 

During this time there was a tremendous increase in the number and diversity of archaeological 

sites over the entire landscape. The number of people living and traveling through the forests 

increased exponentially as the bow and arrow, a much superior weapon, replaced the spear as the 

hunting tool of choice. Large mammals such as mule deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep were

hunted, as were smaller mammals such as rabbits, hares and rodents. The development of the 

ubiquitous bedrock mortar and pestle, and milling and grinding slabs across the landscape 

indicate the importance of plant foods such as acorns, seeds, pine nuts, grasses and forbs. 

Wetlands and waterfowl were also important. Populations appeared less mobile, with favored 

food processing locations revisited again and again over many millennia, resulting in the 

development of deeply stratified archaeological sites. The appearance of Olivella beads at sites 

east of the Sierra suggest the beginning of trade networks stretching to the California coast, and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

506

there is some discussion of a possible major of emigration of people into the Great Basin from 

southeastern California. 

Chimney Phase or Marana Period (700 years ago; the historic period)

Subsistence strategies during this period were diverse and intensive, with resources from a large 

number of ecological zones used, including wetlands, desert sage communities, upland and 

montane environments, tablelands, and pinyon groves. Pottery use began and an increase in shell 

and steatite beads at sites in the eastern Sierra foothills suggest there were robust trade networks. 

Clearly defined house pits point to increased levels of permanent settlement.

At the time of European incursion, the foothills and river valleys on the west side of the Sierra 

Nevada range were some of the most densely populated areas in North America. Sites recorded 

today document large semi-permanent villages, house pits, formal cemeteries, pottery, soapstone 

bowls and decorative objects, rock art. Villages were being reused, populations were increasing in 

size, ceremonial areas developed, and long distance trade networks existed that imported trade 

goods from over long distances. 

Historic Period (400 years ago; the present period)

The introduction of European diseases decimated more than 95 percent of the indigenous peoples 

and they were later displaced by miners, ranches, and other early pioneers. Mines, ranches, built 

towns, and engineered roads were built over many of the old traditional Native settlements. Tribal 

people adapted and changed and accepted paid employment in the mines and on the ranches as 

the landscape evolved with new settlers. Many traditional peoples were displaced as large 

segments of land were allocated to Government ownership and active stewardship by 

Government managers. Administrative Government facilities were built along the trails and 

adjacent to key mining and grazing areas. The rivers were dammed to provide hydroelectric 

power to the growing urban areas in California. Dams, flumes, tunnels, company towns, 

construction camps, railroads and all manner of facilities associated with hydroelectric power 

generation began to be built within the planning area in the early teens of the 20th century. Timber 

harvest increased, especially on the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, in the early 1900s. The 

intensity and extent changed as new methods and machinery were developed, starting with 

logging by horses and mules. The development of steam equipment led to more road building and 

eventually to railroads to meet the demands of growing populations in towns and cities. Modern 

log trucks and heavy equipment allowed access to more areas and replaced railroads and created 

the foundation for the current road system on the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. 

Recreational interest and use of the forests became important as motor vehicles developed and 

flourished. Campgrounds, recreation residences, resorts, and organizational camps expanded 

throughout the forests. 

Cultural Resources Surveys 

The prehistoric Native American past is embodied in the rock art and prehistoric archaeological 

sites that range in size from small stone tool scatters to large villages occupied for hundreds of 

years that dot the contemporary landscape. These sites are highly valued by local tribes as the 

very embodiment of their past and the places where their ancestors lived, worshiped, and died. It 

is a tangible link to a very long history but despite their persistence through time, sites are 

extremely vulnerable to damage by ground-disturbing activities and even from high-intensity fire. 

Prehistoric Native American sites are also vulnerable to illegal looting and illicit excavation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

507

Historic period sites are also extremely vulnerable to destruction by disturbing activities including 

wildfire; especially wooden cabins, flumes, lookouts and old mine buildings. Looting of historic 

artifacts at historic sites is as much of a problem as that on deeply buried Native American sites.

The presence of prehistoric and historic sites reflects the human use of the area encompassing the 

three national forests. Table 113 shows the approximate number of acres surveyed on the Inyo, 

Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests. The total extent of the heritage resource database for the 

three national forests has not been determined. However, from an evaluation of survey data, it is 

estimated that approximately 11 percent of the Inyo National Forest, 13 percent of the Sequoia 

National Forest, and 29 percent of the Sierra National Forest have been inventoried for heritage 

resources; equating to approximately 17 percent of the entire acreage comprising the three Sierran 

Forests (the Giant Sequoia National Monument is not included in these calculations). Most of 

these surveys have been project-specific rather than large-scale or systematic surveys. Almost 

728,700 acres of land of the total 4.2 million acres comprising the area of the three national 

forests (excluding the Giant Sequoia National Monument) have been inventoried for heritage 

resources and 12,727 heritage resource sites have been recorded within that area.

Table 113. Heritage survey for Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests 

Heritage Survey Attributes Inyo Sequoia1 Sierra Total

Total Acres 2.03 million 865,000 1.4 million 4.3 million

Approximate Acres Surveyed 216,400 112,300 400,000 728,700

Percent Surveyed 11% 13% 29% 17%

1 Does not include Giant Sequoia National Monument.

Those heritage surveys have identified a total of 5,405 sites on the Inyo National Forest, 2,836 

sites on the Sequoia National Forest, and 4,486 sites on the Sierra National Forest as shown in 

Table 114. Of those totals, 83 percent of the sites on the Inyo National Forest remain unevaluated; 

94 percent of the sites on the Sequoia National Forest are unevaluated, and 92 percent of the sites 

on the Sierra National Forest are unevaluated for the National Register of Historic Places. This 

means that all unevaluated sites (88 percent of all of the known sites on the three national forests) 

are considered to be eligible properties for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and 

must be managed as such until an eligibility determination is submitted to the Office of Historic 

Preservation for the State Historic Preservation Officer’s concurrence; or it must be submitted 

directly to the Keeper of the National Register for a determination. 

Table 114. Number of heritage sites for Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra National Forests by type

Type of Site Inyo Sequoia Sierra Total

Prehistoric 2,386 1,581 3,401 7,368

Historic 762 518 799 2,079

Multi-Component 160 87 176 423

Unidentified 2,097 650 106 2,853

Contemporary 0 0 2 2 

Protohistoric 0 0 2 2 

Total Sites 5,405 2,836 4,486 12,727
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

508

Table 115 summarizes the numbers of site evaluations and designations on each national forest 

for sites that have undergone evaluation. Of those evaluated, 73 percent of the evaluated sites on 

the Inyo National Forest were found to be not eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places, 53 percent of the sites on the Sequoia National Forest were found not eligible, 

and 56 percent of the sites on the Sierra National Forest were not eligible. Given that only a small 

portion of the known heritage sites have been evaluated, the three national forests are currently 

managing potentially non-eligible heritage resources, all of which need to be considered as 

eligible during the planning process and avoided. 

Table 115. Number of heritage site determinations and number of historic landmarks under the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests 

Heritage Site Determinations Inyo Sequoia1 Sierra Total

NRHP Listed 0 1 1 2 

National Historic Landmark 0 0 1 1 

State Historic Landmark 0 1 0 1 

NRHP Eligible 249 77 173 499

Not Eligible 688 87 221 996

Total Determinations 937 165 395 1,497

No Determination 4,468 2,671 4,091 11,230

1 Does not include Giant Sequoia National Monument.

Environmental Consequences to Heritage Resources

Nearly every action undertaken by the Forest Service has the potential to affect heritage resources 

either directly or indirectly. Not all effects are necessarily adverse and some effects may be 

avoided either through project design or the implementation of standard protection measures as 

outlined in appendix E of the Programmatic Agreement with the California and Nevada State 

Historic Preservation Officers and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (USDA FS 

2013).

Heritage resources are nonrenewable and any effect can result in the unacceptable destruction or 

damage to examples of the area’s heritage. Heritage resources also need to be reviewed not only 

as individual resources, but holistically at larger landscape levels. What may appear to be 

individual sites, or dots on a map may very well be historic districts (for example, mining 

complexes, ranching complexes; or cultural landscapes) that include village sites with 

surrounding special use areas containing trails, plant gathering areas, lithic quarries, and other 

essential resources.

Consequences Common to all Alternatives

Regardless of the alternatives, all site-specific projects would consider effects to heritage 

resources at the outset of every project planning process. Compliance with section 10633 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended would be completed prior to making a 

decision to implement a project, approve a permit, or undertake an activity. The section 106 

process may be completed by consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, tribes, the 

 

33 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into account 

the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a 

reasonable opportunity to comment.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

509

public, and other stakeholders, and at times with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

using the regulatory process codified at 36 CFR Part 800 as amended or through implementation 

of the stipulations of the Region 5 Programmatic Agreement (USDA FS and CA SHPO 2013).

All alternatives include direction to reduce fuels and restore fire to the landscape, but using 

different approaches and with a different pace and scale of restoration. The extent that each 

alternative reduces the extent and severity of wildfires would reduce the risk of inadvertent 

impacts to heritage sites from fire suppression activities and from damage from high soil heating.

Consequences Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

The emphasis on variable treatment intensities and on restoring and managing for vegetation 

heterogeneity in alternatives B, C, and D should provide opportunities to design projects around 

small sites to minimize or avoid disturbances to heritage resources. Avoidance would follow the 

standard practice of using the “flag and avoid” strategy, but would also encourage designing 

projects to reduce threats to heritage resources from large high-intensity wildfires by allowing 

low-intensity treatments around small sites to promote an increase in resilience and sustainability 

of forests. A plan objective (CULT-FW-OBJ-01) focuses on increasing the number of sites 

managed and monitored that are listed or eligible for listing, increasing the areas inventoried that 

have not been previously surveyed for heritage resources and increasing recordation and 

evaluation for newly identified heritage assets.

Management activities (such as mechanical thinning, prescribed burning, and managing wildfires 

to meet resource objectives), appropriately implemented so as to avoid direct and indirect effects 

to heritage resources and tribal values, may afford greater protection compared to consequences 

from continued forest growth and density increases that lead to larger and higher intensity 

wildfires. Activities associated with wildfire suppression under emergency conditions often have 

adverse impacts to heritage resources, such as running a dozer line through sites and areas 

sensitive to tribes.

Alternatives B, C, and D encourage managing wildfires to meet resource objectives, especially in 

the wildfire maintenance zone. Some wildfires are also managed to meet resource objectives in 

alternative A in wilderness and remote areas. Decisions to manage wildfires and on-the-ground 

activities while managing wildfires would consider the location of known sites and where 

possible, resource advisors would be consulted to develop strategies to minimize or to mitigate 

impacts. The desired outcome is to restore fire to the landscape similar to conditions that have 

occurred historically such that the impacts to sites would not be substantially different than they 

have been exposed to for centuries. There is some additional opportunity in alternatives B and D 

which are discussed separately for those alternatives.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Alternative A represents the existing plans (as amended) and would have no measurable direct 

effects on any known heritage resources from continuing activities currently allowed under the 

existing plan. This is because planned projects involving ground-disturbing activity would either 

avoid direct and indirect effects to heritage resources or would include project-specific mitigation 

measures to address any adverse effects to specific heritage resources by reducing them to 

acceptable levels or following existing processes when effects cannot be adequately mitigated.

During wildfires, there are risks to sites and resources from fires that burn at high intensity with 

heat pulses into the soil that can damage individual resources and threaten sites where highintensity fires result in surface erosion and the movement of soils and the rearrangement of sites. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

510

In some cases, high-intensity fire can ruin the ability to date some artifacts, especially obsidian, 

by changing the hydration bands. Fire can also burn wood or natural fiber artifacts. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

Alternative B emphasizes ecological fire resilience and restoration of fire as an ecosystem process 

with a greater focus on large-scale landscape level projects. There would be more mechanical 

thinning treatments and more prescribed burning than alternative A. As only 11 percent of the 

Inyo National Forest, 13 percent of the Sequoia National Forest and 29 percent of the Sierra 

National Forest have been inventoried for heritage resources, a large-scale on the ground effort 

would be needed to identify heritage resources in previously unsurveyed areas. Known sites that 

are unevaluated are managed as if they were eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places resulting in the need to include additional mitigation measures when designing 

projects. Vegetation treatment measures that emphasize low-intensity fire, and increased use of 

hand treatment in and around known sites would lower the potential for adverse impacts to 

heritage resources. Prescribed burning can be compatible with heritage sites and heritage 

resources if the fire can burn at low intensity or with mitigations to protect them such as 

constructing fire lines to exclude fire or covering or protecting features to reduce the risk of 

ignition. 

Alternative B has additional areas recommended as wilderness on the Inyo National Forest, which 

could reduce the risk of direct human impacts to more known and unknown sites. Sites located 

within designated wilderness and areas recommended as wilderness would benefit from the 

restrictions on motorized use and restrictions on mechanical vegetation treatments but may be 

negatively impacted by continuing fuel accumulations and the risks associated with fires that burn 

at high intensity. 

Alternative B emphasizes restoring fire to the landscape, which would include a consideration of 

heritage resources in determining where and how it can be used to meet resource objectives. This 

would benefit heritage resources by reducing fuels while reducing impacts by managing the 

intensity of fire. Projects would be designed to avoid and minimize impacts and effects to 

heritage sites and to indirectly improve the resilience of sites by reducing threats from fire and 

other uses. Treatment of focus landscapes and treatments along strategic roads and ridgetops, 

especially in the wildfire restoration zone are expected to increase the potential to manage 

wildfires in this zone over time, further reducing the risk of high-intensity fire impacts to heritage 

sites.

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Alternative C places an emphasis on providing more short-term protections for wildlife habitat. 

This alternative proposes to add the most areas recommended for wilderness designation of all the 

alternatives. Additionally, this alternative has more areas with restrictions or limitations on the 

intensity and extent of treatment using mechanical vegetation management methods, which would 

afford greater short-term protection by resulting in less impacts to known and unknown heritage 

resources. Conversely, those restrictions and protection measures could have more indirect effects 

by leaving more areas with levels of surface fuels outside the natural range of variation which 

could damage sensitive sites and resources if they burn at high intensity in wildfires. Alternative 

C emphasizes more use of prescribed burning in lieu of mechanical treatments where possible. As 

described for alternative B, prescribed burning can be compatible with heritage sites and heritage 

resources, but careful planning is needed, especially where fuels are heavy and there is no 

mechanical pre-treatment to reduce them prior to burning. Some work by hand or to remove 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

511

small-diameter trees and other vegetation may occur, but the extent would be limited by funding. 

Most prescribed burning would need to be designed in existing heavy fuel conditions which may 

mean some burns would become backlogged if suitable conditions for a favorable burn outcome 

do not occur as frequently due to climate change with drier spring conditions and longer fire 

seasons into the fall.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

Alternative D has the greatest increase in the pace and scale of ecological restoration that could 

involve ground-disturbing activities. Given the increase in development, such as the increase in 

recreation opportunities and the increase in the scale of treatments, the need for project-level 

survey and design mitigations would be the greatest in this alternative compared to the other 

alternatives. There is some uncertainty in how project planning may need to change to ensure 

surveys do not become obstacles to achieving the increased amount of restoration in this 

alternative. 

Alternative D would have similar effects and benefits as described for alternative B. The increase 

in area of mechanical treatments with greater fuel reductions would require more coordination 

and consultation to design projects to avoid and minimize impacts and effects, but would result in 

a greater reduction in the potential for large high-intensity fires. Alternative D would have the 

most ability, primarily through increased stewardship funding opportunities, to do additional 

preparatory work, including evaluation of sites, to mitigate impacts and to avoid and minimize the 

potential for impacts to heritage sites and heritage resources during mechanical treatments and 

prescribed burning. 

Cumulative Effects 

Direct and indirect effects are considered to be adverse when the project or action may alter, 

directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for 

inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places in a manner that would diminish the integrity 

of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 

Adverse effects to a historic property may also include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by 

the project or action that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative. 

Examples of adverse effects are effects that change the character of the property’s use or of 

physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance; removal 

of the property from its historic location; or, the introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible 

elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features. Because all 

Federal agencies must comply with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, similar 

management approaches are used on lands managed by the National Park Service and Bureau of 

Land Management.

Cumulative effects are difficult to evaluate because of the large proportion of known sites that 

have not been evaluated. Each of the three national forests manages for “no effect” or “no adverse 

effect” to heritage resources for all planned management activities, which lessens the risk of 

cumulative effects by presuming known sites are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places and protecting them. Some project activities may result in unplanned or 

inadvertent adverse impacts to heritage resources. Such unplanned or inadvertent adverse impacts 

are addressed and mitigated on a case-by-case basis through consultation with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer, tribal partners, other interested parties, the public, and at times the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation. Heritage resources are non-renewable resources and the 

destruction or damage to them cannot be reversed. The alternatives all have a restoration 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

512

component, but care must be taken to protect significant heritage resources, such as prehistoric 

and historic sites, traditional cultural properties, traditional gathering and use areas, sacred sites 

and landscapes, archaeological and historic districts. 

Analytical Conclusions 

At the project level, all of the alternatives have the potential to impact heritage resources given 

that less than 18 percent of the plan area has been systematically inventoried for heritage 

resources and that 88 percent of all known recorded sites remain unevaluated for the National 

Register of Historic Places. A “flag and avoid” strategy works for protection of heritage resources 

on “small foot-print” types of projects because scheduling and heritage staff can be made 

available to accomplish compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. It 

becomes more problematic with larger landscape scale projects encompassing thousands of acres 

because of the unknowns relating to heritage resources. Large-scale projects generally have to be 

phased in terms of section 106 compliance, or the use of predictive modeling could be employed 

to assist with informing on the “likely” location of heritage resources, with an outcome for an 

increase in unplanned or inadvertent effects to known or unknown heritage resources. 

Alternative A would continue a slow rate of restoration that is suitable for continuing a “flag and 

avoid” strategy but leaves much of the forest and heritage resources at risk of damage from highintensity fires. Alternative C would reduce the amount of restoration accomplished using 

mechanical methods which would reduce the potential for direct impacts to heritage resources. 

Alternative C would use more prescribed fire but less mechanical pre-treatment of fuels, which 

would require careful planning to avoid burning at high intensity where fuels are heavy. 

Alternatives B and D strive to balance the greater risks of impacts to heritage sites by increasing 

the amount of mechanical thinning treatments and the amount of prescribed burning that would 

restore vegetation conditions and lower the risk of large, high-intensity wildfires over time. This 

would benefit heritage resources that would be damaged by fires that burn at high intensity. 

Wilderness

Background

The Forest Supervisors for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests are required by the 

Planning Rule34 to “identify and evaluate lands that may be suitable for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System, and determine whether to recommend any such lands for 

wilderness designation.” Any lands the Forest Supervisors recommend for wilderness designation 

through forest plan revision would be a preliminary administrative recommendation, and are 

referred to as “recommended wilderness” below.

The process to identify and evaluate lands on the three national forests that may be suitable for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System is documented in appendix B: 

Wilderness Evaluation for the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests (volume 2). Appendix B

also documents the process used for identifying which evaluated areas to analyze in one or more 

alternatives in the draft environmental impact statement. Detailed information and maps for each 

area included as recommended wilderness in the analysis, and the rationale for areas or portions 

of areas that are not included in the analysis, can also be found in appendix B. 

 

34 36 CFR 219.7 (v)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

513

Alternatives A and D do not include any new recommended wilderness on any of the three 

national forests. Alternative B includes four new recommended wilderness areas totaling 37,029 

acres on the Inyo National Forest and no new recommended wilderness on the Sequoia and Sierra 

National Forests. Alternative C includes new recommended wilderness on all three national 

forests: 24 areas totaling 315,531 acres on the Inyo National Forest, 18 areas totaling 206,904 

acres on the Sequoia National Forest, and 17 areas totaling 220,641 acres on the Sierra National 

Forest.

Analysis and Methods

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects includes the existing designated wildernesses and 

the additional recommended wilderness on the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests in 

alternative B and alternative C. The analysis area excludes the designated wilderness in the Giant 

Sequoia National Monument on the Sequoia National Forest. The timeframe for the 

environmental consequences is dependent upon whether the preliminary administrative 

recommendations are addressed by the U.S. Congress. The timeframe for the environmental 

consequences related to any recommended wilderness would be the expected life of the forest 

plans, or 10 to 15 years, unless the recommended wilderness is designated by Congress, in which 

case the timeframe for environmental consequences would be the long term, or more than 20 

years. The timeframe for the environmental consequences related to potential areas that are not 

recommended as wilderness in the record of decision is the expected life of the forest plans, or 10

to 15 years.

Wilderness Character

This analysis includes a qualitative discussion of the effects of proposed management direction 

on wilderness character of the recommended areas and the existing designated wilderness areas. 

The Wilderness Act, section 4(b) indicates each agency administering any area designated as 

wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area. The Forest 

Service has identified five “qualities” that are used to assess wilderness character from the 

statutory language of the Wilderness Act (Landres et al. 2011): natural quality; undeveloped 

quality; untrammeled quality; opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation; 

and other features of value described as follows (see appendix B in volume 2 for the evaluation of 

the wilderness characteristics of each recommended area).

Natural Quality: This quality pertains to terrestrial, aquatic, and atmospheric resources, and 

ecological processes. The natural qualities of wilderness for this analysis are based on the 

concepts of naturalness discussed in Cole and Yung (2010), and the discussion on ecosystem 

connectivity and diversity contained in “Chapter 1: Terrestrial, Aquatic, and Riparian 

Ecosystems” of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forest Assessments, (USDA FS 2013a, 

2013b, 2013c). The natural quality of wilderness is protected to the extent biological diversity and 

ecological resilience is sustained, ecosystem structure and function is maintained, and natural 

disturbance processes are sustained.

Undeveloped quality: This quality pertains to whether wilderness is essentially without 

permanent improvement or modern human occupation. This quality is influenced by what are 

commonly called the “section 4c prohibited uses;” that is, the presence of modern structures, 

installations, habitations, and use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical 

transport.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

514

Untrammeled quality: This quality pertains to whether wilderness is essentially unhindered and 

free from the actions of modern human control or manipulation. This quality is influenced by any 

activity or action that controls or manipulates the components or processes of ecological systems 

inside the wilderness.

Opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation: This quality 

pertains to whether visitors can find opportunities for solitude in wilderness, or to engage in 

primitive-type or unconfined recreation activities. 

Other Features of Value: A wilderness may also contain ecological, geological, or other features 

of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value” that occur only in specific locations and are 

unique to an individual wilderness. Features of value may be identified in the law that designates 

a wilderness or through the Congressional legislative history, and are not present in every 

wilderness.

Affected Environment

There are currently three groups of contiguous wilderness. The first group in the central and 

southern Sierra Nevada Mountains includes 11 wilderness areas with a combined size of 

approximately 2,475,000 acres. This group of wilderness areas is notable for being the second 

largest contiguous block of wilderness in the continental United States. The second group is in the 

Basin and Range Province. This group includes two contiguous wilderness areas and the Ancient 

Bristlecone Pine Forest, with a combined size of approximately 260,500 acres. The Ancient 

Bristlecone Pine Forest is included with the wilderness areas in this group because it is a 

congressionally designated area where all natural features are protected. The third group is also in 

the Basin and Range Province and includes one wilderness contiguous with a large portion of the 

Death Valley Wilderness. 

Existing Designated Wilderness Areas 

The following lists existing wilderness areas on the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests, 

their size, whether they are jointly administered by other agencies, and prominent areas that lie 

along their boundaries. Maps of each wilderness area are located in volume 3 in each national 

forest map section. 

Ansel Adams Wilderness: The Ansel Adams Wilderness is 231,279 acres and is jointly 

administered by the Inyo National Forest (78,428 acres), the Sierra National Forest (152,104 

acres), and Devil’s Postpile National Monument (747 acres). It is contiguous with Yosemite 

National Park along its northern boundary, the John Muir Wilderness along its southern boundary, 

and the Owens River Headwaters Wilderness along its eastern boundary.

Dinkey Lakes Wilderness: The Dinkey Lakes Wilderness is 30,000 acres and is administered by 

the Sierra National Forest. It is contiguous with the John Muir Wilderness along its eastern 

boundary. 

Domeland Wilderness: The Domeland Wilderness is 133,160 acres and is jointly administered 

by the Sequoia National Forest (93,781 acres) and the Bureau of Land Management (39,379 

acres).

Golden Trout Wilderness: The Golden Trout Wilderness is 303,511 acres and is jointly 

administered by the Inyo National Forest (192,765 acres) and the Sequoia National Forest 

(110,746 acres). It is contiguous with the John Muir, Sequoia-Kings Canyon, and John Kreb 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

515

Wilderness Areas along its northern boundary, and the South Sierra Wilderness along its southern 

boundary. 

Inyo Mountain Wilderness: The Inyo Mountain Wilderness is 198,874 acres and is jointly 

administered by the Inyo National Forest (73,799 acres) and the Bureau of Land Management 

(125,075 acres). It is contiguous with the Death Valley Wilderness along portions of its eastern 

boundary. 

Jennie Lakes Wilderness: The Jennie Lakes Wilderness is 10,509 acres and is administered by 

the Sequoia National Forest. It is contiguous with the Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness along its 

eastern and southern boundary.

John Muir Wilderness: The John Muir Wilderness is 651,992 acres and is jointly administered 

by the Inyo National Forest (299,235 acres) and the Sierra National Forest (352,757 acres). It is 

contiguous with the Ansel Adams Wilderness along its northern boundary, the Dinkey Lakes, and 

Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wildernesses along its western boundary, and the Golden Trout and 

Monarch Wildernesses along its southern boundary. 

Monarch Wilderness: The Monarch Wilderness is 44,896 acres and is jointly administered by 

the Sequoia National Forest (24,152 acres) and the Sierra National Forest (20,744 acres). It is 

contiguous with the John Muir Wilderness along its northern boundary, and the Sequoia-Kings 

Canyon Wilderness along its eastern boundary. 

Piper Mountain Wilderness: The Piper Mountain Wilderness is 72,192 acres and is 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). None of the alternatives would directly 

or indirectly affect the BLM’s administration of the Piper Mountain Wilderness.

Sacatar Trail Wilderness: The Sacatar Trail Wilderness is 50,451 acres and is administered by 

the Bureau of Land Management. None of the alternatives would directly or indirectly affect the 

BLM’s administration of the Sacatar Trail Wilderness. It is not contiguous with other wilderness 

areas, but is only separated by a narrow road corridor from the Chimney Peak, Domeland and 

Owens Peak Wilderness Areas.

South Sierra Wilderness: The South Sierra Wilderness is 60,084 acres and is jointly 

administered by the Inyo National Forest (31,865 acres) and the Sequoia National Forest (28,219 

acres). It is contiguous with the Golden Trout Wilderness along its northern boundary and is 

separated only by a narrow road corridor from the Domeland Wilderness. 

White Mountains Wilderness: The White Mountains Wilderness is 230,958 acres in size, and is 

jointly administered by the Inyo National Forest (206,796 acres) and the Bureau of Land 

Management (24,162 acres). It is contiguous with the Boundary Peak Wilderness along its 

northeast boundary. 

Environmental Consequences to Wilderness

Overview of Recommended Wilderness Proposed in Alternatives B and C

Alternative B

In alternative B, four areas totaling 37,029 acres are recommended as wilderness additions on the 

Inyo National Forest, all of which adjoin existing designated wilderness as shown in Table 116. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

516

There are no areas recommended for wilderness for the Sequoia or Sierra National Forests in 

alternative B.

Table 116. Recommended wilderness additions adjacent to existing designated wilderness, 

Inyo National Forest

Recommended Wilderness Addition Size (acres)

Piper Mountain Wilderness Addition 11,840

South Sierra Wilderness Addition 17,622

White Mountains Wilderness Addition – East 2,505

White Mountains Wilderness Addition – West 5,062

Alternative C

Alternative C would increase the range of elevations and increase the biodiversity of areas 

recommended for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System along the west slope 

of the Sierra Nevada. The recommended additions to the Monarch Wilderness contain several 

ecosystem types of the foothill ecological zone that are not currently within Forest Service 

wilderness areas: Annual-Grass, Blue-Oak and Valley Oak Woodland. The recommended 

additions to the Ansel Adams Wilderness contain the Aspen ecosystem type, which supports very 

diverse understory plant and bird communities. 

Inyo National Forest

In alternative C there are 24 areas totaling 315,531 acres of new recommended wilderness on the 

Inyo National Forest, of which 9 areas (70,278 acres) are adjacent to existing designated 

wilderness and 15 areas (245,253 acres) are not. Approximately 22.3 percent of the new 

recommended wilderness areas on the Inyo National Forest in alternative C is adjacent to existing 

designated wilderness as shown in Table 117. 

Table 117. Recommended wilderness additions adjacent to existing designated wilderness,

Inyo National Forest

Recommended Wilderness Addition Size (acres)

Ansel Adams Wilderness Addition – Northeast 7,212

Golden Trout Wilderness Addition – East 5,954

Inyo Mountain Wilderness Addition 6,775

Piper Mountain Wilderness Additions (1) 10,657

Piper Mountain Wilderness Additions (2) 2,678

South Sierra Wilderness Additions – East (1) 25,249

South Sierra Wilderness Additions – East (2) 1,424

White Mountains Wilderness Additions – East 3,187

White Mountains Wilderness Additions – West 7,142
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

517

Approximately 77.7 percent of new recommended wilderness areas on the Inyo National Forest 

are not adjacent to existing designated wilderness as shown in Table 118. 

Table 118. Recommended wilderness not adjacent to existing designated wilderness, Inyo

National Forest

Recommended Wilderness Size (acres)

Adobe Hills 10,297

Deadman Canyon 15,445

Deep Springs North 34,164

Dexter Canyon 8,674

Glass Mountains 34,591

Huntoon Creek 8,855

Marble Canyon 15,392

Marble Creek 13,886

Mazourka Peak 41,524

McBride Flat 10,461

Pizona-Truman Meadows 19,762

Redding Canyon 8,284

Silver Creek 8,076

Sequoia National Forest

In alternative C there are 18 areas totaling 206,904 acres of new recommended wilderness on the 

Sequoia National Forest, of which 11 areas (86,105 acres) are adjacent to existing designated 

wilderness and 7 areas (120,799 acres) are not. Approximately 41.6 percent of the new 

recommended wilderness areas on the Sequoia National Forest in alternative C is adjacent to 

existing designated wilderness as shown in Table 119. 

Table 119. Recommended wilderness additions adjacent to existing designated wilderness,

Sequoia National Forest

Recommended Wilderness Addition Size (acres)

Domeland Wilderness Addition – South 14,666

Domeland Wilderness Addition – West 18,817

Domeland Wilderness Fish Creek Addition 3,932

Golden Trout Wilderness Addition – Southwest 27,973

Golden Trout Wilderness Additions (1) 3,488

Golden Trout Wilderness Additions (2) 967

Golden Trout Wilderness Additions (3) 492

Jennie Lakes Wilderness Addition 5,263

Monarch Wilderness Addition – South 5,472

South Sierra Wilderness Additions – West (1) 2,155

South Sierra Wilderness Additions – West (2) 2,880
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

518

Approximately 58.4 percent of new recommended wilderness areas on the Sequoia National 

Forest is not adjacent to existing designated wilderness as shown in Table 120. 

Table 120. Recommended wilderness not adjacent to existing designated wilderness,

Sequoia National Forest

Recommended Wilderness Size (acres)

Cannell Peak 27,208

Dennison Peak 7,100

Hatchet Peak 6,060

Long Canyon 15,794

Saturday Peak 8,176

Slate Mountain 16,004

Stormy Canyon 40,457

Sierra National Forest

In alternative C there are 17 areas totaling 220,641 acres of new recommended wilderness on the 

Sierra National Forest, of which 12 areas (133,943 acres) are adjacent to existing designated 

wilderness and 5 areas (86,698 acres) are not. Approximately 60.7 percent of the new 

recommended wilderness areas on the Sierra National Forest in alternative C is adjacent to 

existing designated wilderness as shown in Table 121. 

Table 121. Recommended wilderness additions adjacent to existing designated

wilderness, Sierra National Forest

Recommended Wilderness Addition Size (acres)

Ansel Adams Wilderness Addition 37,062

Ansel Adams Wilderness Granite Creek Additions (1) 6,964

Ansel Adams Wilderness Granite Creek Additions (2) 2,949

Ansel Adams Wilderness Mount Raymond Additions (1) 9,117

Ansel Adams Wilderness Mount Raymond Additions (2) 661

Dinkey Lakes Wilderness Additions (1) 8,317

Dinkey Lakes Wilderness Additions (2) 4,178

Dinkey Lakes Wilderness Additions (3) 16,318

John Muir Wilderness Additions – Southwest 3,359

John Muir Wilderness Additions – West (2) 1,206 

John Muir Wilderness Additions – West (1) 1,299

Monarch Wilderness Addition – West* 42,513

*This recommended wilderness area includes land on both the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests and the 

acreage given here includes only the Sierra portion of the total acres.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

519

Approximately 39.3 percent of new recommended wilderness areas on the Sierra National Forest 

are not adjacent to existing designated wilderness as shown in Table 122. 

Table 122. Recommended wilderness not adjacent to existing designated wilderness,

Sequoia National Forest

Recommended Wilderness Size (acres)

Bear Mountain 9,247

Devil Gulch 37,325

Ferguson Ridge 7,800

Shuteye 14,418

Sycamore Springs 17,908

Consequences Common to All Alternatives

In all alternatives, the existing designated wilderness acres remain the same. Because direction 

for wilderness management is detailed in law, regulation, and agency policy, management would 

be the same for existing wilderness in all alternatives. There would be no effect to undeveloped or 

special features and other features of value in any alternative. 

Significant effects to wilderness areas are not expected under any alternative nor are effects 

expected to differ by alternative.

Making the preliminary wilderness recommendation for a forest plan revision does not create a 

wilderness. Congress must pass legislation designating wilderness. The draft plan direction for 

recommended wilderness would protect the values that make the area suitable for wilderness 

designation. Management strategies for recommended wilderness may affect recreation 

opportunities and experiences within these areas. 

Recommending areas adjacent to existing designated wilderness would have the potential effect 

of protecting wilderness resources. Alternative C would add the most to the size of the protected 

areas followed by alternative B. Alternative D would not recommend any additional wilderness 

and would potentially have the most effect by management of adjacent lands.

Consequences from Forest Plan Management Direction

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Under alternative A, the existing forest plans would continue to guide management of existing 

wilderness areas on the Inyo National Forest (1988), the Sequoia National Forest (1988), and the 

Sierra National Forest (1992). Current plan direction for wilderness varies by national forest. 

General management direction exists but many designated wilderness areas have wilderness 

management plans that provide more specific management guidance. 

The existing forest plan direction on the three national forests would continue to protect and 

maintain the five qualities of wilderness character in designated wilderness. The opportunity for 

solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation would be maintained and no new permanent 

developments or human occupancy would be authorized. Natural ecological processes and 

disturbances would continue to be the primary forces affecting the composition, structure and 

patterns of vegetation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

520

The Ansel Adams, John Muir, and Dinkey Lakes Wildernesses would continue to be managed for 

low density, low disturbance, and widely distributed visitor use. In popular destination areas, 

impacts associated with visitor use would continue to be concentrated by limiting visitor freedom 

to established overnight camping sites and areas. Group size limits, wilderness permits, and other 

restrictions on overnight occupancy would continue to be implemented to effectively manage 

visitor use levels and maintain or improve opportunities for solitude. Biophysical impacts 

associated with recreation would be reduced by prohibiting camping in areas that have 

experienced high levels of impact and are in need of restoration. There would be no new 

recommended wilderness areas on any of the national forests in this alternative. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

Alternative B includes desired conditions and guidelines to enhance protection of certain aspects 

of wilderness character that are not addressed in existing wilderness plan direction. Specific 

direction is added for the use of herbicide or biocide to consider the risks and benefits of 

controlling non-native invasive species in wilderness (MA-WILD-GDL-01) and the requirement 

to maintain naturalness in wilderness areas. New plan direction also promotes passive restoration 

to natural conditions when campsites adversely affect water quality or exceed established density 

standards (MA-WILD-GDL-03).

In the Kaiser Wilderness, desired conditions would be established in three zones consistent with 

the management of the Ansel Adams, John Muir and Dinkey Lakes Wilderness Areas. 

Opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation would be maintained as most 

areas in the Kaiser Wilderness would be managed for low density, low disturbance, and widely 

distributed visitor use. In popular destination areas, impacts associated with visitor use would 

continue to be concentrated by limiting visitor freedom to established sites.

Alternative B also identifies four areas on the Inyo National Forest as administrative 

recommendations for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (South Sierra 

Wilderness – East Addition; the White Mountains Wilderness Additions; and the Piper Mountain 

Wilderness Addition). The four areas are adjacent to existing designated wilderness area 

boundaries. These areas would be managed in the same manner as designated wilderness to 

maintain their wilderness characteristics, including their natural conditions, opportunities for 

solitude or primitive, unconfined recreation, scenic beauty, and identified special features (MAWILD-DC-01 to 03, -06 to 07). This would result in continued and expanded wilderness 

recreation opportunities for hikers and equestrians and enhanced backcountry camping 

opportunities. The recreation opportunity spectrum map on the Inyo National Forest would reflect 

the recreation opportunities associated with the recommended wilderness areas (see maps in 

volume 3).

Connectivity would be enhanced between the large protected areas in Forest Service and National 

Park wilderness areas to the north and Bureau of Land Management wilderness areas to the south. 

Such connectivity is important to maintaining wildlife corridors and bird migration routes 

between the protected areas of the southern Sierra and relatively undeveloped areas to the east of 

the Sierra, as well as a major corridor along the Sierra Crest connecting the Tehachapi Mountains 

and the central Sierra Nevada (Wilderness Stewardship Plan and Final EIS for Sequoia and Kings 

Canyon National Parks, USDI NPS 2015). The increased connectivity would likely benefit 

species richness. The Wilderness Stewardship Plan also cited the combination of location, large 

size, and diversity of habitats as contributing to the great numbers of species in the parks. The 

Bio-Regional Assessment, citing Lindenmayer and Fisher (2006), indicated the connectedness of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

521

open space, species habitat, and ecological processes are important to biodiversity and ecological 

integrity.

No additional recommended wilderness areas are proposed on the Sequoia or Sierra National 

Forests; therefore there would be no effect of this alternative on wilderness in those national 

forests. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Alternative C emphasizes the role of natural processes in forest restoration. This alternative 

includes the same desired conditions and guidelines in alternative B that were developed to 

enhance protection of aspects of wilderness character that are not addressed in existing wilderness 

plan direction, including plan components to provide for restoration in wilderness, address 

invasive species, and support social and natural qualities of wilderness character.

Alternative C includes additional areas recommended by the public to be considered for inclusion 

in the National Wilderness Preservation System. These recommended wilderness areas would be 

managed in the same manner as designated wilderness to maintain their wilderness 

characteristics, including their natural conditions, opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation, scenic beauty, and identified special features. This alternative would serve 

future demands of wilderness opportunities; however, the restrictions associated with wilderness 

designation would limit future development of mountain bike and off-highway vehicle recreation 

opportunities by creating more non-motorized areas outside designated wilderness.

The Kaiser, Ansel Adams, John Muir and Dinkey Lakes Wilderness would have the same 

direction and effects as alternative B.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

Alternative D includes the same desired conditions and guidelines in alternatives B and C that 

were developed to protect aspects of wilderness character that are not addressed in existing 

wilderness plan direction, including plan components to provide for restoration in wilderness, 

address invasive species, and support social and natural qualities of wilderness character.

No areas are recommended for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System in 

alternative D because the restrictions imposed on wilderness prohibit the use of motorized and 

mechanized equipment and would limit the increased pace and scale of mechanical restoration 

treatments, prescribed burning, and managing wildfires to meet resource objectives proposed in 

this alternative.

The Kaiser, Ansel Adams, John Muir and Dinkey Lakes Wilderness would have the same 

management direction and effects as alternative B.

Consequences of Fire Management Direction 

The fire management zones that are analyzed for each alternative are described in detail in the 

“Fire Management and Smoke” section.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

In alternative A both the wildland-urban intermix defense and threat zones emphasize hazardous 

fuels reduction treatments and lack management direction to restore fire as an ecological process, 

which are likely to have adverse effects on existing wilderness characteristics. Some wildfires 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

522

may be managed to meet resource objectives when conditions allow and it can be done in a safe 

manner which could have beneficial effects on wilderness characteristics.

Table 123. Percent of area in fire management zones for areas in designated wilderness by national 

forest, alternative A

National Forest

Wildland-urban 

Intermix Defense Zone

Wildland-urban 

Intermix Threat Zone Other

Inyo <1 7 93 

Sequoia* <1 5 95

Sierra <1 6 94

*Reported percentages only represent areas outside of the Giant Sequoia National Monument where fire management 

zones exist.

Consequences Specific to Alternatives B and D

In alternatives B and D there are four fire management zones. The community wildfire protection 

zone and general wildfire protection zone emphasize fuel treatments that would likely have an 

adverse effect on wilderness characteristics. The wildfire restoration zone prioritizes ecological 

restoration, which could have both adverse and beneficial effects to wilderness characteristics. In 

areas in the wildfire maintenance zone, fire management activities are most likely to retain and 

have beneficial effects to existing wilderness characteristics because this zone emphasizes 

management of wildfires to meet resource objectives.

Table 124. Percent of area in fire management zones for areas in designated wilderness by national 

forest, alternatives B and D

National Forest

Community 

Wildfire 

Protection Zone

General Wildfire 

Protection Zone

Wildfire 

Restoration Zone

Wildfire 

Maintenance 

Zone

Inyo 3 14 27 56

Sequoia* <1 3 29 67

Sierra <1 2 12 86

*Reported percentages only represent areas outside of the Giant Sequoia National Monument where fire management 

zones exist.

Table 125. Percent of area in fire management zones for areas in recommended wilderness by 

national forest, alternative B 

National Forest

Wildfire 

Protection Zone

General Wildfire 

Protection Zone

Wildfire 

Restoration Zone

Wildfire 

Maintenance 

Zone

Inyo 1 17 6 76

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

In alternative C, there are three fire management zones: The wildland-urban intermix defense 

zone which is the same as in alternative A; the wildfire maintenance zone is the same as in 

alternatives B and D; and the general wildfire zone for the remaining area. The general wildfire 

zone would have an increased emphasis on managing wildfire to meet resource objectives and 

increased use of prescribed fire in fire adapted ecosystems. Of the three fire management zones in 

alternative C, the wildfire maintenance zone would be most likely to retain wilderness 

characteristics where wildfires can be safely managed to restore fire as an ecosystem process. The 

general wildfire zone may make it more difficult to evaluate wildfire risk resulting in slightly less 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

523

wildfires managed to meet resource objectives within existing and recommended wilderness 

areas. Fewer fuels reduction treatments outside of but adjacent to wilderness area would result in 

higher risks to managing wildfires.

Table 126. Percent of area in fire management zones for areas in designated wilderness by national 

forest, alternative C 

National Forest

Wildland-urban 

Intermix Defense Zone General Wildfire Zone

Wildfire Maintenance 

Zone

Inyo <1 40 60

Sequoia* <1 32 68

Sierra <1 13 86

*Reported percentages only represent areas outside of the Giant Sequoia National Monument where fire management 

zones exist.

Table 127. Percent of area in fire management zones for areas in recommended wilderness by 

national forest, alternative C

National Forest

Wildland-urban 

Intermix Defense 

Zone General Wildfire Zone

Wildfire Maintenance 

Zone

Inyo <1 46 54

Sequoia* 1 58 41

Sierra* 1 76 23

*Reported percentages only represent areas outside of the Giant Sequoia National Monument where fire management 

zones exist.

Cumulative Effects

In general, cumulative effects are the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable effects from 

management activities on the national forest and adjacent lands. Reasonable and foreseeable 

actions on National Forest System lands include vegetation management, mining, recreation use, 

and reduction of fuels in the wildland-urban intermix. These actions could impact the wilderness 

characteristics of solitude, depending on how close and pervasive the actions are, although 

typically just sights and sounds within the recommended wilderness area are considered when 

determining effects to wilderness characteristics. For example, vegetation management activities 

such as harvesting adjacent to recommended wilderness area may increase the sights and sounds 

of logging equipment such as chainsaws and mechanized equipment within the recommended 

wilderness area, but because it is outside of the recommended wilderness area, it is not considered 

to degrade the wilderness characteristic of solitude. However, an expansion of a developed 

recreation site adjacent to recommended wilderness could increase use levels within the 

recommended wilderness, which may affect solitude as the number of encounters with others 

could increase within the recommended wilderness area.

Population growth in California and Nevada is likely to increase recreation use of the national 

forests including an increase in use within recommended wilderness. The effects of urbanization 

and population growth on recommended wilderness use and resource conditions are likely to be 

gradual and to extend well beyond the planning period. Increased recreation use may negatively 

impact wilderness characteristics, particularly the opportunity for solitude and natural quality. 

Examples of potential impacts include increased opportunity for crowding in certain locations, 

soil compaction or erosion, and threats to native plant species from the spread of noxious weeds 

from sources outside the wilderness. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

524

Coordination with the Bureau of Land Management and the

National Park Service to Manage Contiguous Wilderness Areas

The Inyo and Sequoia National Forests would need to increase their coordination with the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) to protect both the wilderness characteristics of recommended 

wilderness that is adjacent to BLM-managed wilderness, and the wilderness character of BLMmanaged wilderness. The Sierra National Forest would need to increase its coordination with the 

National Park Service to protect both the wilderness characteristics of recommended wilderness 

that is adjacent to National Park wilderness, and the wilderness character of National Park 

wilderness. This would require some additional expenditure of resources by these other agencies 

in addition to the existing coordination that occurs for the existing designated wilderness areas. 

Analytical Conclusions

The existing designated wilderness areas remain unchanged and their management direction 

would remain essentially the same because most direction is derived from law, regulation, and 

agency policy. Draft forest plan direction for all alternatives protects and maintains the five 

qualities of wilderness characteristics in designated wilderness areas.

Alternatives B and C recommend additional areas for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, with alternative B recommending additional areas on the Inyo National 

Forest only and alternative C recommending the additional areas on all three national forests. 

Alternatives B and C include plan direction that would protect the values that make the area 

suitable for wilderness designation. Areas managed as recommended wilderness would be 

unsuitable for motorized and mechanized transport (mountain bikes) and would limit future 

development of mountain bike and off-highway vehicle recreation opportunities. Some existing 

mountain bike use would be affected where recommended wilderness areas include existing trails 

open to mechanized transport. 

A large portion of the existing designated wilderness areas are within the wildfire maintenance 

zone, where fire risk is lower and generally favors managing wildfires to meet resource 

objectives. Plan direction for alternatives B, C, and D would encourage restoring fire as an 

ecological process when it is safe to do so in the wildfire maintenance zone. Alternative B also 

includes 17 percent of the remaining portions of the recommended wilderness areas in the general 

wildfire protection zone where there is a moderate fire risk and some fuels reduction with 

mechanical treatments or prescribed burning may be needed before wildfires can be safely 

managed to meet resource objectives. The methods of treatment would be limited to prescribed 

burning and nonmechanized methods within recommended wilderness areas. Alternative C 

includes a substantial portion of the recommended wilderness in the general wildfire zone where 

there is a wide range of fire risk. Limitations on the use of mechanized equipment would make it 

difficult to manage some wildfires to meet resource objectives due to the existing levels of fuels 

within recommended wilderness areas coupled with fewer areas of fuel reduction between 

wilderness and communities. Alternative D, with no new recommended wilderness, would allow 

the greatest opportunity to manage wildfires to meet resource objectives because there would be 

no restrictions on the use of mechanized equipment (chainsaws, aircraft, and pumps) to manage 

wildfires safely while meeting resource objectives. Alternative A would have some of these 

benefits but does not emphasize restoring fire as an ecological process in these areas since it does 

not have an explicit fire management zone outside of the wildland-urban intermix. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

525

Eligible and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers

Background

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in 1968 to preserve certain 

rivers with outstanding natural, cultural and recreational values in a free-flowing condition for the 

enjoyment of present and future generations. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,35 which 

established the system, is notable for safeguarding the special character of these rivers, while 

recognizing the potential for their appropriate use and development. It encourages river 

management that crosses political boundaries and promotes public participation in developing 

goals for river protection. 

The 2012 Planning Rule requires the Forest Service to conduct an inventory of rivers and 

determine wild and scenic river eligibility and classification during land and resource 

management plan development or revision as outlined in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Section 

5(d)(1) of the rule states:

In all planning for the use and development of water and related land resources, 

consideration shall be given by all federal agencies involved to potential national wild, 

scenic and recreational river areas, and all river basin and project plan reports submitted 

to the Congress shall consider and discuss any such potential. The Secretary of the 

Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall make specific studies and investigations to 

determine which additional wild, scenic and recreational river areas within the United 

States shall be evaluated in planning reports by all federal agencies as potential 

alternative uses of the water and related land resources involved.

The Planning Rule specifically requires that during plan development or revision, river eligibility 

must be identified unless an inventory has been completed and no changed circumstances or new 

information warrant further review. The rule also requires the Forest Service to manage those 

eligible and suitable rivers to protect the values that support their inclusion in the National Wild 

and Scenic River System until Congress makes a final determination on their designation. 

Analysis and Methods

The process used to identify and evaluate rivers for their potential eligibility is found in the Forest 

Service Land Management Planning Handbook 1909.12, chapter 80. This will be referred to as 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Evaluation Handbook. This chapter of the handbook contains 

guidance and instruction the agency must use to carry out the direction contained in the Planning 

Rule.36 Additional guidance can be found in the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating 

Council technical paper: The Wild & Scenic River Study Process (1999).

The evaluation process includes a sequence of four steps, three of which are required during plan 

revisions. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Handbook directs interdisciplinary teams to complete the 

evaluation of rivers to be studied for eligibility, considering best available scientific information 

and public input. The four steps include: 

1. Inventory: The staff at each national forest must develop a systematic and 

comprehensive inventory of rivers to consider for their potential eligibility. Unless a 

previous systematic inventory of study rivers has been completed and eligible rivers 

identified, a comprehensive inventory will be developed to evaluate which rivers are 

 

35 Public Law 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq. 36 36 CFR 219.7(vi)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

526

eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. If a systematic 

inventory of eligible rivers has been completed, the extent of the study process during 

plan development or revision can be limited to evaluation of any rivers that were not 

previously evaluated for eligibility and those with changed circumstances. 

2. Eligibility determination: The next step is to determine stream eligibility for inclusion 

in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. To be eligible for designation, a river or 

stream must be free-flowing and possess one or more “outstandingly remarkable values.” 

Thus, the eligibility analysis consists of an examination of the river’s hydrology, 

including any man-made alterations, and an inventory of its natural, cultural and 

recreational resources.

3. Classification: After the Forest Service determines if a river or portions of a river are 

eligible, each inventoried segment is then assigned a preliminary classification of “wild”, 

“scenic” or “recreational.” Classification is based on the level of human development of 

the shoreline, watercourse, and access at the time a river is found eligible.

4. Suitability: The fourth step, suitability, may happen during forest plan revision but is not 

required. A suitability study provides the basis for determining which rivers to 

recommend to Congress as potential additions to the national system. This analysis and 

decision-making step will not be completed as part of the current forest plan revision 

process for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests, but will be completed in a 

future separate National Environmental Policy Act environmental review process.

The detailed steps that were used to develop the inventory for the evaluation (step 1) and the 

eligibility of rivers in the inventory (step 2) are described in appendix C: Wild and Scenic River 

Evaluation for the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests in the section titled “Process to 

Identify Rivers to be Considered for Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System.” Additionally, in the “Results of the Evaluation” section of appendix C, for each 

national forest, the process is further explained. 

Indicators and Measures

The indicator wild and scenic rivers is total miles of newly eligible rivers versus reaffirmed 

eligible rivers by classification. 

Under current management, rivers that were identified as eligible for inclusion in the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System in previous river studies have been, and will continue to be, 

managed to protect their eligibility until such time as suitability can be completed. During the 

current comprehensive wild and scenic river evaluation, additional rivers have been determined to 

be eligible. This indicator identifies the increase between what is currently being managed as 

eligible and what would additionally be managed as eligible as a result of the current wild and 

scenic river evaluation.

Affected Environment

The extent of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System currently includes 12,708.8 miles of 

208 rivers designated by Congress in 39 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; this is a 

little more than one-quarter of one percent of the nation's rivers. The National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System is managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and portions of the National Wild and Scenic River 

System are also managed by states as shown in Table 128 below. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

527

Table 128. Total miles of rivers in the National Wild and Scenic River System by managing entity and 

classification, nationwide

Entity

Wild 

Classification

Scenic 

Classification

Recreational 

Classification Total

Forest Service 1,735.1 1,300.7 1,923.6 4,959.4

Bureau of Land Management 1,531.2 352.4 541.6 2,425.2

National Park Service 1,739.2 745.9 735.6 3,220.7

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1,043.0 8.0 0 1,051.0

States 139.4 343.9 569.2 1052.5

Total 6,187.9 2,750.9 3,770 12,708.8

In California there are 22 designated wild and scenic for a total of 1,999.6 miles and the Forest 

Service manages about 69 percent of the total miles in all or portions of 21 of the 22 designated 

wild and scenic rivers in California as shown in Table 129. 

Table 129. Total miles of rivers in the National Wild and Scenic River System in California by 

classification and miles managed by the Forest Service

Entity 

Wild 

Classification

Scenic 

Classification

Recreational 

Classification Total

California Total 745.5 184.8 783.3 1,713.6

Forest Service Total, 

Pacific Southwest Region

501.3 116.7 560.0 1,178.0

There are five new designated wild and scenic rivers on the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National 

Forests (see maps in volume 3). 

1. The Cottonwood Creek Wild and Scenic River is 21.5 miles total length and is 

managed jointly with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with 17.4 miles on the 

Inyo National Forest and 4.1 miles on Bureau of Land Management-managed lands. 

2. The Kern Wild and Scenic River is 151 miles total length and is managed jointly by the 

Sequoia National Forest, the Inyo National Forest and Sequoia and Kings Canyon 

National Parks with 124 miles on the national forests and 27 miles in Sequoia and Kings 

Canyon National Parks. 

3. The Kings Wild and Scenic River is 81 miles total length and is located on both the 

Sierra and Sequoia National Forests and in the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 

with 25.5 miles on the national forests and 55.5 miles in Sequoia and Kings Canyon 

National Parks. 

4. The Merced Wild and Scenic River is 122.5 miles total length and is managed jointly 

by the Sierra National Forest, Bureau of Land Management and Yosemite National Park 

with 29.5 miles on the Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests, 81 miles in Yosemite 

National Park, and 4 miles on Bureau of Land Management-managed lands. 

5. The Owens River Headwaters Wild and Scenic River is 19.5 miles total length and is 

managed by the Inyo National Forest. 

There are also five rivers or portions of rivers that have been found to be suitable in previous wild 

and scenic river studies and have previously been recommended by the Forest Service for 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

528

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. These will continue to be managed as 

“recommended” wild and scenic rivers until a decision through an Act of Congress is made. 

1. The Middle Fork San Joaquin Recommended Wild and Scenic River is 22 miles from 

its headwaters at Thousand Island Lake to the Confluence with the North Fork San 

Joaquin River. Segment 1 (6 miles) and Segment 2 (4.5 miles) are managed by the Inyo 

National Forest, Segment 3 (2.5 miles) is jointly managed by the Inyo National Forest 

and Devil’s Postpile National Monument, and Segment 4 (9 miles) is managed by the 

Inyo and Sierra National Forests.

The North Fork San Joaquin Recommended Wild and Scenic River is 14 miles from its 

headwaters to its confluence with the San Joaquin River and includes three segments 

managed by the Sierra National Forest. 

The San Joaquin Recommended Wild and Scenic River is 12 miles from its confluence 

with North Fork San Joaquin River to Hells Half Acre and is managed by the Sierra 

National Forest. 

The South Fork San Joaquin Recommended Wild and Scenic River is 17 miles from its 

headwaters to the south end of Florence Lake. It includes four segments. Segment 1 is 

managed by Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Segments 1-3 are managed by 

the Sierra National Forest. 

The South Fork Kern Recommended Wild and Scenic River is 1 mile from the southern 

boundary of the Kern Wild and Scenic River to the national forest boundary and is 

managed by the Sequoia National Forest. 

Environmental Consequences to 

Eligible and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers

Resource Protection Methods

The 2012 Planning Rule specifically requires the Forest Service to manage those rivers that are 

found to be eligible and suitable to protect the values that provide the basis for their inclusion in 

the National Wild and Scenic River System until Congress makes a final determination on their 

designation. It requires that the forest plan provide plan components, including standards and 

guidelines, to provide for the protection of designated wild and scenic rivers as well as 

management of rivers found eligible or determined suitable for the National Wild and Scenic 

River system to protect the values that provide the basis for their suitability for inclusion in the 

system.37 

The Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, chapter 80, section 84.2 states, 

“A Responsible Official may authorize site-specific projects and activities on National 

Forest System lands within eligible or suitable river corridors only where the project and 

activities are consistent with all of the following:

a) The free-flowing character of the identified river is not adversely modified by the 

construction or development of stream impoundments, diversions, or other water 

resources projects.

b) Outstandingly remarkable values of the identified river area are protected.

 

37 36 CFR 219.10
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

529

c) For all Forest Service-identified study rivers, classification of an eligible river must 

be maintained as inventoried unless a suitability study is completed that recommends 

management at a less restrictive classification (such as from wild to scenic or scenic 

to recreational).”

Any site-specific projects and activities that a responsible official authorizes on National Forest 

System lands within Forest Service-identified eligible or suitable river corridors must also be 

consistent with the interim protection measures outlined in section 84.3 of the handbook. These 

interim protection measures have been incorporated into the draft forest plans for the Inyo, 

Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. Additionally, the set of plan components developed for other 

aspects of the plan, such as riparian area plan components, will likely also provide for 

management of eligible and suitable rivers consistent with some parts of the interim protection 

measures. The eligible corridors include one-quarter mile from the normal high-water mark on 

each side of the river.

Consequences Common to all Alternatives

A total of approximately 3,754.4 miles of river were included in the current inventory that was 

evaluated for wild and scenic river eligibility by the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests. 

Of that inventory, approximately 1,294.4 miles of river had been evaluated in previous efforts and 

approximately 200.4 miles had previously been determined to be eligible and have been managed 

to protect their eligibility. Of those eligible rivers, approximately 102.7 miles were assigned a

preliminary classification of wild, approximately 29.9 miles were assigned a preliminary 

classification of scenic, and 64.3 miles were assigned a preliminary classification of recreational. 

The current effort included development of a comprehensive inventory of rivers on all three 

national forests. Rivers that had been previously evaluated for eligibility in earlier efforts were 

given a refreshed look to determine if there were any changed conditions or new information, and 

findings were adjusted accordingly. Of the 200.4 miles that had previously been determined to be 

eligible, all were reaffirmed as eligible. Classifications were reviewed and adjusted if changed 

conditions were present. The updated classification findings on the previously evaluated rivers 

determined approximately 103.6 miles were assigned a preliminary classification of wild, 

approximately 32.5 miles were assigned a preliminary classification of scenic, and 64.2 miles 

were assigned a preliminary classification of recreational. 

New inventory was evaluated to determine if free flow and any outstandingly remarkable values 

were present. Of the 2,462.7 miles of new inventory that were evaluated for eligibility, 

approximately 669.0 miles were determined to be eligible. The classification findings on the 

newly evaluated rivers determined approximately 372.0 miles were assigned a preliminary 

classification of wild, approximately 75.5 miles were assigned a preliminary classification of 

scenic, and 221.4 miles were assigned a preliminary classification of recreational. The detailed 

results of these evaluations can be viewed in “Appendix C: Wild and Scenic River Evaluation for 

the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests.” The total miles of river currently determined to be 

eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System is approximately 897.2 

miles. Miles evaluated are summarized by forest in Table 130, Table 131, and Table 132. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

530

Inyo National Forest

Table 130. Comparison of past and current wild and scenic river eligibility review findings in miles 

for the Inyo National Forest

Miles

Past Wild and 

Scenic

Eligibility 

Review 

Findings

Updated 

Findings on 

Previously 

Evaluated

Rivers

Findings for 

New Inventory 

Evaluated for 

Wild and 

Scenic

Eligibility

Total Updated 

Findings

Change from 

Current Wild 

and Scenic

Evaluation 

Inventoried 245.5 245.5 973.4 1,218.9 +1,218.9 

Total Found 

Eligible

128.3 128.2 31.6 159.8 +31.5

Preliminary 

Classification: 

Wild

70.9 72.2 27.7 99.9 +29.0

Preliminary 

Classification: 

Scenic

9.7 8.4 none 8.4 - 1.3

Preliminary 

Classification: 

Recreational

47.7 47.6 3.9 51.5 +3.8

Sequoia National Forest 

Table 131. Comparison of past and current Wild and Scenic River eligibility review findings in miles 

for the Sequoia National Forest

Miles

Past Wild and 

Scenic

Eligibility 

Review 

Findings

Updated 

Findings on 

Previously 

Evaluated 

Rivers

Findings for 

New Inventory 

Evaluated for 

Wild and 

Scenic

Eligibility

Total Updated 

Findings

Change from 

Current Wild 

and Scenic

Evaluation 

Inventoried 1,045.7 1,045.7 6.9 1052.6 +6.9

Total Found 

Eligible

75.9 75.9 None 75.9 None

Preliminary 

Classification: 

Wild

35.2 35.2 n/a 35.2 None

Preliminary 

Classification: 

Scenic

20.2 20.2 n/a 20.2 None

Preliminary 

Classification: 

Recreational

20.5 20.5 n/a 20.5 None
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

531

Sierra National Forest

Table 132. Comparison of past and current Wild and Scenic River eligibility review findings in miles 

for the Sierra National Forest

Miles

Past Wild and 

Scenic

Eligibility 

Review 

Findings

Updated 

Findings on 

Previously 

Evaluated 

Rivers

Findings for 

New Inventory 

Evaluated for 

Wild and 

Scenic

Eligibility

Total Updated 

Findings

Change from 

Current Wild 

and Scenic

Evaluation 

Inventoried None None 1,482.4 1,482.4 +1,482.4

Total Found 

Eligible

None None 633.5 633.5 +633.5

Preliminary 

Classification: 

Wild

None None 344.4 344.4 +344.4

Preliminary 

Classification: 

Scenic

None None 75.5 75.5 +75.5

Preliminary 

Classification: 

Recreational

None None 213.6 213.6 +213.6

Cumulative Effects

Additional eligible rivers may be identified in existing or future planning efforts or through 

separate river studies on adjacent national forests and for other agencies (Bureau of Land 

Management, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) that manage the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Analytical Conclusions 

Inyo National Forest 

For the Inyo National Forest, the required wild and scenic evaluation process resulted in 24.6 

percent (31.5 miles) increase in the miles of river determined to be eligible. The results of the 

classification findings show a 40.9 percent (29.0 miles) increase in the miles of eligible rivers that 

will be managed as wild, a 13.4 percent (1.3 miles) decrease in the miles of eligible rivers that 

will be managed as scenic and an 8.0 percent (3.8 miles) increase in the miles of eligible rivers 

that will be managed as recreational. Since the majority of the increase in eligible miles are 

classified as wild and occur in areas designated as wilderness, there would be little to no effect on 

other activities as a result of the eligibility and classification findings compared to how these 

areas have been managed in the past. The increase in the miles of eligible rivers that would be 

managed as recreational and scenic would likely have no or negligible increased effects on other 

activities when looking at the national forest as a whole. Any project level planning in these 

eligible river corridors will need to be consistent with their preliminary classification and protect 

the values that provide the basis for their inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System 

by following forest plan direction until such time as a negative suitability determination is made 

or Congress makes a final determination on their designation. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

532

Sequoia National Forest 

For the Sequoia National Forest, the required wild and scenic evaluation process did not result in 

any changes to either the miles of eligible rivers or the assigned preliminary classifications. A 

comprehensive inventory and evaluation process had already been completed on this national 

forest. The 6.9 miles of new inventory that was evaluated was not found to be eligible. Projectlevel planning in these eligible river corridors would continue to need to be consistent with their 

preliminary classification and protect the values that provide the basis for their inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic River System by following forest plan direction until such time as a 

negative suitability determination is made or Congress makes a final determination on their 

designation. 

Sierra National Forest 

For the Sierra National Forest, the required wild and scenic evaluation process resulted in a 100 

percent increase in the miles of river determined to be eligible. All previously studied rivers are 

already designated or have already been determined to be suitable and recommended; therefore, 

all the currently eligible rivers are new as a result of the current evaluation. The results of the 

classification findings show that 344.4 miles of the newly eligible rivers would be managed as 

wild, 75.5 miles of the newly eligible rivers would be managed as scenic, and 213.6 miles of the 

newly eligible rivers would be managed as recreational. Since the majority of the increase in 

eligible miles are classified as wild and generally occur in areas designated as wilderness, there 

would be little to no effect on other activities as a result of the eligibility and classification 

findings compared to how these areas have been managed in the past. Although there is a 

significant increase in the miles of eligible rivers that would be managed as recreational and 

scenic, this would likely have no or negligible increased effects on other activities when looking 

at the national forest as a whole. Project-level planning in these eligible river corridors would

need to be consistent with their preliminary classification and protect the values that provide the 

basis for their inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System by following forest plan 

direction until such time as a negative suitability determination is made or Congress makes a final 

determination on their designation.

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail

Background

The National Trail System is composed of 30 congressionally designated trails (11 national scenic

trails and 19 national historic trails), which stretch for a hundred or thousands of miles each and 

more than 55,000 miles in total. National scenic and historic trails traverse wilderness, rural, 

suburban, and urban areas in 49 states connecting with every distinct ecological area or biome in 

the U.S. They protect crucial conservation areas and provide wildlife migration corridors, as well 

as education, recreation, and fitness for people of all ages.

The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail was designated in 1968 by Congress as one of the original 

national scenic trails. The National Trails System Act38 directed that these long distance trails 

provide for maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of the 

nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which such 

trails may pass. Citizen stewardship and volunteerism were recognized in the Act and have been 

an integral component of the planning, management, and maintenance of the trail. 

 

38 Public Law 90-543
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

533

Figure 42. The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail

Beginning in southern California at the 

Mexican border, the Pacific Crest Trail

travels 2,650 miles through California, 

Oregon, and Washington until reaching the 

Canadian border (Figure 42). First 

conceived in the 1930s, the trail traverses 

the highest elevations of the Sierra and 

Cascade mountain ranges and was designed 

to include portions of the historic John 

Muir and Skyline Trails. The Pacific Crest 

Trail is one of 11 national scenic trails and 

it is considered one of the most remote long 

distance trails with over 54 percent of its 

path in designated wilderness. Oriented in a 

north-south direction, the Pacific Crest Trail

is the only completed west coast national 

scenic trail.

The selected route location for the Pacific 

Crest Trail was published in the Federal 

Register on January 30, 1973. The route 

traverses portions of 25 national forests, six 

national parks, seven Bureau of Land 

Management Field Offices, four national 

monuments, one national scenic area, as 

well as, state and private lands in the states 

of California, Oregon, and Washington. The 

Regional Forester of the Pacific Southwest 

Region is the lead official for coordinating 

matters concerning the study, planning, and 

operation of the Pacific Crest Trail (Forest 

Service Manual 2353.04).

The “Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail 

Comprehensive Plan” was signed by the 

Chief of the Forest Service in 1982 and set 

forth direction to guide the development 

and management of the Pacific Crest Trail

(USDA FS 1982a). The primary policy is 

to administer the Pacific Crest Trail 

consistent with the nature and purposes for 

which this National Scenic Trail was 

established—to provide for high-quality 

scenic, primitive hiking and horseback 

riding opportunities and to conserve 

natural, historic, and cultural resources 

along the corridor.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

534

The Comprehensive Plan directed that each “National Park, Bureau of Land Management District 

and National Forest will integrate the direction and guidance provided by the Comprehensive 

Plan into their respective land management planning processes.” Executive Order No. 13195, 

Trails for America in the 21st Century (2001), recognized the importance of “Protecting the trail 

corridors associated with national scenic trails ...to the degrees necessary to ensure that the 

values for which each trail was established remain intact.”

The Pacific Crest Trail Association, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, is recognized as the Federal 

Government’s major partner in managing and maintaining the Pacific Crest Trail. The tenants of 

the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and the Pacific 

Crest Trail Association’s relationship are outlined in a memorandum of understanding (2015).39

The Pacific Crest Trail Association serves to recruit, train, and supervise volunteers to assist with 

trail management and maintenance. The collaborative work focuses on engaging youth and 

developing citizen stewardship, providing quality recreation experiences for hikers and 

equestrians, and ecosystem restoration and is funded, in part, through cooperative agreements 

with federal agencies.

Analysis and Methods

Analysis Area

Pacific Crest Trail recreationists have three distinct travel use patterns:

1. Day use: The largest user group, these travelers typically originate from within a 75-mile 

(1.25 hour driving time) radius; 

2. Section use: The second largest user group, these travelers typically live on the west 

coast in one of the three states the trail travels through; and

3. Entire trail: These thru-hikers and equestrians have a broad geographic draw from 

across the United States and abroad and share the goal of completing the entire trail.

The analysis area for the Pacific Crest Trail considers local, regional and national scales 

based on the unique and distinctive role and contributions the trail plays providing recreation 

opportunities and connecting three states and numerous public land entities.40

Methods

To identify the management area boundaries for each alternative, a geographic information 

systems model was constructed with the following criteria (see maps in volume 3).

• Alternative A: Established based on mileage of trail multiplied by 6 feet in width (general 

trail clearing width for 24-inch trail with packstock).

• Alternative B: Established using what topography is seen from the trail platform at 5 feet 

height up to one-half mile of centerline (foreground).

• Alternative C: Established using alternative B plus the Scenic Attractiveness A inventory 

layer up to 4 miles (middleground). 

 

39 Memorandum of Understanding between USDA Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management 

California and Oregon/Washington State Offices, California State Parks and the Pacific Crest Trail Association, May 

21, 2015.

40 Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, chapter 20, section 22.32 3(f)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

535

• Alternative D: Established using one-quarter mile management area from centerline of 

the trail.

In this section, key components for the environmental consequence analysis for the Pacific Crest 

Trail are based on the scenic and recreation resources. The recreation opportunity spectrum 

provides for the varied recreation opportunities along the trail in terms of setting, activity, and 

experience (USDA FS 1982b). 

Scenic resources are analyzed based on scenic integrity objectives and distance zones (USDA FS

1995). Scenic integrity objectives range from very high to low. Distance zones are defined as 

foreground, middleground, and background. Foreground views are considered to be those within 

approximately one half-mile of the viewer; middleground views are views of objects or scenic 

resources between approximately one half-mile and four miles away from the viewer; background 

views are views that extend beyond four miles from the viewer, to the horizon. 

Indicators and Measures

Acres allocated to Pacific Crest Trail Management Area by alternative and by national 

forest within designated wilderness and outside of designated wilderness: The total number 

of acres within the management area is a measure of the amount of surrounding area or trail 

corridor that provides for high-quality scenic, primitive hiking and horseback riding opportunities 

and conserves natural, historic, and cultural resources.

Acres within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area by alternative and by national forest 

allocated to each recreation opportunity spectrum class: The number of acres of each 

recreation opportunity spectrum class in the management area displays the emphasis on recreation 

activities, setting, and experience ranging from primitive to urban. 

Acres within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area by alternative and national forest 

allocated to scenic integrity objectives: Scenic integrity measures the degree to which a 

landscape is free from visible disturbances that detract from the natural or socially valued 

appearance, including any visible disturbances from human activities or extreme natural events 

outside of the natural range of variation. The number of acres in the Management Area of each 

Scenic Integrity Objective displays the overall plan for the scenery surrounding the trail to have a 

natural appearance.

Miles of motorized roads and trails and number of crossings of Pacific Crest Trail in the 

Management Area: Motorized use is prohibited on the Pacific Crest Trail. The miles of 

motorized roads and trails within the management area and crossing the Pacific Crest Trail

displays the amount and proximity of motorized use within the management area.

Assumptions

• Of the scenery management distance zones, details are more easily seen from foreground 

and middle ground, which usually has the most visual sensitivity (USDA FS 1995).

• The forest plan does not make site-specific decisions regarding travel management within 

the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area. No roads or trails would be opened or closed in 

this forest plan decision.

• The more acres within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area the higher the protection 

of the resources, qualities, values and associated settings and the primary uses of the 

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

536

Affected Environment

Recreation Opportunity

Trailwide: The Pacific Crest Trail is a long-distance trail that is designed with a native surface 

tread to meet pack and saddle “more difficult” design and maintenance standards for most of its 

length. Rustic bridges constructed of native materials may be provided where needed for resource 

protection or to accommodate those users with a moderate skill level. Trailwide, the Pacific Crest 

Trail is open to foot and horse travel and closed to motorized41 and mechanized travel.

42

The current Inyo, Sierra, and Sequoia forest plans recognized the Pacific Crest National Scenic 

Trail and defined visual management standards and guidelines but did not define a trail corridor 

or identify other desired conditions, resources, qualities, or values to be specifically managed.

There are locations along the Pacific Crest Trail where the trail has been located in an interim 

location in order to have a continuous path from Mexico to Canada. These temporary locations 

may be along motorized road shoulders or motorized trails with the long-term objective of 

relocating the trail to an optimal nonmotorized location. For example, in the Sequoia National 

Forest, Kiavah Wilderness, cherry-stemmed National Forest System Road 27S11 (Horse Canyon) 

is legally open to motorized use and the Pacific Crest Trail is currently located along part of the 

road. The long-term objective will be to relocate the trail to a nonmotorized location.

The “Optimal Location Review” is a project-level analysis process that ensures that the Pacific 

Crest Trail is located in the setting that best meets the congressional intent for location, 

outstanding recreation opportunities, and scenic resources. Actual relocation of the trail will 

require National Environmental Policy Act review and compliance, and significant relocations 

require Congressional approval. On private lands, easements that have been acquired may be as 

narrow as 10 feet and are typically insufficient to provide the optimal recreation opportunities and 

protect the scenic values of the trail.

Management of the Pacific Crest Trail is designed to harmonize with and complement established 

multiple-use plans to ensure continued benefits from the lands. Managers protect the integrity of 

the trail by avoidance, mitigation, and modifying management practices as needed. 

Table 133 displays the number of miles43 of the Pacific Crest Trail by national forest and within 

designated wilderness, and by activities outside of wilderness. The Pacific Crest Trail in the three 

national forests under plan revision is 89 percent within designated wilderness. 

 

41 36 CFR 261.20 42 Regional Order 88-4 and 36 CFR 212.21 43 Miles of “standard terra” trails, which have a surface consisting predominantly of the ground and are designed and 

managed to accommodate use on that surface. It does not include snow or water trails.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

537

Table 133. Number of miles of forest trails and miles of Pacific Crest Trail within and outside of 

designated wilderness

National Forest

Total 

National 

Forest Trail 

Miles

Total 

Wilderness 

Trail Miles

Total 

Nonwilderness

National 

Forest Trail

Miles 

Nonwilderness 

National Forest 

Trail Miles 

Open to 

Motorized Use

Nonwilderness 

National Forest 

Trail Miles 

Open to Bicycle 

Use

Inyo 1,378 787 592 340 587

Inyo Pacific 

Crest Trail 

86 81 5 0 0 

Sequoia 1,044 296 748 386 735

Sequoia Pacific 

Crest Trail

47 34 13 0 0 

Sierra 1,029 618 411 185 411

Sierra Pacific 

Crest Trail

27 27 0 0 0 

Total – All 3 

national forests

3,451 1,701 1,751 910 1,733

Total Pacific 

Crest Trail

160 142 18 0 0 

Inyo National Forest: The Inyo National Forest manages 86 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail. 

Ninety-four percent of this mileage on the Inyo is located within designated wilderness, including 

the South Sierra, Golden Trout, John Muir, and Ansel Adams Wildernesses. The 1988 Inyo forest 

plan (USDA FS 1988) specifies that only nonmotorized use will occur in a primitive or semiprimitive recreation opportunity setting. The areas allocated to the primitive or semi-primitive 

settings are entirely located within designated wilderness. The Inyo National Forest has 592 miles 

of trail outside of wilderness with 57 percent of those trails open to motorized use and 99 percent 

open to bicycle use.

Sequoia National Forest: The Pacific Crest Trail travels through the Sequoia National Forest for 

47 miles, in three segments. The trail travels 22 miles, crossing back and forth on the Inyo 

National Forest and Sequoia National Forest boundary, mostly in the South Sierra Wilderness, 16 

miles through the Scodie Mountains in the Kiavah Wilderness, and 9 miles through the Piutes 

(nonwilderness). The total wilderness mileage is 34 miles. There are 7 road crossings, and 11 

nonsystem off-highway vehicle route crossings in the Piutes section of the Pacific Crest Trail. 

Within the Piutes, there are numerous miles of nonsystem trails that are not authorized on the 

Sequoia Motor Vehicle Use Map but are of interest to the motorized recreation community. The 

Sequoia National Forest in total has 748 miles of system trail outside of wilderness. Of that, 51 

percent is open to motorized use and 98 percent is open to bicycle use.

Sierra National Forest: The Pacific Crest Trail travels through the Sierra National Forest for 27 

miles all in designated wilderness of the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wilderness. The Sierra 

national Forest has 411 miles of trail outside of wilderness and of that 45 percent is open to 

motorized use and 100 percent is open to bicycle use.

Visitor Use

Trailwide: There are numerous points of entry for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail as it 

travels 2,650 miles through 25 national forests, 7 Bureau of Land Management Field Offices, and 

6 national parks (and 48 wilderness areas); therefore obtaining total monthly or annual trail user 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

538

numbers on all parts of the Pacific Crest Trail has been cost prohibitive.. The largest segment of 

the Pacific Crest Trail users is day hikers. Since the trail is within two hours travel time from the 

metropolitan centers of San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Portland, and Seattle, there is a 

high demand for day and weekend use. Interest in long-distance hiking of the Pacific Crest Trail

has been increasing in the past years, and the trend is expected to continue. The New York Times 

Bestseller book by Cheryl Strayed, Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail (2012) 

and subsequent movie has increased the interest in the Pacific Crest Trail from a broad audience. 

Visitor use management is the proactive and adaptive process of planning for and managing 

characteristics of visitor use and its physical and social setting, using a variety of strategies and 

tools, to sustain desired resource conditions and visitor experiences.

The popularity of long distance trails is growing and there has been an increase in numbers of 

visitors for thru-hike use on the Pacific Crest Trail. This trend is expected to continue. Both 

section users (traveling greater than 500 miles) and entire trail users on the Pacific Crest Trail

receive a permit, and the numbers of permits issued in the past two years are shown in Table 134. 

Preliminary reports for 2015 through June show increases in applications. In the past 10 years, 

permit issuance for hikers and equestrians traveling greater than 500 miles on the Pacific Crest 

Trail has increased significantly. Successful completion of the entire length of the trail in one 

season is highly dependent of snow conditions and wildfire activity. The number of completions 

reported in 2013 is low likely due to early season snowfall in that year. Table 134 shows that in 

the spring of 2015, the highest number of permits issued was 4,453. Completion rate for thrutravelers in 2015 was 19 percent of permits issued (Pacific Crest Trail Visitor Use Statistics, no 

date). The attrition rate and distribution has not been further analyzed to account for travelers 

never using the permit or the locations where trips ended.

Table 134. Section and entire permits issued for the Pacific Crest Trail 2013-2015

Year

Total 

Number of 

permits 

issued

Northbound 

thru-hike 

permits

Southbound 

thru-hike 

permits

Section 

hike 

permits

Thruride 

permits

Section 

ride 

permits

Completions 

reported

2013 1,879 988 53 834 1 3 2711

2014 2,655 1,367 94 1,179 7 8 472

2015 4,453 2,486 322 1,633 4 8 478

1. Low number of completions likely due to early season snowfall.

In 2015, 8 percent of the permits issued were to international travelers from 34 countries with the 

most number from Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom respectively. The majority of the 

permits (92 percent) were to recreationists originating from the United States represented by all

50 states and the District of Columbia with the most number being issued to California, 

Washington, and Oregon state residents respectively.

Within the central Sierra, land managers within the Forest Service and National Park Service have 

been concerned about increasing visitor use on the John Muir Trail, which uses the same trail 

tread as the Pacific Crest Trail in the Inyo and Sierra National Forests and in Yosemite and 

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Figure 43 shows from 2011 to 2015 there has been a 

100 percent increase in John Muir Trail visitor use permits issued. Yosemite National Park 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

539

implemented for 2015 an exit quota permit system to address access and resource concerns 

related to increased use.44

Figure 43. John Muir Trail Usage (which uses the same trail tread as the Pacific Crest Trail for most 

of its route) 

Inyo National Forest: The number of Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail thru-hikers in early 

June each year is large enough that South Sierra Wilderness occupied campsite standards are 

occasionally exceeded. Otherwise, there are no known campsite occupancy issues within the 

remainder of the trail corridor associated with thru-hikers. In the area where the Pacific Crest 

Trail coincides with the John Muir Trail, there are known issues with capacity to accommodate 

large numbers of travelers on the John Muir Trail during peak wilderness use season, especially 

August. 

Sequoia National Forest: The Sequoia National Forest is not aware of any current capacity 

issues. Forest Service and National Park Service managers have identified capacity issues related 

to the John Muir Trail, which uses the same trail tread as the Pacific Crest Trail on the Sierra 

National Forest and Inyo National Forests, and at Yosemite and Sequoia and Kings Canyon 

National Parks. This trend is expected to continue.

Sierra National Forest: The Pacific Crest Trail and John Muir Trail overlap throughout the 

Sierra National Forest. Because the popularity of the two trails is growing, this trend is expected 

to continue. There are no known capacity issues on the Pacific Crest Trail on the Sierra National 

Forest at this time.

 

44 See the Yosemite National Park Web site at: http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/jmtfaq.htm 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

540

Competitive Events

Trailwide: Interest in trail running has been increasing in recent years. A study completed by the 

2014 Outdoor Recreation Participation Report by the Outdoor Foundation (2014) noted that 6.8 

million Americans ages 6 and older participated in trail running in 2013, which is 2.3 percent of 

the population. The study concluded that running, including jogging and trail running, was the 

most popular activity among Americans when measured by number of participants and by 

number of total annual outings. Trail running by individuals is allowed on the Pacific Crest Trail 

without restrictions. Recreation special use permits are required for trail running events that 

charge fees for participation or have more than 75 people participating. By policy, competitive 

event permits are not allowed in designated wilderness.45 The concerns regarding commercial

competitive events displacing the primary users of the Pacific Crest Trail has been raised through 

social media in a variety of Web sites. While there is no comprehensive list of events on the 

Pacific Crest Trail at this time, for the races that that have been compiled, they range in 

participation from 75 to 800 people and total approximately 3,500 annually. 

Inyo National Forest: Ninety-six percent of the Pacific Crest Trail is in designated wilderness 

and there are no competitive events allowed by policy. Outside of designated wilderness, there are 

no existing authorizations for competitive events on the trail. Recreation special uses are 

authorized within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area in the Reds Meadow Valley, including 

Reds Meadow Resort and Pack Station, and Agnew Meadows Pack Station.

Sequoia National Forest: Seventy-two percent of the Pacific Crest Trail on the Sequoia National 

Forest is in designated wilderness and no competitive events are allowed. Outside of designated 

wilderness, no competitive events are currently permitted on the trail. 

Sierra National Forest: The entire length of the Pacific Crest Trail on the Sierra National Forest 

is in designated wilderness and no competitive events are allowed.

Scenery

Trailwide: While on National Forest System lands, the Pacific Crest Trail may pass through a 

variety of management areas, with forestwide direction in place that defines the allowable uses 

(such as hikers and equestrians) of the trail and the visual resource objectives. The three national 

forests currently employ a standard for visual quality objectives of retention or partial retention in 

the areas viewed as foreground from the Pacific Crest Trail (approximately one-half mile of 

centerline of the trail) and modification in the middle and background distance zones. Since the 

trail crosses many national forests, it is important to note that the majority of the forest plans for 

the national forests the Pacific Crest Trail travels through were developed in the 1980s and are 

still under the visual resource management standards and have not been amended to reflect the 

currently used Scenery Management System.

Inyo National Forest: The Pacific Crest Trail offers outstanding scenic vistas and panoramic 

views along the entire 80 miles managed by the Inyo National Forest. In the South Sierra and 

Golden Trout Wilderness Areas, travelers on the Pacific Crest Trail enjoy views of the South Fork 

Kern River drainage and vast meadows located on the Kern Plateau. In the John Muir and Ansel 

Adams Wilderness Areas, Pacific Crest Trail visitors experience stunning vistas of glaciated 

landscapes, including sparkling blue lakes with a backdrop of high, rocky peaks on the Sierra 

Crest.

 

45 Forest Service Manual 2323.13h 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

541

The forest plan for the Inyo National Forest provides direction that 94 percent of the Pacific Crest 

Trail corridor will be managed for preservation of the visual quality, while the remaining six 

percent of the corridor will be managed to retain visual quality. 

Sequoia National Forest: Most of the Pacific Crest Trail visual corridor on the Sequoia National 

Forest is protected with a visual quality objective of retention or better. The greatest portion of the 

trail travels through wilderness on the Sequoia National Forest and on adjacent lands.

Sierra National Forest: Similar to the Inyo National Forest, the Pacific Crest Trail offers 

outstanding scenic vistas and panoramic views on the Sierra National Forest. In the John Muir 

and Ansel Adams Wilderness Areas, Pacific Crest Trail visitors experience similar stunning vistas 

of the Sierra Crest.

Vegetation Management and Wildfire

Trailwide: In the last 10 years, wildfire has played a significant role in the accessibility and 

scenic experience of the Pacific Crest Trail for hikers and equestrians. In the last 50 years, 

235,521 acres of the Pacific Crest Trail corridor has burned, of which, almost half occurred in the 

past 10 years. Vegetation and grazing have been managed to reflect the underlying forestwide and 

management area direction along the trail.

Inyo National Forest: Vegetation within the Pacific Crest Trail corridor has been affected by 

disturbances associated with past wildfire and a severe wind event. Vegetation within the trail

corridor has also been affected by less frequent wildfires resulting from fire suppression. 

Three wildfires occurred during the past 10 to 50 years that affected the trail corridor. Portions of 

all these wildfires burned with high severity. Research found that wildfires historically burned 

every 14 to 18 years with low severity (Caprio et al. 2006). Fire suppression during the past 

century has resulted in the absence of such regular fire disturbance, which increased the density 

of smaller trees in the understory of mature forests, and led to encroachment of conifers into 

meadows. The increased density of trees creates high fuel loading and elevated hazard for highseverity wildfire, such as seen in the Rainbow Fire of 1992. Conifer growth in meadows poses 

potential for loss of grassland sites in the future. The meadow encroachment is most notable in 

the smaller grassland sites along the Pacific Crest Trail near Deer Creek, south of Reds Meadow. 

These meadows may become forested sites in the next few decades without future fire 

disturbance. 

In November 2011, a severe wind event toppled thousands of trees within the Pacific Crest Trail

corridor in areas of the Inyo National Forest. The most severe wind damage occurred in the 

vicinity of Reds Meadow, within the Middle Fork San Joaquin River watershed. The legacy of 

this wind damage is high fuel loading and increased wildfire hazard in areas with blowdown. 

The current trends in ecological conditions are expected to continue, including elevated fuel loads 

with risk of high-severity wildfire, loss of meadows with conifer encroachment, and other 

ecosystem disturbance associated with climate change.

Sequoia National Forest: In the last 10 years, wildfire has played a significant role in the 

accessibility and scenic experience of the Pacific Crest Trail for hikers and equestrians on the 

Sequoia National Forest. The Clover Fire of 2012 and the Manter Fire of 2000 are examples of 

large, high-severity burns that have affected the recreation experience on the Pacific Crest Trail. 

Though the trail itself was not overly impacted by all high-severity wildfires, some of the trails 

that access the Pacific Crest Trail on the Sequoia National Forest were impacted, resulting in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

542

many miles of trails closed by fallen dead trees. The current trends in ecological conditions are 

expected to continue, similar to the Inyo and the Sequoia National Forests. 

Sierra National Forest: In the last 10 years, wildfire has played a significant role in the 

accessibility and scenic experience of the Pacific Crest Trail for hikers and equestrians on the 

Sierra National Forest. More than 10 percent of the trail has burned, but none of that was 

considered high-intensity fire. The scenic attractiveness of a landscape can be altered from natural 

events such as floods and fire.

Significant changes in the past 10 to 50 years relate to heavy precipitation followed by a 

significant wind event. Though the Pacific Crest Trail itself was not overly impacted in 2012, a 

majority of the trails that access the trail on the Sierra National Forest were impacted when a 

wind event caused up to 100 trees per mile to fall on these trails. The resulting issue will be the 

fuel loading from all the downed trees below the trail (USDA FS 2011). Current trends in 

ecological conditions are expected to continue, like those described for the Inyo above. 

Lands Special Uses

Trailwide: The national increase in demand for renewable energy, especially wind development, 

has competed with the footpath of this “crest” trail, significantly changing the scenic integrity of 

the trail at a landscape scale in Kern County, California. Additionally, authorizations for new or 

larger transmission lines, pipelines, and other utilities have produced changes in the scenic 

integrity of the trail corridor in all three states the trail passes through. Table 135 and Table 136

summarize the number and acres of wind applications and authorizations by the Bureau of Land 

Management as of March 2015, which are primarily concentrated in the desert and southern areas 

of the state (BLM 2015). The wind testing authorizations exclude projects submitted for 

development. For the wind development authorizations, the Bureau of Land Management has 

authorized more than 3,000 wind turbines on public lands before 2003, but they are not included 

in this table.

Table 135. Wind renewable energy summary (number) by Bureau of Land Management in California, 

October 2015

Area

Testing 

Applications

Testing 

Authorizations

Development 

Applications

Development 

Authorizations

Statewide 15 13 3 3 

Desert 15 9 1 3 

Central CA 0 1 1 0 

Northern CA 0 3 1 0 

Table 136. Wind renewable energy summary (acres) by Bureau of Land Management in California, 

October 2015

Area

Testing 

Applications

Testing 

Authorizations

Development 

Applications

Development 

Authorizations

Statewide 219,878 93,590 26,009 26,795

Desert 219,878 52,738 6,720 26,795

Central CA 0 0 7,882 0 

Northern CA 0 40,852 11,407 0 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

543

Table 137 summarizes the number and acres of solar applications and authorizations by the 

Bureau of Land Management as of October 2015. The Bureau of Land Management has also 

approved six transmission line rights-of-way associated with private land solar facilities.

Table 137. Solar renewable energy summary by Bureau of Land Management in California, Oct 2015

Area

Development 

Applications 

(numbers)

Development 

Applications 

(acres)

Development 

Authorizations 

(number)

Development 

Authorizations 

(acres)

Statewide Acres 5 34,806 8 21,091

Desert Acres 5 34,806 8 21,091

Central CA Acres 0 0 0 0 

Northern CA Acres 0 0 0 0 

Inyo National Forest There are no authorizations for lands special uses along the Pacific Crest 

Trail, such as wind turbines, utility transmission lines, or pipelines.

Sequoia National Forest: There are no known authorizations for lands special uses along the 

Pacific Crest Trail both inside and outside of designated wilderness.

Sierra National Forest: The Pacific Crest Trail is entirely within designated wilderness. There 

are no authorizations for non-recreation special uses along the trail, such as wind turbines, utility 

transmission lines, or pipelines.

Socio Economic Considerations

Trailwide: The Outdoor Recreation Economy Report (Outdoor Industry Association 2012) 

identifies that outdoor recreation creates 6.1 million American jobs and produced $646 billion in 

outdoor recreation spending each year and 80 billion in Federal, State, and local tax revenue. The 

outdoor recreation economy thrives when Americans spend their dollars in the pursuit of outdoor 

recreation. This spending occurs in two forms: the purchase of gear and vehicles, and dollars 

spent on trips and travel. It is estimated that for every dollar spent on gear and vehicles, four 

dollars are spent on trips and travel.

The Pacific Crest Trail resupply points within counties that the forest plan revision covers include 

the towns of Tehachapi, Mojave, Onyx, Lake Isabella, Lone Pine, Independence, Bishop, 

Mammoth Lakes, Tuolumne Meadows, and Lee Vining and the businesses of Kennedy Meadows 

General Store, Muir Trail Ranch, Vermillion Valley Resort, and Red’s Meadow Resort. These 

communities receive an influx of recreation-related supply and service requests as Pacific Crest 

Trail hikers and equestrians travel through or near their communities. While the economic 

contribution of Pacific Crest Trail travelers alone has not been studied, California State Parks 

(2011) estimated recreational visitors to California parks and participants in the major recreation 

activities in California spent over $20 billion on trip expenditures and equipment. Trip 

expenditures include a variety of goods and services such as overnight lodging, restaurant meals, 

groceries, and gasoline. The sources of direct recreation expenditures vary considerably among 

the regions. The Sierra region had the largest direct expenditures ($3.5 billion) associated with 

visitation to federally managed lands (see the section on economic conditions in the “Recreation 

and Tourism” section on page 583). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

544

Environmental Consequences

Recreation Opportunity (MA-PCTW-DC-02 and MA-PCT-DC-03)

Table 138 through Table 140 outline the recreation opportunity spectrum class within each 

alternative by national forest. The Pacific Crest Trail Comprehensive Management Plan allows 

for the full range of the recreation opportunity spectrum to be experienced with rural and urban 

sections of the trail “generally be(ing) as short as necessary to allow passage across or under

highways and railroads or passage through developed areas.” No acres of the Pacific Crest Trail 

are classified as urban in the recreation opportunity spectrum on the three national forests in any 

alternative.

Consequences Common to All Alternatives

Alternative A provides the least amount of acres in all categories of the recreation opportunity 

spectrum. Alternative C provides the most acres in the primitive class with alternative A 

providing the least. 

Table 138. Acres of each recreation opportunity spectrum class in the Pacific Crest Trail 

Management Area, Inyo National Forest

Alternative Primitive

Semiprimitive 

Nonmotorized

Semiprimitive 

Motorized

Roaded 

Natural

Roaded 

Modified Rural

Alternative A 112 0 2 2 0 0 

Alternative B 37,685 359 0 320 1,610 0 

Alternative C 117,002 3,720 5,640 0 2,471 1,517

Alternative D 20,975 59 0 297 721 0 

Table 139. Acres of each recreation opportunity spectrum class in the Pacific Crest Trail 

Management Area, Sequoia National Forest

Alternative Primitive

Semiprimitive 

Nonmotorized

Semiprimitive 

Motorized

Roaded 

Natural

Roaded 

Modified Rural

Alternative A 5 38 3 15 0 0 

Alternative B 1,916 14,704 748 3,514 0 0 

Alternative C 7,717 32,267 2,875 3,525 0 0 

Alternative D 1,060 8,677 359 2,164 0 0 

Table 140. Acres of each recreation opportunity spectrum class in the Pacific Crest Trail 

Management Area, Sierra National Forest

Alternative Primitive

Semiprimitive 

Nonmotorized

Semiprimitive 

Motorized

Roaded 

Natural

Roaded 

Modified Rural

Alternative A 41 1 0 0 0 0 

Alternative B 14,631 373 29 0 0 0 

Alternative C 81,449 2,982 1,731 461 0 0 

Alternative D 7,893 177 14 0 0 0 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

545

Table 141, Table 142, and Table 143 outline the management area acres by national forest and 

alternative with alternative C having the most number of acres, followed by B, D, and A in all 

alternatives.

Table 141. Acres of Pacific Crest Trail Management Area inside and outside of wilderness, Inyo 

National Forest

Alternative 

Inside 

Wilderness

Outside 

Wilderness Total

Percent of Acres 

in Wilderness

Alternative A 112 4 116 96%

Alternative B 37,519 2,455 39,973 94%

Alternative C 116,507 13,843 130,350 89%

Alternative D 20,900 1,152 22,052 95%

Table 142. Acres of the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area inside and outside of wilderness, 

Sequoia National Forest

Alternative 

Inside 

Wilderness

Outside 

Wilderness Total

Percent of Acres 

in Wilderness

Alternative A 43 18 61 70%

Alternative B 16,621 4,262 20,883 80%

Alternative C 37,621 8,763 46,384 81%

Alternative D 8,070 14 8,084 100%

Table 143. Acres of Pacific Crest Trail Management Area inside and outside of wilderness, Sierra 

National Forest

Alternative 

Inside 

Wilderness

Outside 

Wilderness Total

Percent of Acres 

in Wilderness

Alternative A 42 0 42 100%

Alternative B 15,004 29 15,033 100%

Alternative C 84,431 2,200 86,631 97%

Alternative D 9,738 2,523 12,261 79%

We received many letters expressing concerns about the loss of motorized and mechanized 

(bicycle) opportunities within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area. Table 144, Table 145, 

and Table 146 display the miles of motorized roads and trails within the management area that 

occur outside of designated wilderness areas. Eighty-nine percent of the plan area and most of the 

Pacific Crest Trail Management Area on the Inyo and Sierra National Forests is within designated 

wilderness where motorized and mechanized use is prohibited and no road construction would be 

allowed. 

Table 144. Miles of motorized roads and trails within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area 

(outside wilderness), Inyo National Forest

Alternative Miles of System Open Road Miles of System Motorized Trail 

Alternative A 0 0 

Alternative B 11.5 0 

Alternative C 29.6 2.4

Alternative D 6.7 0 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

546

Table 145. Miles of motorized roads and trails within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area 

(outside wilderness), Sequoia National Forest

Alternative System Open Road (Miles) System Motorized Trail (Miles)

Alternative A 0 2.3

Alternative B 3.1 3.6

Alternative C 3.1 14.3

Alternative D 0.6 2.9

Table 146. Miles of motorized roads and trails within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area 

(outside wilderness), Sierra National Forest

Alternative System Open Road (Miles) System Motorized Trail (Miles)

Alternative A 0 0 

Alternative B 0 0 

Alternative C 0.3 0 

Alternative D 0 0 

The largest area within the planning area outside wilderness is in the Piute Mountains in the most 

southern section of the Sequoia National Forest. Within this area numerous miles of nonsystem 

trails exist and advocates for off-highway vehicle and motorcycle riding have expressed their 

desire to have many of these added to the designated system. Some of these trails cross the 

Pacific Crest Trail and are not authorized in the Sequoia Motor Vehicle Use Map.46 For these 

unauthorized routes to be added to the designated system of trails, they must be evaluated in a 

site-specific travel management analysis that is outside the scope of this forest plan revision 

analysis. 

Consequences Common to all Alternatives (MA-PCT-SUIT-02) 

Trailwide the Pacific Crest Trail is open to foot and horse travel and closed to motorized47 and 

mechanized travel.

48 The existing closures would continue. There is no change proposed in 

travel management. 

Consequences Common to Alternatives B, C, and D (MA-PCT-GDL-04, 05, 06) 

There are no system roads or trails that are proposed to be closed or a change in management or 

use related to the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area in this forest plan revision. New 

permanent roads are not permitted unless required by law to provide access to private lands or 

documented as the only prudent and feasible alternative. New motorized and mechanized trails 

within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area may be authorized in site-specific travel 

management and would be designed to minimize the visual, sound, and resource impacts to the 

Pacific Crest Trail. 

Visitor Use (MAs-PCTW and Potential Management Approaches)

Consequences Common to all Alternatives

We anticipate visitor use to continue to grow based on the increased interest in the Pacific Crest 

Trail in the past three years and trends seen on the John Muir Trail, which uses the same trail 

 

46 36 CFR 212.56 47 36 CFR 261.20 48 Regional Order 88-4 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

547

tread as the Pacific Crest Trail on the Inyo and Sierra National Forests. Visitor use would not 

directly vary by alternative and visitor use management strategies may be used by managers in all 

alternatives to minimize impacts to the physical trail resource and social setting. 

Competitive Events (MA-PCT-GDL-03)

Competitive events have a potential to disrupt and displace hikers and equestrians that may be 

using the same section of the Pacific Crest Trail when the event occurs. Some recreationists see 

the events in a positive manner and celebrate the activity, free food, and companionship. Others 

are concerned about the numbers of encounters they make over a short period of time with limited 

sight distance and passing zones on the trail. There are benefits, both economic and health related, 

from endurance running and riding that are very positive for individuals and communities. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Currently, there are no existing permits for competitive events on the Pacific Crest Trail on the 

Inyo, Sequoia, or Sierra National Forests. 

Consequences Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

Competitive events are prohibited in designated wilderness by policy. In alternatives B, C, and D, 

competitive events may be authorized outside of wilderness to cross the Pacific Crest Trail but 

would not be allowed on the trail. This prohibition would decrease the potential for displacement 

of the primary Pacific Crest Trail users, hikers (including individual trail runners) and 

equestrians. The Sequoia National Forest has 13 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail outside of 

wilderness, followed by 5 miles on the Inyo National Forest where competitive events would not 

be allowed. Across the three national forests this equates to 0.08 percent of the nonwilderness 

trail miles.

Because there are no existing permits for competitive events on the Pacific Crest Trail, there 

would be no displacement of existing users and the remaining 1,751 miles of trails outside of 

wilderness on the national forests could be considered for that activity and provide that recreation 

and economic opportunity. 

Scenery (MAs-PCTW and PCT and PCT-GDL-01))

Table 147, Table 148, and Table 149 outline the acres in different scenic integrity objectives by 

national forest and alternative in the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area. As described 

previously, the Forest Service is transitioning from the Visual Management System used in forest 

planning in the 1980s to the current Scenery Management System directed in Agricultural 

Handbook 701 (USDA FS 1995) 

Table 147. Acres of scenic integrity objectives within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area, Inyo 

National Forest

Alternative Very High High Moderate Low

Alternative A 111 4 0 0 

Alternative B 37,519 2,447 7 0 

Alternative C 116,507 13,419 424 0 

Alternative D 20,900 1,150 2 0 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

548

Table 148. Acres of scenic integrity objectives within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area, 

Sequoia National Forest

Alternative Very High High Moderate Low

Alternative A 43 16 2 0 

Alternative B 16,621 3,376 886 0 

Alternative C 37,621 7,871 892 0 

Alternative D 9,738 1,922 601 0 

Table 149. Acres of scenic integrity objectives within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area, Sierra 

National Forest

Alternative Very High High Moderate Low

Alternative A 42 0 0 0 

Alternative B 15,004 29 0 0 

Alternative C 84,431 2,200 0 0 

Alternative D 8,070 14 0 0 

Consequences Common to Alternatives B, C, and D 

Within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Areas in these alternatives, 99 percent of the scenic 

integrity objectives are in the very high or high categories.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A 

Continuation of the use of the Visual Management System and visual quality objectives would be 

contrary to current Forest Service policy. The Visual Management System is not an adaptive 

system and does not respond to changing ecological conditions as the Scenery Management 

System does. The three national forests would convert to the Scenery Management System under 

alternative A. Alternative A provides the least scenic integrity objective acres within the very high

and high categories within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area.

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

Alternative B would provide the second most number of acres within the Pacific Crest Trail

Management area for very high and high scenic integrity by identifying the width for including 

the visible foreground, which can be up to one-half mile of centerline of the trail.

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Alternative C would provide the most number of acres in the very high and high categories for 

scenic integrity for the Pacific Crest Trail by combining visible foreground of up to one-half mile 

of centerline of the trail and Scenic Attractiveness A landscapes that represent the iconic views 

and can be up to 4 miles of centerline of the trail. Alternative C would have the most number of 

acres of moderate scenic integrity objectives for the Sequoia and Inyo National Forests. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

Alternative D would provide more acres in the very high and high category within the Pacific 

Crest Trail Management area than alternative A but less than alternative B by protecting scenic 

integrity up to one-quarter mile of centerline of the trail.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

549

Vegetation Management and

Fuels Treatment (MA-PCT-DC-02 and MA-PCT-GDL-02)

Vegetation and fuels management have a high potential to alter the landscape and affect scenic 

resources. Activities typically reduce scenic integrity in the short term because of the associated 

slash prior to burning, stumps, and landing and road construction. In the long term, treatment 

activities may maintain or enhance scenic integrity, scenic character stability, and the ability to 

resist insects, disease, and large-scale wildfire. Consequently, treated areas may appear 

moderately to highly altered for longer periods of time, depending upon the treatment and 

mitigation measures implemented.

Consequences Common to all Alternatives

In all alternatives, vegetation management for ecosystem restoration would be allowed in the 

Pacific Crest Trail Management Area to retain the desired condition of a naturally appearing 

landscape. New permanent roads would not be allowed to be constructed within the Pacific Crest 

Trail Management Area unless they are required by law to provide access to private lands or 

documented as the only prudent and feasible alternative. Hauling and skidding along the trail

would not be allowed to protect the trail integrity (MA-PCT-STD-01). Temporary roads would be 

allowed within the Pacific Crest Trail corridor and should be designed to minimize visual, sound, 

and resource impacts to the trail (MA-PCT-GDL-05). 

Fuel reduction efforts (such as mechanical thinning) may result in short-term decreases in scenic 

quality because of cut vegetation, slash, and disturbed soils. Planning for scenic elements and 

adherence to design criteria would minimize short-term impacts and reap long-term benefits, 

thereby meeting scenic integrity objectives. Fuel reduction activities should result in more 

resilient forest conditions, which should be better able to resist uncharacteristic wildfires (MAPCT-GDL-02). 

Management efforts to control insect infestations and diseases that include removal of infected 

trees and a distance around them often appear as clearcutting to forest visitors. These impacts can 

occur in areas of high scenic value (like along scenic routes) and may reduce scenic quality in the 

short term (MA-PCT-GDL-02). 

Consequences Common to

Alternatives B, C, and D (MA-PCT-DC-02 and MA-PCT-GDL-02) 

The management area acres are within the lands suitable for timber production. Management area 

direction supports vegetation management and fuel treatment to provide for ecosystem restoration 

and to enhance the trail environment. The short-term effects related to vegetation and fuels 

management activities may decrease scenic integrity. However, long-term effects should increase 

scenic integrity and scenic stability by restoring ecosystem functions.

Short-term negative effects to scenic resources would be the greatest under alternative D, which 

would treat more acres mechanically, with wildfire, and prescribed fire than alternatives A, B, or 

C. The greatest improvement to scenic integrity and scenic stability over the long term would be 

realized under alternative D as ecosystem function were restored or maintained.

Lands Special Uses (MA-PCT-SUIT-01 and 03)

Energy corridor rights-of-way, communication sites, and wind towers have a high potential to 

affect scenic resources for a long duration. Cleared rights-of-way and utility structures contrast 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

550

and may be incongruent with existing landscapes. Cleared rights-of-way generally contrast highly 

with the surrounding landscape.

Consequences Common to All Alternatives

New permits for mineral materials such as sand, gravel, pumice, cinders and other common 

variety minerals permits would not be issued. Leasable minerals such as oil, gas, and geothermal 

energy are available for leasing but must contain a “no surface occupancy” stipulation.

Consequences Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

Utility rights-of-way are to be located where impacts already exist and should be limited to a 

single crossing of the Pacific Crest Trail unless documented as the only prudent and feasible 

alternative.

Alternative C provides the most scenic protection to the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area 

from utility development, communication sites, wind towers, and mineral materials and surface 

occupancy for leasable minerals followed by alternatives B and D. Eighty-nine percent of the trail

is within designated wilderness where these types of uses are already unsuitable because of the 

wilderness designation. Alternatives A and D provides the least scenic protection to the Pacific 

Crest Trail Management Area and the least restrictions to communication sites, energy 

development, mineral materials permits, and surface occupancy for leasable minerals 

communication sites and wind energy development. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative effects analysis area for the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area is all lands 

the trail travels through in the State of California. This area was selected because of ongoing and 

proposed activities on neighboring national forests, adjacent State and Bureau of Land 

Management lands (such as renewable energy development and energy corridor developments), 

and private lands that the trail traverses connecting to public lands. 

Recreation Opportunities and

Visitor Use (MA-PCTW and PCT-DC -01 and Potential Management Strategies) 

Population growth in California is expected to grow at approximately 500,000 people each year 

and reach 50 million by 2050 (California 2014). Increased demand for outdoor recreation 

opportunities and the need for all types of recreation experiences to be improved is expected to 

continue. Project-level actions taken to limit visitor use on the John Muir Trail and Pacific Crest 

Trail long distance permits will have connected actions to nearby points of entry and visitors 

seeking alternative connecting routes to the Pacific Crest Trail. Visitor use management actions 

by Federal land management agencies to limit impacts to the trail’s physical resources and social 

settings are likely to increase as a cumulative effect.

Competitive Events (MA-PCT-GDL-03) 

Trailwide and within California, interest in competitive events for trail running is likely to 

continue with increases in permit applications for races primarily between Memorial Day and 

Labor Day. These commercial recreation special use permits are prohibited in designated 

wilderness and future wilderness designations would also prohibit that activity on approximately 

30 percent of the Forest Service trails in California. The remaining 70 percent of the trail system 

(approximately 11,000 miles) would be available as potential race routes. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

551

Vegetation Management and Fuels Treatment 

Vegetation and fuels treatments are planned or proposed for much of the land within the 

cumulative effects analysis area outside of designated wilderness. This, combined with the 

planned or proposed treatments within in all alternatives, could result in cumulative effects to 

scenic resources. More of the landscape, in the short term, would appear to be moderately to 

slightly altered until the longer-term scenic integrity objective is achieved. In the long term, 

treatment activities may maintain or enhance scenic integrity, scenic character stability, and the 

ability to resist insects, disease, and large-scale wildfire.

Lands Special Uses

The trend in increased renewable energy and energy corridor developments are of particular 

concern south of the Sequoia National Forest and within and adjacent to existing energy projects 

and corridors. These would be more permanent landscape modifications. Where solar panel 

arrays and additional wind farms are developed, there may be dramatic changes to the existing 

landscape and scenic integrity from the physical structures. These types of energy developments 

would also require additional transmission lines to connect to existing energy corridors and could 

result in the creation of new energy corridors or expansion of existing energy corridors. 

Analytical Conclusions 

Overall, based on the amount of area identified within the Pacific Crest Trail Management Area, 

alternative C provides the most protection for the resources, qualities, values, and associated 

settings and primary uses of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail followed by alternative B, D 

and A.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

552

Tribal Relations and Uses

Background

This section summarizes the current tribal relations programs on the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra 

National Forests and the potential environmental consequences to tribes and tribal resources of 

implementing the draft forest plans and the alternatives.

The indigenous peoples of the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests have an unbroken union 

with this place for at least 14,000 years (Moratto 1984; Spier 1978; Jones and Klar 2007). The 

long-term relationship tribal people have with the landscape differs from that of most members of 

the public (Zedeño et al. 1997). A tribe’s creation accounts, indigenous place names, sacred 

geography of ceremonial and religious sites, hunting-gathering and fishing areas, and valued 

resources all culminate to form part of the tribal identity and welfare (McAvoy et al. 2004). 

Changes in any proportion or condition of these closely tied people, places, and resources can 

result in impacts or improvements in the health of tribes and the environment. Thus, the rivers, 

forests, mountains, and meadows we look at on a map or experience on the national forests are 

intrinsic to the traditions and livelihoods to tribes, and the tribes are very concerned about impacts 

or changes to those areas.

The Federal government has a trust responsibility to federally recognized American Indians, as 

well as a public trust for the management of natural, cultural, and heritage resources. As land 

managers, Forest Service staff know that the areas they currently manage are also ancestral lands 

to many tribes, creating the need to have effective relationships with these Tribes. The agency is

directed by Federal policy, laws, and associated authorities to engage in formal consultation, and 

to provide avenues for additional communication and collaboration with federally recognized 

tribes. Nearly every action undertaken by the Forest Service has the potential to affect tribal 

relations and uses either directly or indirectly (Toupal 2003). Effects to tribal relations and uses 

can be adverse or beneficial, short term or long term. Some effects may be mitigated or avoided 

either through tribal consultation (such as, knowledge learned regarding potential impacts or 

consequences of management actions) or redesign (such as, practices that avoid, reduce, or 

mitigate undesired impacts) (Toupal 2003; Burger 2008).

Positive relationships with tribes are important to maintain. Tribes maintain traditional ecological 

knowledge and pass it down through generations through oral and, in modern times, written 

accounts utilizing contemporary technologies and tools. Resources that are important to tribes 

need to be reviewed not only as individual resources, but holistically at a landscape level (Zedeño 

et al. 1997; Watson et al. 2011). Tribal communities are interested in consultation, collaboration, 

and coordination on overall resource condition of the forests. However tribes are also keenly 

interested in access to the forests and in vegetation management and watershed function 

pertaining to ecological goods and services necessary to maintain, enhance, and perpetuate tribal 

traditions and livelihoods. In managing tribal resources, it is important to consider the ecocultural 

attributes for associated ecological goods and services that may differ between the public and 

tribes regarding valued resources (Burger et al. 2008).

The people of various tribes rely on different ecosystems across the bioregion that provide natural 

and cultural resources necessary to perpetuate tribal traditions and livelihoods (Anderson and 

Moratto 1996; Lake and Long 2014). This includes gathering from and tending trees such as 

California black oaks (Haney 1992) and pinyon pines (Zeanah 2002; Farris 1982) for primary 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

553

food sources, medicinal plants, basketry and construction materials from plants, the harvesting of 

fish and game, and culturally important subsistence and spiritual activities (Anderson and 

Moratto 1996) including cross-Sierra travel and trade trips (Arkush 1994), and sacred ceremonies 

(Kroeber 1925; Moratto 1984).

The current degraded condition of the National Forest System lands contribute to limited or 

denied access to traditional foods, leading to food insecurity, increased mental and physical health 

problems (Jemigan et al. 2012). This also can increase the loss of intergenerational traditional 

knowledge and practices among tribal communities (Turner and Turner 2008), which is an 

international and national issue of concern for indigenous peoples (Pimentel et al. 1997; Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2015). 

Analysis and Methods

No modeling was used for this analysis, but there are some frameworks and tools that can be 

applied for considering risk, or the consequences with alternatives regarding the change in 

condition or effects, on tribally valued resources and cultural practices in response to alternatives 

(Toupal 2003; Burger 2008; Pollard et al. 2008). This analysis was developed after a series of 

meetings where tribes, tribal groups and organizations, traditional cultural practitioners, and other 

interested individuals consulted and collaborated on the development of the plan (USDA Forest 

Service 2015). At these meetings, attendees were able to see draft materials and visit with Forest 

Service officials and staff officers and subject matter experts regarding the intent of revising the 

plans. Input was considered in developing the proposed action, refining the proposed action, and 

developing alternatives. The analysis uses a qualitative analysis of the following indicators and 

measures. 

Indicators and Measures

For many years the Forest Service has maintained a primary suppression approach to fire 

management that has led to great success in initial attack and suppression of wildfires (Show and 

Kotok 1924; Stephens and Ruth 2005). This fire management approach has been in direct conflict 

with tribal efforts to continue natural and human-induced fire on the landscape to benefit and 

maintain tribal uses (Lake and Long 2014). Historic tribal fire use across the landscape provided 

for the numerous resources that were subsequently encountered by the influx of Europeans 

(Anderson and Moratto 1996). Ironically, those same newcomers to the Sierra Nevada chastised 

and subsequently criminalized the traditional practices of the Native Americans’ use of fires 

(Timbrook et al. 1993). Fire suppression has led to excessive fuels loading in ground, surface, 

ladder, and canopy fuel, which has resulted in large, high-intensity wildfires (Miller et al. 2009) 

with increased fire intensity and severity, some of which has been attributed to recent climate 

change (Miller and Urban 1999). These higher severity and more extensive fires across the 

landscape have and are impacting natural and cultural resources, tribal values, tribal areas of 

importance, and sacred sites (Timmons et al. 2012; Welch 2012). Tribal values and interests are 

impacted by both uncharacteristic fire and fire deficits (for example, reduction in natural and 

tribal ignitions). This change in the frequency and extent of fire has contributed to increased 

forest density and homogeneity and increased fuel loading of ecosystems. This has made forests 

harder to travel through by the tribes and has decreased shrub and non-forest.

Tribal access can be affected by policy decisions, administrative actions, and physical impacts on 

the ground. Specific concerns from resource management activities, including road building or 

other modifications on the landscape, could affect tribal members accessing valued places 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

554

(gathering areas or sacred sites) or practicing cultural activities. These specific concerns are best 

addressed at the site-specific level during project or activity planning. However, designated areas 

located in the plan area (such as, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, and national scenic and 

historic trails) and recommending additional areas for designation in forest plans might impact 

the reserved rights and interests of tribes. Wilderness designations are controversial with the 

general public as well as with tribes (Stumpff 2000). This concern was particularly expressed in 

tribal forums held on the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. Forest Service staff recognizes the 

importance of working with tribes on protected areas, such as wilderness, to create collaborative 

management strategies that meet mutual interests. The idea of maintaining these areas in their 

“pristine” condition through a “hands off” approach lacks consideration for traditional ecological 

knowledge and associated practices conducted by tribes, tribal groups and organizations, and 

traditional cultural practitioners (Stumpff 2000; McDonald et al. 2000; Watson et al. 2011). This 

is especially true when it does not recognize that tribes have historically managed these 

“wilderness” landscapes through the introduction of fire at appropriate times of the year and in 

specific locations (Blackburn and Anderson 1993). 

Plants and animals that are traditionally and currently important for cultural uses (for instance, 

food, fiber-basketry, medicinal, spiritual) are not able to be sustainably utilized at levels desired 

by tribes when the ecosystems they occur within are degraded, managed for other conflicting 

interest or values, or are not accessible to tribes for traditional cultural purposes. Planning fuels 

and fire treatments across the landscape typically address bio-physical aspects of fire regimes 

(Collins et al. 2010), but do not commonly incorporate socio-cultural values with the 

understanding of how tribal communities are dependent upon fire in different ecosystems, 

habitats, and a range of resources affected by fire in the short-and long-term necessary to 

perpetuate tribal traditions and cultural practices (Toupal 2003; Anderson and Moratto 1996; 

Raish et al. 2005; Carver et al. 2009). Traditional knowledge can inform fuels, wildfire, and forest 

management approaches better suited to address tribal concerns, as well as aid in fulfilling the 

trust responsibility for the management of natural and cultural resources (Mason et al. 2012; Lake 

and Long 2014) 

Reduction of Threat of Wildfire to Tribal Resources

Large, high-intensity wildfires damage and destroy resources and sites important to tribes. The 

alternatives take different approaches to reduce fire threat across the national forest. The

reduction in fire threat is evaluated in the “Fire Management” section.

Amount of Recommended Wilderness that Might Limit Access to Areas 

Important to Tribes or Use of Tribal Resources

Many sites of importance to tribes and many resources of tribal interest are located in remote 

locations and have been used traditionally for many generations. Designating these areas as 

wilderness may limit or impair access to these sites or the ability of tribes to continue to conduct 

ceremonies and gather resources in traditional ways, including managing the land using 

traditional practices. The area of recommended wilderness in each alternative is used as a proxy 

for the potential to impact tribal use of the land and resources. 

Number of Sites Restored Specifically for Tribal Resources

The environment surrounding resources of tribal importance was directly or indirectly managed 

for thousands of years by tribes. With modern management and the current changed environment, 

many resources used by tribes are in diminished quantity and quality and are in need of 

restoration. The alternatives vary in their approach to improving resources of tribal importance. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

555

Assumptions

• The potential effects to tribes and tribal resources is an agency consideration at the outset 

of any and every project planning process. 

• Each of the national forests will continue to regularly conduct Government-toGovernment meetings to provide opportunities to the tribes to consult on all proposed 

activities on national forest lands. Consultation with tribes is guided by a variety of laws, 

regulations, Executive orders, and policies that provide direction for interacting with 

tribes on national forest lands. For example, USDA Departmental Regulation 1340-007 

(USDA 2008) provides policy and implementation guidance to implement the 2000 

Executive Order 13175 on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments. This guidance is independent from forest plan direction and does not 

change across alternatives.

• The Forests will continue to also include tribal groups and organizations, traditional 

cultural practitioners (USDA 2008) and interested individuals in discussions about tribal 

relations and uses.

• The tribal relations programs on each national forest may need to increase as tribal 

consultation increases. Tribes, tribal groups and organizations, traditional cultural 

practitioners, and interested individuals have expressed an interest in more opportunities 

to consult and collaborate on proposed activities. This may be a challenge given expected 

budgets. 

Affected Environment

Forests often serve as sources of traditional medicines, food, firewood, and basketry materials for 

tribes. Certain areas may also be particularly sacred and valued for their importance in sustaining 

cultural traditions and beliefs. When implementing the forest plan, the Forest Service may 

through separate decision conduct or authorize various types of activities that have a substantial 

impact on tribes (Vogel 2001, Toupal 2003, Burger 2008). Those impacts would vary widely 

depending on the level of collaboration maintained with tribal concerns. These could include 

grant programs, timber sales, mining, road building, recreational development and use, 

archaeological excavations, energy development, and other program and project activities 

(Yablon 2004). 

Many cultural resources are both fire- and water-dependent. Basketry materials such as redbud, 

deer grass, willow, chaparral, and sour berry bush need fire enhancement (Anderson 1999). Mints 

and various teas and medicines, such as yarrow, thrive on water and are found in wetlands, 

meadows, and water drainages, but still need fire to maintain their health and usability (Anderson 

and Moratto 1996). Without an occasional burn these resources would become less abundant, 

have increase diseases or pests, and develop morphological characteristics unsuitable for 

traditional uses. Similarly, without fire, meadows, creek banks, and river and lake shores become 

overgrown with stronger, bigger vegetation (like willows, alders, and conifers that require more 

water from the water table). Acorn (oaks) and pine nuts (pines) are the least ground-waterdependent food sources, but they must be able to absorb precipitation. Without a good rainfall or 

when too much overhead canopy develops, acorn and pine nuts will either not grow or they will 

not produce at the levels desired by tribes. Fire helps to reduce the canopy, and the amount of duff 

on the ground, which can become breeding grounds for insects that destroy the acorn and pine nut 

crops (California Department of Water Resources 2014).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

556

Environmental Consequences

to Tribal Relations and Uses

Consideration of Climate Change in Alternatives

Climate change and associated disturbances (for example, drought, fire, insect outbreaks) have in 

the past (North et al. 2009), are now, and will likely continue (Lenihan et al. 2003; Moritz and 

Stephens 2008) to affect tribally valued resources (Voggesser et al. 2013; Chief et al. 2014). 

Several climate change-related risk and modeling assessments have been completed that include 

the geographic scope of the planning area (Sierra Nevada Alliance 2010).

Current and projected changes in forest and water resources affecting tribal communities are

considered in the analysis of the alternatives (see the “Terrestrial Ecosystems” and “Aquatic and 

Riparian Ecosystems” sections). Vulnerability of valued natural resources, tribal coping, and 

adaptive strategies can be informed by tribal consultations (traditional ecological knowledge) and 

available assessments specific to tribes (Alexander et al. 2011). Incorporating strategies and 

actions from climate vulnerability assessments and risk assessments for species and forest 

resources may need to be broadened to mitigate the potential impacts of climate change on tribal 

communities at a scale beyond the influence of the forest plan (Burger 2008; Burger et al. 2008). 

For example, the use of strategic vegetation restoration may reduce the spread of wildfires, and 

reduce threats to communities, but have little influence on drought and vegetation response in 

more remote areas where tribal activities occur. Similarly, focusing on increasing water 

availability for domestic uses in dams and reservoirs may not address the need for improving 

water supply in seeps and springs that have been traditionally used by tribes. Assessments and 

planning tools generally are not specifically applicable to tribes, as tribes are only identified as 

other “stakeholders” (Sierra Nevada Alliance 2010). Other Federal and state agency approaches

have used tribal consultation framework to solicit and incorporate tribal traditional ecological 

knowledge in to climate-related assessments (California Natural Resource Agency 2014).

Consequences Common to all Alternatives

All alternatives retain and continue with existing tribal consultation, sacred site, and non-timber 

forest products mandates and agreements. Forest plan direction for resource management, such as 

heritage, vegetation, soils, water, riparian, aquatic, and wildlife, for all alternatives is designed to 

provide for protection of cultural resource sites or traditional cultural properties.

Resources of tribal importance, such as oaks, are indirectly benefited by restoration actions that 

thin trees around medium- and large-diameter oaks where they can form fuller, healthier crowns 

thereby improving the number and quality of acorns produced. All alternatives would also 

provide for habitat and watershed conditions that would greatly contribute to species viability at 

sustainable and harvestable levels. Invasive species would be managed to avoid encroachments 

on culturally significant foods, fiber/material, and medicinal resources. Also, resource conditions 

would be monitored. 

Researchers have worked with tribes in other regions to identify and address approaches for 

mapping tribal landscape values related to fuels and fire management that can benefit tribes by 

enhancing access to and the quality for resources (Carver et al. 2009; Lake 2013). Fire can be 

targeted at specific locations, forest types, or habitats to promote a range of tribally valued 

resources. For example, in riparian areas where a decreased water supply has degraded 

vegetation, fire can be used to emulate flooding disturbance to enhance willows for basketry 

materials and wildlife habitats, burning in oak-dominated forests to increase access to acorns and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

557

feeding locations for wild game as well as reduce insect infestations (such as, acorn weevil and 

moth pests) that damage traditional food sources (nuts, berries, greens) or species gathered for 

traditional purposes (Anderson 1999). Fire can also be used in different seasons for different 

objects or to align both public and tribal objectives, such as reducing hazardous fuels around 

communities and enhancing access to desired forests and resources (Carver et al. 2009; Lake 

2013). This increased consideration of the approach and timing of restoring fire to the landscape 

would occur in all alternatives. 

Management activities (such as, mechanical thinning, prescribed burning, managing wildfires to 

meet resource objectives, and recreation), implemented to avoid or mitigate adverse effects to 

heritage and cultural resources and tribal values (Carver et al. 2009), may afford greater 

protection compared to consequences from continued forest growth and increasing forest density 

leading to larger and higher intensity wildfires (Miller and Urban 1999; Miller et al. 2009). 

Activities associated with wildfire suppression under emergency conditions can inadvertently 

have adverse impacts to heritage and cultural resources (Welch 2012). Such impacts could result 

from fire suppression actions of running a dozer line through sites and areas important to tribes, 

tribal groups and organizations, traditional cultural practitioners, and interested individuals. Other 

examples are burnout or back burning that adversely affect sites, or establishing water bars on 

firelines and leaving excessive vegetation cover to prevent erosion during mop-up and burn area 

emergency response that could reduce access and mobility of tribal practitioners who use the 

fireline that is often along a former historic Indian trail along ridge systems (Lake 2011; Welch 

2012). It is standard practice to use resource advisors during wildfires to help identify cultural 

resource and mitigate or avoid impacts. Additionally, national forest personnel may consider 

developing fire management agreements with tribes whereby tribal representatives and heritage 

consultants are officially designated within the incident management team organizational 

structure for wildfires (Lake 2011).

Consequences Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

The emphasis on variable treatment intensities and on vegetation heterogeneity in alternatives B, 

C, and D should provide additional opportunities for tribes to consult, collaborate, and actively 

participate in planning processes, as well as identify potential mechanisms for how they can be 

involved with the implementation of landscape restoration treatments (for instance, Tribal Forest 

Protection Act and along Federal/tribal jurisdictional boundaries). 

The proposed forest plans would include the desired condition that “the need for tribal access to 

traditional sites is acknowledged and supported.” While the tribes need access to traditional areas 

and sites, there are some sacred sites where American Indians conduct ceremonies that require 

privacy and solitude and free from auditory or visual distractions and obstructions. Building roads 

to or near such sites may lead to increased visitation by the public or Forest Service staff that 

could affect ceremonies and undermine cultural practices. Roads or resource management 

activities may also alter the character and diminish the value of historic or cultural places. 

Consultation would occur to identify concerns and adjust management so that adequate access for 

agency management or public use does not compromise cultural practices at traditional, cultural, 

and spiritual places.

The forest plans would include a possible management approach recognizing that the national 

forests could increase their capacity to improve tribal relations by considering employee 

exchange opportunities carried out under “Service First” or other mechanisms, beyond standard 

agency workforce cultural transformation mandates that focus on hiring diverse personnel 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

558

(Brown and Harris 1993). Providing opportunities for tribal relations staff to temporarily 

exchange jobs would provide a better reciprocal understanding of programs and promote better 

utilization of tribal programs and legislation that would mutually benefit the national forests and 

tribe. This approach is similar to interagency details, and could extend to inter-governmental 

details for work assignments between tribes and the Forest Service, or at higher regional or 

national scales with agreements between the Bureau of Indian Affairs for tribes and the Forest 

Service.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Alternative A represents the continuing direction from the existing plans (as amended). The forest 

plan revision process has provided tribes, tribal groups and organizations, traditional cultural 

practitioners, and interested individuals additional information regarding the planning process in 

general. Tribes have expressed an interest in not doing business as usual. While the governmentto-government meeting process improves communication and is used in alternative A, tribes, 

tribal groups and organizations, traditional cultural practitioners, and interested individuals may 

have fewer opportunities to be involved in the management process and to maintain or improve 

tribal values. Alternative A does not have tribal interests and values integrated explicitly into plan 

components as much as the other alternatives. 

Reduction of Threat of Wildfire to Tribal Resources

Alternative A reduces fuels to try to reduce the impacts of large, high-severity wildfires that can 

affect tribal resources and values, but at a pace and scale where large fires are still likely to occur. 

This may benefit oak trees in the long term where large fires kill conifer trees and where oaks 

resprout, but it would take many decades before burned mature oak stands can recover and 

produce acorn crops suitable for gathering and use.

Amount of Recommended Wilderness that Might Limit Access to Areas 

Important to Tribes or Use of Tribal Resources

Alternative A would not add new areas recommended for addition to the National Wilderness 

Preservation System and would not contribute to the potential for reduced access. Alternative A 

would not add additional constraints on tribal access to gather, use resources, or hold ceremonies 

in these areas.

Number of Sites Restored Specifically for Tribal Resources

Under alternative A the forests opportunistically develop or design projects specifically to 

improve or maintain resources of tribal importance. Very few if any improvements are made 

specifically to benefit resources of importance to tribes.

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

Alternative B is the draft forest plans that were developed to carry forward existing direction still 

relevant and not in need of change and to address those identified needs for change based on 

comments received during the scoping process and input from tribal forums hosted by each 

national forest. It includes integration of tribal interests and values in desired conditions for other 

resources and a plan objective to restore areas of tribal interest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

559

Reduction of Threat of Wildfire to Tribal Resources

The proposed increase in pace and scale of ecological restoration under alternative B could 

improve ecological sustainability and benefit tribal interests and values when projects incorporate 

traditional ecological knowledge, support active involvement (such as, Government-toGovernment consultation and coordination), and foster traditional management practices (Carver 

et al. 2009). For example, areas that are important for basketry materials or traditional food 

sources would benefit from hazardous fuels treatments that reduce surface and ladder fuels, or 

tree density that foster access and mobility, as well as increase the observation and locating of 

valued resources. This alternative considers opportunities for managing wildfires to meet resource 

objectives that can be informed by the tribal consultation process and collaborative fire planning. 

For example, national forest Heritage Program staff consult and communicate with Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officers and tribal leadership about identifying landscape values at risk, and 

under what conditions fire should be suppressed or managed for ecological and cultural resource 

objectives. See details for “Wildland Fire Decision Support System” (Noonan-Wright et al. 2011), 

and for “Heritage/Tribal Values” (USDI BLM 2010; Welch 2012; Timmons et al. 2012). 

An increase in pace and scale that incorporates traditional ecological knowledge (Lake and Long 

2014) could provide opportunities to tribes to develop tribal economies (Carver et al. 2009). In 

general, ecological sustainability benefits tribal interests, and can foster access to and support 

uses of habitats and resources for traditional cultural purposes. See sections on ecological 

sustainability of terrestrial, aquatic and riparian ecosystems for more detail. Most, if not all, of 

traditional tribal management and uses were and are compatible with modern principles of

ecological sustainability. Ecological restoration projects that incorporate tribal place-based 

knowledge would provide tribes, tribal groups and organizations, traditional cultural practitioners, 

and interested individuals with opportunities to protect, restore, and preserve traditional gathering 

areas, ceremonial areas, and sacred sites (Watson et al. 2009).

Amount of Recommended Wilderness that Might Limit Access to Areas 

Important to Tribes or Use of Tribal Resources

Alternative B would add new areas recommended for addition to the National Wilderness 

Preservation System on the Inyo National Forest. While many tribal activities could still occur 

within areas recommended for wilderness, some activities such as gathering and ceremonial uses 

may be restricted or more difficult if areas are managed as wilderness.

Number of Sites Restored Specifically for Tribal Resources

The Inyo National Forest includes a plan objective to implement 1 to 5 restoration or maintenance 

actions to enhance resource availability for traditional tribal collection activities; the Sequoia and 

Sierra National Forests include a plan objective to implement restoration or maintenance actions 

on 3 to 10 areas of tribal importance per decade. These projects would be determined in 

consultation with the tribes and integrated with other restoration projects where possible. While 

these activities could occur under alternative A, they are more likely to occur under alternative B 

because of the specific plan objective.

In addition to areas improved specifically for tribal resources, alternative B includes desired 

conditions for tribal relations and uses that encourage the coordination with tribes to recognize 

traditional ecological knowledge in managing resources. This encourages silviculture and fuels 

managers to design mechanical treatments to restore tribally valued trees or use areas while 

simultaneously achieving other restoration needs. Ecological restoration of springs and meadows 

would consider those that are important for many tribal uses, including meadows and water 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

560

sources along cross-Sierra traditional travel routes (Arkush 1993; Chartkoff 2001). Reintroducing 

fire that increases ecological sustainability is beneficial to tribes when designed to avoid using 

diesel and gasoline such as drip torch fuel mix where basketry and food plants are gathered, as 

well as considering appropriate seasons and frequencies of burning. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Alternative C places an emphasis on providing more short-term protections for wildlife habitat by 

reducing the amount of mechanical thinning and emphasizing more use of fire to restore 

ecosystems. This alternative proposes recommending more acres of wilderness than other 

alternatives.

Reduction of Threat of Wildfire to Tribal Resources

Alternative C treats the least amount of area to restore vegetation and reduce the risk of large, 

high-intensity wildfires using mechanical treatments. Alternative C is designed to achieve a 

reduction in the risk of large wildfires through thinning only smaller trees and using prescribed 

burning. The areas with prescribed burning could benefit resources of tribal interest by restoring 

fire to the ecosystem. Here is the most area untreated of all the alternatives and the risk of large, 

high-intensity wildfires is the highest of the alternatives B, C, and D, leaving many resources of 

tribal interest at high risk.

Amount of Recommended Wilderness that Might Limit Access to Areas 

Important to Tribes or Use of Tribal Resources

Alternative C would add the largest number of new areas recommended for addition to the 

National Wilderness Preservation System. While many tribal activities could still occur within 

areas recommended for wilderness, some activities, such as gathering and ceremonial uses, may 

be restricted or more difficult if areas are managed as wilderness.

The western approach toward the adoption of wilderness has been found to be controversial in the 

Native American communities (Watson et al. 2011). Tribal leaders and traditional cultural 

practitioners are concerned that access to sacred places, traditional gathering areas, and tribal 

resources would be impacted with additional wilderness designation. Most of the tribal opinions 

are opposed to the addition of wilderness areas because, historically, the tribal communities had 

access to their entire ancestral territory and actively managed those lands now titled as wilderness 

through the use of fire for cultural subsistence, ceremonial, and livelihood objectives at the 

appropriate times and places (Anderson and Moratto 1996). Wilderness designation can hinder 

access to, and severely limit desired tribal practices in tribal cultural properties (Parker and King 

1998) as well as traditional gathering areas, and may limit or potentially prevent some traditional 

practices from occurring (Zedeno et al. 1997). Tribes, tribal groups and organizations, traditional 

cultural practitioners, and interested individuals also commented that additional restrictions that 

wilderness status and regulations impose may include the number of people who gather at a site 

for religious purposes may be limited and infringe upon tribal rights. Conversely, some tribes 

believe that designating areas as wilderness may afford those locations with what tribes would 

consider as “last resort” significant protections that could prevent over access and damage to 

sacred sites (TRIB-FW-DC-02). Management plans for wilderness areas would include tribal 

perspectives (TRIB-FW-DC-01) and attempt to incorporate traditional ecological knowledge 

(TRIB-FW-DC-04) and associated traditional practices (TRIB-FW-DC-03) to maintain the 

integrity of the area similar to “pristine pre-contact” conditions based upon desired conditions and 

goals (TRIB-FW-GOAL-01 and 04) that are common to the alternatives B, C, and D. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

561

Number of Sites Restored Specifically for Tribal Resources

Alternative C would have the same number of sites restored specifically to benefit tribal resources 

as alternative B. However, more of the restoration would be accomplished with prescribed 

burning and with hand treatments and limited mechanical thinning to remove only small-diameter

trees due to restrictions on tree removal for other wildlife species. On the Sequoia and Sierra 

National Forests, for example, this may limit the ability to remove encroaching conifer trees near 

oak trees important for gathering more than the other alternatives.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

Alternative D is the most aggressive in terms of emphasizing an increased pace and scale of 

ecological restoration. Whenever there is an increase in development, such as the increase in 

recreation opportunities afforded under this alternative, or an increase in the scale of treatments, 

there is potential for increased direct and inadvertent effects to tribal resources, traditional 

cultural properties, and sacred sites. This is especially true given the small amount of lands on 

each national forest that has been inventoried for heritage resources (see “Heritage Resources” 

section). 

Reduction of Threat of Wildfire to Tribal Resources

Alternative D reduces the threat of wildfire to tribal resources the most of all alternatives. The 

most areas in focus landscapes and the most strategic areas along roads and ridges would be 

treated. This presents a higher potential for inadvertent impacts to tribal resources in the short

term, but with greater long-term benefits by restoring tribal uses areas across the landscape. 

Amount of Recommended Wilderness that Might Limit Access to Areas 

Important to Tribes or Use of Tribal Resources

Similar to alternative A, there are no additional areas recommended for wilderness in alternative 

D. Areas that are currently accessible and used by tribes would continue to be accessible. 

Number of Sites Restored Specifically for Tribal Resources

The number of sites restored specifically for tribal resources would be the same as alternative B. 

There would be more areas restored indirectly due to the larger treated area where vegetation 

desired conditions could also favor improvement of conditions for resources of value to tribes 

such as oaks, pinyon pine, willow, or meadows. 

Cumulative Effects

Tribes, tribal groups and organizations, and traditional cultural practitioners depend on the land 

and resources that cross multiple jurisdictions and ecosystems. Much of the lands in the analysis 

area is managed by Federal land management agencies which all have requirements for 

Government-to-Government meetings with tribes to consult and coordinate management of the 

land and resources to meet tribal and agency responsibilities. Land and resource management 

under the forest plans is generally consistent with management across the Federal agencies 

regarding tribal relations and uses. The increased emphasis on restoring fire to the landscape in all 

alternatives would complement the increased restoration of fire within adjacent national parks 

resulting in increased resilience of sites and resources important to tribes across a mixedjurisdictional landscape.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

562

Analytical Conclusion

All alternatives would continue the important Government-to-Government meetings for activities 

that may affect tribes. Alternatives B, C, and D include additional plan direction that improves the 

integration of tribal interests into restoration project planning. These alternatives would provide 

for increased opportunity to improve access to and use of resources important to tribes, tribal 

groups and organizations, and traditional cultural practitioners.

All of the alternatives could have some level of effect on tribal heritage resources given that less 

than one-fifth of the plan area has been systematically inventoried for heritage resources and that 

most known recorded sites remain unevaluated for their qualifications for inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places. Meeting the increased pace and scale of restoration 

treatments would require a variety of management practices to ensure compliance with section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This includes pre-project surveys for heritage 

resources and tribal consultation and collaborative risk planning between Forest Service heritage 

and cultural resource staff, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, and involved tribal practitioners, 

to predict where particular valued resources or potential sacred sites may occur in anticipated 

treatment areas (Welch 2012; Timmons et al. 2012). 

Reduction of Threat of Wildfire to Tribal Resources

The amount of active vegetation management that might reduce threats from large, high-intensity 

wildfires to sites and resources of tribal importance increases the most in alternative D, followed 

by alternative B. It would remain the same as current levels in alternative A and could decrease in 

alternative C resulting in an incremental loss of sites or diminished access to resources used by 

tribes over time. The use of prescribed burning would reduce risks from future wildfire and would 

improve conditions for many resources of interest to tribes. All alternatives would address 

minimizing impacts to tribes at specific locations during project planning, and alternatives B, C, 

and D include specific plan direction to incorporate opportunities to improve sites and resources 

important to tribes during project planning. 

Amount of Recommended Wilderness that Might Limit Access to Areas 

Important to Tribes or Use of Tribal Resources

Alternatives A and D would have the least impact to access to sites and resources by tribes, tribal 

groups and organizations, and traditional cultural practitioners since no new areas would be 

recommended for wilderness designation. Alternative C would have the most potential impact 

because access to and use of areas may create additional barriers for tribal members. The ability 

to conduct ceremonies and to gather resources could be impaired or limited in areas managed to 

maintain their wilderness characteristics. Ground-disturbing activities associated with tribal use 

of these areas may be limited or perceived to be unacceptable by the public. Alternative B 

includes some areas recommended for wilderness designation on the Inyo National Forest. Access 

to and use of resources in these areas would be similar to those described for alternative C.

Number of Sites Restored Specifically for Tribal Resources

Alternatives B, C, and D include a plan objective that provides tribes, tribal groups and 

organizations, traditional cultural practitioners, and interested individuals with opportunities to 

protect and restore sacred sites and resources used traditionally by tribes, and to provide 

opportunities for consultation, engagement, collaboration, and tribal economic benefits and 

values. In addition to those specific restoration projects, alternative D would provide more 

opportunities to restore other sites and resources than alternative B by having more landscape 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

563

restoration treatments. Alternative D would also require more coordination to protect tribal sites 

and resources due to the increased amounts of mechanical treatments. Alternative C provides 

fewer additional opportunities to restore tribal resources because mechanical treatments are more 

limited and instead relies more heavily on prescribed burning. This may result in less opportunity 

to protect individual tribal resources such as large old oak trees on the Sierra and Sequoia 

National Forests from damage during burning because mechanical pre-treatment to reduce or 

rearrange fuels is less likely to occur. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

564

Benefits to People and Communities

Background

This topic is divided into three sections that address the social and economic benefits derived 

from the national forests: forest products and management, economic conditions, and social 

conditions. These areas are of particularly high interest to the public and are a focus of the 2012 

Planning Rule. A strong emphasis on integration of social, economic, and ecological 

considerations occurred during the development of the emerging plan components of the draft 

forest plans and the alternatives in this draft environmental impact statement. Thus, social and 

economic consequences are also mentioned in other revision topics, and this section, especially 

the economic conditions and social conditions, rely heavily upon the analysis presented in those 

other topic areas. This section focuses on the economic and social consequences of the 

alternatives.

Forest Products and Management

This section addresses the subject of providing forest products and summarizes the current 

environment on the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests in terms of estimated available 

forest product quantities by alternative and the resources associated with harvest of those forest 

products. Forest products discussed in this section include those that would be harvested on lands 

suitable and not suitable for timber production, as determined in the timber suitability analysis. 

This analysis, along with the sustained yield limit and the projected wood sale program can be 

found in “Appendix A: Timber Suitability and Management.” 

The desired conditions for forest products and management are: 

1. Predictable and sustainable forest product yields contribute to maintaining and improving 

local and regional industry infrastructure sufficient to meet the needs of the desired pace 

and scale of ecological restoration over the next several decades.

2. Production of timber contributes to ecological, social and economic sustainability, and 

associated desired conditions. A sustainable mix of forest products (including both 

sawtimber and non-sawtimber) is offered under a variety of harvest and contract methods 

in response to market demand and restoration needs. 

3. Salvage of dead and dying trees captures as much of the economic value of the wood as 

possible while retaining key features in quantities that provide for wildlife habitat, soil 

productivity, and ecosystem functions. 

Further analysis related to forest products and management may also be found in the “Terrestrial 

Vegetation” section, “Socio-economic” section, and “Appendix A: Timber Suitability and 

Management.” 

Background

The southern Sierras have a rich history of timber production (McKelvey and Johnston 1992). 

Timber harvest began in the early 1800s, emerging as a core occupation following the gold rush 

of 1848 to support mining communities. Timber was primarily used for housing construction, 

mining support, and railroad ties. The most efficient mode of transportation was by river, but logs 

were also transported via railroad in the central Sierra Nevada and by V-shaped flumes in the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

565

southern Sierra Nevada. Due to costly harvest and transport, only high value species such as 

ponderosa and sugar pine were harvested until the early 1930s, when more efficient logging 

equipment was available.

Concurrently, starting in the early 1900s, a shift toward suppression of wildfires occurred which 

allowed many seedling and sapling trees that would have been periodically thinned by fires to 

survive and grow (North et al. 2009). In the mixed conifer zone the seedlings and saplings were 

often tree species like incense cedar and white fir that grow in the shade of other trees. The 

ingrowth of these trees and the lack of periodic thinning by fire or management contributed to the 

incremental increase in forest density over time to the point that many forest stands today are 

substantially denser than they were historically, reducing their resilience to stressors such as 

drought, insects, and pathogens.

Timber harvest on national forests increased after World War II, peaking in the 1970s. Timber 

harvest in the 1970s to 1990s consisted primarily of even-aged management: clearcutting stands 

of ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and red fir, followed by reforestation. These harvests for 

regeneration purposes produced larger, more valuable timber sales, which funded much of 

development and maintenance of the current transportation system. The retention of timber 

receipts in trust funds for reforestation and other resource enhancement use (specifically, the K-V 

funds established by the Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930) provided for plantation maintenance 

and fuel reductions in natural stands among other activities (FSH 6509.11, chapter 71.1).

In the 1990s, timber harvest methods shifted from primarily even-aged management to more 

stand-maintenance-thinning prescriptions, focusing on pine and mixed conifer in the lower to 

mid-slopes. This shift in management was the result of changing management objectives, 

generally geared toward reducing impacts of timber harvest on habitat for species such as the 

California spotted owl, and reducing fuels and the threat of wildfire in wildland-urban intermix 

areas. Much like thinning carrots in a garden, thinning trees in a forest reduces the number of 

trees on a site, allowing remaining trees to increase crown and photosynthetic production, and 

overall growth rate. By reducing competition the residual trees grow larger and faster than in 

untreated stands, allowing them to grow taller to capture more sunlight and larger to develop 

thicker bark to be more resilient to periodic fire and ultimately better preparing them to survive to 

become large and old trees.

Current thinning practices on national forests in the Sierra Nevada maintain key ecological 

features such as biological legacies, snags, and large down logs, favoring retention of the larger, 

older cohort. Biological legacies are trees that are substantially larger and older than the majority 

of the trees on the landscape, likely retained during previous harvests or survivors of standreplacing disturbance events; often with cavities or other valuable wildlife characteristics. In the 

short term, thinning of small-diameter trees improves forest health and fire resilience of the 

residual forest. In the long term, favoring only larger, older trees, and removing the younger 

cohort, eventually results in a decline in overall stand health as older trees succumb to insects or 

disease in these dynamic systems. To achieve long-term sustainability, forests should be managed 

to provide for heterogeneity (variety) of open and dense clumps and stands of trees with abundant 

old trees and a mixture of age classes across the landscape. This can be accomplished in the 

current, more homogeneous forest by using forest management techniques such as group 

selection (the creation of gaps in a forest canopy by removing small patches of trees) combined 

with periodic selection or variable density thinning to achieve restoration objectives, maintain 

habitat connectivity, and contribute a dependable flow of forest products to existing and 

prospective local economic infrastructure (North et al. 2009; Schmidt et al. 2009).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

566

Since adoption of the original forest plans in 1988 for the Inyo and Sequoia National Forests and 

1992 for the Sierra National Forest, timber harvest from national forests has steadily declined for 

a number of reasons including policy and legal constraints, restrictions on harvesting in unroaded 

areas, prescriptive and restrictive forest plan direction that limited the intensity and extent of tree 

removal as a forest management tool, and appeals and litigation of individual projects. This has 

contributed to a loss of the forest industry infrastructure in the southern Sierra Nevada, except for 

one remaining mill at Terra Bella and small local operations for production of commercial 

firewood or other specialty wood products. 

Current levels of tree mortality, linked to the collective effects of insects, pathogens, and a 

warming climate—all exacerbated by 4 years of below-average precipitation—appear likely to 

affect future yields of forest products. While projected harvests are well below annual growth 

rates, the sudden loss of living conifers, over extensive acreages, may result in reduced yields in 

areas where mortality is high. Prompt and effective reforestation can reduce this effect, but, at 

least in the context of watersheds, be unable to provide sawtimber-sized trees for several decades.

Analysis and Methods

Analysis Area

While the analysis area consists of all National Forest System lands within the southern Sierra 

forests, the primary focus includes lands identified as suitable for timber production.

Lands Suited for Timber Production

Lands identified as suitable for timber production include forested lands not administratively 

withdrawn that have a reasonable assurance of regeneration, and where forest management is

consistent with other multiple-use management objectives. Approximately 537,000 acres within 

the southern Sierra Nevada forests area are considered suitable for timber production. See Table 

150 and maps in volume 3 for composition of lands suitable for timber production by cover type, 

and appendix A for more detailed methodology on the determination of suitable lands. 

Lands Not Suited for Timber Production

Timber harvest may be used as a tool for purposes other than timber production in order to 

enhance other multiple use values. Forest product removal from lands not suited for timber 

production is most common in response to salvage, hazard-tree removal or other safety concern, 

scenic vista enhancement, fuel reduction, wildlife habitat improvement, or access, among other 

reasons. In addition, timber harvest on lands not suitable for timber production may respond to 

restoration objectives such as conifer encroachment in meadows, aspen enhancement, or 

hardwood restoration. In these cases, timber harvest would be used as a tool to achieve the 

desired conditions, but is not part of the programed regeneration harvest plan for lands deemed 

suitable for timber production. As forest product removal from these lands is more responsive 

than proactive, these lands are not the focus of this analysis and will not be discussed further in 

this section. 

Temporal Scale

The analysis period consists of two decades (20 years). Although the National Forest 

Management Act provides that forest plans are to be revised at least every 15 years, it limits the 

sale of timber to less than the sustained yield limit for each decade of the plan (16 U.S.C. 1611). 

Providing estimates of the annual projected wood sale quantity and the annual projected timber 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

567

sale quantity, for each of first two decades, aligns with the National Forest Management Act 

decadal periods limiting the sale of timber, and provides an estimate for the second decade, if 

revision of the plan is delayed beyond the 15-year period. 

Indicators and Measures

• Amount of forest products removed is a measure of volume. Generally, sawtimber is 

measured in hundred cubic feet or million cubic feet; fuelwood volume is generally 

measured in cords. (Note: Volume calculations were determined utilizing the Forest 

Vegetation Simulator (Dixon 2002) to model Forest Inventory and Analysis data by 

vegetation type and prescription class.) 

• Area restored to improve forest health and resilience to disturbance is measured in acres.

(Note: Area treated is a function of available area and workforce capability to treat these 

acreages.) 

Assumptions

• “Area restored” refers to areas that are treated and a commercial timber product removed. 

An area where prescribed burning only or other service work is performed, is not a 

measure under the forest products indicator.

• It is assumed that a sustainable supply of sawtimber will enable the existing mill in Terra 

Bella to continue to operate through the 20-year analysis period. Timber industry 

representatives indicate approximately a minimum of 50,000 hundred cubic feet removed 

annually from the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests would ensure persistence (USDA 

FS 2013a, 2013b).

• It is assumed that commercial forest product opportunities (beyond fuelwood and other 

specialty wood markets) on the Inyo National Forest will continue to be limited due to 

the haul distance to existing mills.

• It is assumed that opportunities to utilize biomass will remain the same for the first 

decade of the analysis period, but could increase in the second decade if a demonstrated 

consistent supply of biomass leads to new facilities or utilization opportunities. 

• It is assumed the contract authorities for forest product removal will continue to include 

timber sales, stewardship contracts (both integrated resource service contracts and 

integrated resource timber contracts), and stewardship agreements.

Affected Environment

The Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests comprise approximately 4.6 million acres of land, 

including approximately 60 percent forested lands. These forested lands consist primarily of 

Sierra mixed conifer, pine (specifically, eastside pine, ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine), and red fir 

stands. Nearly 3.2 million acres are withdrawn from timber production due to administrative 

designations (such as, National Wilderness Preservation System, inventoried roadless area, 

experimental forest, research natural area, and other designated areas (appendix A). Of the 

remaining forested area that is not withdrawn, a total of 415,646 acres to 540,247 acres, 

depending on the alternative considered, have a reasonable assurance of successful conifer 

regeneration and are on lands with management objectives consistent with timber harvest being a 

primary or secondary multiple use objective. These lands are identified as suitable for timber 

production. Table 150 displays the percentage of area in the major California wildlife habitat 

relationship cover types for alternative B. The percentages do not change substantially for the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

568

other alternatives. See appendix A for more information regarding timber suitability 

determinations for each alternative.

Table 150. Percent of cover type of lands suitable for timber production, combined for Inyo, Sequoia, 

and Sierra National Forests, alternative B 

Cover Type Percent

Sierra Mixed Conifer 41

Red Fir 12

Eastside Pine 11

Ponderosa Pine 11

Montane Hardwood-Conifer 10

Jeffrey Pine 7 

Montane Hardwood 5 

Lodgepole Pine 2 

Other 1 

The Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests provide timber to three remaining sawmills: Sierra 

Forest Products in Terra Bella (Tulare County), and Sierra Pacific Industries in Chinese Camp 

and in Standard (both in Tuolumne County). The Terra Bella mill is the last remaining sawmill in 

California south of Yosemite National Park. While the Sierra Forest Products mill in Terra Bella 

is the closest mill to the Inyo National Forest, haul distances of over 600 miles are often cost 

prohibitive. The Sierra and Sequoia National Forests are the primary sources of Federal 

sawtimber products.

Maintenance of local forest products infrastructure is key to sustainable restoration goals. Not 

only does timber harvest contribute to the economy in an ecologically sustainable way, it is a tool 

used to improve forest health by reducing densities in a precise manner, unlike disturbance 

agents, such as, insects, pathogens, and wildfire and the other management tools of prescribed 

fire. Timber harvest can identify specific trees to remove or retain and can manipulate the 

distribution of fuels to influence the effects of prescribed burning or wildfire on residual trees and 

other desired resources, such as particular nest or denning trees or snags used by wildlife. As with 

all actions, timber harvest is designed to achieve desired conditions, taking into account other 

appropriate management objectives such as riparian habitat conservation, habitat management, 

and scenic stability.

The availability of sufficient sawmill infrastructure is an essential requisite for efficient timber 

production. The sustained supply of sawtimber likely enables business decisions that lead to 

maintenance and investments in infrastructure to support current deliveries. Expanded supplies 

may lead to expanded investments that provide for expanded timber production on related forest 

lands. In the absence of a consistent flow of forest products at levels that can sustain the 

infrastructure, the sawmill at Terra Bella is unlikely to keep operating. 

On National Forest System lands, trees too small for use as sawtimber can often be removed and 

utilized as biomass, providing enhanced forest management capabilities. Projects that are able to 

efficiently remove both sawlogs and biomass products are capable of meeting a broad set of 

management objectives. A dependable supply of valuable forest products enhances the likelihood 

that infrastructure would be available to meet these needs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

569

Forest Products

The term “forest products” refers to sawtimber, the most common commercial wood product. The 

three southern Sierra forests have supplied an average of approximately 3.7 million cubic feet of 

sawtimber per year, with the Sierra National Forest providing approximately 90 percent of that 

volume. In addition to sawtimber, the forests also supply pulpwood, posts, poles, 

firewood/fuelwood, wood pellets (for home and industrial heating), and biomass (substituting for 

fossil fuel, to generate electricity). Many forest users including tribes, residents, and recreationists 

participate in firewood collection. This has averaged approximately 11,000 cords per year across 

all three forests, with the Inyo National Forest contributing over 40 percent of the total fuelwood 

volume sold (data derived from Region 5 Cut and Sold Reports, 2010–2014, USDA FS 2016). 

Special Forest Products

The southern Sierra forests are also a source for a variety of special forest products. Special forest 

products are generally collected in small quantities for personal use, or larger amounts for 

commercial purposes, and are often authorized through a permit system. These products may 

include: bark, berries, boughs, bulbs, Christmas trees, cones, ferns, fungi (mushrooms), mosses, 

nuts, roots, seeds, transplants, and wildflowers. Forest users, including tribes, depend on many of 

these special forest products for their medicinal properties, decorative uses, native propagations, 

landscaping, family or tribal tradition, or for ceremonial purposes. 

Area Restored

Many decades of fire suppression have resulted in overcrowded, dense forests, vulnerable to 

disease and insect infestation, uncharacteristic wildfire, and the effects of a warming climate. 

Many management methods (including timber harvest, prescribed fire, mastication, hand piling, 

and burning) can and would be utilized to restore the landscape to a more resilient condition. The 

most common treatment is thinning, which improves forest health and resilience and can often 

move treated areas more directly toward desired conditions. Group selection is utilized to 

promote shade-intolerant species (specifically, pine) regeneration by creating small openings that 

are large enough that seedlings that need sunlight can grow. Group selection also restores seral 

stage heterogeneity that has been lost due to the ingrowth of shade-tolerant species and the 

reduction in thinning that would have occurred by wildfires because of fire suppression. When 

available, revenue generated from timber removal may be reinvested into other more expensive 

restoration treatments.

Environmental Consequences

Consequences Common to all Alternatives

Special Forest Products

Utilization of special forest products and personal-use fuelwood is generally anticipated to remain 

consistent with current conditions into the future, with minimal increases due to population 

trends. It is also anticipated to be relatively consistent across all alternatives. While alternative C 

includes additional acres recommended for wilderness designation, this is not anticipated to play 

a significant role in special forest product and fuelwood availability considering the scale of 

remaining forested areas available for collection and the typical remoteness of these areas. There 

could be some consequences for tribal gathering in alternative C, which we have described in 

more detail in the “Tribal Relations and Uses” section. Special forest product and fuelwood 

removal is tied more closely with demand than locational availability. In other words, people 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

570

would travel to obtain these products. As demand is not anticipated to change across alternatives, 

special forest products and personal-use fuelwood will not be addressed further in relation to any 

alternative.

Forest Products

All alternatives assume some level of forest product removal. Table 151 displays ranges in 

volumes projected to be removed. All three National Forests have projected sawtimber harvests 

that are a very small fraction of the estimated sustained yields. If considering the projected 

maximum sawtimber levels associated with alternative B, the percent of the sustained yield is 4, 

10, and 10 for, respectively, the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests. While alternative D 

would increase these percentages, the highest value would be 18 percent for the Sequoia National 

Forest.

While the harvest of sawtimber is not estimated for mortality related to high-intensity fire, 

droughts, and other unplanned disturbances, it can have an effect on a projected decadal harvest 

schedule. Initially, this mortality may displace the projected harvest of living trees. It would be 

expected that the quantities would range from very low with alternative C to approximately equal 

amounts in the remaining alternatives. In the longer term, the loss of living forests after 

significant disturbance events, in effect, can erase significant acreages of growing forests and 

reduce the total capacity of a national forest to maintain a specified harvest level.

When the number of acres affected reaches a threshold value, the capability of any specific 

national forest to maintain the projected yields will decline. The ability to minimize or reverse 

this impact is dependent on the successful reestablishment of thriving forests. Without that 

happening, the total available sawtimber volume that would ordinarily be able to offer projected 

harvests, would decline and start a trend that, in essence, reduces the total acreage available and 

suitable for timber production. 

Projected sawtimber harvests are displayed below as a range of values. The minimum value in 

alternatives A and B is the current condition based upon a 5-year average, the minimum for 

alternative D is estimated to be the maximum for alternative B due to greater flexibility in 

achieving desired conditions and encouragement of larger, landscape-level projects, while the 

minimum range for alternative C is one-quarter the current condition due to the additional 

limitations on tree removal related to management for California spotted owl and Pacific fisher 

habitat. The maximum value in the range is the amount of sawlog volume available for removal, 

when consistent with management objectives, and would be part of a contract or project that is 

economically viable. This maximum value is based on Forest Vegetation Simulator modeling of 

likely prescriptions associated with each alternative utilizing Forest Inventory and Analysis plot 

data across the analysis area and assumes an increased agency workforce with increased funding 

over the current condition because of the increased effort needed for project design, analysis, and 

implementation over more treatment areas.

As stated above, fuelwood demand is expected to remain consistent with current conditions or 

increase slightly due to population trends. Fuelwood varies slightly on the Inyo National Forest 

because much of the fuelwood gathering opportunity is associated with piles of logs left after 

mechanical thinning and commercial fuelwood gathering that would vary by restrictions 

associated with the alternatives. It does not vary between alternatives on the Sequoia and Sierra 

National Forests because there is more abundant supply.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

571

Table 151. Projected 10-year timber harvest volumes (million cubic feet) by product type and 

alternative

National Forest Product Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Inyo Sawtimber 1 1–1.5 <1 1.5–3 

Inyo Fuelwood 6–8 6–9.5 4–7 9.5–14

Sequoia Sawtimber 8 8–16 2–4 16–28

Sequoia Fuelwood 3–5 3–5 3–5 3–5 

Sierra Sawtimber 25 25–50 5–10 50–80

Sierra Fuelwood 5–7 5–7 5–7 5–7 

Due to the long distance between the Inyo National Forest and existing mill facilities, the vast 

majority of local processing of forest products is for fuelwood. Milling of timber resources for 

products other than fuelwood is currently minimal and limited to a few local individuals who 

manufacture items such as posts and poles, rough siding, arts and crafts, furniture, and other 

products. As such, current and projected sawtimber opportunities on the Inyo National Forest are 

projected to remain at a smaller scale than the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests. 

Area Restored

All alternatives include silvicultural practices designed to contribute to the restoration of a more 

resilient landscape. Acres projected for treatment over the next decade are displayed in Table 152

as a range. The minimum value for alternatives A, B, and D is projected to approximate the 

current level of harvest; the maximum value is the total estimated number of acres associated 

with the harvest volumes estimated in Table 151. Alternative C is anticipated to provide forest 

products over a reduced acreage due to existing and additional constraints on removal of sawlogsize trees, as well as differing treatment prioritization that emphasize the use of prescribed 

burning instead of tree cutting and restoring areas using wildfires that can be managed to meet 

resource objectives.

Table 152. Projected 10-year harvest area in acres by management practice and alternative

National 

Forest

Management 

Practice Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Inyo Thinning 8,000 8,000–11,500 2,300–4,500 11,500–16,000

Inyo Group 

Selection

1,000 1,000–2,000 0 2,000–4,000

Sequoia Thinning 6,000 6,000–9,000 2,000–5,000 9,000–12,000

Sequoia Group 

Selection

1,000 1,000–1,500 0 1,500–2,000

Sierra Thinning 19,000 19,000–28,500 5,500–11,000 38,500–38,000

Sierra Group 

Selection

3,000 3,000–4,500 0 4,500–6,000

It is important to note that the treated acres in Table 152 refer to areas harvested with the removal 

of a timber product, which is a subset of the projected total of mechanically treated acres of each 

alternative. Treated areas would be managed primarily with variable density thinning which is an 

approach that selectively removes trees to increase spatial and structural variation, while retaining 

selected elements or biological legacies (large/old trees, snags, and logs) in a desired arrangement 

(such as aggregated in clumps, dispersed in a uniform pattern). Thinning reduces stand density 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

572

and improves overall stand health, as individual trees have increased access to available resources 

such as water, sunlight, and nutrients. These additional resources result in accelerated growth and 

canopy development, while improving the likelihood that individual trees survive, when 

confronted with insects and pathogens, drought, and low- to moderate-intensity wildfire (Bailey 

et al. 1999; Latham and Tappeiner 2002; Covington et al. 1999). Group selection openings would 

generally be small areas between 0.5 to 3 acres in size where most or all trees are removed to 

facilitate the establishment of a new age cohort. Group selection generally mimics historic 

disturbance processes by regenerating approximately 15 percent of the forested stand, increasing 

heterogeneity across the landscape and contributing early seral regeneration patches, within an 

overall uneven-aged landscape (Franklin et al. 2002; North et al. 2009; North 2012). In addition 

to providing valuable forest products for society, the precision of these treatments increases the 

likelihood that associated restoration goals are achieved. Fire, even if used intentionally, does not 

allow that level of specificity for tree arrangement, size, and species distribution.

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Alternative A maintains the current level of activity, using existing management direction as 

provided by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision (USDA FS 

2004). Alternative A assumes future funding and project design consistent with current levels. 

Generally, less than 5 to 10 percent of the landscape has been restored in the last 10 years.

Forest Products

Based on historic averages, alternative A would produce approximately 28 million cubic feet of 

sawtimber, with an additional 9 million cubic feet in other products (miscellaneous convertible

products such as biomass, posts and poles), and 11 to 17 million cubic feet in fuelwood over a 10-

year period (see Table 151, and appendix A, Table A-9). 

Implementation projects are generally designed to thin relatively small-diameter sawtimber trees, 

reducing fuel adjacent to communities at risk of loss or damage from uncharacteristic wildfire. 

There are some biomass removal opportunities in conjunction with sawtimber removal, but the 

lack of a consistent market combined with pricing structure challenges results in most biomass 

opportunities going unutilized. Most biomass that cannot be economically sold and removed from 

the forest is piled and burned to reduce fuel and meet the project objectives. Revenue generated 

from individual projects could be utilized to offset the costs of other restoration activities that 

require additional funding to implement, such as watershed or habitat improvements. This 

alternative produces more revenue than alternative C, but less than alternatives B and D.

Recent sawlog supplies appear to be sufficient to sustain the current operation of the related 

sawmills; however, the capability of continued operations, given projected supplies and future 

costs and product values, is unknown. 

Area Restored

Alternative A, based on historic averages, would harvest timber from approximately 39,000 acres 

per decade across all southern Sierra Nevada forests (see Table 152, and appendix A, Table A-13). 

In addition to ecological restoration needs, treatments are prioritized based on proximity to the 

wildland-urban intermix. The majority of treatments would be in the montane ecological zone, 

with minor amounts in the upper montane ecological zone. Forest types in the montane zone 

include Sierra mixed conifer, eastside pine, ponderosa pine, and montane hardwood-conifer, 

while the upper montane zone includes red fir, Jeffrey pine and lodgepole pine.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

573

Based on historic averages, projects are generally designed to treat approximately 1,000 acres 

across a 5,000 acre area, or approximately 20 percent of a small landscape (generally a 

subwatershed). At the stand level, these acres have an improved likelihood of resilience to the 

effects of insects and pathogens, climate change, and wildfire. This scale of treatment may result 

in less uncharacteristic wildfire activity at the local project scale, but by itself is not sufficient to 

alter the increasing trend in large wildfires expected with climate change (see “Fire Trends” 

section). In addition, many standards and guidelines limit tree density reduction, potentially 

leading to increased inter-tree competition for scarce resources and increased tree mortality. 

Related to thinning and improving the sustainability of forest products, this alternative restores 

more acres than alternative C, but less than alternatives B and D.

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

Alternative B incorporates four strategic fire management zones: community wildfire protection; 

general wildfire protection; wildfire restoration; and wildfire maintenance zones. Approximately 

half of the lands suitable for timber production are located in the two “protection” zones. 

Alternative B prioritizes fuel reduction and restoration treatment in the two protection zones as 

well as on strategic ridges and along key roads that can facilitate larger landscape prescribed 

burns or that can increase the opportunity to manage wildfires when they can meet resource 

objectives. At least 20 percent of the landscape is anticipated to be restored through various 

management activities, including timber harvest.

Forest Products

Based on stand modeling combined with projected capabilities, alternative B would produce 

approximately 28 to 55.5 million cubic feet of sawtimber, with an additional 9 to 16.5 million 

cubic feet in other products (miscellaneous convertible products such as biomass, posts and 

poles), and 11 to 17 million cubic feet in fuelwood over a 10-year period (see Table 151, and 

appendix A, Table A-9). This alternative is expected to produce more revenue than alternatives A 

and C, but less than alternative D. 

Revenue generated from implementation of individual projects could be utilized to offset costs of 

other restoration activities that may otherwise remain unfunded. With an increase in area treated, 

more biomass removal opportunities, in conjunction with sawtimber removal, are available, 

provided a consistent market could utilize these opportunities. Larger, landscape-scale ecological 

restoration projects (such as whole watersheds) are encouraged under alternative B. If designed in 

ways to increase economic efficiencies, increased revenues may be generated per project. 

Through stewardship contracting, or trust funds, this revenue could be used to restore additional 

or more costly areas than under alternative A.

As described in the discussion related to alternative A, increased predictable supplies of 

economically valuable sawlogs are likely to sustain, and perhaps increase, the operation of related 

sawmills.

Area Restored

Alternative B would harvest timber from approximately 39,000 to 58,500 acres per decade across 

all southern Sierra forests based on projected Forest capabilities (see Table 152, and appendix A, 

Table A-13). Treatments are prioritized based on strategic fire management zone, with an 

emphasis on treating within the two wildfire protection zones. However, treatments are not 

limited to the protection zones. Vegetation types treated in alternative B would be comparable to 

those treated in alternative A.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

574

Alternative B encourages larger landscape-scale projects, with the intent that greater areas would 

by analyzed and more area restored. Fewer limitations on tree removal compared to alternative A 

would increase the likelihood that thinning of dense stands would be more biologically effective 

at achieving resilient conditions and would result in more sustainable forest stands over increased 

acres. At the stand level, these acres would increase the likelihood of resilience to the effects of 

insects, pathogens, climate change, and wildfire, and would come closer than alternatives A and 

C, but would not quite be sufficient to alter the increasing trend in large wildfires expected with 

climate change (see “Fire Trends” section). This scale of treatment would result in less 

uncharacteristic wildfire activity at the project or landscape scale. This alternative restores more 

acres than alternatives A and C, but less than alternative D.

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

Alternative C focuses on emphasizing short-term protections for wildlife habitat, and relies more 

on standards and guidelines to minimize localized effects of active management on species such 

as the California spotted owl, Pacific fisher, listed amphibians, and other species of conservation 

concern. Commercial timber sales are generally limited to small-diameter sawtimber removal, 

with maintenance of greater stand densities and higher canopy cover. Treatments similar to 

alternative A could occur in portions of the wildland-urban intermix defense zone. However, it is 

anticipated that prescriptive constraints such as diameter limits, limited mechanical treatments in 

California spotted owl territories and home range areas, and retaining higher canopy cover for 

Pacific fisher, would reduce the area treated to one half or less of current levels.

Forest Products

Based on modeling and projected Forest capability, alternative C would produce approximately 3 

to 7 million cubic feet of sawtimber, with an additional 5 to 9 million cubic feet in other products 

(miscellaneous convertible products such as biomass, posts and poles), and 11 to 17 million cubic 

feet in fuelwood over a 10-year period (see Table 151, and appendix A, Table A-9). This 

alternative generates the least amount of forest products, and associated revenue, of all the 

alternatives analyzed in detail.

The implementation of alternative C is likely to produce limited revenue, as lower-value product 

removals, such as biomass and small-diameter sawtimber, in generally smaller-scale projects, 

restrict the efficiencies more common with projects designed in other alternatives. Smaller 

projects, combined with smaller-diameter removal, contribute to more costly harvest operations 

that would likely need to be supplemented with appropriated dollars to accomplish objectives. 

Since budgets are expected to remain similar to those of the last 5 years, appropriated funds 

would offset the costs of fuel reduction on fewer acres overall.

The reduced supply of valuable sawlogs would likely affect the continued operation of related 

sawmills. Sawmills already operating near threshold levels would face an uncertain future. If the 

related sawmills close, the costs of restoration would increase substantially and would 

substantially limit the amount of restoration that can be accomplished.

Area Restored

Alternative C anticipates timber harvest from approximately 9,750 to 19,500 acres per decade 

across all southern Sierra forests (see Table 152, appendix A, Table A-13). Thinning treatments 

focus on small- to medium-sized trees and are focused primarily in the wildland-urban intermix 

defense zone immediately surrounding communities. Prescribed fires and wildfires managed to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

575

meet resource objectives are the preferred methods of restoration treatment, thereby substantially 

reducing product output or timber harvest opportunities. 

Alternative C encourages less intensive treatments, meant to minimize impacts to existing habitat 

in the short term. At the stand level, these acres would improve the likelihood of resilience to the 

effects of insects and disease, climate change, and wildfire. However, these effects would be to a 

much lesser degree than alternatives A, B and D, due to the minor density reductions associated 

with only small-diameter tree removal. Minor reductions in inter-tree competition are not likely to 

provide sufficient increased access to growing space and the related site resources and any 

benefits are very short term because of continued growth of trees. Limited increases in tree vigor, 

combined with the limited acreages affected by treatment, are unlikely to provide a significant 

improvement in the status of forest health. Retention of high stand densities would continue to 

contribute to mortality, thus increasing fuel levels and contributing to stand conditions trending 

away from overall desired landscape conditions.

While wildfire risk would be reduced in the short term at the stand level within the treated areas, 

the low levels of accompanying mechanical thinning that would assist the effectiveness and 

efficiency of prescribed fire or wildfire managed to meet resource objectives may actually limit 

fire use. This scale of treatment may result in less uncharacteristic wildfire activity at the local 

project scale, but would not be sufficient to alter the increasing trend in large wildfires across the 

landscape expected to occur due to climate change and other stressors. Under alternative C, 

almost all funding for vegetation treatments would have to come from congressionally 

appropriated funds or from partnership dollars because there is little opportunity for stewardship

or trust fund support, both of which depend on the sale of commercial forest products to generate 

funds. This alternative mechanically restores the least amount of acres of all the alternatives 

analyzed in detail.

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

Alternative D includes an emphasis on an increased pace and scale of ecological restoration, 

including improving the resilience of forests to fire, drought, climate change, insects, and 

pathogens. It emphasizes long-term habitat conservation by making areas more resilient to 

stressors, recognizing there may be short-term impacts to habitat associated with active 

management. Treatments focus on effective density reductions, lengthening the time that 

treatments are effective before growth increases stand density to levels outside the natural range 

of variation. More strategic treatments in the restoration zone would occur than under alternative 

B. By conducting more mechanical treatments in the areas that are easy to treat with mechanical 

equipment, alternative D would create landscape conditions that would allow for greater use of 

fire (both prescribed fire and management of wildfires to meet resource objectives) in areas that 

are difficult to treat with mechanical equipment. This would lessen the risks from large, highintensity wildfires to other forest stands. During thinning, increased numbers of medium and 

large trees would be removed to favor the development and vigor status of even larger trees. Up 

to 60 percent of the treated landscape is anticipated to be restored through various activities 

including timber harvest. 

Forest Products

Based on modeling and projected capability, alternative D would produce approximately 55.5 to 

91 million cubic feet of sawtimber, with an additional 16.5 to 29 million cubic feet in other 

products (miscellaneous convertible products such as biomass, posts and poles), and 11 to 17 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

576

million cubic feet in fuelwood over a 10-year period (see Table 151, and appendix A, Table A-9). 

This alternative produces the most revenue of any alternative analyzed in detail.

Revenue generated from implementation of individual projects could be utilized to offset costs of 

other restoration activities that may otherwise remain unfunded. Provided the existence of 

biomass utilization infrastructure exists, increased biomass removal, often linked with sawlog 

harvests, would increase. Larger, landscape-scale projects (such as whole watersheds) are 

encouraged under alternatives D and B, resulting in more revenue generated per project due to 

increased efficiencies associated with logging costs. Through stewardship contracting, or trust 

funds, this revenue could be utilized to treat additional or more costly areas than under 

alternatives A and C. For example, funds generated by the sale of forest products could be applied 

to road maintenance, small fuels mastication, prescribed burning, habitat enhancements, and 

aquatic organism passage projects.

The projected annual volume of forest product removal is anticipated to sustain and stimulate the 

mill at Terra Bella, as well as other forest product infrastructure over time. However, the capacity 

associated with the one local mill would not sustain the restoration effort associated with the 

projected increase in volume without incorporating additional shifts and/or longer hauls. Once the 

existing local mill is at capacity, haul costs associated with Chinese Camp and Standard, 

California (the two closest mills), may be cost prohibitive in achieving the desired conditions 

depending upon fluctuations in the timber markets. 

Area Restored

Alternative D is anticipated to harvest timber from approximately 58,500 to 82,000 acres per 

decade across all southern Sierra forests (see Table 152, and appendix A, Table A-13). While 

treatments in the two wildfire protection zones are of higher priority, treatment may occur in all 

strategic fire management zones. The majority of treatments would be in the montane ecological 

zone, with minor amounts in the upper montane ecological zone. The montane zone consists 

primarily of Sierra mixed conifer, eastside pine, ponderosa pine, and montane hardwood-conifer, 

while the upper montane zone consists of red fir, Jeffrey pine, and lodgepole pine.

Alternative D encourages larger landscape-scale projects, with the intent that greater areas would 

by analyzed and more area restored. Decreased tree density and increased heterogeneity at the 

landscape and stand level would improve the likelihood of resilience to the effects of insects and 

pathogens, drought, climate change, and wildfire in montane and upper montane forests, due to 

increased adaptive capacity. In addition, wildfire risk would be reduced over time (see “Terrestrial 

Vegetation Ecology” and “Fire Trends” sections). This scale of treatment would result in less 

uncharacteristic wildfire activity at the project and landscape scale, extending beyond the treated 

areas. Of all alternatives analyzed in detail, this alternative restores the most acres and results in 

more resilient forested stands consistent with desired conditions.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Alternatives B and D project an increase in area treated and volume removed as the pace and 

scale of restoration expands. These alternatives would produce enough sawtimber to maintain the 

existing local forest products infrastructure including the mill at Terra Bella and local specialty 

markets. Maintenance of the existing infrastructure is important to community economic health, 

as well as ensuring future opportunities for restoration implementation. However, in the absence 

of new or expanded sawmill infrastructure, existing capacity issues may limit achievement of the 

desired objectives in alternative D.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

577

New markets such as biomass or additional forest products milling facilities may further increase 

the pace and scale of restoration, especially under alternatives B and D. New markets allow for 

competition, potentially resulting in increased revenue. 

Alternatives A and C are unlikely to maintain a consistent flow of sawtimber at a level that can 

maintain the local forest products infrastructure. Currently, the mill is relying on supplemental 

timber off of private lands, but does not consider this sustainable. In the absence of the mill at 

Terra Bella, it is unlikely that the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests would have a consistent 

market for forest products, thus resulting in nearly all restoration work accomplished by 

appropriated dollars and at a much smaller scale than at the current level (alternative A).

While alternative D projects the greatest annual volume removal, no alternative prescribes harvest 

at levels nearing the sustainable yield limit (see “Appendix A: Timber Suitability and 

Management”). This means there is more opportunity to increase pace and scale of restoration 

given increased fiscal and personnel capacity without jeopardizing the long-term sustainability of 

the forest and forest productivity.

Alternatives B and D use a variety of restoration tools, such as mechanical fuel reduction

treatments, timber harvest, hand treatments, and prescribed fire, to achieve desired conditions. 

Under these alternatives, it is expected that substantial portions of large landscapes may be 

restored in the next 10 to 15 years. In addition to improved forest health, growth, and resilience to 

disturbance agents, treating more area (especially reducing densities in montane and upper 

montane forest stands) increases the likelihood that large landscape areas can withstand the 

adverse effects of many of the fires experienced in recent years, maintaining much of their forest 

structure and composition. These forests may continue to provide habitat as well as future 

multiple-use timber harvest opportunities into the future, without a substantial loss in social, 

ecological, and economic value.

Alternatives A and C are both likely to result in lower levels of restoration treatments intended to 

achieve desired conditions than either alternative B or D. The increased emphasis in alternative C, 

to utilize fire, may be more limited than intended, due to the low levels of accompanying 

mechanical thinning that would assist the effectiveness of prescribed fires or wildfire managed to 

meet resource objectives. As the trend of elevated wildfire intensities continues to increase under 

these alternatives, losses of forest structure to wildfire adversely impacts habitat availability, 

aquatic health, recreation opportunities, and future economic and multiple-use opportunities 

associated with timber harvest.

Analytical Conclusions 

Alternative A would continue management at current levels of mechanical treatments, with 

limited improvements in forest health and resilience to disturbance agents and climate change at 

the project (stand) level. Landscape resilience would continue to decline. Supply of timber 

products is unlikely to sustain the existing forest products industry infrastructure, including the 

mill at Terra Bella. 

Alternative B would increase pace and scale of mechanical treatments from the existing 

conditions, incrementally improving forest health and resilience to disturbance agents and climate 

change, and generating enough volume to sustain the needs of the existing forest products 

industry infrastructure, including the mill at Terra Bella. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

578

Alternative C would decrease the pace and scale of mechanical treatments from the existing 

conditions; however, small improvements in forest health and resilience would occur in the short 

term at the project (stand) level, similar to alternative A. This alternative is unlikely to sustain the 

existing forest products industry infrastructure, including the mill at Terra Bella, thereby limiting 

restoration management options into the future to those funded by only appropriated dollars. 

Alternative D would increase pace and scale of mechanical treatments from the existing 

conditions, improving forest health and resilience to disturbance agents and climate change, and 

generating enough volume to sustain the needs of the existing forest products industry 

infrastructure, including the mill at Terra Bella. However, in the absence of new or expanded 

infrastructure, capacity issues may limit achievement of desired objectives. Once the existing local 

mill is at capacity, haul costs associated with Chinese Camp and Standard, California (the two 

closest mills), may be cost prohibitive.

Economic Conditions

Background

Forest management influences the economic sustainability of the communities that surround the 

forests and impacts the provision of forest contributions that affect the quality of people’s lives 

both locally and further removed from the plan area. This section examines potential effects on 

the benefits to people by examining potential changes in the key contributions that the forests 

provide (such as, recreational opportunities, clean air and water, forest products, species habitat, 

and energy). Current threats resulting from uncharacteristic wildfire and declining forest health 

bring into question the long-term sustainability of these important contributions. Plan alternatives 

that address these concerns are examined as to their potential to improve the sustainability of key 

forest contributions while also examining the short- and long-term tradeoffs associated with these 

management actions. The information in this section is a summary of the more detailed 

Economics supplemental report. 

Analysis and Methods

Study Area and Data Sources

The information describing local economic conditions is obtained from “Chapter 6: Assessing 

Social, Cultural and Economic Conditions” in the individual national forest assessments that were 

written for plan revision (USDA FS 2013a, 2013b, 2013c). Key forest contributions are examined 

for the geographic areas where economic activities are supported by National Forest System land 

management. This area represents the counties where forests provide opportunity for production 

of commodities and forest visitation (such as, timber, range, mining, and recreation) and also 

those counties where forests have made direct expenditures in management (such as, spending on 

projects and Forest Service employee salaries).49 This information on key economic contributions 

of the forests is obtained from the Forest Service Economic Contribution model (USDA FS

2014).

Forests also provide contributions to communities located further away from administrative 

boundaries (such as, water and energy) and moreover provide nonmarket benefits where 

quantifying economic contributions is difficult (such as, biodiversity). These types of benefits are 

 

49 These are Inyo, Mono, Esmerelda, and Mineral counties for the Inyo National Forest; Fresno, Tulare, and Kern 

counties for the Sequoia National Forest; and Mariposa, Merced, and Fresno counties for the Sierra National Forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

579

described as well in order to provide a complete context for key forest contributions. The key 

forest contributions were identified using “Chapter 7: Benefits to People” in the national forest 

assessments referenced earlier, as well as the national forest “distinctive roles and contributions” 

statements that were developed for plan revision and are included in the individual forest plans. 

Methodology for Analysis

Potential effects are examined for changes in the economic contributions of the forests across the 

four plan alternatives. Two separate analyses are conducted: (1) a financial analysis looking at the 

potential for funding management activities, and (2) a forest contributions analysis looking at 

potential short- and long-term effects on key forest contributions that provide benefits to local 

economies and also contribute to the quality of people’s lives throughout the region. 

The financial analysis is undertaken to provide decision makers with context for the challenges 

that the forests will face funding project implementation under each alternative. The management 

actions associated with each of alternatives B, C, and D have consequences for funding that 

present different challenges for the forests (these are highlighted). 

The forest contributions analysis looks at potential changes in six key forest contributions that 

provide benefits to people locally and across the region (water quality and quantity, recreation, air 

quality, forest products, energy generation and biodiversity). This qualitative analysis examines 

how these key forest contributions are affected by the plan alternatives and what these potential 

effects mean for the benefits to people and communities. Both the potential beneficial effects and 

the potential adverse effects of each alternative are identified in this analysis. Important to this 

analysis is consideration of the tradeoffs associated with potential short- and long-term effects.

The findings of the financial analysis are also considered when evaluating alternatives in the 

forest contributions analysis. This is done in order to better represent the potential for beneficial 

effects occurring as a result of the proposed management actions. For example, an alternative 

found to have considerable challenges associated with the funding of management activities has a 

greater likelihood of these activities not being implemented or not being implemented to the 

extent described in the plan alternative. As a result, the potential beneficial effects are less likely 

to occur and outcomes would instead more closely follow the trends as identified under 

alternative A.

The following assumptions are made in conducting these analyses:

• forest base funding and staffing levels remain constant and representative of current 

trends across alternatives and for the life of the plan; 

• funding for increased restoration and management activities is obtained from outside 

existing forest budgets through retained receipts on stewardship contracts and partnership 

opportunities, and thus represents new money into the local economy; and 

• there are no current or expected future changes to mining or grazing activities or their 

associated programs as a result of the proposed plan alternatives.

Affected Environment

This section presents:

1. A description of the economic conditions within the counties that intersect the national 

forest administrative boundary; 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

580

2. A description of the key contributions each national forest makes that influence these 

economic conditions and influence economic sustainability; and

3. A description of how these key national forest contributions are currently threatened by 

uncharacteristic wildfire and disease and insect pathogen mortality in vegetation. 

Economic Conditions

Economic conditions are described by examining three factors: economic health; economic 

diversity, and local fiscal conditions surrounding each national forest. 

Economic health is the overall health, or prosperity, of an economy and this influences its ability 

to adapt to change. An economy already facing job loss and low incomes is likely to be less able 

to adapt to forest management changes that affect key economic sectors. Three key statistics are 

presented below as measures of this economic well-being; the annual unemployment rate, 

average earnings per job, and per capita income.

Economic diversity is the extent to which an economy is dependent on one or only a few sectors 

as opposed to a broad spectrum of economic activities. When determining the economic context 

of national forest management decision making, it is important to identify the key sectors that 

drive the economy and the extent to which the economies of the surrounding area are dependent 

on national forest land activities. Determining this level of diversification and the economy’s 

dependence on these national forest land activities provides a good indicator of the potential 

effects that may result from national forest management decisions that impact these activities. 

That is, a more diversified economy that is supported by many different sectors is better able to 

withstand changes to national forest management than is an economy that is dependent mostly on 

forest-based commodity extraction and tourism. 

Local fiscal conditions represent the finances of local governments, specifically the sources of 

revenue and the targets of spending. Local governments rely on revenues generated from 

activities on national forest lands. These revenues can be summarized in three broad categories; 

direct, indirect, and secondary. Direct includes the direct subventions from the Federal 

Government and include Federal Forest Reserve and Payment in Lieu of Taxes. Indirect revenues 

are the timber, sales and transient occupancy taxes collected as a direct result of timber activity on 

the national forest and the visitors to the national forest buying and paying sales tax and staying 

and paying transient occupancy taxes. Secondary revenues are those taxes collected because those 

businesses providing these services use a portion of the revenues received to pay their taxes. 

Management decisions that affect these activities have the potential to impact these revenues. To 

determine the context of these payments, it is necessary to understand how important these 

revenues are to local budgets and also understand the current overall budget conditions of local 

governments. Communities facing difficult fiscal conditions would feel an impact from any 

changes in revenues, thus leading to the potential for reduced public services provision in the 

area.

The context of these three factors are examined below. This information is obtained from 

“Chapter 6: Assessing Social, Cultural and Economic Conditions” of the individual national 

forest assessments that were written for plan revision (USDA FS 2013a, 2013b, 2013c).

Economic Health

With high unemployment, lower earnings, and lower per capita income than California as a 

whole, the counties bordering the three national forests are facing challenges to their economic 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

581

health. Thus, these communities are less able to adapt to forest management changes that would 

affect key economic sectors. This data from the national forest assessments (USDA FS 2013a, 

2013b, 2013c) is presented in Table 153. 

Table 153. Economic health surrounding the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests

Key Economic Measures

Inyo 

National 

Forest

Sequoia 

National 

Forest

Sierra 

National 

Forest Bioregion California

Unemployment rate, 2011 (%) 10.3 15.9 16.3 14.3 11.7

Average earnings, 2011 ($) 42,935 49,194 48,970 51,744 61,799

Per capita income, 2011 ($) 39,737 30,782 31,839 36,127 44,564

Economic Diversity

The economies surrounding the Sierra National Forest are diversified except in the Yosemite 

Valley Census County Division where the travel and tourism sectors account for more than half of 

all employment. The economies surrounding the Sequoia National Forest are diversified with low 

to no specialization across all Census County Divisions (Lin and Metcalfe 2013). Studies 

conducted for the area surrounding the Inyo National Forest have demonstrated that local 

economies are very dependent on tourism and recreational activities and any changes in the level 

of these activities would have an effect on the economy (Alkire 2012; Gruen Gruen and 

Associates 2010). In addition, a recent report examining the history and potential of economic 

opportunities in Mono and Inyo counties reinforces this finding, stating that, “neither county has 

demonstrated extensive economic diversification beyond the government and hospitality/leisure 

sectors” (Sierra Business Council 2012). As a result, the economies of Mono and Inyo Counties

are likely susceptible to effects from changes in forest management that lead to changes in 

visitation to the area.

Local Fiscal Conditions 

The counties bordering all three national forests receive revenues from sales taxes on timber 

products and on temporary lodging from visitors to the region. Available data shows that these 

sources are a significant portion of the tax revenue collected in Mariposa (20.4 percent of tax 

revenue collected), Mono (4.6 percent), and Inyo (4.3 percent) counties. Specifically in these 

counties, it is the transient lodging tax revenue that is the more significant contributor of the two 

tax sources (California State Controller’s Office 2012). One study estimated the percentage of the

county sales tax revenue that was visitor related. This includes spending on goods and services 

while visiting an area, and this visitor spending is again identified as important to fiscal 

consideration for Mariposa (61.4 percent of total sales tax collected is visitor related), Mono (57.9 

percent), and Inyo (20.8 percent) counties (Dean Runyan and Associates 2012). Therefore, it is 

important to recognize that these smaller rural counties are reliant on visitors to the national 

forests to contribute tax revenues essential for providing key public services.

Payments in lieu of taxes (often known as PILT or the 25 Percent Fund) are also an important 

consideration for local county governments. This funding source is especially important locally in 

Inyo County where less than 2 percent of the land in the county is privately owned. All but two 

counties (Inyo and Mono Counties that received payments from the 25 Percent Fund) bordering 

the three national forests received Secure Rural Schools Funding in 2013 that supported local 

services (USDA FS 2015a).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

582

Key National Forest Contributions

Contributing to community well-being by providing a broad range of economic opportunities for 

national forest communities is consistent with current Forest Service direction from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture to generate jobs through recreation and natural resource conservation, 

restoration, and management in rural areas (USDA 2015). However, Federal forest management 

alone cannot ensure community stability because jobs in the forest products, agricultural, mining, 

and recreation industries are influenced by market conditions and changes in technology outside 

the control of forest management. As a result, national forests cannot expect to ensure community 

economic wellbeing through their management actions alone (Charnley 2013).

While national forests are not the sole factor determining economic wellbeing, they do contribute 

economically to local communities and also to communities that are located further from the 

national forest. Commodity-based activities that are specifically important to local economies 

within the study area are forest products and recreation. Grazing and mining activities also occur 

on these national forests and are important to local economies and culture. However, there are no 

current or expected future changes to mining or grazing activities or their associated programs as 

a result of the proposed plan alternatives, so they are not examined in detail here. Water is also 

examined as a vital resource with economic value that is influenced by forest management.

Other vital national forest contributions besides these commodities may be less apparent in our 

daily lives and their benefits difficult to measure, but these contributions are important because 

they support the ecosystems and social environments in which we live (such as, biodiversity). 

However, there is no universally accepted methodology for how to quantify the benefits of these 

types of non-market contributions. Instead, the benefits provided by biodiversity are described to 

capture the importance of these benefits to people.

Forest Products

As of 2010, timber sector jobs in the counties bordering the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests 

made up a small percentage of total private sector employment. This timber employment 

accounted for around 0.6 percent of all private sector jobs in the counties, which is a similar 

percentage to the state and the bioregion. Within the timber sector, wood products manufacturing 

accounts for most of this employment with very few jobs occurring in sawmills and paper mills 

and in the growing and harvesting industries. Total employment in the timber sector has been 

decreasing recently from around 0.8 percent of all private sector employment in 1998 to 0.6

percent today (Headwaters Economics 2012). The closing of the North Fork Mill (with an 

estimated 145 employees) contributed to this decline. Current planning efforts are underway by 

the North Fork Community Development Council to redevelop this mill site to find uses for 

biomass material generated by forest management, specifically bioenergy generation (NFCDC

2013). Currently, the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests are providing timber for three 

remaining sawmills: Sierra Forest Products in Terra Bella, California, and Sierra Pacific 

Industries in Chinese Camp and Standard, California. The Sierra Forest Products mill is the last 

remaining mill in California south of Yosemite.

Biomass energy facilities have brought new jobs with good comparative wages into rural 

communities. The long-term nature of this employment provides durable improvement and added 

stability to the local and regional economies (Morris 2000).

As of 2010, timber activity on the Inyo National Forest is minimal and timber sector jobs in the 

counties bordering the Inyo made up very little of total private sector employment.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

583

The forest products industry in California has been declining in size for the past few decades. In 

2012, there were an estimated 77 active primary wood and paper products facilities in the state, 

down significantly from 262 in 1968 (McIver et al. 2015). This decline in infrastructure is an 

important development in terms of restoration activities in the region. Increasing the pace and 

scale of restoration is economically dependent on sustaining the necessary infrastructure and 

workforce to utilize the biomass removed from the forests. 

Recreation and Tourism

In 2010, travel- and tourism-related industries were important in communities around all three 

forests, accounting for 50 percent of jobs in the counties bordering Inyo National Forest, 15.9 

percent of jobs in the counties bordering Sierra National Forest, and 15.6 percent of jobs in the 

counties bordering the Sequoia National Forest. These percentages for the Sequoia and Sierra 

National Forests are similar to the bioregion (18.1 percent) and the state (15.7 percent), while the 

percentage for the Inyo National Forests is much greater. The number of travel- and tourismrelated jobs in these counties have been relatively stable from 1998 through 2010. Average annual 

wages in these jobs are below the average wage for all private sector jobs, so these are relatively 

lower paying jobs in local communities (Headwaters Economics 2012).

A study examining the value of travel and tourism to California counties estimated the percentage 

of total county employment and earnings generated by all travel in the county. Travel and tourism 

around the Sierra National Forest is an important sector in Mariposa County, accounting for 52.0 

percent of employment and 33.4 percent of earnings. These percentages are lower in Madera (5.2 

percent of employment and 3.0 percent of earnings) and Fresno (2.9 percent of employment and 

1.5 percent of earnings) counties. Travel and tourism around the Sequoia National Forest 

generates 3.7 percent of employment and 1.6 percent of earnings in Kern County, 2.9 percent of 

employment and 1.5 percent of earnings in Fresno County, and 2.5 percent of employment and 

1.5 percent of earnings in Tulare County. Travel and tourism around the Inyo National Forest 

generates 48.6 percent of employment and 32.2 percent of earnings in Mono County and 23.5 

percent of employment and 11.5 percent of earnings in Inyo County (Dean Runyan and 

Associates 2012). 

Commodity-based Estimates of Contributions from the Sierra National Forest

Estimates of the jobs, compensation, and tax contributions of activities on each of the three 

national forests derived from the economic contribution models for each national forest (USDA 

FS 2015b, 2015c, 2015d) are provided in Table 154. These values should be used to gain an 

understanding of the relative context of national forest contributions to these sectors and not as 

exact measures of these contributions. Therefore, all estimates are rounded to the nearest 100. 

Employment, expressed as jobs, represents the average annual employment and includes a 

combination of full and part time, temporary, and seasonal workers. State and local government 

total tax impact does not include tax contributions from grazing. 

Table 154. Estimates of the economic contributions, 2012

National 

Forest

Employment 

(Jobs)

State and Local 

Government 

Total Tax Impact (M$)

Federal 

Total Tax Impact (M$)

Inyo 2,900 $17,200 $16,200

Sequoia 1,000 $3,700 $4,100

Sierra 1,000 $4,800 $6,100
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

584

The sectors with the most jobs created from national forest contributions are: government; 

agriculture; retail trade; accommodations; food services; arts and entertainment; and recreation. 

Important to note about these estimates is that the total number of jobs created by national forest 

contributions is almost triple for the Inyo National Forest when compared to the two other 

national forests, with most of these Inyo National Forest-generated jobs resulting in sectors 

related to recreation and tourism. In addition, estimates of the total tax revenues generated by 

national forest activities are also much larger than the amounts generated by the other two 

national forests, with the largest contributions resulting from accommodations and food services. 

These findings highlight the Inyo National Forest’s key contributions to local economies, 

primarily for the visitors it draws to the area.

The Importance of Water to Economic Sectors

The water flow the Sierra National Forest feeds 10 water storage facilities and 22 operationally 

active hydroelectric facilities within or near the Sierra National Forest. Water rights and 

entitlements delivered through the Madera and Friant-Kern canals are extremely important to the 

economy of the San Joaquin Valley (USDI BOR 2013). Watersheds of the Sequoia National 

Forest drain into the Tulare Buena Vista Lakes Hydrologic Province and contribute to municipal, 

agricultural, recreation, warm and cold freshwater habitat, groundwater recharge, and freshwater 

replacement. Hydropower generation occurs on the Kern and Tule rivers, while industrial uses 

and groundwater recharge are downstream of its dams. Six Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission projects lie within the forest plan boundary (USDA FS 2013b). Water originating on 

the Inyo National Forest supplies both water and electricity for millions of people in communities 

as far-ranging as Los Angeles, Mammoth Lakes, and Fresno. These activities are estimated to 

provide upwards of approximately 300 jobs to the local Inyo County economy (Richards 2015a). 

In addition, the water from the Inyo National Forest and adjacent lands is used extensively for 

recreational activities such as fishing, boating, and swimming, and aesthetic enjoyment. These 

recreational activities are vital to supporting the local economy in both Mono and Inyo counties. 

Biodiversity

The changing elevation across the national forests, combined with the variability in aspect and 

slope; the variety of geology and soils; and the amount and timing of precipitation; creates an

extremely high diversity of ecosystems. These varied ecosystems across all three national forests 

are inhabited by over 1,300 plant species and over 300 fish and wildlife species (see “Wildlife, 

Fish, and Plants” section). As a result, fishing, wildlife hunting, and wildlife viewing are 

important contributions provided to the public by all three national forests. The national forest’s 

terrestrial and aquatic plant and animal species are dependent on resilient, diverse ecosystems that 

also sustain a social and economic fabric connected to a healthy forest. Sustaining these plant and 

animal species contribute to local communities by providing a quality environment where visitors 

can enjoy these landscapes.

Important Inyo National Forest Contributions to Inyo County

Inyo County’s communities have typically relied upon activities on public lands, and the Inyo 

National Forest in particular, for their well-being. The County’s economy historically developed 

based on resource extraction and agriculture, which has since transitioned toward a service 

economy tied to tourist-oriented recreation on the Inyo National Forest. This history has shaped 

the society and culture of the County. In addition, more than 98 percent of Inyo County is 

managed by government agencies, and therefore decisions on the use of these lands have a large 

influence on the economy of the County. Given these critical economic and social ties between 

the Inyo National Forest and the County, an important part of understanding the affected 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

585

environment is identifying the key locations and activities on the Inyo National Forest and how 

they contribute to Inyo County. 

Visitation and tourism resulting from recreational activities in the Inyo National Forest is a major 

contributor to the local Inyo County economy. As shown in Table 154, national forest 

contributions are important to the counties surrounding the Inyo National Forest. Contributions to 

the recreation- and service-based sectors comprise the majority of this activity. While the Forest 

Service Economic Contributions model is not able to break out these estimated totals by county, 

other available data can help to illustrate the degree to which Inyo County relies on these national 

forest contributions. Inyo County estimates that wilderness activities generate approximately $4.5 

million in visitor spending there annually. Fishing and hunting provide additional visitor spending 

estimated as $2.7 million and $544,000, respectively. Off-highway vehicle users spend about 

$305,000 annually. Grazing on Inyo National Forest System lands in the County are estimated as 

providing $5 million in revenues (Inyo County 2015; Richards 2015b). Finally, the potential for 

future mining is also an important economic consideration because of the potential for jobs and 

incomes in the County (Richards 2015c). Therefore, management decisions that affect visitation, 

mining, and grazing would have economic consequences for Inyo County communities. 

Working in collaboration with the County, we identified key locations and activities for 

socioeconomics; these are presented in Table 4 and figures 1 and 2 of the Economics 

supplemental report. These key activities focus on recreation, mining, and agriculture (grazing). 

Actions associated with plan revision and future national forest projects that would have 

implications on these important national forest contributions should be evaluated as to the 

significance of such effects.

Environmental Consequences to Economic Conditions

Financial Analysis

National forest project-level planning and implementation is guided by the budget as received 

from Congress and passed down through the Department of Agriculture to the Forest Service and 

then to the national forest. Therefore, to reflect this budget reality, the analysis assumes 

continuation of the trend of recent national forest budget obligations. Given this assumption, this 

section examines potential funding opportunities outside of appropriated national forest budgets 

that are available to achieve the increase in pace and scale of activities that are identified in each 

of the alternatives that revise the forest plans. 

Consequences Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

There are challenges to project funding that is outside of the forest plan and the plan revision 

process. Increases in the pace and scale of restoration would involve increases in the costs 

associated with project preparation and project planning. Alternatives B, C, and D would need to 

identify efficiencies for these planning processes in order to reduce the increased costs associated 

with additional project planning and preparation. Given current budget trends, identifying and 

implementing these efficiencies will be critical to the success of any alternative that is chosen.

Potential increases in national forest revenues provide new opportunities for additional project 

funding resources. National forest revenues potentially affected by the proposed plan alternatives 

are associated with activities occurring in the recreation program and the forest product program 

on each the three national forests. Recreation staff members do not foresee significant changes in 

the revenues that would be generated by the recreation programs on these three national forests as 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

586

a result of alternatives B, C, or D. Therefore, new funding opportunities resulting from changes in 

recreation revenues are expected to be limited and to be similar across all the alternatives.

The ability to develop specific estimates of the anticipated changes in revenues from forest 

products is hampered by a variety of unknown future conditions. Perhaps the most significant of 

these conditions is the value of forest products in the global marketplace. However, it is possible 

to characterize differences in the potential for opportunities for new revenue generation between 

the alternatives. Each alternative is comprised of plan components that affect the potential 

economic feasibility of timber harvest activities. Since operating costs are fairly stable over a 

harvest area (specifically, no additional move-in move-out cost, and no additional skid roads), 

then increases in volume and/or value removed per acre can potentially result in a fairly 

substantial increase in revenue, which can then be prioritized to accelerate the achievement of 

priority work within designated stewardship areas. Conversely, rules that reduce the economic 

value of timber harvest projects, by constraining the size and/or number of sawtimber products, 

are less able to provide these opportunities for increases in retained receipts. Subsequently, this 

would reduce the likelihood that additional funding for restoration accomplishments would

become available. It is this fundamental premise that distinguishes the alternatives B, C, and D 

from each other (and is highlighted as follows). 

The effects of the ongoing mortality event have not yet been fully considered. Volumes projected 

in forest plans are, by definition, from scheduled harvests of living trees. Given the extent of 

current mortality, it may not be possible to reach the previously estimated future yields. Although 

events like wildfires and multi-year droughts are expected to occur in this analysis area, and 

commonly result in varying levels of salvage timber harvest, these unscheduled events offer no 

assurance of quantity over a predictable timeframe. Further, while promptly reestablished national 

forests can begin to offer sawtimber harvests as early as the fourth decade, there is a point when 

the number of acres affected by stand-replacement fire would exceed growth rates capable of 

sustaining currently predicted harvests. Without a more complete analysis, this is an uncertainty 

that cannot be reconciled at this time.

Therefore, when considering forest product value as a potential funding source for restoration 

activities, an important variable to consider is the magnitude and extent of tree mortality. 

Continued levels, due to both fire and multi-year drought effects, reduce the potential to sustain 

harvest levels. Inadequate levels of effective reforestation further restrict long-term harvest levels. 

Given the assumption that stewardship contracts, with the potential to generate and utilize credits 

used to increase the pace and scale of restoration, projected accomplishments may be negatively 

affected in both the short term and long term. This funding uncertainty, resulting from both 

current and future mortality, is important to consider under alternatives B, C, and D. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Funding for restoration activities under alternative A would be expected to continue on current 

trends and there are fewer opportunities for revenues to pay for these activities than under 

alternatives B and D, as highlighted below. 

Consequences Specific to Alternatives B and D

Achieving the vegetation desired conditions that are identified under both alternatives B and D 

create the potential for the expanded use of “integrated resource timber contracts” to generate 

revenues. A benefit of expanding the use of integrated resource timber contracts is the ability of 

these revenues to pay not only for fuel reduction and stand density management, but also for 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

587

other types of restoration activities within designated stewardship areas (for example, meadows, 

heritage sites, and scenery improvements).

However, the harvest restrictions that are imposed under alternative B are intended to take a more 

measured approach to achieving desired conditions, and therefore would place limits on these 

opportunities. Alternative D, which includes fewer canopy and tree-size restrictions in order to 

move the national forests to their desired conditions at a faster pace, would be expected to allow 

harvest of an additional number of larger trees per acre. This increased ability to remove some 

larger trees provides more opportunities for additional funding for restoration activities and also 

allows for more effective treatment of project areas, thus improving residual vigor of the 

remaining trees and creating more resilience and improved sustainability in the forests.

The three national forests vary in their ability to design economically attractive timber harvest 

projects that would have the potential to generate additional retained receipts through integrated 

resource timber contracts. The Sequoia and Sierra National Forests differ, principally, by the area 

of national forest land available. The Sequoia National Forest, excluding the Giant Sequoia 

National Monument, is able to design and offer economically feasible timber harvest projects, but 

from a smaller land base than the Sierra National Forest. The sawtimber from these national 

forests can be transported to an accessible sawmill in the area. The Inyo National Forest is 

distinct from the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests in this regard, as it lacks a reasonably 

accessible sawmill. In addition, while it is possible to harvest sawtimber from the Inyo, it requires 

the uncommon condition of a large number of large logs within the project area. 

Another important option would be establishing funding opportunities and partnerships with 

Federal, state, and local agencies as well as capable stakeholder groups. These options are critical 

on all three national forests, but are especially important on the Inyo National Forest where 

additional revenue generation from increased timber value through integrated resource timber 

contracts is limited. Alternatives B and D highlight working collaboratively with stakeholders to 

develop these types of funding opportunities. Successful implementation would require national 

forest project goals to align with the goals for outside agencies and stakeholder groups willing to 

partner to fund restoration activities. Examples of these types of opportunities include cost-share 

agreements, memorandums of understanding, and stewardship agreements with partners taking on 

active management roles that allow the Forest Service to leverage resources and staff from other 

organizations to conduct or assist in treatments on and adjacent to national forest lands. 

Developing these types of opportunities requires the additional cost of time and resources 

associated with engaging potential partners and establishing agreements.

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

The restoration activities proposed under alternative C do not create potential for the expanded 

use of integrated resource timber contracts to generate revenues. The increased focus on using 

managed fire in alternative C does allow for restoration to be paid for out of fire suppression 

funding, so these activities would not count against national forest appropriated budgets. 

However, alternative C does not contribute to sustaining the local forest product infrastructure 

and workforce, and therefore this could lead to future project cost increases since workers and 

equipment would need to come from farther away to do this work, and the volume of biomass 

removed would need to travel farther to be processed. This potential reduction in local 

infrastructure and workforce would result in higher costs for treating fuels, and therefore would 

potentially result in fewer buffers to maintain the fire in desired areas and away from structures 

and protected habitat. Consequently, there is potential for a longer-term reduction in the ability to 

use managed fire in areas that are close to structures and habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

588

Another important potential source of funding for these additional restoration costs would be 

partnerships. Alternative C, similar to alternatives B and D, highlights working collaboratively 

with stakeholders to develop these opportunities. 

Forest Contributions Analysis

Wildfire, disease, and insect pathogen mortality in vegetation is increasing in severity across the 

bioregion, and a high percentage of the landscape that provides the key national forest 

contributions outlined previously are under threat in the Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National 

Forests (Metcalfe et al. 2013). As a result of these threats, there is great potential for disruption in 

the underlying ecological processes and for resulting loss and interruption in forest benefits. This 

loss of benefits has a cost to local communities and to the region as a whole. Examples of more 

localized costs include the loss of recreational opportunities for visitors, reductions in local 

employment and tax revenues from national forest commodities such as forest products, and the 

effects on the economies of local communities through reduced tourism in the area. When 

services such as water supply, electricity generation, and forest products are lost, the potential 

effect moves beyond the local area, and people across the state are affected by the loss of these 

services even if they do not live near the forests nor ever plan to visit there. 

The potential effects of plan alternatives on these important forest benefits to people are 

examined as follows, first highlighting the similarities between the plan alternatives B, C, and D, 

and then highlighting their key differences. Important to this analysis is capturing the effects of 

plan alternatives on the economic health, diversity, and fiscal conditions that are outlined in the 

affected environment section above. Therefore, a local communities section highlighting these 

potential effects is included in each alternative description. The description of effects below is a 

summary of findings and a more detailed description of potential effects on forest contributions is 

provided in the Economics supplemental report.

Consequences Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

A summary of the potential short- and long-term effects on the six key national forest

contributions is provided in Table 155 (water quality and quantity, recreation, air quality, forest 

products, energy generation, and biodiversity). There are two important similarities in potential 

effects across all three plan revision alternatives.

• Alternatives B, C, and D increase restoration activities in total (through more focus on 

mechanical thinning in alternatives B and D and through more focus on prescribed 

burning and managed fire in alternative C), and therefore provide greater potential to 

improve the long-term sustainability of some key national forest contributions when 

compared to alternative A that maintains current restoration activity levels.

• Alternatives B, C, and D have potential adverse short-term effects resulting from 

restoration activities that can temporarily disrupt these same national forest contributions.

There are some important differences between alternatives B, C, and D. These differences arise 

primarily from differences in the intensity and the approach to restoration under each alternative 

and are summarized below. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

589

Table 155. Summary of short-term and long-term potential effects on key national forest 

contributions by alternative

National Forest 

Contribution

Alternative A

short-term / longterm effects

Alternative B

short-term / longterm effects

Alternative C

short-term / longterm effects

Alternative D

short-term / longterm effects

Water adverse / adverse adverse / beneficial adverse / beneficial adverse / beneficial

Sustainable 

recreation

adverse / adverse uncertain / beneficial uncertain / beneficial uncertain / beneficial

Air quality adverse / adverse uncertain / beneficial uncertain / beneficial uncertain / beneficial

Energy 

generation

adverse / adverse beneficial / beneficial adverse / uncertain beneficial / beneficial

Forest products beneficial / adverse beneficial / beneficial adverse / adverse beneficial / beneficial

Biodiversity adverse / adverse adverse / beneficial adverse / beneficial adverse / beneficial

Consequences Specific to Alternative A

Under alternative A, trends in current resource conditions are expected to continue, and therefore 

the long-term sustainability of all six key national forest contributions provided by these 

resources to people locally and across the region is threatened. Particularly important are the

threats of uncharacteristic wildfire, disease, and insect mortality of forest vegetation that 

contribute to declining forest health and increase interruptions both in the short term and long 

term for all of these national forest contributions. Continuing current harvest levels in forest 

products would have the potential to contribute positively in the short term, but in the long term, 

forest product contributions would be adversely affected as a result of fire, disease, and insect 

mortality as well as from the decreases in forest product infrastructure and workforce expected to 

continue under current harvest trends.

Potential Implications for Local Communities

The resulting decline in the sustainability of all six key national forest contributions would result 

in significant adverse short- and long-term economic effects for local communities. These effects 

would be felt most directly through the potential loss of recreational visitation as a result of 

declining quality of recreational settings and increasing limits on opportunities from wildfire 

closures. Declining trends in species biodiversity would also adversely affect national forest

visitation for important activities such as hunting, fishing, plant gathering, and wildlife watching. 

Rural communities located along access routes to the national forest often have a strong tie to the 

economic contributions that recreational visitors provide. This includes the visitor spending that 

supports jobs and also the contributions to local tax revenues through the sales and lodging taxes 

collected. These local tax revenues support important public services that improve the quality of 

life in these communities. The connection between recreational visitation and local economies is 

especially true for the Inyo National Forest and the critical importance of recreational-based, 

service-oriented businesses located within Inyo County. Alternative A does not contribute to 

improving the sustainability of this important recreational visitation.

Increases in the smoke from wildfires also contribute to this potential adverse economic effect 

resulting from decreasing recreational visitation. Under alternative A, trends for more and larger 

wildfires would be expected to continue, thus increasing the likelihood that visitors even far from 

the fire area would stay away due to smoke during at least some portion of the fire season, which 

is expected to be starting earlier and lasting later into the year. In addition, this smoke from 

wildfires adds to air pollution and adversely affects the health of residents in local communities. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

590

Alternative A does not contribute to improving the sustainability of air quality benefits to people 

and communities. 

The important local economic benefits provided by water would also decline under alternative A. 

The water used downstream from the forests is valuable for municipal and agricultural uses. It is 

also valuable for recreational and ecological uses on the national forests because this water 

sustains the important water-based recreational setting and forest biodiversity that draws visitors. 

Given expected restoration levels in alternative A, the quantity and quality of water would be 

expected to continue current trends in declining stream flows and increasing temperatures, thus 

reducing and interrupting the benefits this water provides.

There is an important economic contribution provided by forest products to local communities 

through job creation and the tax revenues that are generated from forest products and restoration 

activities. Under alternative A, there would be around 200 average annual full- and part-time jobs 

supported, with the majority of these jobs (approximately 150 out of the 200) resulting from 

forest products activity on the Sierra National Forest. Contributions to state and local tax 

revenues would be around $1.5 million, again with the majority of this contribution (around $1.25 

million of the $1.5 million) resulting from forest products activity on the Sierra National Forest. 

The expected longer-term result of alternative A is continuation of declining local forest productbased infrastructure and workforce, and that would be expected to result in reduced economic 

health and sustainability in the local area. 

Biomass provides the opportunity to generate electricity for the region and also support local job 

opportunities in biomass harvesting. Alternative A does not have the potential to provide any 

additional biomass to support current industry infrastructure. Nor does alternative A help to create 

an environment with a reliable supply of biomass that would be more favorable to investment in 

new biomass facilities, which would be necessary to increase the pace and scale of restoration. 

Alternative A does not contribute to improving the sustainability of contributions from energy 

generation from biomass. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative B

The restoration activities in alternative B would be expected to help reverse current trends and to 

improve the long-term sustainability of all six key national forest contributions that provide 

benefits to people locally and across the region. In the short term, the potential effects are mixed 

across the different national forest contributions. These effects would be adverse for water 

quality, from the potential for increased sedimentation from restoration activities; and also 

adverse for biodiversity, from increases in disturbances related to the increasing of restoration 

activities. The effects are mixed for recreation and air quality. Recreation benefits in the short 

term from reduced wildfire, but is adversely affected by the potential for some restrictions on 

activities as a result of restoration projects. Air quality also benefits in the short term from 

reduced wildfire, but the prescribed burning under alternative B creates the potential for some 

short-term decreases in air quality as a result of these activities. Forest products and energy 

generation both benefit in the short term from increased restoration activities that yield increased 

sawtimber for mills as well as biomass and the potential for more water quantity for electricity 

generation. 

Potential Implications for Local Communities

The restoration activities in alternative B would improve the long-term sustainability of all six 

key national forest contributions and result in significant beneficial economic effects for local 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

591

communities when compared to alternative A. These effects would be felt most directly through 

the potential gain in the sustainability of recreational visitation as a result of maintaining the 

quality of recreational settings and the opportunities of visitors. Maintaining species biodiversity 

would also contribute to sustaining national forest visitation for important activities such as 

hunting, fishing, plant gathering, and wildlife watching. Alternative B contributes to improving 

the long-term sustainability of recreational visitation.

Given the increases in restoration activities, alternative B does have the potential to result in 

adverse short-term effects through closures during restoration project activities and disturbances 

to species diversity. This potential adverse effect is expected to be minor and is off-set by the 

potential for reduced wildfire when compared to alternative A, and therefore fewer related 

closures of recreational areas and fewer adverse wildfire effects on species would be expected to 

occur. The overall effect of these two opposing factors is uncertain and is dependent on the 

specifics of the projects developed under this alternative. Project-level environmental analysis 

would be conducted to better understand the trade-offs to communities from these potential 

project economic effects on recreation.

Reductions in the smoke from wildfires also contribute to this potential beneficial economic 

effect resulting from sustaining recreational visitation. Under alternative B, restoration activities 

would result in fewer larger wildfires in the long term, thus reducing the likelihood that visitors 

stay away from the area. In addition, the reduced smoke from wildfires would help to improve air 

quality and the health of residents in local communities. There would be some prescribed burning 

under alternative B that could lead to reduced air quality and reduced recreational access in the 

short term. These prescribed burns would be planned to occur under favorable conditions in order 

to mitigate potential adverse effects. Still, the overall effect of these two opposing factors is 

uncertain and is dependent on the specifics of the projects developed under this alternative. 

Project-level environmental analysis should be conducted to better understand the trade-offs to 

communities from these potential project economic effects on air quality.

Alternative B would contribute to sustaining the important local economic benefits provided by 

water from the forests. The water that is used downstream from the forests is valuable for 

municipal and agricultural uses, and also for recreational and ecological uses on the national 

forests because this water sustains the important water-based recreational setting and biodiversity 

that draws visitors. The quantity and quality of this water would be expected to improve in the 

long term under alternative B as compared to alternative A, as current trends in decreasing stream 

flows and higher temperatures could be tempered. In the short term, there would be potential 

adverse effects from increased sedimentation as a result of increased restoration activities. This 

could potentially have adverse short-term economic consequences on recreational visitation, and 

increase downstream costs of using water from the forests.

There is an important economic contribution provided by forest products and restoration activities 

to local communities through support for jobs and the tax revenues that are generated. Under 

alternative B, these contributions would help to reverse local infrastructure and workforce 

declines as well as contributions to local governmental budgets to support critical public services 

that would improve economic health and sustainability in the local area. Alternative B would 

support jobs through forest products and vegetation-based restoration activities. These are 

estimated at around 400 average annual full- and part-time jobs supported, with the majority of 

these jobs (approximately 300 out of the 400) resulting from forest products activity on the Sierra 

National Forest. Contributions to state and local tax revenues would be around $2.7 million, again 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

592

with the majority of this contribution (around $2.3 million of the $2.7 million) resulting from 

forest products activity on the Sierra National Forest.

Biomass provides the opportunity to generate electricity for the region and also support local job 

opportunities in harvesting. Alternative B provides the potential to contribute additional biomass 

to support the current industry workforce and also create a more favorable environment with a 

reliable biomass supply to support the investment in new biomass facilities. This investment 

would be required in the long term to increase the pace and scale of restoration. The restoration 

activities proposed under alternative B also contribute to reducing adverse effects associated with 

the quantity and timing of water, and as a result improves the economic contributions from 

electricity generation through hydropower as compared to alternative A. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative C

The restoration activities proposed in alternative C focusing on managed fire and prescribed 

burning would be expected to help reverse current trends and to improve the long-term 

sustainability of four of the six key national forest contributions (water, recreation, air quality and 

biodiversity) that provide benefits to people locally and across the region. The long-term 

sustainability of forest products and energy generation from biomass would be adversely affected 

and would be similar to long-term effects identified under alternative A.

In the short term, the potential effects are mixed across the different national forest contributions. 

These effects would be adverse for water quality, from the potential for increased sedimentation 

from restoration activities; and also adverse for biodiversity, from increases in disturbances 

related to the increasing of restoration activities. Short-term effects on forest products would also 

be adverse given that harvest would decrease from the current levels set in alternative A. The 

short-term effects are mixed for recreation, energy generation, and air quality. Recreation benefits 

in the short term from reduced wildfire, but is adversely affected by the potential for some 

restrictions on activities as a result of restoration projects. The overall effect on energy generation 

is uncertain because, while there would be reduced biomass utilization for energy generation, 

there is also the potential for improvements in water quantity and timing that could improve 

hydropower generation. Air quality benefits in the long term from reduced wildfire, but effects 

are uncertain in the short term as a result of the amount of prescribed burning that is emphasized 

under alternative C and the fact that this burning would be used under favorable atmospheric 

conditions and thus effects could be mitigated. 

It is important to note that there are greater challenges surrounding the ability of forests to fund 

management activities under alternative C than under alternatives B and D. This is detailed in the 

financial analysis above. As a result of these challenges, limitations in funding may result in 

management activities not being fully implemented to the extent described in the alternative and 

thus, the resulting effects would be expected to more closely follow the trends described under 

alternative A.

Potential Implications for Local Communities

The restoration activities in alternative C focusing on managed fire and prescribed burning would 

improve the long-term sustainability of four of the six key national forest contributions and result 

in significant beneficial economic effects for local communities. These effects would be felt most 

directly through the potential gain in the sustainability of recreational visitation as a result of 

maintaining the quality of recreational settings and the opportunities of visitors. Maintaining 

species biodiversity would also contribute to sustaining national forest visitation for important 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

593

activities such as hunting, fishing, plant gathering, and wildlife watching. Alternative C 

contributes to improving the long-term sustainability of recreational visitation.

The additional areas identified in alternative C as potentially suitable for recommended 

wilderness would result in economic effects for local communities within Inyo County. 

Specifically important are current and historic grazing areas on the east side of Monache Meadow 

in the Inyo National Forest. Reductions in grazing opportunities in this area would impact 

communities because agriculture is the second highest contributing factor to the local economy. 

There is also concern about maintaining current authorized access on roads and trails in these 

areas. For example, the road into Talus Canyon currently is not excluded from additional 

potentially suitable areas. Access roads are important for sustaining the economic contributions 

that result from visitors to important recreational use areas for hiking, camping and off-highway 

vehicle use. There is concern about potential reductions in access to dispersed campsites that 

would also be lost for people who are unable to hike into them once road access is taken away. 

Finally, there are some active small-scale mining activities and mining claims in the areas of 

Redding Canyon, Marble Canyon and the Montezuma Mine. Even though these activities are 

currently limited, potential losses or restrictions to current and future mining opportunities would 

have potential effects for local communities.

Given the prescribed burning and managed fire restoration activities, alternative C does have the 

potential to result in adverse short-term effects through closures during restoration project 

activities and disturbances to species diversity. This short-term disturbance would be expected to 

be similar to alternative B and less than alternative D. This potential adverse effect is off-set by 

the potential for reduced wildfire, and therefore fewer related closures of recreational areas and 

fewer adverse wildfire effects on species. The overall effect of these two opposing factors is 

uncertain and is dependent on the specifics of the projects developed under this alternative. 

Project-level environmental analysis would be conducted to better understand the trade-offs to 

communities from these potential project economic effects on recreation.

Alternative C emphasizes investment in dispersed recreational opportunities over developed 

opportunities. The types of goods and services needed by visitors to dispersed areas and the 

resulting spending of these visitors are different than for developed areas. Therefore, emphasis on 

projects that could lead to a long-term shift in the type of visitor to the national forest would be 

examined at the project level to determine potential economic impacts on local communities as

well as on other resources.

Reductions in the smoke from wildfires also contribute to potential beneficial economic effects 

resulting from improved sustainability of recreational visitation. Under alternative C, restoration 

activities would result in fewer larger wildfires in the upper montane areas treated with managed 

fire and prescribed burning, thus reducing the likelihood that visitors stay away from these areas. 

In addition, the reduced smoke from wildfires would help to improve air quality and the health of 

residents in local communities. There would be an emphasis on prescribed burning and wildfire 

managed to meet resource objectives under alternative C that could lead to reduced air quality 

and recreational access in the short term. These activities would be planned to occur under 

favorable conditions in order to mitigate potential adverse effects. Still, the overall effect given 

the dependence of alternative C on fire for restoration is for some short-term adverse effects on 

air quality that would have effects on human health, recreational visitation, and economic 

conditions in local communities. 

Alternative C would contribute to sustaining the important local economic benefits provided by 

water from the forests. The water that is used downstream from the forests is valuable for 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

594

municipal and agricultural uses and is also valuable for recreational and ecological uses on the 

national forests because this water sustains the important water-based recreational setting and 

biodiversity that draws visitors. The quantity and quality of this water would be expected to 

improve in the long term under alternative C as compared to alternative A, given restoration 

activities that would reverse declining stream flows and increasing temperatures. In the short 

term, there would be potential adverse effects from increased sedimentation as a result of 

increased restoration activities; this sedimentation would be similar to alternative B and less than 

alternative D. This could potentially have adverse short-term economic consequences on 

recreational visitation, and increase downstream costs of using water from the forests.

Under alternative C, sawtimber harvest would be below current levels and this would result in 

short- and long-term adverse effects on local forest-product-based infrastructure and workforce as 

well as on contributions to local governmental budgets supporting critical public services that 

would reduce economic health and sustainability in the local area. Alternative C would support 

jobs from forest products and vegetation-based restoration activities estimated at around 100 

average annual full- and part-time jobs, with the majority of these jobs (approximately 75 out of 

the 100) resulting from forest products activity on the Sierra National Forest. Contributions to 

state and local tax revenues would be around $750,000, again with the majority of this 

contribution (around $550,000 of the $750,000) resulting from forest products activity on the 

Sierra National Forest.

Biomass provides the opportunity to generate electricity for the region and also supports local job 

opportunities in harvesting. However, the focus on fire for restoration and the lack of higher value 

timber harvests to subsidize biomass removal results in expected decreases in biomass utilization 

for energy generation. Long-term local job creation from hydropower generation is less than it is 

from biomass energy given there is no need for continual harvesting and processing of materials. 

Restoration activities proposed under alternative C contribute to reducing adverse effects 

associated with the quantity and timing of water, and as a result improves the local economic 

contributions from electricity generation through hydropower as compared to alternative A. 

Consequences Specific to Alternative D

The restoration activities in alternative D would be expected to help reverse current trends and 

improve the long-term sustainability of all six key national forest contributions that provide 

benefits to people locally and across the region. These effects would be similar to the effects 

outlined in alternative B above. Key differences with alternative B would be that the increased 

pace and scale of restoration in alternative D would be expected to provide greater potential 

contributions to the long-term sustainability of these six national forest contributions, but also 

lead to potential increases in adverse short-term effects resulting from increased restoration 

activities.

Potential Implications for Local Communities

The restoration activities in alternative D would improve the long-term sustainability of all six 

key national forest contributions and result in significant beneficial economic effects for local 

communities. These effects would be felt most directly through the potential gain in the 

sustainability of recreational visitation as a result of maintaining the quality of recreational 

settings and the opportunities of visitors. Maintaining species biodiversity would also contribute 

to sustaining national forest visitation for important activities such as hunting, fishing, plant 

gathering, and wildlife watching. Alternative D contributes to improving the long-term 

sustainability of recreational visitation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

595

Given the increases in restoration activities, alternative D does have the potential to result in 

adverse short-term effects through closures during restoration project activities and disturbances 

to species diversity. This short-term disturbance would be expected to be larger than in alternative 

B. This potential greater adverse effect is off-set by the greater potential for reduced wildfire, and 

therefore fewer related closures of recreational areas and fewer adverse wildfire effects on 

species. The overall effect of these two opposing factors is uncertain and is dependent on the 

specifics of the projects developed under this alternative. Project-level environmental analysis 

would be conducted to better understand the trade-offs to communities from these potential 

project economic effects on recreation.

Alternative D emphasizes investment in developed recreational opportunities over dispersed 

opportunities. The types of goods and services needed for developed activities and the spending 

patterns of these visitors are different than they are for dispersed visitors. Therefore, emphasis on 

projects that could lead to a long-term shift in the type of visitor to the national forest should be 

examined at the project level to determine potential economic impacts on local communities as 

well as on other resources.

Reductions in the smoke from wildfires also contribute to potential beneficial economic effect 

resulting from sustaining recreational visitation. Under alternative D, restoration activities would 

result in fewer larger wildfires, thus reducing the likelihood that visitors stay away from the area. 

In addition, the reduced smoke from wildfires would help to improve air quality and the health of 

residents in local communities. There would be some prescribed burning under alternative D that 

could lead to reduced air quality and recreational access, but increased mechanical thinning 

before burning would help to limit this potential effect. In addition, these prescribed burns would 

be planned to occur under favorable conditions in order to mitigate potential adverse air quality 

effects. Still, the overall effect of these two opposing factors is uncertain and is dependent on the 

specifics of the projects developed under this alternative. Project-level environmental analysis 

would be conducted to better understand the trade-offs to communities from these potential 

project economic effects on air quality.

Alternative D would contribute to sustaining the important local economic benefits provided by 

water from the forests. The water that is used downstream from the forests is valuable for 

municipal and agricultural uses. It is also valuable for recreational and ecological uses on the 

national forests because this water sustains the important water-based recreational setting and 

biodiversity that draws visitors. The quantity and quality of this water would be expected to 

improve in the long term under alternative D as compared to alternative A. In the short term, there 

would be potential adverse effects from increased sedimentation as a result of increased 

restoration activities and this sedimentation would be greater than under alternative B. This could 

potentially have adverse short-term economic consequences on recreational visitation as well as 

on the downstream costs of using water from the forests. 

There is an important economic contribution provided by forest products and restoration activities 

to local communities through support for jobs and the tax revenues that are generated. Under 

alternative D, these contributions would help to reverse local infrastructure and workforce 

declines as well as contributions to local governmental budgets to support critical public services 

that would improve economic health and sustainability in the local area. Alternative D would 

support jobs through forest products and vegetation-based restoration activities estimated at 

around 550 average annual full- and part-time jobs supported, with the majority of these jobs 

(approximately 450 out of the 500) resulting from forest products activity on the Sierra National 

Forest. Contributions to state and local tax revenues would be around $4 million, again with the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

596

majority of this contribution (around $3.3 million of the $4 million) resulting from forest products 

activity on the Sierra National Forest.

Biomass provides the opportunity to generate electricity for the region and also supports local job 

opportunities in harvesting. Alternative D provides the potential to contribute additional biomass 

to support the current industry workforce and also support the investment in new biomass 

facilities. This investment would be required in the long term if the state is to establish a market 

for biomass, which would be necessary in order to increase the pace and scale of restoration. 

Long-term local job creation from hydropower generation is less than it is from biomass energy, 

given there is no need for continual harvesting and processing of materials. Restoration activities 

proposed under alternative D contribute to reducing adverse effects associated with the quantity 

and timing of water and as a result, improves the economic contributions from electricity 

generation through hydropower as compared to alternative A.

Cumulative Effects

The three forests are only a portion of the landscape that comprises the southern Sierra. The

resources throughout this entire region provide economic contributions to local communities and 

regional benefits that improve the quality of people’s lives. The management actions and policies 

on these other lands, in conjunction with management on the national forests, have cumulative 

effects that need to be considered.

Current trends in declining forest product infrastructure and workforce has resulted in only one 

sawmill remaining south of Yosemite National Park. The management of all the lands in this area 

affects future trends in the harvesting of forest products and all of these other contributions need 

to be considered in conjunction with any changes in these forests’ plans. The resulting cumulative 

effects on communities are critical in maintaining economic health, diversity of economic 

activity, and sustainable fiscal conditions for counties and local municipalities. In addition, 

increases in the pace and scale of forest restoration require sustainability of the infrastructure and 

workforce needed to engage in these activities. Activities on all lands would be required to 

contribute to this sustainability.

Recreation in and surrounding the three national forests does not follow administrative 

boundaries, and therefore changes in management of recreation on all of these lands together 

affects economic conditions in local communities. Visitors are drawn to the entire recreational 

experience of the area and spend time and money near their destinations as well as in 

communities on the way to their destinations. Therefore, events like wildfire that result in closure 

of areas and in smoke that reduces enjoyment of visiting the area would adversely affect 

communities whether the fire is burning on the national forests or on neighboring Federal, state, 

or private lands. In addition, the changes to allowable recreational use and activities through 

management, such as wilderness designation and limitations placed on land use that increases 

permitting (such as through species conservation management strategies), need to be considered 

across all lands in order to accurately understand the potential impact for visitation and the 

economic consequences for local communities.

Analytical Conclusions

Alternative A adversely affects the long-term sustainability of all six key national forest 

contributions that are examined. The continuation of current management activities in the face of 

current resource conditions and trends is expected to result in more disruptive events, such as 

uncharacteristic wildfire, and additional declines in forest health that would interrupt and 

eliminate the benefits provided by these contributions. This would have adverse short- and long-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

597

term effects on social and economic conditions in local communities and on people’s lives, both 

those located near the national forest and those across the region that enjoy these benefits.

Alternative B would be expected to help reverse current trends and to improve the long-term 

sustainability of all six key national forest contributions that provide benefits to people locally 

and across the region. In the short term, effects are mixed across the different national forest

contributions. These short-term effects would be adverse for water quality, given the potential for 

increased sedimentation, and also adverse for biodiversity, from increases in disturbances related 

to the increasing of restoration activities. The effects are mixed (both adverse and beneficial) for 

recreation and air quality. Recreation receives benefits in the short term from reduced wildfire, 

but is adversely affected by the potential for restrictions on activities resulting from restoration 

project activities. Air quality also benefits in the short term from reduced wildfire, but the 

prescribed burning under alternative B creates the potential for some short-term decreases in air 

quality as a result of these activities. Forest products and energy generation both benefit from 

increased restoration activities that yield sawtimber for mills as well as biomass and the potential 

for more water quantity for electricity production. Overall, alternative B would have long-term

beneficial effects on economic conditions in local communities and on the national forests’ 

contributions to people’s lives, both those located near the national forest and those across the 

region that enjoy these benefits. In the short term, there is the potential for disruption to some of 

these contributions from increased activities, but this potential is less than in alternative D.

Alternative C would be expected to help reverse current trends and to improve the long-term 

sustainability of only four of the six key national forest contributions (water, recreation, air 

quality and biodiversity) that provide benefits to people locally and across the region. This is 

because the emphasis on fire for restoration instead of mechanical treatments means that the longterm sustainability of forest products and biomass utilization for energy generation would be 

adversely affected and long-term effects would be similar to those highlighted under alternative 

A. In the short term, the potential effects are similar to those in alternative B with one important 

difference. Air quality is expected to be adversely affected in the short term as a result of the 

increased amount of prescribed burning emphasized under alternative C, but given that these 

events would be planned to occur under favorable conditions, the overall effect is uncertain. 

Overall, alternative C would have some long-term beneficial effects on economic conditions in 

local communities and on the national forests’ contributions to people’s lives. However, there is 

long-term loss in the forest products and biomass industries as a result of this alternative.

It is also important to note that there are considerable challenges surrounding the ability of forests 

to fund management activities under alternative C, more so than under alternatives B and D. As a 

result, limitations in funding may result in management activities not being fully implemented to 

the extent described in the alternative. In that case, the resulting long-term effect on the 

sustainability of national forest contributions would be expected to more closely follow the 

adverse trends as described under alternative A.

Alternative D would be similar to alternative B and expected to help reverse current trends and 

improve the long-term sustainability of all six key national forest contributions that provide 

benefits to people locally and across the region. Key differences with alternative B result from the 

increased pace and scale of restoration through mechanical treatments in alternative D that could 

potentially provide even greater contributions to the long-term sustainability of these six national 

forest contributions. However, this increased intensity would also lead to potential increases in 

the short term adverse effects resulting from these restoration activities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

598

Social Conditions

Background

This section summarizes current social conditions in the analysis area for the Inyo, Sequoia, and 

Sierra National Forests and potential impacts of implementing the revised plans or alternatives on 

these conditions.

The 2012 planning rule requires that plans contain guidance that helps a national forest contribute 

to social sustainability. In this plan revision effort, desired conditions were developed for the 

three national forests to address the following identified needs: supporting the long-term 

sustainability of forest benefits to people, encouraging the use of partnerships, and improving 

communication and outreach to the public, including underrepresented populations. 

Many of the challenges we face in managing National Forest System lands are rooted in the 

values that people hold, which influence what is desired from forest management and also help 

define the quality of life that is important to individuals and communities (Allen et al. 2009). 

People are often concerned with the potential impacts of changes in land management on their 

quality of life and at the same time, shifting population demographics also influence value 

orientations and what is considered important to individuals and communities. This plan revision 

effort aims to develop plans that emphasize working together with and understanding the needs of 

the public in order to manage forests in a way that contributes to social sustainability.

Analysis and Methods

This analysis focuses on three key indicators to examine impacts of alternatives on social 

conditions: values, civil rights, and environmental justice. While social conditions include a wide 

range of factors, values were chosen as an indicator because they effectively help us understand 

differences among alternatives from a social perspective, as well as concerns raised by the public. 

In addition, examining impacts of alternatives on civil rights and environmental justice are a 

required part of an environmental impact statement and help ensure more vulnerable populations 

are considered in land management decisions. These three indicators are described below.

Indicators and Methods

Values

Understanding how people are potentially affected by different alternatives includes looking at 

what those changes mean in terms of people’s different value sets. Several comments received 

during scoping reveal the diverse values that stakeholders have regarding the management of 

National Forest System lands. People would be impacted differently because certain alternatives 

would align more closely with personal values compared to other alternatives. This analysis 

qualitatively examines potential impacts of alternatives on different value sets.

Based on scoping comments and previous input, including a stakeholder analysis conducted by 

the Center for Collaborative Policy prior to the assessment phase, we developed broad categories 

of forest management values that may be affected by different alternatives. We then took these 

categories along with analyses from other resources areas to summarize the extent to which the 

different alternatives aligned with different values. This analysis does not discuss every aspect of 

these very broad values. Rather, it focuses on those aspects that best help us understand 

differences across alternatives and concerns raised by the public.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

599

The area of focus for this indicator includes the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests. We 

used information provided by the public regardless of location to examine people’s values toward 

the management of these three forests. This includes viewpoints from both local and regional 

stakeholders, as well as stakeholders in more distant locations.

Civil Rights

USDA civil rights policy (USDA 2003) requires each agency to analyze the civil rights impact(s) 

of policies, actions, or decisions that will affect the USDA workforce or federally conducted and 

federally assisted programs and activities. A civil rights impact analysis facilitates the 

identification of the effects of agency actions that may adversely and disproportionately impact 

employees or program beneficiaries based on their membership in a protected group. 

A protected group is any person, group, or class of persons protected under Federal law and 

Executive order from discrimination on any prohibited basis, that is, discrimination based on 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 all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance programs 

(USDA 2003). 

For environmental or natural resources actions, civil rights impact analyses are not separate 

reports, but are an integral part of the social impact analysis in the environmental impact 

statement (USDA FS 1986). 

The theory of “disparate impact” is used in this civil rights impact analysis. Disparate impact is 

the evenhanded application of neutral policies, actions, or decisions that have the effect of 

excluding or otherwise adversely and disproportionately affecting protected groups. This analysis 

qualitatively describes whether:

• Protected groups were provided the same opportunities to participate in the forest plan 

revision process as others.

• Management under the draft forest plans has the effect of excluding or otherwise 

adversely and disproportionately impacting protected groups. 

The area of focus for this indicator includes the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests. The 

analysis examines any potential civil rights impacts as a result of the three national forests’ plan 

revision process or revised plans. A qualitative analysis of public engagement and review of the 

scope and nature of public comments was used to assess potential disproportionate impacts to 

protected groups. 

Environmental Justice 

Environmental justice means that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all 

populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are 

allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a 

disproportionately high and adverse manner by, government programs and activities affecting 

human health or the environment (USDA 1997). 

In 1994, Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations" was signed requiring that each Federal agency make 

achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

600

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations (Council on 

Environmental Quality 1997).

The memorandum specifically recognized the role of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) in identifying and addressing environmental justice concerns, particularly related to 

analyzing environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian 

tribes; identifying mitigation measures as appropriate; and providing opportunities for community 

participation in the NEPA process (Council on Environmental Quality 1997).

This analysis examines whether there may be disproportionately high and adverse environmental 

effects on minority and low-income populations across alternatives. Environmental effects 

include human health, economic, and social effects. This is done qualitatively by examining who 

and where these environmental justice communities may be, describing how they interact with the 

national forests, and, as a result, how they may be disproportionately and adversely impacted by 

the different alternatives.

The Council on Environmental Quality has oversight of the Federal government’s compliance 

with Executive Order 12898 and NEPA. They have defined “minority” and “low-income” 

populations as follows (Council on Environmental Quality 1997):

Low-income Populations: Low-income populations in an affected area should be 

identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census’ 

Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. In identifying lowincome populations, agencies may consider as a community either a group of individuals 

living in geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant 

workers or Native Americans), where either type of group experiences common 

conditions of environmental exposure or effect.

Minority: Individual(s) who are members of the following population groups: American 

Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or 

Hispanic.

Minority Populations: Minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the 

minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent (may be made up of one 

minority or a sum of all minorities together) or (b) the minority population percentage of 

the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the 

general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.

To identify potential environmental justice populations, we used demographic data from the 2011 

American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. 2011 ACS 

5-year estimates were the most recent data available when originally collected, analyzed, and 

mapped during the assessment phase. The 5-year estimates were chosen over the 3- or 1-year 

estimates because they provide information for smaller geographies, are more precise, and better 

for small populations.

We used the area of influence previously defined for each national forest in the assessment phase. 

For each national forest this is the set of census county divisions (CCD) that intersects the 

national forest administrative boundary. CCDs are county subdivisions delineated by the United 

States Census Bureau in cooperation with state, tribal, and local officials for statistical purposes 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2015). The CCDs and counties associated with each national forest are 

listed below.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

601

Inyo National Forest: North Mono and Mammoth Lakes CCDs in Mono County; Bishop, 

Independence, and Lone Pine CCDs in Inyo County; Mina CCD in Mineral County; and Silver 

Peak CCD in Esmeralda County (see Figure 44).

Figure 44. Census county divisions that intersect the Inyo National Forest administrative boundary
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

602

Sequoia National Forest: Sierra CCD in Fresno County; Woodlake-Three Rivers and 

Springville-Johnsondale CCDs in Tulare County; and Lake Isabella, Bakersfield, and Tehachapi 

CCDs in Kern County (see Figure 45).

Figure 45. Census county divisions that intersect the Sequoia National Forest administrative 

boundary
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

603

Sierra National Forest: Coulterville, Mariposa, and Yosemite Valley CCDs in Mariposa 

County; Yosemite Lakes and Oakhurst-North Fork CCDs in Madera County; and Sierra CCD 

in Fresno County (see Figure 46).

Figure 46. Census county divisions that intersect the Sierra National Forest administrative boundary
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

604

We considered a census county division a minority population if greater than 50 percent of the 

population identified as non-white or Hispanic/Latino. We considered a census county division a 

low-income population if the percentage of people below the poverty threshold was substantially 

greater than at the county level.

In determining the poverty status of families and individuals, the Census Bureau uses income 

cutoffs that vary by family size, number of children, and age. If the total income of a person’s 

family in the last 12 months is less than the threshold appropriate for that person’s family size and 

composition, then that person is considered “below the poverty level” together with every family 

member.

To better understand the geographic location of potential environmental justice communities and 

more specific information regarding race and ethnicity, we examined census block-grouppopulation demographics for the following categories: American Indian and Alaska Native; 

Asian; Black or African American; Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander; Hispanic or 

Latino; and Poverty (percent of people whose income is below the poverty level). Census block 

groups are the second to smallest geographical unit used by the Census Bureau and are generally 

defined to contain between 600 and 3,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2015). We used this 

information to identify more specific places that had relatively large minority populations and 

where outreach efforts could be targeted.

Assumptions

• The framework for the social analysis uses generalities. Area residents and national forest

visitors have diverse preferences and values that may not be fully captured in the 

description of social consequences. The general categories are useful for assessing social 

impacts based on particular forest-related values.

• Individuals may hold one or more of the values described in this section. As a result, the 

impacts of alternatives on specific individuals may be cumulative or mixed, depending on 

the values they hold. 

• Demographics are generally the same at the time of writing this analysis as they were 

during the assessment.

Affected Environment

This section describes the social environment of the area relevant to the indicators used in the 

social impact analysis. More general, comprehensive background information regarding social 

conditions and trends related to the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests can be found in the 

national forest assessments.

Values

Values are relatively enduring concepts that people hold and often share within a given society or 

culture about important life principles, including what is good or bad and desirable or undesirable 

(Allen et al. 2009). People’s values influence how they use national forests, as well as their 

expectations regarding how National Forest System lands should be managed. The values that 

people in the Sierra Nevada hold have been passed on through generations. However, values have 

also been changing over time due to new knowledge, recreation and tourism growth, migration 

from urban areas, and demographic shifts.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

605

The diverse values that people hold can create complex situations for national forest land 

management. In addition, many communities outside a national forest’s immediate area of 

influence have an interest in how it is managed, whether they directly use the forests (such as, 

recreation and tourism) or not (such as, water demand from urban and agricultural areas, concern 

for endangered species) (Long et al. 2014). 

Baseline, representative data regarding public values for these three forests are unavailable, so it 

is not possible to describe what values are most important to the public when it comes to 

managing the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests. However, based on what we heard from 

stakeholders throughout the revision process, we extracted the broad value categories described 

below. Because the viewpoints used to establish different value categories came from volunteered 

stakeholder responses, they are not necessarily representative of the general public. Brown et al. 

(2013) reveal differences in forest values between people who volunteered to participate in a 

values mapping exercise versus those who were randomly selected to participate. Still, 

interviews, meetings, and submitted comments often provide the only source of information 

regarding the forest values that people hold and help us better understand how national forest

management decisions may have an impact on those values.

Aesthetic – Manage for the Scenery, Sights, Sounds, and Smells of Nature

As described in the national forest assessments, scenery is a major component of people’s 

recreation experience on the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests and greatly contributes to 

their sense of place and connection with the land. Ecosystem stressors such as excessively dense

vegetative conditions, fire-return-interval conditions susceptible to severe wildfire, and insect and 

disease outbreaks continue to diminish valued scenery attributes, particularly socially valued 

large trees and diverse vegetation.

Biodiversity – Protect Animal and Plant Species and Their Habitat

The diverse landscapes of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests provide a rich array of 

ecosystems and habitat types that support hundreds of wildlife, fish, and plant species. These 

species contribute to the lifestyles, cultures, and traditions of many national forest users through 

activities such as hunting, fishing, plant gathering, and nature viewing. People have also 

expressed concern regarding adequate protection of habitat for species that are “at-risk,” as 

described in the “At-risk Species” section.

Cultural – Protect Forest Uses that Help Maintain Traditions and Cultures

Native American culture is inextricably connected to the land. Many Native Americans 

participate in traditional activities that carry on family and tribal traditions, provide sustenance for 

families, and continue a spiritual connection to the land and to animal and plant resources 

(McAvoy et al. 2004). Tribal members have expressed concern about continued use of and access 

to areas on the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests that support their cultural traditions. 

Learning – Support Opportunities to Learn About the Environment, History, and People

The Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests foster people’s connection to nature and each 

other through education and interpretation. People have expressed a desire to increase outreach, 

education, and interpretation efforts, particularly related to issues such as fire, invasive species, 

cultural resources, tribal histories and uses, and recreation etiquette and impacts. 

Recreation – Maintain and Enhance a Diverse Set of Recreation Activities

Outdoor recreation is a large part of the culture and lifestyle in the Sierra Nevada and one of the 

main ways that residents and visitors connect to the land and enjoy the natural world. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

606

Recreational trends and the mix of outdoor activities chosen by the public evolve over time, and 

these demands influence national forest lands and management decisions (USDA FS 2012). 

Because everyone recreates on the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests in a wide variety of 

ways, people also have expressed a wide range of concerns regarding potential impacts to their 

preferred recreation activities. In addition, many people would like to see more opportunities on 

these forests for the types of recreation activities in which they participate.

Wellbeing – Promote and Protect Human Health and Safety

The Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests contribute to the well-being of human populations 

in a variety of ways, including basic life necessities such as clean air and water, physical and 

mental health benefits, and protection from the spread of fire into communities. People are 

concerned about the impacts of national forest management decisions on their health and safety, 

particularly in regard to climate change and expected increases in the occurrence and severity of 

drought and fire. Many stakeholders are concerned with impacts to water supply, including 

downstream agricultural and urban communities. 

Stakeholders have expressed concerns regarding health impacts associated with increased 

prescribed fire and wildfire managed to meet resource objectives. People are concerned that these 

actions would result in prolonged days of smoke exposure, affecting human health, people’s 

ability to recreate and go about daily activities, and tourism. This is of particular concern to the 

Inyo National Forest and people living in the eastern Sierra. In addition, people have expressed 

safety concerns about using prescribed fire or wildfire managed to meet resource objectives near 

communities, particularly where fuels loads are high. Concerns have been raised regarding 

impacts to access for fire suppression activities and public evacuation routes in the community 

wildfire protection zone. 

Civil Rights

All members of the public were invited to participate in the plan revision process. The main 

public notices and meetings held by all three forests are listed below. No specific information 

concerning respondents’ race, sex, national origin, or age was collected from public comments or 

meetings.

• On December 26, 2013, the Federal Register published the Forest Service’s notice to 

initiate plan revision for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests. The public was 

also notified in the newspapers of record for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National 

Forests: the Inyo Register, Porterville Recorder, and Fresno Bee, respectively.

• In January 2014, public meetings were held in Bishop, Bakersfield, and Fresno on the 

preliminary need to change, desired conditions, and forest roles and contributions. Based 

on sign-in records, at least 75 people attended the meeting in Bishop, 26 people in 

Bakersfield, and 93 people in Fresno.

• In June 2014, public meetings were held in Bishop, Lake Isabella, and Fresno on the 

updated need to change, desired conditions, wilderness inventory, and timber suitability. 

Based on sign-in records, at least 80 people attended the meeting in Bishop, 30 people in 

Lake Isabella, and 122 people in Fresno.

• The notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for revised forest plans 

was published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2014. The scoping comment period 

concerning the proposed action in the notice of intent ended on September 29, 2014. The 

public was also notified in the newspapers of record for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

607

National Forests. The notice of intent and supporting documents were available to the 

public on the Forest Service project website. Scoping comments were accepted through 

the project website, email, hard copy, or fax. 

• In September 2014, public meetings were held in Bishop, Porterville, and Fresno to 

answer questions about the notice of intent and proposed action and to receive scoping 

comments. Based on sign-in records, at least 76 people attended the meeting in Bishop, 

29 people in Porterville, and 79 people in Fresno. During the scoping period, we received 

more than 7,200 separate public comment letters or emails from tribes, Federal agencies, 

state agencies, county governments and agencies, local agencies and organizations, and 

other groups and individuals. 

• In November 2014, public meetings were held in Bishop, Porterville, and Fresno on 

scoping issues and the conceptual range of alternatives. Based on sign-in records, at least 

80 people attended the meeting in Bishop, 20 people in Porterville, and 36 people in 

Fresno.

• In June 2015, the Inyo National Forest held an additional public meeting in Bishop to 

share information on the wilderness evaluation. Based on sign-in records, at least 50 

people attended the meeting. 

Beyond these general public notifications and meetings, the “Environmental Justice” section 

describes additional efforts the forests made to reach out to more diverse audiences.

There were no comments received that indicated concerns about discrimination based on race, 

sex, national origin, age, or disabilities during the plan revision process for the Inyo, Sequoia, and 

Sierra National Forests. The forests offered accommodations and provided paper copies of forest 

plan revision materials to people who requested them due to disabilities or other reasons. All webbased materials were developed to be accessible for people with disabilities as required by section 

508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Some senior citizens expressed a desire for meetings closer to home to avoid long drives at night. 

We also heard this from members of the public from rural mountain communities. Meeting 

locations and times were based on the availability of meeting space and trying to find centralized 

locations and times that accommodate the greatest possible attendance. Meetings were adjusted to 

end earlier over the course of the plan revision process. Forest staffs were also available to 

answer questions or provide information to those people who could not attend the meetings.

Some comments received during scoping suggest concerns regarding potentially disparate 

impacts from the proposed action and are further examined in the “Environmental Consequences” 

section. These include the following: 

• Concerns that new wilderness recommendations would result in road and trail closures 

that would impact seniors, children, and people with disabilities who rely on motorized or 

mechanized travel to access the national forest. 

• Concerns that new wilderness recommendations would add areas predominantly used by 

white males and that exclude minorities and women. 

• Concerns that prohibiting pack goats in wilderness, particularly on the Inyo National 

Forest, would impact seniors, children, and people with disabilities who rely on pack 

goats to access these areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

608

• Concerns that prohibiting bicycles on the Pacific Coast Trail impact people with 

disabilities who can bike but not walk for long distances. 

• Concerns with health impacts of wildfire smoke on seniors, children, and people with 

health problems.

Environmental Justice

None of the seven CCDs (census county divisions) that make up the Inyo National Forest’s area 

of influence have minority populations over 50 percent (Table 156). However, certain areas 

within or near Bishop, Mammoth Lakes, and Lee Vining have relatively large proportions of their 

populations who identified as minorities, particularly people who identified as American 

Indian/Alaska Native and/or Hispanic/Latino.

Of the seven census county divisions that make up the Inyo National Forest’s area of influence, 

the Lone Pine CCD in Inyo County and the Mina CCD in Mineral County have substantially 

greater percentages of people who are below poverty compared to county levels (Table 156). In 

addition, certain areas within or near Sonora Junction, Mammoth Lakes, and Bishop have 

relatively large proportions of their populations that are low-income. 

Table 156. Percent of minority populations and people living below the poverty level in the area of 

influence for the Inyo National Forest

Area Minority Population

People Below

Poverty Level

Mono County 31% 11%

North Mono Census County Division (CCD) 27% 12%

Mammoth Lakes CCD 32% 11%

Inyo County 33% 12%

Bishop CCD 35% 11%

Independence CCD 26% 7%

Lone Pine CCD 35% 18%

Mineral County 27% 22%

Mina CCD 0% 63%

Esmeralda County 20% 22%

Silver Peak CCD 32% 21%

Of the six census county divisions that make up the Sequoia National Forest’s area of influence, 

the Woodlake-Three Rivers CCD in Tulare County and the Bakersfield CCD in Kern County 

have minority populations over 50 percent (Table 157), mostly accounted for by people who 

identified as Hispanic/Latino. In addition, a relatively large proportion of the population around 

the Tule River Indian Reservation and South Lake identified as American Indian/Alaska Native. 

Although not within the Sequoia National Forest’s immediate area of influence, about 60 percent 

of the population in the Visalia-Porterville metro area is estimated to be part of a minority 

population, almost entirely accounted for by people who identified as Hispanic/Latino. 

None of the six census county divisions that make up the Sequoia National Forest’s area of 

influence have substantially greater percentages of people who are below poverty compared to 

county levels (Table 157). However, certain areas within or near the following places have 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

609

relatively large low-income populations compared to county levels: Woodlake, Wofford Heights, 

South Lake, Tehachapi, Bakersfield, and the Visalia-Porterville metro area.

Table 157. Percent of minority populations and people living below the poverty level in the area of 

influence for the Sequoia National Forest

Area Minority Population

People Below

Poverty Level

Fresno County 67% 23%

Sierra Census County Division (CCD) 24% 10%

Tulare County 60% 24%

Woodlake-Three Rivers CCD 60% 21%

Springville-Johnsondale CCD 41% 13%

Kern County 49% 21%

Lake Isabella CCD 15% 22%

Bakersfield CCD 63% 24%

Tehachapi CCD 31% 13%

None of the six census county divisions that make up the Sierra National Forest’s area of 

influence have minority populations over 50 percent (Table 158). Although not within the Sierra 

National Forest’s immediate area of influence, several areas within or near Fresno, Madera, and 

Chowchilla have relatively large proportions of their populations who identified as minorities, 

particularly people who identified as Hispanic/Latino, Asian, and Black/African American.

None of the six census county divisions that make up the Sierra National Forest’s area of 

influence have substantially greater percentages of people who are below poverty compared to 

county levels (Table 158). However, certain areas within or near the following places have 

relatively large low-income populations compared to county levels: Coulterville, Mariposa, 

Fresno, Madera, and Chowchilla. 

Table 158. Percent of minority populations and people living below the poverty level in the area of 

influence for the Sierra National Forest

Area Minority Population

People Below Poverty 

Level

Mariposa County 17% 14%

Coulterville Census County Division (CCD) 14% 16%

Mariposa CCD 17% 14%

Yosemite Valley CCD 26% 17%

Madera County 61% 20%

Oakhurst-North Fork CCD 16% 11%

Yosemite Lakes CCD 19% 7%

Fresno County 67% 23%

Sierra CCD 24% 10%

Meaningful involvement in decision-making processes is an important part of environmental 

justice considerations. This includes reaching out to potential environmental justice communities 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

610

and inviting them to participate in the plan revision process so we can better understand their 

concerns. 

Efforts have been made to engage tribes early and throughout the plan revision process. In fall 

2012, prior to the official start of plan revision, the Center for Collaborative Policy conducted 

informational interviews with 31 tribal members representing 14 tribes and tribal organizations 

associated with the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests. The purpose of the interviews was 

to better understand tribal concerns that may be relevant to national forest planning, better 

understand how to improve tribal consultation and involvement, and develop recommendations 

for tribal involvement during the plan revision process. A Tribal Collaboration and 

Communication Plan was developed from the results of these interviews to inform how the three 

national forests would interact with tribes during the plan revision process. 

The Sierra and Sequoia National Forests have been hosting quarterly tribal forums since 2008 for 

information sharing between the forests and tribes. Tribal forums have helped meet the needs of 

tribes and national forest leadership by allowing everyone the opportunity to meet at annual 

forecasted dates and times to discuss topics of mutual interest, including forest plan revision. 

Tribal forums specific to plan revision have been held on all three forests as described below.

• In January 2014, we held tribal forums in Bishop, Bakersfield, and Clovis on the 

preliminary need to change, desired conditions, and forest roles and contributions. At 

least 28 tribal representatives attended these forums.

• In June 2014, we held tribal forums in Bishop, Kernville, and Fresno on the updated need 

to change, desired conditions, wilderness inventory, and timber suitability. At least 26 

tribal representatives attended these forums.

• In September 2014, we held tribal forums in Bishop, Porterville, and Fresno on the notice 

of intent and proposed action. At least 31 tribal representatives attended these forums.

• In November 2014, we held a tribal forum in Prather on scoping issues and the 

conceptual range of alternatives. Approximately 15 tribal representatives attended.

In addition to the meetings above, the three national forests have had several meetings with 

individual tribes and tribal groups throughout the process that have included forest plan revision 

as an agenda topic.

In their work and interactions with tribes and tribal organizations, the three national forests have 

gained a better understanding of tribal interests and concerns related to plan revision. Broad 

categories of concern include protection of and access to sacred sites, gathering areas, and 

ceremonial areas; traditional land uses and management, including the role of fire on the 

landscape; tribal economies; traditional knowledge and education; conflict between recreation 

uses and traditional tribal activities; and overall forest resilience and sustainability. Further 

discussion of tribal interests and concerns can be found in the “Tribal Relations and Uses” 

section.

Aside from tribal communities, limited information is available regarding how minority and lowincome populations use and interact with the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests. 

National and regional information about how minority populations recreate can provide some 

insights regarding potential uses of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests. Despite a U.S. 

population that is becoming increasingly ethnically diverse, minority populations are still 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

611

underrepresented in outdoor recreation (Cordell 2012). Based on national outdoor recreation 

trends (Mahler 2012), running is the most popular outdoor recreation activity among African 

Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics. Biking is the second most popular activity 

among African Americans and Asian/Pacific Islanders, while fishing is the second most popular 

activity among Hispanics. Studies have found that Latinos are primarily day-use visitors, recreate 

in larger groups, prefer developed sites with amenities and facilities, and often spend extended 

periods at picnic sites cooking several meals throughout the day (Chavez 2012). Studies on four 

national forests in southern California show that picnic/barbecues and playing in streams were 

among the activities in which Latino visitors usually engaged (Chavez and Olson 2008). 

In addition to general public notification, the forests have been trying to find new ways to reach 

out to more diverse audiences to better understand their concerns and how they use these forests. 

The Sequoia National Forest has been working to translate more materials into Spanish and 

managed a Latino Awareness booth at a local festival, sharing information about fire awareness, 

forest plan revision, and environmental restoration.

The Forest Service’s Central California Consortium based in Clovis, California, has worked on 

various efforts over the past several years to engage diverse youth and underserved communities 

in national forest planning. The Central California Consortium is a minority outreach and 

recruitment program serving the greater San Joaquin Valley. They aim to not only create jobs for 

underserved communities, but to educate the public on natural resources issues and encourage 

diverse communities to enjoy public lands. This has resulted in participation by diverse high 

school and college students in plan revision meetings on the Sierra National Forest, as well as 

efforts to translate plan revision meeting announcements into Spanish. The forests aim to 

continue to build on these efforts and develop relationships with groups that tend to be 

underrepresented in meetings and as national forest users.

On the east side of the Sierra, the Inyo National Forest has expanded outreach to their Spanish 

language newspaper and are working on coordinating localized interpretation and outreach to the 

Spanish speaking population. Programs are expected to start late summer to fall that involved 

several long-term ideas into the upcoming years. The Inyo National Forest is also starting work 

with Outdoor Afro, which aims to connect African-Americans with natural spaces and one 

another through recreational activities. 

Continuing to build on this outreach work can help increase diversity in participants in future 

efforts, particularly projects and activities developed under the revised plans. During this plan 

revision effort, we have developed a better understanding of where potential environmental 

justice communities may be located. Forests have started to do some work on identifying trusted 

community contacts who can help provide a bridge between the forests and these communities. 

This information can further assist in developing outreach efforts when we are developing 

projects in certain areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

612

Environmental Consequences to Social Conditions (All Alternatives)

Values

Aesthetic – Manage for the Scenery, Sights, Sounds, and Smells of Nature

Scenery is closely tied to vegetation and fire management as described under the “Sustainable 

Recreation” section. The alternatives differ in terms of ecological restoration objectives, which 

define the rate at which we aim to move vegetation toward desired conditions. As vegetation and 

fire-return intervals across more landscapes are restored toward their natural range of variation, 

the degree to which valued scenic attributes can be sustained through time is expected to increase 

as well. In the short term, however, some people may perceive restoration activities as having a 

negative impact to scenery.

Long-term sustainability of scenic character would be at greater risk under alternative A 

compared to alternatives B or D. Alternative A continues to use the existing visual management 

system for managing scenery and does not include evaluating the sustainability of scenic 

character as part of project planning. As described in the “Terrestrial Ecosystems” section, 

alternative A provides limited treatments across ecological zones.

Alternative B better aligns with aesthetic values in the long term compared to alternatives A and 

C, but less than alternative D. It includes evaluating sustainability of scenic character as part of 

project planning. Alternative B is expected to better integrate management across resources 

compared to alternative A, particularly in places that are of high recreation importance and where 

protection of scenic character is especially critical. This alternative provides more potential for 

increasing ecological restoration opportunities across ecological zones than alternatives A and C.

Similar to alternatives B and D, alternative C includes evaluating sustainability of scenic 

character as part of project planning. However, this alternative is more restrictive in terms of 

ecological restoration opportunities compared to all other alternatives. Therefore, long-term 

sustainability of scenic character is likely to be at greatest risk under alternative C compared to all 

other alternatives.

Similar to alternatives B and C, alternative D includes evaluating sustainability of scenic 

character as part of project planning and is expected to better integrate management across 

resources compared to alternative A. Compared to all other alternatives, alternative D is expected 

to best align with aesthetic values in the long term, because it provides the most potential for 

increasing ecological restoration opportunities across ecological zones.

Biodiversity – Protect Animal and Plant Species and Their Habitat

Fishing, hunting, plant collection, and nature viewing are important activities to people who use 

the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests. The Forest Service is responsible for managing 

wildlife habitats on national forest lands whereas individual species are managed by California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

As described in the “Aquatics and Riparian Ecosystems” section, the slow pace of restoration of 

habitats for aquatic at-risk species under alternative A would result in a continuing risk of 

downward trend for aquatic species diversity. The goal to increase restoration of aquatic habitats 

under alternatives B, C, and D is expected to address species needs and improve aquatic 

biodiversity compared to alternative A. While there are different tradeoffs between short-term 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

613

consequences of restoration and long-term risk of intense wildfire among the alternatives B, C, 

and D, over the long term, they are expected to have similar effects on aquatics species diversity.

As described in the “At-risk Plant Species” section, because broad-scale restoration of ecosystem 

structure and function would be more limited under alternative A, there may be long-term 

negative effects to federally listed plant species under this alternative compared to the other 

alternatives. In comparison to alternatives B, C, and D, alternative A would least provide the 

ecological conditions necessary to conserve candidate species and to maintain or restore their 

habitats in the plan area, which would contribute to preventing them from being federally listed. 

Alternative A would consider fewer rare plants in the project planning process, as compared to 

alternatives B, C, and D. Each of the three alternatives would provide for ecological conditions 

necessary for the viability of at-risk plant species. However, alternative B would provide the most 

long-term benefits to species of conservation concern habitat extent and quality. Alternative B 

would also have the most beneficial short- and long-term effects for whitebark pine.

Ecological restoration and use of wildfire primarily to meet resource objectives is limited in 

alternative A, providing for less opportunity to create habitat heterogeneity that is needed for 

many of the hunted and viewable wildlife species. Alternative B continues to provide for large 

tree and forest canopy cover, as with alternative A, but with additional emphasis to increase the 

amount of forest restoration treatments to create greater habitat resiliency and heterogeneity. The 

consequences to many hunted and viewable species are expected to be mixed in alternative C 

with some benefits due to less disturbance, but also less benefit from more limited habitat 

restoration opportunities compared to alternatives B and D. There is a higher likelihood of very 

large, high-intensity fires with implementation of alternative C, according to the fire-climate 

scenario predictions (Westerling et al. 2015), which can have a long-term negative impact on the 

distribution and sustainability of habitat. Alternative D would have the greatest increase in the 

pace and scale of ecological restoration of all alternatives, and would provide the most areas with 

increased vegetation resilience and heterogeneity, which would generally benefit hunted and 

viewable species. The increased pace and scale of mechanical thinning and use of strategic 

treatments along ridgetops in alternative D would be expected to produce greater forage for 

herbivores. The increased restoration of fire as an ecological process would also provide more 

sustainable forage. This influx of forage also could help bolster predator populations, such as 

mountain lions, bobcats, and coyotes and other viewable wildlife species. 

Cultural – Protect Forest Uses that Help Maintain Traditions and Cultures

All alternatives contribute to the cultural connections that people have with the Inyo, Sequoia, 

and Sierra National Forests through the various uses and activities that the forests provide.

Alternative A does not provide the level of integration of tribal interests and values into project 

considerations that alternatives B, C, and D do. Alternative A only includes existing designated 

wilderness and does not recommend new areas for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, allowing for the same level of tribal access to areas traditionally used by 

tribes and that may have been part of the wilderness evaluation. 

Alternatives B, C, and D provide a greater level of integration of tribal interests and values into 

project considerations than alternative A, due to the addition of new plan components that would 

be included in each alternative. The increased opportunities for ecological restoration in 

alternative B are expected to benefit tribal interests by incorporating traditional ecological 

knowledge, traditional management practices, and tribal involvement into restoration projects. By 

working with tribes, more ecological restoration activities are expected to lead to more 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

614

opportunities that benefit habitats and resources used for traditional purposes. Alternative B 

recommends new areas for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System on the Inyo 

National Forest. As described in the “Tribal Relations and Uses” section, while many tribal 

activities could still occur within areas recommended for wilderness, some activities such as 

gathering and ceremonial uses may be restricted or more difficult if areas are managed as 

wilderness.

Due to the limited opportunities for ecological restoration in alternative C, areas and resources of 

tribal interest are at greatest risk to large, high-intensity wildfire under this alternative. Alternative 

C recommends the most new areas for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System 

across all three forests, which could potentially lead to the most restrictions on traditional tribal 

uses.

The increased opportunities for ecological restoration in alternative D are expected to benefit 

tribal interests by incorporating traditional ecological knowledge, traditional management 

practices, and tribal involvement into restoration projects. By working with tribes, more 

ecological restoration activities are expected to lead to more opportunities that benefit habitats 

and resources used for traditional purposes. Because alternative D provides the most ecological 

restoration activities, there may be greater risks to inadvertently impacting tribal resources, 

traditional cultural properties, and sacred sites. However, this is expected to be mitigated through 

close coordination with tribes. Alternative D does not recommend new areas for inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System, allowing for the same level of tribal access to areas 

traditionally used by tribes and that may have been part of the wilderness evaluation.

Learning – Support Opportunities to 

Learn About the Environment, History, and People

Under alternative A, forests would continue to provide opportunities for people to learn about the 

environment and the history of the land and its people. However, more opportunities are expected 

under alternatives B, C, and D because of added plan direction related to volunteering, 

interpretation, partnerships, and stewardship. New plan direction emphasizes the delivery of 

effective messaging regarding natural and cultural resources, climate change, land stewardship, 

responsible recreation use, and Native American heritage and culture, as well as communicating 

regularly with the public about Forest Service projects, management activities, and volunteer and 

partnership opportunities. This includes consideration of the diverse backgrounds and needs of 

visitors in developing communication materials. In addition, alternatives B, C, and D would 

include an objective to generate cultural resources products, providing for more cultural learning 

opportunities. This objective would not vary across alternatives B, C, and D and does not exist in 

current forest plans under alternative A. 

Across alternatives B, C, and D, there is an increased emphasis on partnerships. Partnerships not 

only help us do our work, but also create opportunities for learning. While emphasis on 

partnerships across these alternatives is basically the same, the focus of the partnerships may vary 

across them. For example, there would be more opportunities for partnerships around primitive 

recreation in alternative C compared to developed recreation in alternative D. 

There is an also and increased emphasis on working with tribes in alternatives B, C, and D 

compared to alternative A. An important aspect of this coordination is finding opportunities for 

increased learning and understanding between the agency and tribes as we carry out projects and 

activities. Another important aspect includes incorporating traditional ecological knowledge, 

traditional management practices, and tribal involvement into restoration projects, which may not 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

615

only improve land management decisions, but also promote transmission of traditions and 

knowledge to younger generations. 

Recreation – Maintain and Enhance a Diverse Set of Recreation Activities

Demand for outdoor recreation opportunities is expected to increase, while the types of recreation 

activities and experiences that people are seeking would continue to shift. With expected stable or 

declining agency budgets in the future, the Forest Service would need to rely on volunteers and 

partners to continue to provide a set of recreation opportunities that meet the need of a growing 

and changing public. Over the past 15 years, there have been significant declines nationally in 

programs that contribute to providing recreation opportunities as financial and human resources 

have been shifted to wildfire management (USDA FS 2015). This has resulted in the agency

being unable to more fully implement sustainable recreation, heritage, volunteer services, 

wilderness, and wild and scenic rivers programs to provide consistent, quality recreation 

opportunities to the public. The reductions in funding and staff have also impacted the agency’s 

ability to work with partners and volunteers, as well as to manage permits needed by outfitters 

and guides and other recreation-focused small business to provide recreation opportunities on 

National Forest System lands.

Alternatives B, C, and D better emphasize sustainable recreation concepts and integrated resource 

management compared to alternative A. In addition, these alternatives emphasize increasing the 

sustainability of recreation through stewardship and partnership opportunities with local 

communities, engaging diverse populations, and targeting highest priority recreation needs to 

help focus limited resources. However, the types of recreation opportunities that are emphasized 

varies across alternatives.

The threat of large, high-intensity fire is greater under alternative A compared to alternatives B or 

D due to limited ecological restoration treatments and limited ability to use wildfire to restore and 

maintain landscapes. As a result, recreation opportunities and access are expected to be more at 

risk under alternative A, increasing the potential for closures and displacement and associated 

overcrowding in the long term. The deferred maintenance backlog would continue to grow, 

further increasing the potential for site and infrastructure closures. Under alternative B, strategic 

treatment of fuels and treatment of focus landscapes is expected to improve sustainability of 

recreation infrastructure and limit losses and damage due to wildfire, allowing more recreation 

resources to go toward reducing the deferred maintenance backlog over the long-term. Alternative 

D includes more opportunities for ecological restoration than B, further decreasing the risk to 

recreation opportunities from high-intensity wildfires and reducing the potential for closures and 

displacement over the long term, as well as further reductions in the deferred maintenance 

backlog compared to B. Additionally, alternative D may have the greatest potential to reduce 

overcrowding compared to other alternatives because it best addresses the growing demand for 

developed recreation opportunities. Under alternative C, restoration is most limited and recreation 

opportunities are at greatest risk to negative impacts from high-intensity wildfire. As a result, 

alternative C has the most potential for increasing overcrowding due to closures and 

displacement. Under alternative C, the deferred maintenance backlog would increase more than 

all other alternatives due to its focus on dispersed and undeveloped recreation and more limited 

opportunities for fuels treatments.

Wellbeing – Promote and Protect Human Health and Safety

There are several aspects of human and community wellbeing that may be influenced by national 

forest management. This analysis focuses on health and safety related to wildfire. These aspects 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

616

of wellbeing highlight the main differences expected to occur across alternatives for this value 

category. As described in the affected environment section, these are some of the most important 

areas of concern that stakeholders have raised regarding human and community wellbeing. 

Wildfires are growing larger, becoming more destructive, and occurring more frequently outside 

the traditional fire season due to vegetation buildup from years of suppression, climate change, 

and drought. Large, high-intensity wildfires have the potential to negatively affect stream and 

watershed quality, reduce air quality with increased smoke, and destroy nearby homes and 

communities. 

As described in the “Fire Management” section, managing fires more holistically, rather than 

trying to emphasize suppression only, is the most effective and efficient way to reduce fuels, 

reduce impacts to resources and communities, and restore and maintain landscapes. Not enough 

resources are available to reduce fuels with mechanical or prescribed fire treatments alone on 

enough areas to effectively reduce the risk to communities. As a result, safety concerns regarding 

the direct impacts of wildfire are best addressed by alternatives B and D, which both use a fourzone approach to categorize risk and remove many of the uncertainties on the location and source 

of potential damages and benefit to highly valued resources and assets. This allows for more use 

of wildfire to meet resource objectives and ability to meet overall restoration goals, which 

ultimately reduces risks to communities. The greater amounts of ecological restoration and the 

enhancement of strategic fire management features in alternatives B and D, compared to 

alternatives A and C, further contribute to reducing fire risk to communities and allow for more 

opportunities for implementing large, prescribed fires or managing wildfire to meet resource 

objectives. More ecological restoration treatments in alternative D than B are expected to further 

reduce fire risk to communities. 

Under all alternatives, there would be continued coordination with local partners and 

communities for protection and prevention in high wildfire risk areas to enhance the effectiveness 

of initial response. All alternatives prioritize fuel reduction treatments around communities. 

However, alternatives A and C do not account for the likelihood of fires to spread from adjacent 

areas that contribute to the risk to communities or infrastructure. Because risk-based zones are not 

used in alternative A, opportunities for using wildfire to restore and maintain landscapes are 

greatly limited. Additionally, mechanical fuels treatments are more limited under alternative A 

than alternatives B and D. Alternative C includes the risk-based wildfire maintenance zone that 

alternatives B and D have, allowing for more wildfire managed to meet resource objectives 

within this zone. However, this alternative has the least amount of mechanical fuel reduction, as 

well as higher uncertainty of where risk resides, so there are less options for fire management 

outside this zone.

As described in the “Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems” section, the risk to water quality over the 

long term increases as the risk of large, high-intensity wildfire increases. The risk of these types 

of fires is most reduced under alternative D, because the greatest amount of ecological restoration 

is expected to occur under this alternative, followed by alternative B, A, and C, respectively. 

While fuels management activities such as mechanical treatment and prescribed fire can have a 

variety of negative, short-term impacts to soil and water quality, implementation of best 

management practices can effectively mitigate potential impacts from these actions. In addition, 

alternative D is expected to have the greatest number of properly functioning watersheds that are 

resilient to the impacts of climate change due to the amount of ecological restoration in aquatic 

and riparian systems that is expected to occur.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

617

As described in the “Fire Management” section, smoke management opportunities are limited 

during large wildfires and can result in serious air quality impacts, disrupting the lives of 

residents and adversely impacting human health. The level of smoke emissions from large 

wildfires is expected to double over the next half a century, given current vegetation conditions 

and trends in climate and fire ignitions. Under alternative A, there would generally be a 

continuation of current trends in large wildfires that produce large smoke emissions. Alternative A 

does not contribute to altering current trends or improving the long-term sustainability of air 

quality benefits that these forests provide to people. Under alternatives B and D, there would be 

more prescribed fire, thinning, and in some areas wildfires managed to meet resource objectives. 

All of these restoration activities would reduce potential emissions from large, undesirable 

wildfires. There would be increased smoke emissions from prescribed fires, but prescribed fires 

are generally planned under favorable conditions for smoke dispersion to limit human health 

impacts, impacts to transportation corridors, and smoke sensitive populations. Emissions from 

prescribed fire can be managed more effectively than those of wildfire to reduce the short-term 

impacts on air quality. Alternatives B, C, and D contribute to reducing current trends in large 

uncharacteristic wildfires that adversely affect the long-term sustainability of air quality. 

However, under alternative C, there is less mechanical thinning proposed than in alternatives B 

and D. As a result, prescribed fires would have a greater quantity of smoke associated with 

restoration activities because more fuels are available to burn. In addition, the ability of 

alternative C to alter current trends depends on the extent to which larger, landscape prescribed 

burning occurs. 

Civil Rights

The three forests are open to all groups for activities allowed under existing laws, regulations, and 

policies. This will not change under any alternative. Specific concerns described in the affected 

environment section that were raised during the public scoping period are further discussed 

below. 

Members of the public expressed several concerns regarding potential wilderness 

recommendations. Alternative B includes the addition of recommended wilderness on the Inyo 

National Forest. Alternative C includes the addition of recommended wilderness on all three 

forests. Alternative D does not include any recommended wilderness on any of the three national 

forests.

The concerns expressed were that potential wilderness recommendations would result in road and 

trail closures that would impact seniors, children, and people with disabilities who rely on 

motorized or mechanized travel to access the national forest. Changes to the trail and road system 

are project-level decisions and are not part of the plan revision process. While motorized and 

mechanized travel is considered unsuitable in recommended wilderness areas, current, authorized 

uses of roads and trails will not change under any alternative.

Unless restricted by law or regulation, the plan alone cannot prohibit public uses without a 

closure order from the responsible official. To prohibit a use, the responsible official needs to 

analyze the effects of a proposed closure and issue a project decision. Without a closure order, 

public uses may continue even if the uses are not considered suitable on the lands where they are 

occurring. Plan components can, however, bar the Forest Service from authorizing such uses, for 

example, when they would be conducted as an event requiring a special use authorization. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

618

Proposed changes to roads and trails within recommended wilderness areas would need to be 

analyzed at the project level for adverse and disproportionate impacts on seniors, children, and 

people with disabilities.

Concerns were also raised that prohibiting pack goats in wilderness, particularly on the Inyo 

National Forest, would impact seniors, children, and people with disabilities who rely on pack 

goats to access these areas. No changes regarding the use of pack goats within wilderness are 

being made under the current forest plan revision process. Wilderness areas are currently open to 

the use of pack goats. However, further determinations of the appropriate use of pack goats within 

certain areas may be made at the project level.

The final wilderness concerns raised were that new wilderness recommendations would add areas 

predominantly used by white males and that exclude minorities and women. All areas on the 

national forest, including recommended wilderness, are open to all members of the public. Based 

on the latest national visitor use monitoring data for each national forest, people from culturally 

diverse backgrounds are generally underrepresented as visitors to the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra 

National Forests. The vast majority of visitors are white, non-Hispanic, and male. The Forest 

Service recognizes the demographic shifts that are occurring locally and regionally and is 

working to better understand how and why people do and do not visit national forests, as well as 

outreach to underrepresented populations. Research has shown that people from culturally diverse 

backgrounds may not be visiting national forests for a variety of reasons, including comfort and 

safety, accessibility, strong and positive connections, and lack of information (Roberts et al. 

2009). Under alternatives B, C, and D, we have plan components to consider diverse backgrounds 

in designing communication and interpretive messages, as well as to actively engage urban 

populations, youth, and underserved communities in educational and community outreach 

programs. In general, there is more emphasis within plan components on connecting people with 

nature.

In addition to concerns related to wilderness, members of the public expressed concerns that 

prohibiting bicycles on the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail would impact people with 

disabilities who can bike but not walk for long distances. No changes regarding bicycle use on the 

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail are being made under the current forest plan revision process. 

Regional Order 88-4 currently prohibits using or possessing bicycles on the Pacific Crest 

National Scenic Trail along the entire length of the trail.

Other concerns regarding potential health impacts of wildfire smoke on more vulnerable 

populations, including seniors, children, and people with health problems were also expressed. 

While most healthy adults and children are expected to recover quickly from smoke exposure and 

not have long-term consequences, certain sensitive populations may experience more severe 

short-term and chronic symptoms, including people with respiratory problems, the elderly, and 

children (California Air Response Planning Alliance 2008). As described above and in the “Fire 

Management” section, the level of smoke emissions from large wildfires is expected to double 

over the next half a century, given current vegetation conditions and trends in climate and fire 

ignitions. No alternative offers both short-term and long-term improvements to air resource 

indicators. Restoration treatments would slow the progress of increasing wildfire emissions. As a 

result, alternative D has the highest short-term emissions from treatments followed by alternative 

B and C. In the long term, alternative D would result in the greatest reduction in emissions from 

wildfires followed by alternative B, C, and lastly A. Alternative B, C, and D also include goals to 

help the public reduce smoke exposure through early notification and outreach efforts and 

participation in interagency collaborative smoke management. In addition, alternatives B, C, and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

619

D include a guideline to identify mitigation actions for smoke-sensitive areas when managing 

wildfires and prescribed burns.

Environmental Justice

Because we do not have good data on how low-income populations use the Inyo, Sequoia, and 

Sierra National Forests, it is difficult to examine how the alternatives may impact them. As 

described above in the “Economic Conditions” section, the counties bordering the Inyo, Sequoia, 

and Sierra National Forests have higher unemployment, lower earnings, and lower per capita 

income compared to California as whole. They are likely more vulnerable to national forest

management changes that affect key economic sectors, as well as the impacts of large, highintensity wildfires. While there is no indication that any alternative disproportionately impacts 

low-income populations, the alternatives have varying effects on improving economic conditions 

locally and creating more resilient landscapes. As described in the “Economics” section, over the 

long term, alternatives B and D are likely to have beneficial effects on economic conditions in 

local communities. As such, these alternatives are not expected to exacerbate the poverty rate or 

disproportionately worsen the economic well-being of low income individuals over the long term. 

Alternative C is likely to have some beneficial effects, but with losses in the forest products and 

biomass industries. Alternative A is expected to have overall adverse effects on economic 

conditions in local communities. It will be important to better understand how low-income 

populations are using the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests and how management 

actions impact them. This may be particularly true for projects that occur near key places where 

relatively large proportions of the population are low-income, as described in the affected 

environment section. 

Native American tribes have integral connections to the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National 

Forests that cross an array of social institutions, including family, government, economy, 

education, and religion. Areas across these forests play a key role in defining these institutions. As 

a result, all aspects of national forest management are generally of great interest to tribes. As 

described in the “Tribal Relations and Uses” section, alternative C is the only alternative that may

result in an incremental loss of sites or diminished access to resources used by tribes over time 

due to the high risk of large, high-intensity wildfires. In addition, alternative C includes new 

recommended wilderness areas across all three forests, potentially impacting tribal access to and 

use of culturally important areas. Alternative D provides the most opportunities to restore sites 

and resources important to tribes and to reduce the threats from large, high-intensity wildfires due 

to the increased amount of vegetation management treatments. At the same time, alternative D 

would require additional coordination to protect these sites and resources due to the increased 

amount of mechanical treatments. All alternatives would address minimizing impacts to tribes at 

specific locations during project planning, and alternatives B, C, and D include specific plan 

direction to incorporate opportunities to improve sites and resources important to tribes during 

project planning. 

There is limited information regarding the use of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests 

by other minority populations. Currently, people from culturally diverse backgrounds are still 

underrepresented as national forest visitors according to the Forest Service national visitor use 

monitoring data. This may be due to language barriers, lack of information, or other constraints 

(Roberts et al. 2009). Based on the lack of information about how minority groups use the 

national forest, it is difficult to determine how the alternatives could impact them. However, there 

is no indication that the alternatives are expected to disproportionately and adversely impact 

minority populations. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

620

Based on general observation at public meetings, there has been limited involvement by minority 

populations, aside from tribes, during the plan revision effort. In order to have more involvement 

from culturally diverse stakeholders in processes such as plan revision, a relationship first needs 

to exist between the forests and minority populations to provide a foundation to work from and 

build on. During the plan revision process, the three national forests have pursued efforts to start 

building those relationships and to outreach in new ways that may be more effective at reaching 

minority populations. 

Cumulative Effects 

Other federally managed lands in the area, including lands managed by the National Park Service 

and Bureau of Land Management, support the diversity of values that people hold for the natural 

landscapes in the southern Sierra Nevada. Restoration efforts across all lands would be important 

to sustaining these landscapes and how they contribute to people’s lives. As described in the 

“Terrestrial Ecosystems” section, under all alternatives, the impacts of climate change and 

increased probability of large, high-intensity fires may override the beneficial impacts of 

restoration treatments, particularly in the near term while projects are being planned and 

implemented. There is uncertainty as to when or where large, high-intensity fires may occur or 

severe drought. The role that the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests will play in the future 

in supporting certain values may change over time as the landscape changes. In addition, 

demographic, cultural, and societal changes will continue to influence how people use their 

national forests and what is important to them in terms of forest management. 

Analytical Conclusions

Alternative A does not contribute to sustaining a diverse set of forest-related values in the long 

term as much as alternatives B and D. Current trends of increasing fire activity, drought, and 

insect outbreaks pose the greatest threat to many of the values people have related to the Inyo, 

Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests because these values are heavily dependent on resilient 

ecosystems that can support a variety of uses and needs in the long term. Because ecological 

restoration treatments are limited under alternative A, values are more at risk to negative impacts 

over the long term. 

Alternative B effectively supports a diverse set of forest-related values in the long term. 

Alternative B provides for increased ecological restoration over the planning period compared to 

alternative A and C, though less than D. As a result, alternative B effectively moves forest 

conditions closer to ecosystem desired conditions and fire resilient landscapes, though not as 

quickly as alternative D. By moving toward these desired conditions, aesthetic, biodiversity, 

cultural, economic, learning, recreation, and wellbeing values are sustained over the long term. In 

terms of biodiversity values, alternative B is expected to provide more long-term benefit for plant 

species of conservation concern habitat than all other alternatives.

Similar to alternative A, alternative C does not contribute to sustaining a diverse set of forestrelated values in the long term as much as alternatives B and D because ecological restoration 

treatments are also limited under alternative C. Values are more at risk to negative impacts over 

the long term. Biodiversity and learning value sets under alternative C are better aligned than 

continuing with current management direction under alternative A. 

Alternative D best supports a diverse set of forest-related values in the long term compared to all 

other alternatives. Alternative D provides for the greatest amount of ecological restoration over 

the planning period, moving us closer than other alternatives to ecosystem desired conditions and 

fire-resilient landscapes. As a result, alternative D best aligns with sustaining aesthetic, cultural, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

621

economic, learning, recreation, and wellbeing values over the long term. Alignment with 

biodiversity values are somewhat mixed. Alternative D best aligns with values related to hunting 

and viewing terrestrial wildlife. Alternatives B, C, and D provide similar alignment with values 

related to aquatic species. Alternatives D and C provide more long-term benefits to plant species 

of conservation concern habitat than alternative A, but less than alternative B.

Management direction under all alternatives is not expected to adversely or disproportionately 

impact protected groups. In addition, alternatives B, C, and D include plan components to 

improve communication with and outreach to more diverse audiences and often underrepresented 

populations, as well as to increase connections between the forests and people in general. 

Through this effort, we have heard concerns in particular related to impacts to seniors, children, 

and people with disabilities. Future projects will need to evaluate whether there may be adverse 

and disproportionate impacts to these and other protected groups. It will be important to continue 

to learn about how these groups use the national forest and potential impacts of the forests on 

them.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

622

Other Required Disclosures

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

The revised forest plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions but 

does not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Therefore, decisions made in the 

land management plan do not cause, or have the potential to result in, actual irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of resources (see next section). Application of the land management 

plan standards and guidelines during future project and activity decision-making would provide 

resource protection measures and limit the extent and duration of any adverse environmental 

impacts. For a detailed discussion of types of consequences expected from future activities, see 

specific topic areas in this chapter.

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 right-of-way or road. 

The revised plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions but does 

not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Because the land management plan does 

not authorize or mandate any site-specific project or activity (including ground-disturbing 

actions), none of the alternatives cause an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources.

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires consideration of “the relationship 

between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by 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, 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). Short term 

uses are those that generally occur for a finite time period. Long term productivity refers to the 

ability of the land to produce a continuous supply of a resource. 

The change in the programmatic management of the three national forests under alternatives B, C, 

or D would not jeopardize the short-term or long-term productivity of the lands and resources of 

the national forests. Discussion of short- and long-term effects is included in the analysis of the 

environmental consequence for each need for change.

Laws Requiring Consultation

The regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) 

direct “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements 

concurrently with and integrated with . . . other environmental review laws and executive orders.” 

As a proposed Federal project, the revised plan decisions are subject to compliance with other 

Federal and State laws. Determinations and decisions made in the revised plans have been 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

623

evaluated in the context of relevant laws and executive orders. Throughout the development of 

the revised plans, there has been collaboration with various State and Federal agencies. The 

following actions have been taken to document and ensure compliance with laws that require 

consultation and/or concurrence with other Federal agencies.

• Endangered Species Act, Section 7: Consultation with the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed 

species, and designated and proposed critical habitat is in progress. A biological assessment 

for federally listed species will be prepared and submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for consultation according to the Endangered Species Act.

• National Historic Preservation Act: Consultation with the California and Nevada State 

Historic Preservation Officers is mandated by section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. The Programmatic Agreement Among The USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State 

Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding 

the Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

for Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest 

Region was executed in December 2012. This Programmatic Agreement prescribes the 

manner in which Region 5 and the State Historic Preservation Officer shall cooperatively 

implement this Programmatic Agreement in California and portions of Nevada. It is 

intended to ensure that Region 5 organizes its programs to operate efficiently and 

effectively in accordance with the intent and requirements of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and that Region 5 integrates its historic preservation planning and 

management decisions with other policy and program requirements. The Programmatic 

Agreement streamlines the National Historic Preservation Act section 106 process by 

eliminating case-by-case consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer on 

undertakings for which there is no or little potential to affect historic properties and for 

undertakings that either culminate in no historic properties affected or no historic properties 

adversely affected with approved Standard Protection Measures (36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) and 

800.5(d)(1). 

• Government-to-government consultation was completed with American Indian tribes who 

have aboriginal territory within the lands now part of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National 

Forests, as required by the National Historic Preservation Act; Executive Orders 13007 and 

13175; and the Programmatic Agreement cited above.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

625

Chapter 4. Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination

Preparers and Contributors 

The following individuals and Forest Service staff groups contributed to development of this 

environmental impact statement. A steering committee guided the plan revision process 

comprised of: the Forest Supervisors of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests; the 

Regional Office Directors of Ecosystem Planning, Ecosystem Management, and Public Services; 

and a representative from the Forest Service Office of General Council.

Responsible Officials

Ed Armenta, Forest Supervisor for the Inyo National Forest. 

Kevin Elliott, Forest Supervisor for the Sequoia National Forest.

Dean Gould, Forest Supervisor for the Sierra National Forest. 

Interdisciplinary Team Members

The interdisciplinary team was comprised of a core team and an extended team. While all 

interdisciplinary team members contributed to the development of the draft environmental impact 

statement (DEIS) and draft forest plans, the core team members and primary authors of the 

statement are listed below and their major contributions are noted in parentheses in the “DEIS 

Contributions” section. The term “detail” indicates a formal or informal temporary work 

assignment to the interdisciplinary team.

Name Title and DEIS Contribution Education and Experience

Adamic, Denise Public Affairs Specialist

(Core Team)

• M.A., Communication, University Colorado 

Denver

• Masters Certification, Public Relations, 

University Colorado Denver

• B.A., English and Mass Communication, Fort 

Lewis Colorado

• 2 years with the Forest Service; 6 years with 

the Bureau of Land Management

Anderson, 

Jennifer

Regional Fuels Planner

(Extended Team and co-author: 

Fire Management)

• Master of Forest Resources, University of 

Georgia 

• B.A., Geography, Georgia State University

• 8 years with US Fish & Wildlife; 6 years with 

National Park Service
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

626

Name Title and DEIS Contribution Education and Experience

Beres, Virginia Regional Strategic Planner 

(Planning Support; Species of 

Conservation Concern)

• B.S., Forest Management, Humboldt State 

University

• B.S., Computer Science, The University of 

Montana

• 18 years with the Forest Service; 3 years with 

the Bureau of Land Management

Boston, 

Christina

Regional Wilderness and Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Program Leader

(Core Team and author: 

Wilderness and Wild and Scenic 

Rivers sections)

• M.S. Program (completed all program 

requirements except thesis), Natural Resources 

Recreation and Tourism, emphasis in parks 

and protected areas management, Colorado 

State University

• B.A., Geography, Minor in International 

Relations, Humboldt State University

• 15 years with the Forest Service; 7 years with 

the National Park Service; 3 years municipal 

parks and open space agencies

Bowden, Phil Regional Fuels Planner

(Core Team and co-author: Fire 

Management section)

• B.S., Forestry, Michigan Technological 

University 

• 32 years with the Forest Service

Boyst, Beth Pacific Crest Trail Manager

(Extended Team and author: 

Pacific Crest Trail section)

• M.S., Forestry, Colorado State

• B.S., Nursing, Univ. of Pittsburgh

• 28 years with the Forest Service

Brough, April GIS Programmer/Analyst

(GIS Analyses)

• M.S., Forest Ecology, Utah State University

• B.S., Chemistry, Brigham Young University

• 4 years with the Forest Service

Bulaon, Beverly Forest Entomologist

(Extended Team and co-author: 

Agents of Change - Insects and 

Pathogens)

• M.S., Forest Entomology, Humboldt State 

University 

• B.S., Ecology, Humboldt State University 

• 16 years with the Forest Service

Charley, Dirk Tribal Relations Specialist

(Core Team and author: Tribal 

Relations and Uses)

• A.S. in Liberal Studies

• 36 years with the Forest Service

Cole, Mary Forest Landscape Architect, 

Sequoia National Forest

(Core Team: Recreation - former / 

Extended Team: Sequoia National 

Forest Recreation)

• M.A., Landscape Architecture, California 

State Polytechnic University at Pomona

• 26 years with the Forest Service

Coppeto, 

Stephanie

Wildlife Biologist, Lake Tahoe 

Basin Management Unit, 

(Extended Team: Wildlife support, 

terrestrial wildlife)

• M.A., Ecology Graduate Group, U.C. Davis; 

• B.S. Biology, Boston University 

• 5 years with Forest Service

Davidson, 

Andrea

Recreation Planner

(Core Team: Recreational support)

• M.S., Natural Resource Management, 

University of Idaho 

• B.S., Recreation and Resource Management, 

University of Montana 

• 11 years with the Forest Service
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

627

Name Title and DEIS Contribution Education and Experience

Dietl, Mike Regional Planning Team Leader

(Overall Team Leader – Left 

agency)

• B.S., Fisheries, California State University 

Humboldt

• 1 year with the Forest Service

• 16 years with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers

Downie, Denise Regional Planner (Detail)

(Planning support)

• M.S., Agriculture, Soil Science Specialization, 

Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo, 

CA

• B.A., English Literature, University of 

California at Los Angeles

• 18 years with the Forest Service

Ehmann, 

Brenda 

Forest Environmental Coordinator 

(Forest Planner)

• A.S., Soil and Water Conservation 

• 10 years with Natural Resources Conservation 

Service

• 28 years with the Forest Service

Ellsworth, Todd Watershed Program Manager

(Extended Team: Soils)

• B.S., Soil and Water Science, University of 

Arizona

• 27 years with the Forest Service

Emly, Virginia Regional Geospatial Data Manager

(Extended Team: Geospatial 

Analyst Project Lead)

• M.S., Botany and Range Management

• 30 years with the Forest Service

Fairweather, 

MaryLou

Natural Resources Program 

Specialist

(Core Team: Writer-editor for 

Forest Plans, coauthor Wilderness)

• M.S., Plant Pathology, University of Arizona

• B.S., Biology, Fort Lewis College

• 27 years with the Forest Service

Fites-Kaufman, 

Jo Ann

Planning Team Ecologist

(Core Team and author: Terrestrial 

Ecosystems)

• Ph.D., Ecosystem Analysis

• M.S., Forest Resources

• B.A., Ecology

• 23 years with the Forest Service

Flebbe, Patricia Monitoring Coordinator

(Extended Team and author: Plan 

Monitoring Programs - retired)

• Ph.D., Ecology, University of Georgia

• M.A., Ecology, University of Kansas

• B.A., Biology, Mathematics

• Certified Senior Ecologist, Ecological Society 

of America

• 30 years with the Forest Service

Friedlander, 

Joan

Wildlife Biologist

(Core Team and support: At-risk

species)

• M.S., Range Ecology, University of Arizona

• B.S., Wildlife Ecology, University of Arizona

• 32 years with the Forest Service

Goodwin, Bob Tribal Relations Officer

(Extended Team and co-author: 

Tribal Relations and Uses – Left 

agency)

• 3 years with the Forest Service, 21 years with 

California Highway Patrol

Hawley, Karla Forest Plan Revision Writer-Editor 

(retired)

(Core Team: Writer-editor for 

Forest Plans)

• B.A., English, University of Utah

• 21 years with the Forest Service
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

628

Name Title and DEIS Contribution Education and Experience

Hemphill, Nina Program Manager Fish, Aquatic 

Ecology, Watersheds and 

Hydrology(Extended Team: Coauthor Aquatic and Riparian 

Ecosystems)

• Ph.D., Aquatic Ecology, UC Santa Barbara 

• M.A., Aquatic Ecology, UC Santa Barbara 

• 4 years with the Forest Service, 10 years with 

the Department of Interior

Kanwar, Pooja Regional Planning Team Leader 

(Detail) (Planning Support)

• Ph.D., Natural Resources, University of 

Vermont 

• M.S., Resource Management and 

Administration, Antioch University New 

England 

• B.S., Geography and Environmental Studies, 

University of Iowa

• 2 years with the Forest Service

Kunert, Ken Planning Team Recreation 

Specialist (Detail - retired)

• B. L.A., Landscape Architecture, Michigan 

State Univ.

• 36 years with the Forest Service

Lin, Sonja Regional Strategic Planner

(Co-lead for Forest Plan 

development; Author: Social 

Conditions)

• M.S. and M.P.A., Forest Resources – Social 

Science, University of Washington

• B.S., Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation 

Biology, University of Minnesota

• 5 years with the Forest Service

McElroy, Keli Planning Team Silviculturist 

(Detail)

(Extended Team and co-author: 

Forest Products)

• B.S., Forestry, Environmental and Forest 

Biology, State University of New York 

College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry

• 15 years with the Forest Service

Metcalfe, Mark Regional Economist

(Core Team and author: Economic 

Conditions)

• Ph.D., Economics, North Carolina State 

University

• M.S., Statistics, North Carolina State 

University

• M.S., Natural Resource Economics, University 

of Maine

• B.A., Geography, Boston University

• 23 years experience in natural resource and 

environmental economics

Meyer, Marc Southern Sierra Province Ecologist 

(Extended Team and co-author: 

Agents of Change and Terrestrial 

Ecosystems sections)

• Southern Sierra Province Ecologist (Extended 

Team and co-author: Agents of Change and 

Terrestrial Ecosystems sections) Ph.D., 

Ecology, University of California, Davis

• M.S. and B.A., Environmental Biology, 

California State University Northridge

• Certified Senior Ecologist, Ecological Society 

of America

• 10 years with the Forest Service

Murphy, 

Leeann

Resource and Planning Staff 

Officer, Inyo National Forest

(Forest Planner)

• B.S., Wildlife Management, New Mexico 

State University

• 15 years with the Forest Service
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

629

Name Title and DEIS Contribution Education and Experience

Murphy, Tim Regional Planning Hydrologist

(Core Team and author: 

Watersheds and Hydrology 

section)

• M.F.R.C., Forestry, University of Florida

• B.S., Soil & Water Science, University of 

Arizona

• Certified Forester (CF)

• 28 years experience in natural resource and 

environmental science

• 6 years with the Forest Service

Nick, Andrea Air Quality Specialist

(Extended Team and co-author: 

Air Quality section)

• B.A. Geography, California State University, 

San Bernardino

• M.A. Geography, California State University, 

Northridge

• M.A. Natural Resources (In Progress), Utah 

State University

• 8 years with the Forest Service

O’Brien, 

Colleen (Chaz)

Recreation Specialist (Detail)

(Core Team and co-author: 

Sustainable Recreation) 

• BA Human Ecology College of the Atlantic 

• MLA Royal Melbourne Institute of 

Technology

• 13 years with USFS 

Proctor, Trent Region 5 Air Quality Program 

Manager

(Extended Team and co-author Air 

Quality section)

• B.S., Natural Resource Management, Cal Poly 

SLO

• 38 years with the Forest Service

Sawyer, Sarah Assistant Regional Ecologist

(Extended Team and contributor: 

At-risk Wildlife section)

• Ph.D, Environmental Science - specializing in 

Wildlife and Forest Ecology, Univ. of 

California, Berkeley

• M.A., in Anthropology - specializing in 

wildlife-human interactions, Stanford 

University

• B.S., Human Biology - specializing in 

primatology, Stanford University

• 3 years with the Forest Service

Schroer, Greg Regional Wildlife Program Leader

(Extended Team (former) and coauthor: At-risk Wildlife section) 

• M.S., Wildlife Science, Oregon State 

University

• B.S., Natural Resources Mgmt., Forestry, 

Colorado State University

• 6 years with the Forest Service, 2 years 

National Park, 18 years Private Sector

Sherlock, 

Joseph

Regional Silviculturist

(Extended Team: Forest Products)

• B.S., Forest Management

• Certified Silviculturist, 32 years

• 37 years with the Forest Service

Shibley, 

Penelope

District Planner (Project Record 

Management)

• B.A., Environmental Studies, UC Santa Cruz

• 6 years with the Forest Service

Slaton, Michele Inyo National Forest Acting Forest 

Botanist

(Extended Team and author: Atrisk Plants and Botany sections)

• Ph.D. and M.S., Botany, Univ. of Wyoming

• B.A., Biology, Reed College

• 14 years with the Forest Service, 3 years with 

National Park Service
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

630

Name Title and DEIS Contribution Education and Experience

Smith, Francine Enterprise Program, Fisheries 

Biologist 

(Extended Team and coauthor: 

Aquatic Species)

• Graduate Studies in Fisheries 

• B.S., Entomology 

• 26 years with the Forest Service, 5 years with 

the National Park Service

Stevens, Rick Regional Planner

(Planning Support) 

(retired) 

• 15 years with the Forest Service

• M.S. Fish and Wildlife Management, Montana 

State University

• B.S., Wildlife Biology, University of Montana

Stratton, Susan Regional Heritage Program 

Leader/Regional Archaeologist

(Extended Team and author: 

Cultural Resources section and 

SHPO consultation)

• Ph.D., Anthropology

• 2 years with the Forest Service 

• 8 years with the California Office of Historic 

Preservation

Striplin, Randy Ecologist (Detail)

(Core Team: Terrestrial 

Ecosystems)

• M.S., Biology/Certified Wildland Fire 

Ecologist

• 11 years with the Forest Service

Tapia, Judi Planning Staff Officer/Business 

Manager, Sierra National Forest

(Forest Planner)

• B.S., Biochemistry, UC Davis

• 7 years with the Forest Service 

• 9 years with the Bureau of Reclamation

Ulloa, Maria Natural Resources Planning Staff 

Officer, Sequoia National Forest

(Forest Planner)

(transferred)

• B.S., Agronomy and Soils, Washington State 

University, Pullman; Botany credentials 

California State University, Chico. 

• 24 years with the Forest Service

• 5 years with the Bureau of Land Management. 

Villanueva, 

Garrett

Regional Trail Program Manager, 

Public Services (Detail)

(Core Team and co-author: 

Recreation section)

• B.S., Geology

• 17 years with the Forest Service

Whitall, Debra Regional Social Scientist

(Core Team oversight)

• Ph.D., Pubic Administration and Policy, 

Portland State University

• B.S., Hydrology and Soil Science,

• Humboldt State University

• 34 years with the Forest Service

Yasuda, Don Regional Analyst

(Co-lead for DEIS development)

• B.S., Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, 

University of California, Davis

• Certified Wildlife Biologist, 15 years

• 27 years with the Forest Service

York, Judy Writer-Editor

(Writer-Editor for DEIS)

• B.S., Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho

• M.S., Natural Resources Communications, 

University of Idaho

• 27 years with the Forest Service
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

631

Support to the Interdisciplinary Team

Review and input to the development of the draft revised plans and draft environmental impact 

statement were received from the staffs of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests 

Supervisor’s Office and Ranger Districts, and the Pacific Southwest Regional Office. Additional 

Geographic Information System support was provided by staff on the three national forests, the 

Pacific Southwest Regional Office, and the Pacific Southwest Region Remote Sensing 

Laboratory. Many other staff and contractors have contributed support to the development of the 

proposed forest plans and the draft environmental impact statement and are not listed. 

Inyo National Forest

Jaqueline Beidl, Forest Archaeologist and Tribal Liaison 

Jennifer Ebert, Recreation Support

Sue Farley, Interagency Vegetation Management Team Leader/Acting Recreation Staff Officer

Jeff Novak, Wilderness Manager, White Mountain and Mount Whitney Ranger Districts

Richard Perloff, Wildlife Biologist, Mono Lake and Mammoth Ranger Districts

Diana Pietrasanta, Forest Recreation and Lands Staff Officer

Kary Schlick, Forest Wildlife Biologist

Deb Schweizer, Forest Public Affairs Officer

Lisa Sims, Forest Rangeland Management Specialist

Dan Yarborough, GIS Coordinator 

Lesley Yen, Forest Planner

Sequoia National Forest

Steve Anderson, Wildlife Biologist

Jeff Cordes, Wildlife Biologist

Alicia Embry, Forest Public Affairs Officer

Annette Fredette, Environmental Coordinator, currently Coconino Forest Planning Team Lead 

Robin Galloway, Western Divide District Wildlife Biologist 

Paul Gibbs, Deputy Forest Fire Management Officer

Heidi Hosler, Forest GIS Coordinator 

Carol Hallacy, Hume Lake District Recreation Officer

Emilie Lang, Forest Wildlife Biologist

Fletcher Linton, Forest Botanist 

Tricia Maki, Kern River District Recreation Officer

Karen Miller, Forest Recreation and Lands Officer (Archaeology)

Chris Sanders, Western Divide District Recreation Officer

Brent Skaggs, Forest Fire Chief

Jim Whitfield, Forest Ecosystem Management 

Barbara Johnston, Forest Resource Specialist

Sierra National Forest

Adam Barnett, Wilderness Manager

Susan Burkindine, Forest Assistant Recreation Officer

Antonio Cabrera, Forest Engineer 

Carlos Cabrera, GIS Coordinator

Joanna Clines, Forest Botanist 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

632

Aimee Cox, Rangeland Management Specialist, Bass Lake Ranger District

Alan Gallegos, Geologist

Iveth Hernandez, Acting Forest Public Affairs Officer 

Meredith Hollowell, High Sierra Ranger District Recreation Officer

Tom Lowe, Forest Road Manager 

Steve Marsh, Acting Forest Archeologist

Doug McKay, Forest Archeologist 

Steve Ostoja, Natural Resources Staff Officer

Mike Price, Forest Timber Management Officer

Cliff Raley, Forest Hydrologist

Cesar Sanchez, Forest Landscape Architect

Denise Tolmie, former Fuels Planning Officer, currently Bass Lake District Ranger

Alex Wilkens, Aquatics Biologist

Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service

David Bakke, Pesticide-Use Specialist, Invasive Plants Program Manager

Danielle Chi, Regional Planner (temporary detail) 

Arthur Duggan, Appeals and Litigation Analyst (transferred)

Thomas Flowe, GIS Analyst 

Tom Frolli, Regional Range Program Manager 

Joseph Furnish, Regional Aquatic Ecologist (retired) 

MaryBeth Hennessy, Deputy Director, Ecosystem Planning

Laura Hierholzer, Regional Environmental Coordinator 

Crispin Holland, Acting Regional Rangeland Program Manager (detailed) 

Trini Juarez, Landscape Architect

Patti Krueger, Regional Threatened and Endangered Species Coordinator

Kathy Mick, Recreation Management Program Manager

Jules Riley, Hydrologist (detailed)

Rebecca Robinson, GIS Analyst

Sheri Smith, Regional Entomologist 

Neil Sugihara, Regional Fire Ecologist 

Denise Tolmie, Fire Management Specialist

Jamie Tripp, Regional Fuels Operation Specialist 

Pacific Southwest Region, Remote Sensing Laboratory

Tanya Kohler, GIS Programmer and Analyst (contract)

Carlos Ramirez, Vegetation Mapping and Inventory Lead
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

633

Consultation and Coordination

The Forest Service consulted the following tribes; Federal, State, and local agencies; groups; and 

individuals during development of this environmental impact statement. Tribes, agencies, and 

others who provided comments during the scoping period are indicated with an asterisk following 

their name.

Tribes and Tribal Organizations

The following tribes and tribal organizations or associations were consulted: 

American Indian Council of Mariposa 

Antelope Valley Indian Community 

Benton Paiute Reservation Utu Utu Gwaitu 

Paiute Tribe

Big Pine Paiute Tribe of Owens Valley

Big Sandy Rancheria 

Bishop Paiute Indian Tribal Council 

Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony 

Chaushilha Yokuts

Cold Springs Rancheria 

Council for the Interpretation of Native 

Peoples 

Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal Government

Dunlap Band of Mono Indians 

Ft. Independence Community of Paiute 

Indians 

Haslett Basin Traditional Committee

Kawaiisu Tribal Council

Kern River Paiute Council

Kern Valley Indian Community 

Kern Valley Indian Council 

Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians

Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Reservation 

Monache Inter-Tribal Association

Mono Lake Kutzadika’a Tribe

Mono Nation 

North Fork Mono Tribe 

North Fork Rancheria 

Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians 

Sierra Mono Museum

Sierra Nevada Native American Coalition

Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation 

Table Mountain Rancheria

Tachi-Yokuts- Santa Rosa

Tejon Indian Tribe 

Timbisha Shoshone of Death Valley 

Timbisha Shoshone Tribe (Bishop) 

Tubatulabel Tribe of Kern Valley

Tule River Indian Tribe 

Walker River Paiute Tribe

Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California

Wukchuni Tribal Council

Wuksachi Tribe

Yurok Tribe
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

634

Federal, State, County,

and Local Agencies and Organizations

Numerous Federal, State, county, and local agencies and organizations have been consulted in 

development of the revised plan and this environmental impact statement. Complete mailing lists 

for the scoping periods are available in the planning record. Some of the agencies consulted 

include: 

Federal Agencies and Representatives

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is a cooperating agency for all three national forests.

National Park Service, Death Valley 

National Park

National Park Service, Devils Postpile 

National Monument

National Park Service, Sequoia and Kings 

Canyon National Parks 

National Park Service, Yosemite National 

Park

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highways Administration

USDA, Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe 

National Forest

USDA, Natural Resource Conservation 

Service

USDA, Pacific Southwest Research Station

USDA, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 

Redwood Science Lab 

USDI, Bureau of Land Management 

USDI, Bureau of Reclamation 

USDI, Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

U.S. Marine Corps, Mountain Warfare 

Training Center 

U.S. Navy, China Lake Naval Air Warfare 

Center

U.S. Navy, Naval Air Station Lemoore 

U.S. Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command Southwest Division 

U.S. Representative 4th District

U.S. Representative 8th District

U.S. Representative 20nd District

U.S. Representative 21nd District

U.S. Representative 22nd District

U.S. Representative 23rd District

U.S. Senator, Barbara Boxer 

U.S. Senator, Dianne Feinstein 

State Agencies

California Air Resources Board

California Department of Fish and Wildlife 

California Department of Forestry and Fire 

Protection 

California Department of Justice

California Department of Parks and 

Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation

California Department of Transportation

California Regional Water Quality Control 

Board

Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control 

Board

Nevada Department of Wildlife

Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection 

Nevada Division of Forestry
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

635

County Governments and Agencies

Inyo County is a cooperating agency for the Inyo National Forest. 

California Assemblywoman 32nd District

California Assemblywoman 34th District

California Governor

California Senator 14th District

California Senator 16th District

California Senator 18th District

Fresno County Board of Supervisors 

Fresno County Department of Public Works 

Inyo County Agricultural Commissioner 

Inyo County Board of Supervisors 

Inyo County Planning Department 

Inyo County Public Works Department 

Inyo County Water Department 

Esmeralda County Commissioners 

Esmeralda County Road Department

Kern County Air Pollution Control District

Kern County Board of Supervisors

Kern County Board of Trade 

Kern County Fire Department 

Kern County Parks and Recreation 

Kern County Planning Department 

Madera County Board of Supervisors 

Mariposa County Board of Supervisors 

Mineral County Commissioners 

Mineral County Public Works Department

Mono County Community Development 

Mono County Environmental Health 

Mono County Local Transportation 

Commission 

Mono County Public Works Department 

Tulare County Board of Supervisors

Tulare County Office of Education 

Tulare County Parks & Recreation

Tulare County Planning Department 

Tulare County Resource Management 

Agency

Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors 

Local Agencies and Organizations

Apple Valley Town Hall

Bakersfield City Council

Bakersfield College Library

Bakersfield Convention and Visitors Bureau

Big Pine Community Services District

Carlton College, Gould Library 

City of Bishop 

City of Bishop, Chambers of Commerce

College of the Sequoias Library

CSU Bakersfield, Walter W. Stiern Library

CSU Fresno, Henry Madden Library 

Eastern Sierra Transit Authority

Fresno City College Library

Fresno City Council 

Fresno County Public Library 

Independence - Chamber of Commerce 

June Lake - Chambers of Commerce 

June Lake Public Utility District

Kings River Conservation District

Kings River Water Association

Kern County Black Chamber of Commerce 

Kern County Hispanic Chamber of 

Commerce

Kern County Library 

Kern River Valley Chamber 

Kern River Valley Council 

Kern River Valley Fire Safe Council

Kern River Watermaster

Kings County Public Library 

Lake Isabella Public Library

Lee Vining Public Utility District

Lone Pine - Chamber of Commerce 

Los Angeles Department of Water and 

Power
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

636

Mammoth Community Water District 

Mammoth Lakes Chamber of Commerce

Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District

Merced County Public Library 

Midland School 

Mojave Desert-Mountain RC&D 

Montana State University

Porterville City Library

Porterville City Planning Department

Porterville College Library

Reedley College

Ridgecrest Chamber of Commerce

Ridgecrest Public Library

Rolling Green Utilities

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District

Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District

Town of Mammoth Lakes 

Town of Mammoth Lakes Public Works 

Tulare County Library

Tulare Kings Hispanic Chamber of 

Commerce

University of Arizona

University of California, Berkeley

University of California, San Diego 

University of California, Stanislaus

Visalia City Council

Others

Numerous groups and individuals participated in the process through written comments and by 

attending public meetings. Complete mailing lists are available in the public record. Some of the 

groups that provided comment include:

Alliance for Environmental Concerns 

American Forest Resource Council

American Lands Access Association

American Whitewater

Back Country Horsemen

Bakersfield Californian

Bakersfield Trailblazers

Bakersfield Yamaha

Baymiller Family Trust

Blue Ribbon Coalition, Inc. 

Brechbuehl Timber

The Bristlecone Chapter of the CNPS 

Brown-Berry Biological Consulting 

Californians for Alternative to Toxics

California Association of 4WD Clubs, Inc. 

California Cattlemen’s Association

California Equestrian Trails Coalition

California Forestry Association

California Indian Basketweavers 

Association

California Institute of Technology, 

Combined Array for Research in 

Millimeter-wave Astronomy (CARMA)

California Land Management

California Native Plant Society

California Off-Road Vehicle Association

California Trail Users Coalition

California Trout, Inc.

California Wilderness Coalition

CalWild

Camp Max Straus 

Camp Nelson Mutual Water Company 

Camp San Joaquin 

Carver Bowen Ranch

Cedarbrook Cabin Owners 

Center for Biological Diversity

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Concerned Citizens – Piutes

Cyrus Partners

D&B Partnership

The Daily Independent 

David Wood Ranches
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

637

Dinuba Centinel 

Dowville Tract Association

Dunn School 

Eagle Rafting

Eastern Sierra Audubon Society 

Eastern Sierra Interpretive Association

Eastern Sierra Recreation Collaborative

Equestrian Trails and Lands

Eshom-Kaweah Ranch

Evergreen Helicopter, Inc.

Far Horizons, Inc. 

Fresno Bee

Friends of the Inyo

Geos Institute

Giant Sequoia National Monument Assn

Guest Services, Inc.

Hafenfeld Ranch

High Desert Multi Coalition

High Sierra Guide Service

HMS Veterinary Development, Inc.

Hume Lake Christian Camps

Huntington Lake Association

Inland Valley Mountain Bike Association 

International Mountain Bicycling 

Association

John Muir Project 

Kern River Courier

Kern River Revitalization

Kern River Tours

Kerncrest Audubon

Kiper & Kiper

Klamath Forest Alliance

KMPH TV Channel 26 

Lake Isabella-Bodfish Property Owners 

Assn

Mammoth Lakes Recreation

Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, LLC 

Mammoth Times

McGee Creek Pack Station

Mammoth Lakes Trails and Public Access 

Foundation 

Mike Berry Guide Service

Mono Hot Springs Resort 

Mono Lake Committee 

National Forest Recreation Association

Natural Resources Defense Council

News Review (Ridgecrest)

North American Packgoat Association

Northern California Society of American 

Foresters

OA Outfitting Inc., KR Outfitter

Off Road Vehicle Watch

Outdoor Alliance

Pacific Crest Trail Association

Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative

Pacific Gas and Electric

Pacific Rivers Council

Particle Media Group

Pecks Camp

Ponderosa Lodge 

Ponderosa Property Owners 

Q.A.B. Media 

Quaker Meadow Ministries

Recreational Aviation Foundation

R.M. Pyles Boys Camp

Roger Camp Homeowners Association

Sageland Ranch

San Joaquin Houndsmen Club 

San Joaquin River Trails Council 

Santiago Outfitter Fishing 

Sequoia Crest 

Sequoia Forest Alliance

Sequoia Forest Keeper

Sequoia Lake Conference of YMCA

Sequoia Snowmobilers 

Sierra Club

Sierra Forest Legacy

Sierra Forest Products 

Sierra Reader

Snowlands Network

Southern California Edison 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

638

Southern Mono Historical Society

Southern Sierra Fat Tire Association 

Spanish Radio Group 

Stewards of the Sequoia

Stewards of the Sierra

Sugarloaf Community Group 

Sugarloaf Mountain Park 

Sustainable Forest Action Coalition

Tehachapi Mountain Trails Association

Track and Trail Publications

Trout Unlimited

Tulare County Audubon Society 

Tulare County Sportsman 

United Church of God 

United Trail Maintainers of California

Upper Tule Association, Inc.

Upper Tule News

Visalia Times Delta

West Coast Development Co. 

Western Watersheds Project

White Mountain Research Center

Whitewater Voyages

WildEarth Guardians 

The Wilderness Society

Winter Wildlands Alliance

W.M. Beaty & Associates, Inc.

Agencies, Organizations and Persons Sent 

Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

This environmental impact statement has been distributed to, or made electronically available to, 

over 3,300 individuals and groups who specifically requested a copy of the document or 

commented during public involvement opportunities. In addition, copies have been sent (or in 

some cases made electronically available) to Federal agencies, federally recognized tribes, State 

and local governments, and organizations that have requested to be involved in the development 

of this analysis. Some of these entities include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. 

Department of the Interior; Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; USDA National 

Agricultural Library; State wildlife and fisheries management agencies; tribes; county 

supervisors; and local community governments. Due to the number of people, agencies, and 

organizations, a complete listing has been omitted from this environmental impact statement, but 

is available upon request.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

639

Glossary

Active management: Planned, intentional actions in an area that are specifically designed to 

obtain or move toward a desired objective or result. 

Adaptive management: An approach to natural resource management in which decisions are 

made as part of an ongoing process. Adaptive management involves planning, implementing, 

monitoring, evaluating, and incorporating new knowledge into management approaches based on 

scientific findings and the needs of society. Effects are monitored for the purpose of learning and 

adjusting future management actions, which improves the efficiency and responsiveness of 

management.

Administrative site: Areas such as work centers, fire lookouts, permitted ranch headquarters, 

seed orchards, communication sites, utility corridors, developed campgrounds, and other areas 

that are occupied or used by the Forest Service during the administration of work associated with 

national forest lands. 

Administrative use: Use by the Forest Service.

Allowable sale quantity (ASQ): The quantity of timber that may be sold from the area of 

suitable land covered by the land management plan for a time period specified by the plan. This 

allowable sale quantity (ASQ) is usually expressed on an annual basis as the “average annual 

allowable sale quantity.” For timber resource planning purposes, the allowable sale quantity 

applies to each decade over the planning horizon and includes only chargeable volume. 

Consistent with the definition of timber production, ASQ does not include firewood or other 

nonindustrial wood in the allowable sale quantity. 

Aspen clone: A genetically identical set of aspen trees all connected by the same root system, as 

in vegetative reproduction. A clone is a distinct aspen stand, or it may be a smaller inclusion 

within a conifer stand, or it may cover an entire mountainside as a large stand or patch. 

Available forage: That amount of growth of a vigorous and healthy plant that can be utilized as 

feed (regardless of what animal is using it) without impairing the plant’s long-term health and 

productivity or other uses such as riparian filtering. The amount of available forage may be less 

where there is a need to restore health and vigor of forage plants. That amount may also depend 

on time of year and plant physiological stage, or other conditions such as drought. 

Basal area: The common term used to describe the average amount of an area (usually an acre) 

occupied by tree stems. It is defined as the total cross-sectional area of all stems in a stand 

measured at breast height, and expressed as per unit of land area (typically square feet per acre).

Beneficial use: Any of the various uses which may be made of the water, including, but not 

limited to, domestic water supplies, fisheries and other aquatic life, industrial water supplies, 

agricultural water supplies, navigation, recreation in and on the water, wildlife habitat, and 

aesthetics.

Best management practices (BMPs) for water quality: Methods, measures or practices 

selected by an agency to meet its nonpoint source control needs. Best management practices for 

water quality include but are not limited to structural and nonstructural controls and operation and 

maintenance procedures. Best management practices for water quality can be applied before, 

during, and after pollution-producing activities to reduce or eliminate the introduction of 

pollutants into receiving waters (36 CFR 219.19). 
Glossary

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

640

Biocultural diversity: In this document, the diversity of plants, animals, insects, fungi and other 

natural and cultural resources found across the landscape that provide for the diversity of cultural 

and traditional uses, knowledge systems and practices of Native American Tribes.

California spotted owl protected activity center (PAC): An area established around an 

occupied California spotted owl site to help ensure successful reproduction and species viability. 

A protected activity center is approximately 300 acres in size and includes the best owl nesting 

and roosting habitat. Management in protected activity centers is limited except in the community 

wildfire protection zone where it is focused on reduction of surface and ladder fuels and includes 

retention of key habitat elements such as higher levels of basal area and canopy cover to provide 

the cool understory conditions owls need, and the down woody debris and forage (cover, fungi, 

seeds) needed by their prey. Management may involve limited thinning and/or burning to reduce 

the risk of high-intensity wildfire, often with timing restrictions to prevent disturbance to owls 

during the breeding season. 

Candidate species: Candidate species are plants and animals for which the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service has sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them 

as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but for which development of a 

proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. 

Canopy: In a forest, the branches from the uppermost layer of trees; on rangeland, the vertical 

projection downward of the aerial portion of vegetation. 

Canopy closure: The percentage of the sky hemisphere obscured by vegetation when viewed 

from a single point. 

Canopy cover: The proportion of the forest floor covered by the vertical projection of the tree 

crowns (Jennings et al. 1999).

Cavity: The hollow excavated in a tree that is used by birds or mammals for roosting and/or 

reproduction.

CCF: Hundred cubic feet.

Class I airshed: An airshed classification where areas require the highest level of protection 

under the Clean Air Act of 1963. 

Class II airshed: An airshed classification representing National Forest System land that is not 

classified as a Class I airshed. These areas may receive a greater amount of human-caused 

pollution than Class I areas. 

Climate refugia: Locations where taxa survive periods of regionally adverse climate; locations 

that provide habitats for the long-term persistence of populations. These areas more buffered 

against climate change and climate-related disturbances than others. These refugia have resisted 

climate changes occurring elsewhere, often providing suitable habitat for relict populations of 

species that were previously more widespread.

Clump: A tight cluster of two to five trees of similar age and size originating from a common 

rooting zone that typically lean away from each other when mature. A clump is relatively isolated 

from other clumps or trees within a group of trees, but a stand-alone clump of trees can function 

as a tree group. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): A codification of the general and permanent rules 

published in the Federal Register (FR) by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal 

Government.
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

641

Complex early seral forests or habitat: Complex early seral habitat consists of areas where 

vegetation is dominated by young, lower growing shrubs, grasses, flowering plants and small 

trees that have developed after stand-replacing or partial disturbance events such as high- or 

moderate-severity fire, insects, pathogens, wind, avalanche, or drought-related tree mortality 

(Swanson et al. 2010). Complex early seral habitats contain residual components from previous 

older forests, such as large snags and logs and residual plants.

Critical habitat: For a threatened or endangered species is: (1) the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed and in accordance with the 

provisions of section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), on which are found 

those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species, and (b) which 

may require special management considerations or protections; and (2) specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions 

of section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 1532 (3)(5)(A)). Critical habitat is 

designated through rulemaking by the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce (16 U.S.C.1533 

(a)(3) and (b)(2)).

Coarse woody debris: Woody material, including logs, on the ground greater than 3 inches in 

diameter—a component of litter. Large coarse woody debris is often considered to be downed 

logs at least 12 inches in diameter and 8 feet in length.

Communications site: An area of National Forest System land used for telecommunications 

services. A communications site may be limited to a single communications facility, but most 

often encompasses more than one facility. 

Community wildfire protection plans (CWPP): Plans for at-risk communities that identify and 

prioritize areas for hazardous fuels treatments. Several communities adjacent to the national 

forests have developed these plans. 

Connectivity: The ecological conditions that exist at several spatial and temporal scales to 

provide landscape linkages, including to: permit the exchange of flow, sediments, and nutrients; 

the daily and seasonal movements of animals within home ranges; the dispersal and genetic 

interchange between populations; and the long distance range shifts of species, such as in 

response to climate change.

Conservation Agreement or Conservation Strategy: Plans to remove or reduce threats to 

candidate and sensitive species of plants and animals so that a listing as threatened or endangered 

is unnecessary.

Consultation: 

(1) An active, affirmative process that (a) identifies issues and seeks input from appropriate 

American Indian governments, community groups, and individuals; and (b) considers their 

interests as a necessary and integral part of the Forest Service’s decisionmaking process; 

(2) the Federal government has a legal obligation to consult with American Indian tribes. This 

legal obligation is based in such laws as the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and numerous other 

executive orders and statutes. This legal responsibility is, through consultation, to consider 

Indian interests and account for those interests in the decision; 

(3) the term also refers to a requirement under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

for Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with regard to 

Federal actions that may affect listed threatened and endangered species or critical habitat.
Glossary

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

642

Cumulative effects or impacts: Cumulative effects or impacts are the impacts on the 

environment that 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 

nonfederal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually 

minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Effects and impact 

are synonymous (40 CFR 1508.7).

Desired condition: A desired condition is a description of specific social, economic, and/or 

ecological characteristics if the plan area, or a portion of the plan area, toward which management 

of the land and resources should be directed. This description is specific enough to allow progress 

toward achievement to be determined but does not include a completion date. 

Developed recreation site: A distinctly defined area where facilities are provided by the Forest 

Service for concentrated public use (campgrounds, picnic areas, and swimming areas).

Diameter at breast height (d.b.h.): The diameter of a forest tree species at the bole (or trunk) 

typically measured at 4.5 feet above ground level. 

Dispersed recreation: Outdoor recreation in which visitors are spread over relatively large 

areas. Where facilities or developments are provided, they are more for access and protection of 

the environment than for the comfort or convenience of the visitors. 

Ecological integrity: The quality or condition of an ecosystem when its dominant ecological 

characteristics (such as composition, structure, function, connectivity, and species composition 

and diversity) occur within the natural range of variation and can withstand and recover from 

most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human influence.

Ecological restoration: The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been 

degraded, damaged, or destroyed. Ecological restoration focuses on reestablishing the 

composition, structure, pattern, and ecological processes necessary to facilitate terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystem sustainability, resilience, and health under current and future condition.

Ecoregion: Ecoregion sections and subsections are units in the National Hierarchy of Ecological 

Units ranging in size from 13 million acres (section) down to 10,000 acres (subsection) that 

describe areas of similar environmental and biological features. 

Ecosystem: A spatially explicit, relatively homogeneous unit of the Earth that includes all 

interacting organisms and elements of the abiotic environment within its boundaries. An 

ecosystem is commonly described in terms of its: (1) composition or the biological elements 

within the different levels of biological organization, from genes and species to communities and 

ecosystems; (2) structure or the organization and physical arrangement of biological elements 

such as, snags and down woody debris, vertical and horizontal distribution of vegetation, stream 

habitat complexity, landscape pattern and connectivity; (3) function or the ecological processes 

that sustain composition and structure, such as energy flow, nutrient cycling and retention, soil 

development and retention, predation and herbivory, and natural disturbances such as wind, fire 

and floods; and (4) connectivity. 

Ecosystem diversity: The variety and relative extent of ecosystem types, including their 

composition, structure, and processes within all or a part of an area of analysis. 

Ecosystem management: The use of an ecological approach to achieve multiple-use 

management of public lands by blending the needs of people and environmental values in such a 

way that lands represent diverse, healthy, productive, and sustainable ecosystems. 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

643

Ecosystem function (processes): The major process of ecosystems that regulate or influence the 

structure, composition, and pattern. These include nutrient cycles, energy flows, trophic levels 

(food chains), diversity patterns in time/space development and evolution, cybernetics (control), 

hydrologic cycles and weathering processes.

Ecosystem services: Benefits people obtain from ecosystems: (1) provisioning services, such as 

clean air and fresh water, energy, food, fuel, forage, wood products or fiber, and minerals; (2) 

regulating services, such as long-term storage of carbon; climate regulation; water filtration, 

purification, and storage; soil stabilization; flood and drought control; and disease regulation; (3) 

supporting services, such as pollination, seed dispersal, soil formation and nutrient cycling; and 

(4) cultural services, such as educational, aesthetic, spiritual, and cultural heritage values, 

recreational experiences, and tourism opportunities. 

Ecosystem sustainability: The ability to sustain diversity, productivity, resilience to stress, 

health, renewability and/or yield of desired values, resource uses, products, or services from an 

ecosystem, while maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem over time.

Eligible wild and scenic rivers: River segments that have been identified as eligible for 

inclusion in the national Wild and Scenic Rivers System under the authority of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act. The river segment must be free-flowing and it must possess one or more 

outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, 

ecological or other value. See wild and scenic rivers.

Endangered species: Species that the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce has 

determined is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

Endangered species are listed at 50 CFR sections 17.11, 17.12, and 224.101.

Endemic: Populations of native insects, diseases, plants, or animals which perform a functional 

role in the ecosystem when they are present at low levels, or constantly attack just a few hosts 

throughout an area, but can become potentially injurious when they increase or spread to reach 

outbreak (epidemic) levels.

Energy corridor: A linear strip of land identified for the present or future location of utility 

right-of-way (such as above or belowground electric transmission line, gas pipeline).

Energy development: Infrastructure associated with the provision or transport of energy 

(biomass power generation, wind turbines, and solar panels).

Environmental impact statement (EIS): A statement of the environmental effects of a proposed 

action and alternatives to it. It is required for major Federal actions under section 102 of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and released to the public and other agencies for 

comment and review. A draft EIS is released to the public and other agencies for review and 

comment. A final EIS is issued after consideration of public comments. A record of decision is 

based on the information and analysis in the final EIS.

Environmental justice: To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations 

are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in 

the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and 

adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting human health or the 

environment. 

Evapotranspiration: Loss of water from a land area through evaporation from the soil and 

surface-waterbodies and transpiration by plants. 
Glossary

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

644

Federal reserved water rights (reserved rights): When Congress designates Federal lands for a 

specific purpose it also reserves sufficient water to serve the purposes of that designation. These 

water rights are known as “Federal reserved water rights” or simply, reserved rights. Reserved 

rights are implied rights, meaning that Congress need not expressly state in a bill that it intends to 

reserve Federal water right. The right exists whether or not Congress explicitly mentions it.

Federally listed species: Threatened or endangered species listed under the Endangered Species 

Act, as amended. Candidate and proposed species are species which are being considered for 

Federal listing.

Fire intensity: The degree of energy and heat released from a fire

Fire regime: The patterns, frequency, and severity of fire that occur over a long period of time 

across a landscape and its immediate effects on the ecosystem in which it occurs. There are five 

fire regimes which are classified based on frequency (average number of years between fires) and 

severity (amount of replacement of the dominant overstory vegetation) of the fire. These five 

regimes are:

Fire regime I: 0- to 35-year frequency and low (surface fires most common, isolated 

torching can occur) to mixed severity (less than 75 percent of dominant overstory vegetation 

replaced)

Fire regime II: 0- to 35-year frequency and high severity (greater than 75 percent of 

dominant overstory vegetation replaced) 

Fire regime III: 35- to 100+-year frequency and mixed severity

Fire regime IV: 35- to 100+-year frequency and high severity

Fire regime V: 200+-year frequency and high severity.

Fire regime condition class: A classification of the degree of departure from the natural fire 

regime. The fire regime condition class classification is based on a relative measure describing 

the degree of departure from the historical natural fire regime. This departure can result in 

changes (or risks) to one, or more, of the following ecological components: vegetation (species 

composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy cover, and mosaic pattern across the landscape); 

fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances. 

Condition class 1: Fire regimes are within the natural (historical) range, and the risk of 

losing key ecosystem components is low. Vegetation attributes (species composition, 

structure, and pattern) are intact and functioning within the natural (historical) range. 

Condition class 2: Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their natural (historical) 

range. Risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed 

from natural frequencies by one or more return intervals (either increased or decreased). This 

result in moderate changes to one or more of the following: fire size, intensity and severity, 

and landscape patterns. Vegetation and fuel attributes have been moderately altered from their 

natural (historical) range. 

Condition class 3: Fire regimes have been substantially altered from their natural (historical) 

range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have departed 

from natural frequencies by multiple return intervals. Dramatic changes occur to one or more 

of the following: fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes 

have been substantially altered from their natural (historical) range.
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

645

Fire severity: Degree to which a site has been altered or disrupted by fire; also used to describe 

the product of fire intensity and residence time; usually defined by the degree of soil heating or 

mortality of vegetation. In this document, fire severity refers to vegetation burn severity unless 

otherwise specified. 

Focus landscapes: Defined during project planning, these are large areas generally from 10,000 

to 80,000 acres in size where mechanical thinning and prescribed burning are strategically located 

to treat enough of the landscape to change potential wildfire behavior and to improve the 

resilience of vegetation within the landscape. Treatments would focus especially on areas most 

departed from vegetation desired conditions and where there is negative fire risk to highly valued 

resources and assets. Focus landscapes are only applicable to the draft revised plans for the 

Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. 

Foliar: Pertaining to foliage (green tree leaves or needles).

Forest Service Handbook (FSH): Directives that provide detailed instructions on how to 

proceed with a specialized phase of a program or activity. 

Forest Service Manual (FSM): A system of manuals that provides direction for Forest Service 

activities.

Fragmentation: The break-up of a large continuous land area by reducing and dividing into 

smaller patches isolated by areas converted to a different land type. Habitat can be fragmented by 

natural events or development activities. It is the opposite of connectivity.

Free-flowing: Water existing or flowing in natural conditions without impoundment, diversion, 

straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway.

Fuel: Plants, both living and dead, and woody vegetative materials capable of burning. 

Fuel load: The dry weight of combustible materials per unit area; usually expressed as tons per 

acre. 

Fuel treatment: Any manipulation or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition or to 

lessen potential damage and resistance to control.

Fugitive dust: Fine particulate matter from windblown soil and dust which becomes airborne. 

Geographic Information System (GIS): An information processing technology to input, store, 

manipulate, analyze, and display data; a system of computer maps with corresponding sitespecific information that can be combined electronically to provide reports and maps.

Geomorphic: Refers to the process of erosion and sediment transport and deposition. 

Global climate models (GCMs): Climate models are a mathematical representation of the 

climate. The models divide the earth, ocean and atmosphere into a grid. The values of the 

predicted variables, such as surface pressure, wind, temperature, humidity and rainfall are 

calculated at each grid point over time, to predict their future values. The GCMs used in the FireClimate section examined the expected change in large fire size with different future climate and 

vegetation restoration scenarios, and are defined below:

• CCSM: Community Climate system Model

• GFDL: Geophysical Fluids Dynamic Laboratory 

• CNRM: Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques

Government-to-Government Consultation: The active and continuous process of contacting 

tribal leadership, soliciting their participation, involvement, comments, concerns, contributions, 
Glossary

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

646

and traditional knowledge that will assist the agency in making informed decisions in planning, 

managing and decision-making actions.

Guideline: A guideline is a constraint on project and activity decisionmaking that allows for 

departure from its terms, so long as the purpose of the guideline is met. (§ 219.15(d)(3)). 

Guidelines are established to help achieve or maintain a desired condition or conditions, to avoid 

or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements.

Habitat: A place that provides seasonal or year-round food, water, shelter, and other 

environmental conditions for an organism, community, or population of plants or animals.

Hazard Tree Removal: The abatement of tree hazards, generally near roads, trails and facilities.

Tree hazards include dead or dying trees, dead parts of live trees, or unstable live trees (due to 

structural defects or other factors) that are within striking distance of people or property (a target). 

Hazard trees have the potential to cause property damage, personal injury or fatality in the event 

of a failure.

Herbaceous: Grass and/or forb vegetation.

Herbivory: Loss of vegetation due to consumption by another organism. 

Historic range of variation: Description of the change over time and space in the ecological 

condition of vegetation types and the ecological processes that shape those types (Schussman and 

Smith, 2006).

Home range core area (HRCA): Areas established surrounding each territorial California 

spotted owl activity center detected after 1986. The core area amounts to 20 percent of the area 

described by the sum of the average breeding pair home range plus one standard error. For the 

Sierra National Forest, the home range core area size is 600 acres. Aerial photography is used to 

delineate the core area. Acreage for the entire core area is identified on national forest lands. Core 

areas encompass the best available California spotted owl habitat in the closest proximity to the 

owl activity center. The acreage in the 300-acre protected activity center counts toward the total 

home range core area. Core areas are delineated within 1.5 miles of the activity center. When 

activities are planned adjacent to non-national forest lands, 1.5-mile-circular core areas are 

delineated around California spotted owl activity centers on non-national forest lands. Using the 

best available habitat as described above, any part of the circular core area that lies on national 

forest lands is designated and managed as a California spotted owl home range core area.

Hydrologic: Refers to the movement, distribution, and quality of water. 

Hydrologic function: The behavioral characteristics of a watershed described in terms of ability 

to sustain favorable conditions of waterflow. Favorable conditions of waterflow are defined in 

terms of water quality, quantity, and timing. 

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): The U.S. is divided and subdivided into successively smaller 

hydrologic units (watersheds), which are identified by unique hydrologic unit codes (HUCs). The 

average size of a 4th level HUC watershed is 1 million acres, 5th level HUC watersheds are 

around 165,000 acres, and 6th level HUC watersheds are about 21,000 acres.

Hydrophytic vegetation: The sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the 

frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically 

saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present.

Instream flow: Seasonal stream flows needed for maintaining aquatic and riparian ecosystems, 

wildlife, fisheries, and recreation opportunities at an acceptable level.
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

647

Invasive species: Are alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health; species that cause, or is likely to cause harm and 

that is exotic to the ecosystem it has infested. Invasive species infest both aquatic and terrestrial 

areas and can be identified within any of the following four taxonomic categories: plants, 

vertebrates, invertebrates, and pathogens. 

LANDFIRE: (Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools Project) is an 

interagency Program producing consistent and comprehensive data describing landscape change, 

disturbance, vegetation, fuel, and fire regimes across the United States.

Leasable minerals: Leasable minerals include coal, oil, gas, oil shale, sodium, phosphate, 

potassium, and geothermal. Leasable minerals also include the hardrock minerals, if they are 

found on lands that have “acquired” status. Leases are obtained through the Bureau of Land 

Management to extract these mineral resources.

Litter: Litter consists of dead, unattached organic material on the soil surface that is effective in 

protecting the soil surface from raindrop splash, sheet, and rill erosion and is at least 1⁄2 inch thick. 

Litter is composed of leaves, needles, cones, and woody vegetative debris including twigs, 

branches, and trunks.

Livestock grazing: Foraging by permitted livestock (domestic foraging animals of any kind). 

Locatable minerals: In general, the hardrock minerals mined and processed for metals (gold, 

silver, copper, uranium, and some types of nonmetallic minerals such as sandstone). They are 

called “locatable,” meaning subject to mining claim location under the United States mining laws. 

Locatable minerals are limited to lands with “reserved public domain” status.

Low-income population: Any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in 

geographic proximity to, and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other 

geographically dispersed/transient persons who would be similarly affected by USDA programs 

or activities. Low-income populations may be identified using data collected, maintained and 

analyzed by an agency or from analytical tools such as the annual statistical poverty thresholds 

from the Bureau of the Census’ Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. 

Management practices (vegetation management practices): Silvicultural practices such as 

reforestation, prescribed fire, thinning to reduce stand density, and other practices designed to 

facilitate growth and development of trees.

Managing wildfires to meet resource objectives: A strategic choice to use unplanned wildfire 

starts to achieve resource management objectives and ecological purposes under specific 

environmental conditions. Such fires are monitored closely to ensure safe conditions for people, 

property, and other highly valued resources.

Mechanical treatment: For the purposes of this analysis, mechanical treatments include most 

vegetation treatments except fire. They may include mechanical thinning, hand thinning, and 

other silvicultural treatments.

Mechanized travel/transport: Movement using any contrivance over land, water, or air, having 

moving parts, that provides a mechanical advantage to the user and that is powered by a living or 

nonliving power source. This includes, but is not limited to, sailboats, hang gliders, parachutes, 

bicycles, game carriers, carts, and wagons. It does not include wheelchairs when used as 

necessary medical appliances. It does not include skis, snowshoes, rafts, canoes, sleds, travois, or 

similar primitive devices without moving parts.
Glossary

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

648

Minority: A person who is a member of one or more the following population groups: American 

Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, or Hispanic.

Minority population: Any readily identifiable group of minority persons who live in geographic 

proximity to, and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other geographically 

dispersed/transient persons who would be similarly affected by USDA programs or activities. 

Motorized travel: Movement using machines that use a motor, engine, or other nonliving power 

sources other than a vehicle operated on rails or a wheelchair or mobility device, including one 

that is battery powered, designed solely for the use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, 

and that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area.

National Forest System (NFS): Includes national forests, national grasslands, and the National 

Tallgrass Prairie.

National Forest System road: A road wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the 

National Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, 

administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its 

resources. A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a legally documented 

right-of-way held by a state, county, or other local public road authority. (36 CFR 212.1) 

National Forest System trail: A trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the 

National Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, 

administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its 

resources A forest trail other than a trail which has been authorized by a legally documented rightof-way held by a state, county, or other local public road authority. (36 CFR 212.1) 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: It was created by Congress in 1968 (Public Law 90-

542; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) to preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and 

recreational values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present and future 

generations. 

Nonmotorized travel: Movement not relying on machines that use a motor, engine, or other 

nonliving power source (walking, canoeing, and horseback riding). 

Nonpoint source pollution: Refers to water pollution affecting water quality from diffuse 

sources, such as polluted runoff from agricultural areas draining into lakes, wetlands, rivers, and 

streams. Nonpoint source pollution can be contrasted with point source pollution, where 

discharges occur to a body of water at a single location, such as discharges from a chemical 

factory, urban runoff from a roadway or storm drain. Nonpoint source pollution may derive from 

many different sources with no specific solution to rectify the problem, making it difficult to 

regulate.

Objective: An objective is a concise, measurable, and time-specific statement of a desired rate of 

progress toward a desired condition or conditions. Objectives are based on reasonable foreseeable 

budgets.

Old forest: Old forests are characterized by the presence of large and old trees for the given 

species and site productivity. Old forests vary widely based on forest type, soil condition, 

topography, and fire history. Tree size is not necessarily related to tree age. Old forests often 

contain large snags and logs in addition to large live trees. The density of these old forest 

components vary widely. 

Outstandingly remarkable value: A value that a river or river segment possesses that reflects its 

unique, rare, or exemplary qualities. In the Wild and Scenic River Act, river values identified 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

649

include scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. 

Examples of other similar values include botanical, hydrological, paleontological, scientific, or 

heritage. A river must have at least one outstandingly remarkable value to be eligible for wild and 

scenic river designation.

Protected Activity Center: The areas that surround nest areas. They represent an area of habitat 

used for nesting and raising young until the time of leaving the nest. 

Patch: Refers to a relatively homogeneous area that differs from its surroundings. Patches are the 

basic unit of the landscape that change and fluctuate. Patches have a definite shape and spatial 

configuration, and can be described compositionally by internal variables such as number of 

trees, number of tree species, age of trees, height of trees, or other similar measurements.

Planned ignition: A fire ignited by management actions under certain predetermined conditions 

to meet plan desired conditions. Prescribed fire is a synonymous term. 

Planning period: The life of the plan, generally 10 to 15 years from plan approval. As a general 

rule, this analysis uses 10 years to define the planning period.

Primitive recreation: The reliance on personal, nonmotorized, or nonmechanized skills to travel 

and camp in an area, rather than reliance on facilities or outside help. 

Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS): Recreation settings allow a range of experiences to 

be achieved, from remote and challenging to easily navigated and supported by tourism services 

in surrounding communities. The recreation opportunity spectrum has six distinct classes in a 

continuum to describe settings that provide this range of experience, from highly modified and 

developed settings to primitive and undeveloped settings. The classes are:

Primitive (P): Characterized by essentially unmodified natural environment. Interaction 

between users is very low and evidence of other users is minimal. Essentially free from 

evidence of human-induced restrictions and controls. Motorized use within the area is 

generally not permitted. Very high probability of experiencing solitude, closeness to nature, 

tranquility, self-reliance, and risk.

Semiprimitive Nonmotorized (SPNM): Characterized by a predominantly natural or 

natural-appearing environment. Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence 

of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum onsite controls and 

restrictions may be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is generally not permitted. High 

probability of experiencing solitude, closeness to nature, tranquility, self-reliance, and risk.

Semiprimitive Motorized (SPM): Characterized by a predominantly natural or naturalappearing environment. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other 

users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on site controls and restrictions may 

be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is generally permitted. Moderate probability of 

experiencing solitude, closeness to nature, tranquility, self-reliance, and risk.

Roaded Natural (RN): Characterized by a predominantly natural-appearing environment 

with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of other humans. Such evidences usually 

harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be low to moderate 

but with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are 

evident but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is provided 

for in construction standards and design of facilities. Opportunity to affiliate with other users 

in developed sites but with some chance for privacy.
Glossary

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

650

Roaded Modified (RM): Characterized by substantially modified natural environment 

except for campsites. Roads and management activities may be strongly dominant. There is 

moderate evidence of other users on roads. Conventional motorized use is provided for in 

construction standards and design of facilities. Opportunity to get away from others, but with 

easy access.

Rural (R): Characterized by substantially modified natural environment. Resource 

modification and utilization practices are to enhance specific recreation activities and to 

maintain vegetative cover and soil. Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident, and the 

interaction between users is often moderate to high. A considerable number of facilities are 

designed for use by a large number of people. Facilities are often provided for special 

activities. Moderate densities are provided far away from developed sites. Facilities for 

intensified motorized use and parking are available. Opportunity to observe and affiliate with 

other users is important, as is convenience of facilities.

Urban (U): Characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although the 

background may have natural-appearing elements. Resource modification and utilization 

practices are to enhance specific recreation activities. Vegetative cover is often exotic and 

manicured. Sights and sounds of people onsite are predominant. Large numbers of users can 

be expected, both onsite and in nearby areas. Facilities for highly intensified motor use and 

parking are available with forms of mass transit often available to carry people throughout the 

site. Opportunity to observe and affiliate with other users is very important, as is convenience 

of facilities.

Reforestation: The natural or artificial reestablishment of an area with forest tree cover.

Research natural area: A physical or biological unit in which current natural conditions is 

maintained and can be observed. These conditions are ordinarily achieved by allowing natural 

physical and biological processes to prevail without human intervention. Research natural areas 

are principally for non-manipulative research, observation, and study. They are designated to 

maintain a wide spectrum of high quality representative areas that represent the major forms of 

variability found in forest, shrublands, grassland, alpine, and natural situations that have scientific 

interest and importance that, in combination, form a national network of ecological areas for 

research, education, and maintenance of biological diversity.

Resilience: The ability of an ecosystem and its component parts to absorb, or recover from, the 

effects of disturbance through preservation, restoration or improvement of its essential structures 

and functions, and redundancy of ecological patterns across the landscape. 

Restoration: See ecological restoration.

Riparian area: Include terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that extend down into the groundwater, 

up above the canopy, outward across the floodplain, up the near-slopes that drain to the water, 

laterally into the terrestrial ecosystem, and along the water course at variable widths.

Riparian Conservation Areas: An area of vegetation or forest litter located adjacent to stream 

courses and/or riparian areas for the purpose of filtering sediment, providing bank stability, and 

providing shade for fisheries habitat in tree/shrub ecosystems. 

Road maintenance: The upkeep of the entire transportation facility including surface and 

shoulders, parking and side areas, structures, and such traffic control devices as are necessary for 

its safe and efficient utilization (36 CFR 212.1). This work includes brushing of roadside 

vegetation, falling danger trees, road blading, cleaning ditches, cleaning culvert inlets and outlets, 

etc.
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

651

Sacred sites: Defined in Executive Order 13007 as “any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated 

location on Federal land that is identified by an Indian tribe, or Indian individual determined to be 

an appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its 

established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion; provided that the 

tribe or appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion has informed the agency of 

the existence of such a site.”

Scenic integrity objectives– In the context of the forest plan are equivalent to goals or desired 

conditions. Scenic integrity describes the state of naturalness or a measure of the degree to which 

a landscape is visually perceived to be “complete.” The highest scenic integrity ratings are given 

to those landscapes that have little or no deviation from the landscape character valued by 

constituents for its aesthetic quality. Scenic integrity is the state of naturalness or, conversely, the 

state of disturbance created by human activities or alteration. Scenic integrity is measured in five 

levels:

Very high: landscapes where the valued landscape character “is” intact with only minute, if 

any deviations. The existing landscape character and sense of place is expressed at the highest 

possible level.

High: landscapes where the valued landscape character appears unaltered. Deviations may be 

present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture and pattern common to the landscape 

character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident.

Moderate: landscapes where the valued landscape character appears slightly altered. 

Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being 

viewed.

Low: landscapes where the valued landscape character appears moderately altered. 

Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed but they borrow 

valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, pattern of natural openings, vegetative type 

changes or architectural styles outside the landscape being viewed. They should not only 

appear as valued character outside the landscape being viewed, but compatible or 

complimentary to the character within. 

Very Low: landscapes where the valued landscape character appears heavily altered. 

Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape character. They may not borrow from 

valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, pattern of natural openings, vegetative type 

changes or architectural styles within or outside the landscape being viewed. However, 

deviations must be shaped and blended with the natural terrain so that elements such as 

unnatural edges, roads, landings and structures do not dominate the composition. 

Scenic character - is defined as the combination of the physical, biological, and cultural images 

that gives an area its scenic identity and contributes to its sense of place. Scenic character 

provides a frame of reference from which to determine scenic attractiveness and to measure 

scenic integrity.

Scenic stability - Scenic stability measures the degree to which the scenic character and its 

scenery attributes can be sustained through time and ecological progression. In other words, it 

looks at the ecological sustainability of the valued scenic character and its scenery attributes. 

Because attributes such as rock outcroppings and landforms change relatively little over time, 

scenic stability focuses on the dominant vegetation scenery attributes. It recognizes the often 

subtle, incremental changes that can severely diminish or eliminate scenic character.
Glossary

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

652

Scoping period: The time during which a proposed action has been provided to the public for 

review and comment so that the scope of issues related to the proposed action can be determined.

Seral stage: A particular plant and animal community developmental stage which is transitional 

between other stages along the continuum of succession or change. Changes in seral states can 

take place over time or very quickly and movement between states can be in either direction. 

Aspen is an example of a seral state that, without disturbance over time, will eventually be 

replaced by a subsequent seral state dominated by conifers.

Silviculture: The art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition, health, 

and quality of forests and woodlands using species silvics to meet the diverse needs and values of 

landowners and society on a sustainable basis.

Slash: The residue (such as branches or bark) left on the ground after a management activity, 

such as logging, or natural ecological process such as a storm or fire.

Snags: Standing dead or partially dead trees (snag topped), often missing many or all limbs 

and/or bark. Snags (generally 12 inches or larger) provide essential wildlife habitat for many 

species and are important for forest ecosystem function.

Soil productivity: The inherent capacity of the soil to support appropriate site-specific 

biological resource management objectives, which includes the growth of specified plants, plant 

communities, or a sequence of plant communities to support multiple land uses. 

Special use authorization: A permit, term permit, temporary permit, lease, easement, or other 

written instrument that grants rights or privileges of occupancy and use subject to specified terms 

and conditions on National Forest System land. 

Stand: A contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in age class distribution, composition, 

and structure, and growing on a site of sufficiently uniform quality, to be a distinguishable unit, 

such as mixed, pure, even-aged and uneven-aged stands.

Standard: A standard is a mandatory constraint on project and activity decisionmaking, 

established to help achieve or maintain the desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate 

undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements.

Standard terra trails: Trails that have a surface consisting predominantly of the ground and are 

designed and managed to accommodate use on that surface. They do not include snow or water 

trails.

Structure: Structure includes both the vertical and horizontal dimensions of a vegetation type or 

plant community. The horizontal structure refers to spatial patterns of individual and groups of 

plants and openings, as well as plant size and species composition. The vertical component refers 

to the layers of vegetation between the forest floor and the top of the canopy. Each vegetation 

type has its own structure. For example, forests have greater vertical structure than a grassland or 

woodland based on the height of the dominant species.

Suitable timberlands: Land to be managed for timber production on a regulated basis. Such 

lands are those which have been determined to meet the following criteria: (a) are available for 

timber production (not withdrawn for wilderness or other official designation by Congress, the 

Secretary of Agriculture, or Chief of the Forest Service); (b) are physically capable of producing 

crops of industrial wood without irreversible resource damage to soils productivity or watershed 

conditions; (c) adequate tree restocking within 5 years of final harvest is reasonably assured; (d) 

adequate information exists about responses to timber management activities; (e) timber 

management is cost efficient over the planning horizon in meeting forest objectives that include 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

653

timber production; (f) timber production is consistent with meeting the management requirements 

and multiple-use objectives specified in the forest plan or plan alternative; and (g) other 

management objectives do not limit timber production activities to the point where it is 

impossible to meet management requirements set forth in 36 CFR 129.27 (per Forest Service 

Handbook 2409.13, WO Amendment 2409.13-92-1, O Code and Chapter 20).

Suitability of Lands: The suitability of lands is determined for specific lands within the plan 

area. The lands are identified as suitable or not suitable for various uses or activities based on 

desired conditions applicable to those lands. The suitability of lands is not identified for every use 

or activity. Every plan must identify those lands that are not suitable for timber production (§ 

219.11).

Sustainability: The capability to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising 

the ability of future generations to meet their needs. For the purposes of the land management 

planning regulation at 36 CFR part 219, ecological sustainability refers to the capability of 

ecosystems to maintain ecological integrity; economic sustainability refers to the capability of 

society to produce and consume or otherwise benefit from goods and services, including 

contributions to jobs and market and nonmarket benefits; and social sustainability refers to the 

capability of society to support the network of relationships, traditions, culture and activities that 

connect people to the land and to one another, and support vibrant communities. 

Sustainable recreation - the set of recreation settings and opportunities on the National Forest 

System that is ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable for present and future 

generations. 

Thinning: An intermediate treatment made to reduce the stand density of trees primarily to 

improve growth, enhance forest health, to recover potential mortality, or to emphasize desired tree 

species. Includes crown thinning (thinning from above, high thinning), free thinning, low thinning 

(thinning from below), mechanical thinning (geometric thinning), and selection thinning 

(dominant thinning). Thinning can be used with both even and uneven-aged management 

systems.

Timber production: The purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration of regulated 

crops of trees to be cut into logs, bolts, or other round sections for industrial or consumer use (36 

CFR 219.19).

Total maximum daily load (TMDL): A TMDL is a written analysis that determines the 

maximum amount of a pollutant that a surface water can assimilate (the “load”), and still attain 

water quality standards during all conditions. The TMDL allocates the loading capacity of the 

surface water to point sources and nonpoint sources identified in the watershed, accounting for 

natural background levels and seasonal variation, with an allocation set aside as a margin of 

safety.

Traditional cultural properties (TCP): Defined in National Register Bulletin 38 as properties 

associated “with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that 

community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the 

community.” TCPs can range from structures, mountains, and other landforms to plant gathering 

locations to communities. These areas are considered historic properties that may be eligible to 

the National Register of Historic Places

Travel Management Rule (November 29, 2005, 36 CFR 212.51): requires that each national 

forest designate a system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use by vehicle class and, if 

appropriate, by time of year. Once the system is designated, the rule will prohibit motor vehicle 

use off the designated system.
Glossary

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

654

Unauthorized road or trail: A road or trail that is not a forest road or trail or a temporary road 

or trail and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212.1, Forest Service 

Manual 2353.05, and Forest Service Manual 7705).

Uncharacteristic wildfire: Refers to wildfire that exceeds the natural range of variation in fire 

severity (high severity proportion, high severity patch size) and other fire effects indicators for a 

specific vegetation type50.

Undesirable wildfire: Wildfire that does not meet the desired conditions for a specific 

vegetation type.

Unplanned ignition: A wildfire, not including planned ignitions. 

Vegetation Burn Severity: The degree of vegetation mortality caused by a fire and the fire 

severity from the ecological effect of the fire. As used in this Forest Plan, refers to the effect of 

the fire on the dominant vegetation, which are coniferous trees. Three levels of fire severity are 

recognized: 

• High severity: greater than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation (trees) are 

killed. Also referred to as stand-replacement fire.

• Moderate severity: 35 to 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation (trees) are killed.

• Low severity: less than 35% of dominant overstory vegetation (trees) are killed.

Wild and scenic river: A river designated by Congress as part of the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System that was established in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 

(note), 1271–1287).

Wild: Those rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments and generally inaccessible 

except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. 

These represent vestiges of primitive America.

Scenic: Those rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments, with shorelines or 

watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places 

by roads. 

Recreational: Those rivers or sections of rivers readily accessible by road or railroad that 

may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some 

impoundment or diversion in the past. 

Wildland-urban intermix (WUI): Includes those areas of resident populations at imminent risk 

from wildfire, and human developments having special significance. These areas may include 

critical communications sites, municipal watersheds, high voltage transmission lines, church 

camps, scout camps, research facilities, and other structures that if destroyed by fire, would result 

in hardship to communities. These areas encompass not only the sites themselves, but also the 

continuous slopes and fuels that lead directly to the sites, regardless of the distance involved 

(Forest Service Manual 5140.5). 

Xeric: Very dry region or climate; tolerating or adapted to dry conditions. Dry soil moisture 

regime. Some moisture is present but does not occur at optimum levels for plant growth. 

Irrigation or summer fallow is often necessary for crop production. 

 

50 Hardy, C. C. 2005. Wildland fire hazard and risk: Problems, definitions, and context. Forest ecology and 

management, 211(1), 73-82.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

655

References

Chapters 1 and 2 

Centers of Water and Wildland Resources. 1996. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report 

to Congress, Davis, CA: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland 

Resources.

Landres, P., S. Boutcher, L. Merigliano, C. Barns, D. Davis, T. Hall, S. Henry, B. Hunter, P. 

Janiga, M. Laker, A. McPherson, D. S. Powell, M. Rowan and S. Sater. 2005. Monitoring 

selected conditions related to wilderness character: A national framework. General 

Technical Report RMRS-GTR-151. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Long, J.W., L. Quinn-Davidson and C.N. Skinner, eds. 2014. Science synthesis to support 

socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 723 p. 

North, M., ed. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

184 p. 

North, M., P. Stine, K. O'Hara, W. Zielinski and S. Stephens. 2009. An ecosystem management 

strategy for Sierran mixed-conifer forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49 

p. 

United States Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Interior (USDA and USDI). 

2014. The National Strategy: The final phase in the development of the National 

Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior. April 2014. 101 p. Available at: 

http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/index.shtml

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 1982. Pacific Crest National 

Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 129 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 1988a. Inyo National Forest 

Land and Resources Management Plan: Final Environmental Impact Statement and 

Record of Decision. San Francisco, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 1988b. Sequoia National 

Forest Land and Resources Management Plan: Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision. San Francisco, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 1992. Sierra National Forest 

Land and Resources Management Plan: Final Environmental Impact Statement and 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

656

Record of Decision. San Francisco, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment: Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. 

Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of 

Decision. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2012a. Sage-Grouse Interim 

Management Policy. Bishop, California: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Inyo National Forest. September 28, 2012. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2014a. Final Sierra Nevada 

Bio-Regional Assessment. Management Bulletin R5-MB-268. Vallejo, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 199 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2014b. Inyo National Forest 

Assessment. Management Bulletin R5-MB-266. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 229 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2014c. Sequoia National 

Forest Assessment. Management Bulletin R5-MB-267. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 266 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2014d. Final Sierra 

National Forest Assessment. Management Bulletin R5-MB-269. Vallejo, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 268 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2014e. Preliminary need to 

change. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region. January 2014. 9 p. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5444578.pdf 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2014f. Updated need to 

change. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region. May 22, 2014. 6 p. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3801694.pdf 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2014g. Inyo, Sequoia, and 

Sierra National Forests Need to change analysis - Supplement. Vallejo, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. June 5, 2014. 30 p. 

Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3803461.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2015. Draft Interim 

Recommendations for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National 

Forest System Lands. Unpublished Document. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. May 29, 2015 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

657

Chapter 3 

Agents of Change: Climate, Fire, Insects and Pathogens

Anderson, M.K. 2006. The use of fire by Native Americans in California. Fire in California’s 

ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA, 417-430. 

Asner, G.P., P.G. Brodrick, C.B. Anderson, N. Vaughn, D.E. Knapp and R.E. Martin. 2015. 

Progressive forest canopy water loss during the 2012-2015 California drought. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113: E249-E255. 

Beesley, D. 1996. Reconstructing the landscape: an environmental history, 1820-1960. In: Sierra 

Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP): Final Report to Congress. Davis, CA: University of 

California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. Vol. II, Assessments and Scientific 

Basis for Management Options.

Bentz, B.J., editor and co-organizer 2005. Bark beetle outbreaks in western North America: 

Causes and Consequences. Bark Beetle Symposium, November 15-18, 2005, Snowbird, 

UT. University of Utah Press.

Bentz, B.J., J. Régnière, C.J. Fettig, E.M. Hansen, J. Hayes, J.A. Hicke, R.G. Kelsey, J.F. Negrón 

and SJ. Seybold. 2010. Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and 

Canada: direct and indirect effects. Bioscience 60(8): 602–613. 

Brooks, M.L. and R. Minnich. 2006. Southeastern desert bio-region. In: Fire in California 

Ecosystems, N.G. Sugihara, J.W. van Wagtendonk, J. Fites-Kaufman, K.E. Shaffer and 

A.E. Thode (eds.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 

Bryant, B.P. and A.L. Westerling. 2014. Scenarios for future wildfire risk in California: links 

between changing demography, land use, climate, and wildfire. Environmetrics 25(6): 

454-471. 

Cahill, M. 2013. Personal Communication. University of Vermont. Unpublished document 

available in project record in the references section.

Calkin, D.E., K.M. Gebert, J.G. Jones and R.P. Neilson. 2005. Forest Service large fire area 

burned and suppression expenditure trends, 1970-2002. Journal of Forestry 103(4): 179-

183. 

Coen, J.L. 2005. Simulation of the Big Elk Fire using coupled atmosphere–fire modeling. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire 14(1): 49-59. 

Coen, J.L., E.N. Stavros, J.A. Fites-Kaufman, V, Kane, R.E. McGaughey, P. Oliva, C. Ramirez, 

D. Schimel, W. Schroeder, H. Singh and Z. Tane. 2015. The King Megafire: Coupled 

weather-fire modeling enhanced by pre-HyspIRI imaging spectrometer and LiDAR fire 

and fuel products. Paper presented at: the Fire Ecology and Management Conference: 

Advancing Ecology in Fire Management. November 16-20, 2015, San Antonio TX.

Collins, B.M., J.D. Miller, A.E. Thode, M. Kelly, J.W. Van Wagtendonk and S.L. Stephens. 2009. 

Interactions among wildland fires in a long-established Sierra Nevada natural fire area. 

Ecosystems 12(1): 114-128. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

658

Collins, B. and C.N. Skinner. 2014. Chapter 4.1 Fire and Fuels. In: Long, J.W., L. QuinnDavidson and C.N. Skinner, eds. Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience 

in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades, PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 17-54. 

Ewell, C., A. Reiner, S. Williams. 2012. Wildfire Interactions of the 2011 Lion Fire and Recent 

Wildfires on the Sequoia National Forest and Sequoia National Park. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team. Report to 

the U.S. Forest Service Washington Office. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/adaptivemanagement/reports/Lion_Wildfire_Interactions_Final.pdf

(December 2015).

Farris, C. 2015. Personal conversation of Jo Ann Fites-Kaufman, Forest Service Ecologist with

Calvin Farris, National Park Service employee, concerning analysis of fire severity data 

and fire size. May 2015. 

Feeney, S., T.E. Kolb, W.W. Covington and M.R. Wagner 1998. Influence of thinning and burning 

restoration treatments on presettlement ponderosa pines at the Gus Pearson natural Area. 

Canadian Journal Forest Research 28: 1295-1306. 

Fettig, C.J. 2012. Chapter 2: Forest Health and Bark Beetles. In: North, M., editor. Managing 

Sierra Nevada forests. General Technical Report, PSW-GTR-237. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Fettig C.J., R.R. Borys, S. McKelvey and C.P. Dabney 2008. Blacks Mountain Experimental 

Forest: bark beetle responses to differences in forest structure and application of 

prescribed fire in interior ponderosa pine. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38: 924-

935. 

Fettig, C., K. Klepzig, R.F. Billings, A.S. Munson, T.E. Nebeker, J.F. Negron and J. T. Nowak. 

2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of 

bark beetle infestations in coniferous forest of the western and southern United States. 

Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 238: 24-53. 

Fettig, C.J. and S.R. McKelvey 2010. Bark Beetle responses to stand structure and prescribed fire 

at Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest, California, USDA: 5-year data. Fire Ecology 

6(2): 26-41. 

Finney, M.A. and S.S. McAllister. 2011. A review of fire interactions and mass fires. Journal of 

Combustion 2011. 

Fites-Kaufman, J.A. 2014 Fire behavior case study: 50,000 acre run on King Fire, September 17th, 

2014. Unpublished document on file at: Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Hayes, C., C.J. Fettig and L.D. Merrill. 2009. Evaluation of multiple funnel traps and stand 

characteristics for estimating western pine beetle-caused tree mortality. Journal of 

Economic Entomology 102: 2170–2182. 

Holmes, T.P., R.J. Huggett Jr. and A.L. Westerling. 2008. Statistical analysis of large wildfires. In 

The Economics of Forest Disturbances (pp. 59-77). Springer Netherlands. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

659

Hood, S.M., C.W. McHugh, K.C. Ryan, E. Reinhardt and S.L. Smith 2007. Evaluation of postfire tree mortality model for western USA conifers. International Journal of Wildland Fire 

16: 679-689. 

Klinger, R.C., Brooks, M.L. and Randall, J.M., 2006. Fire and invasive plant species. In: Fire in 

California Ecosystems, N.G. Sugihara, J.W. van Wagtendonk, J. Fites-Kaufman, K.E. 

Shaffer and A.E. Thode (eds.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. pp.499-519. 

Kolb, P., K. Holmberg, M. R. Wagner and J. E. Stone 1998. Regulation of ponderosa pine foliar 

physiology and insect resistance mechanisms by basal area treatments. Tree Physiology 

18: 375-381. 

LANDFIRE 2012. Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools. Data version 

LF_1.3.0 Available at: http://www.landfire.gov/lf_130.php

Mallek, C., H.D. Safford and S. Sawyer. 2012. A summary of current trends and probable future 

trends in climate and climate-driven processes in the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests 

and the neighboring Sierra Nevada. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region Ecology Program. (2 February 2015).

Mallek, C., H. Safford, J. Viers and J. Miller. 2013. Modern departures in fire severity and area 

vary by forest type, Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades, California, USA. Ecosphere 

4(12): art153. 

Maloney, P. 2011. Incidence and distribution of white pine blister rust in the high-elevation 

forests of California. Forest Pathology 41: 308-316. 

Meyer, M.D. 2015. Forest fire severity patterns of resource objective wildfires in the southern 

Sierra Nevada. Journal of Forestry 113(1): 49-56. 

Meyer, M.D., H. Safford and S. Sawyer. 2012. A summary of current trends and probable future 

trends in climate and climate-driven processes in the Sierra National Forest and the 

neighboring Sierra Nevada. Unpublished report on file at Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Meyer, M.D. 2013a. Natural range of variation (NRV) for red fir forests in the bioregional 

assessment area. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Unpublished report. 

82 p. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/plantsanimals/?cid=stelprdb5434436. (5 March 2015).

Meyer, M.D. 2013b. Natural range of variation (NRV) for subalpine forests in the bioregional 

assessment area. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Unpublished report. 

60 p. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/plantsanimals/?cid=stelprdb5434436. (5 March 2015).

Meyer, M., B.M. Bulaon, M. MacKenzie and H.D. Safford . 2014. Whitebark pine (Pinus 

albicaulis) mortality monitoring in the Inyo National Forest 2013 Report. Unpublished 

document on file at: Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region. 

Miller, J.D. and H.D. Safford. 2012. Trends in wildfire severity 1984-2010 in the Sierra Nevada, 

Modoc Plateau and southern Cascades, California, USA. Fire Ecology 8(3): 41-57. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

660

Miller, J.D., H.D. Safford, M. Crimmins and A.E. Thode. 2009. Quantitative evidence for 

increasing forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Mountains, 

California and Nevada, USA. Ecosystems 12(1): 16-32. 

Moritz, M.A. and S.L. Stephens. 2008. Fire and sustainability: Considerations for California’s 

altered future climate. Climatic Change 87 (Suppl 1): S265–S271. 

North, M., ed. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

184 p. 

Oliver, W.W. 1995. Is self-thinning in ponderosa pine ruled by Dendroctonus bark beetles? In: L. 

G. Eskew, comp. Forest health through silviculture: proceedings of the 1995 National 

Silviculture Workshop, Mescalero, New Mexico, May 8-11, 1995. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMGTR-267. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 213-218. 

Parisien, M.A., D.R, Junor and V.G. Kafka. 2008. Comparing landscape-based decision rules for 

placement of fuel treatments in the boreal mixedwood of western Canada. International 

Journal of Wildland Fire 16(6): 664-672. 

Parisien, M.A., C. Miller, A.A. Ager and M.A. Finney. 2010. Use of artificial landscapes to 

isolate controls on burn probability. Landscape Ecology 25(1): 79-93. 

Parisien, M.A., S. Snetsinger, J.A. Greenberg, C.R. Nelson, T. Schoennagel, S.Z. Dobrowski and 

M.A. Moritz. 2012. Spatial variability in wildfire probability across the western United 

States. International Journal of Wildland Fire 21(4): 313-327. 

Peterson, D.L., C.I. Millar, L.A. Joyce, M.J. Furniss, J.E. Halofsky, RP. Neilson and T.L. Morelli. 

2011. Responding to climate change in national forests: a guidebook for developing 

adaptation options. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-855. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 109 p. 

Preisler, H.K., S.C. Chen, F. Fujioka, J.W. Benoit and A.L. Westerling. 2008. Meteorological 

model applications for estimating probabilities of wildland fires. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 17: 305-316. 

Preisler, H.K., J. Eidenshink, S. Howard and R.E. Burgan. 2015. Forecasting distribution of 

numbers of large fires. In: Keane, R.E., M. Jolly, R Parsons and K. Riley. Proceedings of 

the large wildland fires conference; May 19-23, 2014; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-73. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. p. 181-187. 

Safford, H.D. 2013. Natural range of variation (NRV) for yellow pine and mixed conifer forests 

in the bioregional assessment area, including the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascades, and 

Modoc and Inyo National Forests. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Unpublished report. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/plants-animals/?cid=stelprdb5434436. (5 March 2015).

Safford, H.D., M.P. North and M.D. Meyer. 2012. Climate change and the relevance of historical 

forest conditions. Pp. 23 - 46, in: M. P. North, ed. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

661

General Technical Report PSW-GTR-237. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, Albany, CA. 

Safford, H.D., M. Coppoletta, B. Estes, S. Gross, K.E. Merriam, M.D. Meyer, M. Slaton and H. 

Stone. 2013. Natural range of variation (NRV) for terrestrial ecosystems in the 

bioregional assessment area, including the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascades, and Modoc 

and Inyo National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Unpublished 

report. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/plantsanimals/?cid=stelprdb5434436. (4 February 2015).

Savage, M. 1994. Anthropogenic and natural disturbance and patterns of mortality in a mixed 

conifer forest in California. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 24: 1149-1159. 

Slaton, M. and H. Stone. 2013a. Pinyon-juniper natural range of variation. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region. Unpublished report. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/plants-animals/?cid=stelprdb5434436. (5 March 2015).

Slaton, M. and H. Stone. 2013b. Sagebrush natural range of variation. Unpublished report. 

Vallejo, CA, USDA, Pacific Southwest Region. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/plants-animals/?cid=stelprdb5434436. 

Smith, S. 2007. Bark beetles and vegetation management in California. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Health Protection. May 2007. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/spf/fhp/wbbi/CABarkBeetlesVegMgt_2007.pdf

Smith, S.L. and D.R. Cluck. 2011. Marking guidelines for fire-injured trees in California. Report 

# RO-11-01. Susanville, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, Forest Health Protection. 13 p. 

Steel, Z.L., H.D. Safford and J.H. Viers. 2015. The fire frequency-severity relationship and the 

legacy of fire suppression in California forests. Ecosphere 6: 8. 

Stephens, S.L., R.E. Martin and N.E. Clinton. 2007. Prehistoric fire area and emissions from 

California's forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. Forest Ecology and 

Management 251(3): 205-216. 

Sugihara, N., J. Van Wagtendonk, K.E. Shaffer, J.A. Fites-Kaufman and A.E. Thode, eds. 2006. 

Fire in California Ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Swetnam, T.W. 1993. Fire history and climate change in giant sequoia groves. Science-New York 

Then Washington, 262, 885-885. 

Turner, M. G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual review of 

ecology and systematics: 171-197. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2011. Western bark beetle 

strategy. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2012a. Forest health 

technology enterprise computer modeling tools. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

662

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2012b. Forest health 

monitoring risk maps. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013a. Final Inyo National 

Forest assessment. Document number R5-MB-266. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 229 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013b. Final Sequoia 

National Forest assessment. Document number R5-MB-267. Vallejo, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 

266 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013c. Final Sierra National 

Forest assessment. Document number R5-MB-269. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 268 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013d. Final Sierra Nevada 

bio-regional assessment. Document number R5-MB-268. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 199 p.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS) 2013e. Snapshot bioregional 

assessment from Living Assessment wikispaces website. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. April 9, 2013. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS) 2013f. Snapshot Inyo 

National Forest assessment from Living Assessment wikispaces website. Vallejo, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. September 2, 

2013. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS) 2013g. Snapshot Sequoia 

National Forest assessment from Living Assessment wikispaces website. Vallejo, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. August 2, 

2013. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS) 2013h. Snapshot Sierra 

National Forest assessment from Living Assessment wikispaces website. Vallejo, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. July 2, 2013. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS) 2015. Aerial tree mortality 

surveys. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region. 

Vaillant, N. 2009. Characterizing fire severity patterns in three wildland fire use incidents in the 

southern Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service. Unpublished report available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/adaptivemanagement/reports/fbat/SQF_WildlandFireUse_Report_20

09_Vaillant.pdf (December 2015).

van Mantgem, P.J., N.L. Stephenson, J.C. Byrne, L.D. Daniels, J.F. Franklin, P.Z. Fulé, M.E. 

Harmon, A.J. Larson, J.M. Smith, A.H. Taylor and T.T. Veblen. 2009. Widespread 

increase of tree mortality rates in the western United States. Science 323(5913): 521-524. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

663

van Wagtendonk, J.W. and J. Fites-Kaufman. 2006. Sierra Nevada bioregion. In Sugihara, N.G., 

J.W. van Wagtendonk, K.E. Shaffer, J. Fites-Kaufman, and A.E. Thode, eds. Fire in 

California’s Ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 264–294. 

Viegas, D.X., J.R. Raposo, D.A. Davim and C.G. Rossa. 2012. Study of the jump fire produced 

by the interaction of two oblique fire fronts. Part 1. Analytical model and validation with 

no-slope laboratory experiments. International Journal of Wildland Fire 21(7): 843-856. 

Wallin, K., P. Kolb, K.R. Skov and M.R. Wagner 2008. Forest management treatments, tree 

resistance, and bark beetle resource utilization in ponderosa pines forests of northern 

Arizona. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 3263-3269. 

Werth, P.A., B.E. Potter, C.B. Clements, M. Finney, S.L. Goodrick, M.E. Alexander, M.G. Cruz, 

J.A. Forthofer, and S.S. McAllister. 2011. Synthesis of knowledge of extreme fire 

behavior: volume I for fire managers. General Technical Report. PNW-GTR-854. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Westerling, A.L. 2015. Personal communication with Jo Ann Fites-Kaufman, US Forest Service 

Planning Ecologist, regarding statistical differences in fire-climate trend models using 

two (VCC 1 vs VCC2 and 3) versus three (VCC 1, VCC2, VCC3) vegetation condition 

class categories as input variables. February 2015. 

Westerling, A.L and A. Keyser. 2016. Changing fire, fuels and climate in the Sierra Nevada. Draft 

report under USFS Cooperative Agreement: Added fire severity task to Modeling 

Potential Fire Impacts with Landscape Vegetation Scenarios and Changing Climate for 

the Sierra Nevada and Other Areas in the Western U.S. University of California Merced. 

Unpublished document available at: Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Craven and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier 

spring increase Western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313: 940-943. 

Westerling, A.L., J. Milostan and A.R. Keyser. 2015. Changing fire, fuels and climate in the 

Sierra Nevada. Final report under USFS Cooperative Agreement: Modeling Potential Fire 

Impacts with Landscape Vegetation Scenarios and Changing Climate for the Sierra 

Nevada and Other Areas in the Western U.S. University of California Merced. 43 p. 

Western Forestry Leadership Coalition. 2009. Western bark beetle assessment: A framework for 

cooperative forest stewardship, 2009 update. Lakewood, CO: Western Forestry 

Leadership Coalition. March 9, 2009. 20 p. Available at: 

http://www.wflccenter.org/news_pdf/325_pdf.pdf. 

Wimberly, M.C., M.A. Cochrane, A.D. Baer, and K. Pabst. 2009. Assessing fuel treatment 

effectiveness using satellite imagery and spatial statistics. Ecological Applications 19(6): 

1377-1384. 

Revision Topic 1: Fire Management

Fire Management

Arno, S.F. and J.K. Brown. 1991. Overcoming the paradox in managing wildland fire. Western 

Wildlands 17(1): 40-46. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

664

Association of Fire Ecology, International Association of Wildland Fire and The Nature 

Conservancy. 2015. Reduce wildfire risks or we’ll continue to pay more for fire disasters. 

Position statement. April 16, 2015. Retrieved from http://fireecology.org. 

 Barrett, S., D. Havlina, J. Jones, W. Hann, C. Frame, D. Hamilton, K. Schon, T. Demeo, L. 

Hutter and J. Menakis. 2010. Interagency fire regime condition class guidebook. Version 

3.0. www.frcc.gov. 

Calkin, D.E. and M. Thompson. 2011. Uncertainty and risk in wildland fire management: A 

review. Journal of Environmental Management 92: 1895-1909. 

Finney, M. A. 1998. FARSITE: Fire Area Simulator—model development and evaluation. Res. 

Pap. RMRS-RP-4. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 47 p. 

Finney, M. A. 2002. Fire growth using minimum travel time methods. Can. J. For. Res. 32(8): 

1420–1424. 

Hurteau, M. D., A. L. Westerling, C. Wiedinmyer, and B. P. Bryant. 2014. Projected effects of 

climate and development on California wildfire emissions through 2100. Environmental 

Science Technology 48: 2298-2304. 

Hurteau, M.D. and M. North. 2009. Fuel treatment effects on tree-based forest carbon storage and 

emissions under modeled wildfire scenarios. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7: 409−414. 

Meyer, M.D., S.L. Roberts, R. Wills, M. Brooks, and E.M. Winford. 2015. Principles of effective 

USA federal fire management plans. Fire Ecology 11(2): 59–83. 

National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. Retrieved from: 

http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/index.shtml

North, M., A. Brough, J. Long, B. Collins, P. Bowden, D. Yasuda, J. Miller and N. Sugihara. 

2015. Constraints on mechanized treatment significantly limit mechanical fuels reduction 

extent in the Sierra Nevada. Journal of Forestry 113 (1): 40-48. 

Quinn-Davidson, L.N. and J.M. Varner. 2012. Impediments to prescribed fire across agency, 

landscape and manager: An example from northern California. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 21:210 –

218. 

Scott, J., J. Gilberston-Day, P. Bowden, A. Brough and D. Helmbrecht. 2015. Southern Sierra 

Nevada wildfire risk assessment. Unpublished. 

Thompson, M.P., D. Calkin, M Finney, K.M. Gebert and M.S. Hand. 2013. A risk-based approach 

to wildland fire budgetary planning. Forest Science 59(1): 63-77. 

Thompson, M.P., P. Bowden, A. Brough, J.H. Scott, J. Gilbertson-Day, A. Taylor, J. Anderson, 

and J. Hass. 2016. Application of wildfire risk assessment results to wildfire response 

planning in the Southern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Forests 7(3): 64. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of 

Decision. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

665

Westerling, A.L. and B.P. Bryant. 2008. Climate change and wildfire in California. Climatic 

Change 87: S231-S249. 

Westerling, A.L, A. Gershunov, T.J. Brown, D.R. Cayan and M.D. Dettinger. 2003. Climate and 

wildfire in the western United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 

84(5): 595-604. 

Westerling, A.L. and B.P. Bryant. 2006. Climate change and wildfire in and around California: 

Fire modeling and loss modeling. Public Interest Energy Research, California Energy 

Commission. Retrieved from: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov. 

Wiedinmyer, C. and M.D. Hurteau. 2010. Prescribed fire as a means of reducing forest carbon 

emissions in the western U.S. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44: 1926−1932. 

Air Quality

Bytnerowicz, A., M.E. Fenn and J.W. Long. 2014. Air Quality Chapter 8 in Long, Jonathan W.; 

Quinn-Davidson, Lenya, and Skinner, Carl N., tech. editors. Science synthesis to support 

forest plan revision in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades. Final Report. Albany, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

471 p. 

First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM) 2014. Fire, fuel, and smoke science program, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. USDA Forest Service. http://www.firelab.org/project/fofem

Hurteau, M.D., G.W. Koch and B.A. Hungate. 2008. Carbon protection and fire risk reduction: 

toward a full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment 6, 493–498. 

Hurteau, M. and M. North. 2009. Fuel treatment effects on tree-based forest carbon storage and 

emissions under modeled wildfire scenarios. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7. 

Hurteau, M. and M. North. 2010. Carbon recovery rates following different wildfire risk 

mitigation treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 260: 930-937. 

Hurteau, M.D., A.L. Westerling, C. Wiedinmyer and B.P. Bryant. 2014. Projected effects of 

climate and development on California wildfire emissions through 2100. Environmental 

Science and Technology 48 2298-2304. 

San Joaquin Air Basin 2013 Emissions almanac. 2013. California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm

Tarnay, L.W. and J.A. Lutz. 2011. Sustainable fire: preserving carbon stocks and protecting air 

quality as the Sierra Nevada warm. Park Science 28(1): 48-55. 

Great Basin Valleys Air Basin 2013 Emissions Almanac 2013. California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013a. Final Inyo National Forest 

assessment. Document number R5-MB-266. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 229 p. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

666

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013b. Final Sequoia National Forest 

assessment. Document number R5-MB-267. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 266 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013c. Final Sierra National Forest 

assessment. Document number R5-MB-269. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 268 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013d. Final Sierra Nevada bioregional assessment. Document number R5-MB-268. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 199 p. 

Vaillant, N.M., A.L. Reiner and E.K. Noonan-Wright. 2013. Prescribed fire effects on fieldderived and simulated forest carbon stocks over time. Forest Ecology and Management 

310: 711-719. 

Wiedinmyer, C. and M.D. Hurteau. 2010. Prescribed fire as a means of reducing forest carbon 

emissions in the western U.S. Environmental Science and Technology 44, 1926–1932. 

Revision Topic 2: Ecological Integrity

Terrestrial Ecosystems

Anderson, M.K. 2006. The use of fire by Native Americans in California. In Sugihara, N.G., J.W. 

van Wagtendonk, K.E. Shaffer, J. Fites-Kaufman and A.E. Thode, eds. Fire in 

California’s Ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. pp. 417-430. 

Anderson, M.K. and M.J. Moratto. 1996. Native American land-use practices and ecological 

impacts. Chapter 9 In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, Vol. II, 

Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis, CA: University of 

California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. pp. 187-206. 

Arkle, R.S., D.S. Pilliod, S.E. Hanser, M.L. Brooks, J.C. Chambers, J.B. Grace, K.C. Knutson, D. 

A. Pyke, J.L. Welty and T.A. Wirth. 2014. Quantifying restoration effectiveness using 

multi-scale habitat models: implications for sage-grouse in the Great Basin. Ecosphere 

5:art31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00278.1

Bentz, B.J., J. Régnière, C.J. Fettig, E.M. Hansen, J. Hayes, J.A. Hicke, R.G. Kelsey, J.F. Negrón 

and S.J. Seybold. 2010. Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and 

Canada: direct and indirect effects. Bioscience 60(8): 602–613. 

Betts, M.G., J.C. Hagar, J.W. Rivers, J.D. Alexander, K. McGarigal and B.C. McComb. 2010. 

Thresholds in forest bird occurrence as a function of the amount of early-seral broadleaf 

forest at landscape scales. Ecological Applications 20(8): 2116-2130. 

Bourne, A. and S.C. Bunting. 2011. Guide for quantifying post-treatment fuels in the sagebrush 

steppe and juniper woodlands of the Great Basin. Denver, CO, USA: Bureau of Land 

Management. Technical Note 437. BLM/ID/PT-11/003þ2824. 115 p. 

Bradley, B.A. 2009. Regional analysis of the impacts of climate change on cheatgrass invasion 

shows potential risk and opportunity. Global Change Biology 15: 196–208. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

667

Brooks, M.L and R.A. Minnich. 2006. Southeastern deserts bioregion. In Sugihara, N.G., J.W. 

van Wagtendonk, K.E. Shaffer, J. Fites-Kaufman and A.E. Thode, eds. Fire in 

California’s Ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. pp. 391–414. 

Bull, E.L., R.S. Holthausen and D.B. Marx. 1990. How to determine snag density. Western 

Journal of Applied Forestry 5(2): 56-58. 

Bytnerowicz, A., M. Fenn and J.W. Long. 2014. Air Quality. Chapter 8.1 in: Science synthesis to 

support socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 723 p. 

Carnus, J.M., J. Parrotta, E. Brockerhoff, M. Arbez, H. Jactel, A. Kremer, D. Lamb, K. O’Hara 

and B. Walters. 2006. Planted forests and biodiversity. Journal of Forestry 104(2): 65-77. 

Chambers, J.C., B.A. Roundy, R.R Blank, S.E. Meyer and A. Whittaker. 2007. What makes Great 

Basin sagebrush ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum? Ecological Monographs 

77(1): 117-145. 

Chambers, C.J., D.A. Pyke, J.D. Maestas, M. Pellant, C.S. Boyd, S.B. Campbell, S. Espinosa, 

D.W. Haylina, K.E. Mayor and A. Wuenschel. 2014. Using resistance and resilience 

concepts to reduce impacts of invasive annual grasses and altered fire regimes on the 

sagebrush ecosystem and great sage grouse: A strategic multi-scale approach. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station 73 p. 

Chambers, J.C., M.L. Brooks, B.K. Pendleton, C.B. Raish and B. Carol., eds. 2013. The Southern 

Nevada Agency Partnership Science and Research Synthesis: Science to support land

management in Southern Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-303. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station/ 207 

p. 

Coen, J.L, N. Stavros, J.A. Fites-Kaufman, V. Kane, R.E. McGaughey, P. Oliva, C. Ramirez, D. 

Schimel, W. Schroeder, H. Singh, Z. Tane. 2015. The King Megafire: Coupled weatherfire modeling enhanced by pre-HyspIRI imaging spectrometer and LiDAR fire and fuel 

products. Proceedings of the Fire Ecology and Management Conference: Advancing 

Ecology in Fire Management. November 16-20, 2015. document available in project 

record.

Chiono, L.A., K.L. O’Hara, M.J. De Lasaux, G.A. Nader and S.L. Stephens. 2012. Development 

of vegetation and surface fuels following fire hazard reduction treatment. Forests 3(3): 

700-722. 

Collins, B.M., J.M. Lydersen, R.G. Everett, D.L. Fry and S.L. Stephens. 2015. Novel 

characterization of landscape-level variability in historical vegetation structure. 

Ecological Applications 25(5): 1167-1174. 

Collins, B. and C. Skinner. 2014. Fire and fuels. Chapter 4.1 in: Science synthesis to support 

socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 723 p. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

668

Collins, B.M., A.J. Das, J.J. Battles, D.L. Fry, K.D. Krasnow and S.L. Stephens. 2014. Beyond 

reducing fire hazard: fuel treatment impacts on overstory tree survival. Ecological 

Applications 24(8): 1879-1886. 

Collins, B.M. and G.B. Roller. 2013. Early forest dynamics in stand-replacing fire patches in the 

northern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Landscape Ecology 28(9): 1801-1813. 

Collins, B.M., R.G. Everett and S.L. Stephens. 2011. Impacts of fire exclusion and recent 

managed fire on forest structure in old growth Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests. 

Ecosphere 2(4): art51. 

Collins, B.M., J.J. Moghaddas and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Initial changes in forest structure and 

understory plant communities following fuel reduction activities in a Sierra Nevada 

mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management 239(1): 102-111. 

Cushman, S.A. and E.L. Landguth. 2012. Multi-taxa population connectivity in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains. Ecological Modelling 231: 101-112. 

Das, A.J., N.L. Stephenson, A. Flint, T. Das and P.J. Van Mantgem. 2013. Climatic correlates of 

tree mortality in water-and energy-limited forests. PLoS One 8(7): e69917. 

Dolanc, C.R., H.D. Safford, J.H. Thorne and S.Z. Dobrowski. 2014. Changing forest structure 

across the landscape of the Sierra Nevada, CA, USA, since the 1930s. Ecosphere 5(8): 

101. 

Estes, B. 2013a. Historic range of variation for chaparral in the Sierra Nevada and Southern 

Cascades. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region. Unpublished report. 44 p. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/plants-animals/?cid=stelprdb5434436. (5 March 2015).

Estes, B. 2013b. Historic range of variation for aspen in the Sierra Nevada and Southern 

Cascades. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region. Unpublished report. 44 p. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/plants-animals/?cid=stelprdb5434436. (5 March 2015).

Ewell, C., A. Reiner and S. Williams. 2012. Wildfire Interactions of the 2011 Lion Fire and recent 

wildfires on the Sequoia National Forest and Sequoia National Park. USDA Forest 

Service, Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team. Report to the USFS 

Washington Office. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/adaptivemanagement/reports/Lion_Wildfire_Interactions_Final.pdf

(December 2015).

Finch, D.M., ed. 2012. Climate change in grasslands, shrublands, and deserts of the interior 

American West: a review and needs assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-285. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 139 p. 

Fites-Kaufman, J.A. 2014 Fire behavior case study: 50,000 acre Run on King Fire, September 

17th, 2014. Unpublished document on file, US Forest Service, Vallejo, CA. 

Fites-Kaufman, J.A., A.F. Bradley and A.G. Merrill. 2006. Fire and plant interactions. In 

Sugihara, N.G., J.W. van Wagtendonk, K.E. Shaffer, J. Fites-Kaufman and A.E. Thode, 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

669

eds. Fire in California’s Ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. pp. 

94-117. 

Fites-Kaufman, J.A., E. Noonan and D. Ramirez. 2003. Evaluation of wildland use fires on the 

Sequoia and Stanislaus National Forests in 2003: Effects in relation to historic regimes 

and resource benefits. USDA Forest Service. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/adaptivemanagement/reports/SQF_STF_WFU_report_final_updateJ

an2013.pdf (December 2015).

Fites-Kaufmann, J.A., P. Rundel, N. Stephenson and D.A. Weixelman. 2007. Montane and 

subalpine vegetation of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges. In Barbour, M.G., T. 

Keeler-Wolf and A.A. Schoenherr, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. Berkeley, 

CA: University of California Press: 456‒501. 

Fogg, A.M., L.J. Roberts and R.D. Burnett. 2014. Occurrence patterns of black-backed 

woodpeckers in green forest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, California, USA. Avian 

Conservation and Ecology 9(2): 3. 

Franklin, J.F. and J.A. Fites-Kaufman. 1996. Assessment of late-successional forests of the Sierra 

Nevada. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. Final report to Congress. Davis, CA: 

University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources 2: 627–662. 

Franklin, J.F. and K.N. Johnson. 2012. A restoration framework for federal forests in the Pacific 

Northwest. Journal of Forestry 110(8): 429-439. 

Fry, D.L., J.J. Battles, B.M. Collins and S.L. Stephens. 2015. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 

Management Project Fire and Forest Ecosystem Health Report. Available at: 

http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/static/documents/2015/09/03/A_FFEH_final_jjb_2Sep2015

.d_small.pdf (February 2015).

Gilbert-Norton, L., R. Wilson, J.R. Stevens and K.H. Beard. 2010. A meta-analytic review of 

corridor effectiveness. Conservation Biology 24: 660-668. 

Glick, P., B.A. Stine and N.A. Edelson, eds. 2011. Scanning the conservation horizon: a guide to 

climate change vulnerability assessment. Washington DC: National Wildlife Federation. 

168 p. 

Hanberry, B.B., R.F. Noss, H.D. Safford, S.K. Allison, D.C. Dey, J.L. Hart, M.L. Buchanan, L.E. 

Cox, R.K. Dumroese, B.J. Palik and J.A. Stanturf. 2015. Restoration is preparation for 

the future/RESPONSE: Has forest restoration been freed from the bonds of 

history?/Response: Forest restoration is forward thinking. Journal of Forestry 113(4): 

425. 

Hauptfeld, R.S. and J.M. Kershner. 2014. Sierra Nevada ecosystem vulnerability assessment 

briefing: Aquatic. Version 1.0. Bainbridge Island, WA, EcoAdapt. Available online at: 

(http://ecoadapt.org/programs/adaptation-consultations/calcc).

Heller, N.E. and E.S. Zavaleta. 2009. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a 

review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological conservation 142(1): 14-32. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

670

Hicke, J.A., J.A. Logan, J. Powell and D.S. Ojima. 2006. Changing temperatures influence 

suitability for modeled mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) outbreaks in the 

western United States. Journal of Geophysical Research. 111: G02019. 

Higgs, E., D.A. Falk, A. Guerrini, M. Hall, J. Harris, R.J. Hobbs, S.T. Jackson, J.M. Rhemtulla 

and W. Throop. 2014. The changing role of history in restoration ecology. Frontiers in 

Ecology and the Environment 12(9): 499-506. 

Huntzinger, M. 2003. Effects of fire management practices on butterfly diversity in the forested 

western United States. Biological Conservation 113(1): 1-12. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Climate change 2013: the physical 

science basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA: 

Cambridge University Press: 33‒115. 

Jackson, S.T. and R.J. Hobbs. 2009. Ecological restoration in the light of ecological history. 

Science 325(5940): 567. 

Jones, R.O., J.C. Chambers, D.I. Board, D.W. Johnson and R.R. Blank. 2015. The role of 

resource limitation in restoration of sagebrush ecosystems dominated by cheatgrass 

(Bromus tectorum). Ecosphere 6(7): 107. 

Kane, V.R., M.P. North, J.A. Lutz, D.J. Churchill, S.L. Roberts, D.F. Smith, R.J. McGaughey, J.T. 

Kane and M.L. Brooks. 2014. Assessing fire effects on forest spatial structure using a 

fusion of Landsat and airborne LiDAR data in Yosemite National Park. Remote Sensing 

of Environment 151: 89-101. 

Kane, V.R., J.A. Lutz, S.L. Roberts, D.F. Smith, R.J. McGaughey, N.A. Povak and M.L. Brooks. 

2013. Landscape-scale effects of fire severity on mixed-conifer and red fir forest structure 

in Yosemite National Park. Forest Ecology and Management 287: 17-31. 

Keeley, J.E., 2006. Fire management impacts on invasive plants in the western United States. 

Conservation Biology 20(2): 375-384. 

Keeley, J.E. and F.W. Davis. 2007. Chaparral. Pages 339-366 in: M.G. Barbour, T. Keeler-Wolf 

and A.A. Schoenherr (eds), Terrestrial Vegetation of California, 3rd edition. University of 

California Press, Los Angeles.

Keeley J.E., M. Baer-Keeley and C.J. Fotheringham. 2005. Alien plant dynamics following fire in 

Mediterranean-climate California shrublands. Ecological Applications 15: 2109-2125. 

Kershner, J.M., ed. 2014. A climate change vulnerability assessment for focal resources of the 

Sierra Nevada. Version 1.0. Bainbridge Island, WA: EcoAdapt. 410 p. Available at: 

http://www.ecoadapt.org/data/librarydocuments/EcoAdapt_CALCC_Sierra%20Nevada%20Adaptation%20Strategies_26Feb2

014.pdf 

Kilgore, B.M. and R.W. Sando. 1975. Crown-fire potential in a sequoia forest after prescribed 

burning. Forest Science 21: 83‒87. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

671

Kindlmann, P. and F. Burel. 2008. Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape ecology 23(8): 

879-890. 

Kopp, C.W. and E.E. Cleland. 2014. Shifts in plant species elevational range limits and 

abundances observed over nearly five decades in a western North America mountain 

range. Journal of Vegetation Science 25: 135‒146. 

Kuhn, T.J., H.D. Safford, B.E. Jones and K.W. Tate. 2011. Aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands 

and their contribution to plant diversity in a semiarid coniferous landscape. Plant Ecology

212(9: 1451-1463. 

Lake, F. and J. Long. 2014. Fire and Tribal Cultural Resources. Chapter 4.2 in: Science synthesis 

to support socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 723 p. 

Landres, P.B., P. Morgan and F.J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability 

concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9(4): 1179-1188. 

Larson, A.J., K.C. Stover and C.R. Keyes. 2012. Effects of restoration thinning on spatial 

heterogeneity in mixed-conifer forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 42(8): 1505-

1517. 

Laudenslayer, W.F. and H.H. Darr. 1990. Historical effects of logging on forests of the Cascade 

and Sierra Nevada Ranges of California. Transactions of the Western Section of the 

Wildlife Society 1990: 2632-23 

Lawler, J.J., H.D. Safford and E.H. Girvetz. 2012. Martens and fishers in a changing climate. In: 

Aubry, K.B., ed. Biology and Conservation of Martens, Sables, and Fishers: a New 

Synthesis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press: 371‒397. 

Lenihan, J.M., D. Bachelet, R.P. Neilson and R. Drapek. 2008. Response of vegetation 

distribution, ecosystem productivity, and fire to climate change scenarios for California. 

Climate Change 87 (Suppl. 1): S215-S230. 

Lenihan, J.M., R. Drapek, D. Bachelet and R.P. Neilson. 2003. Climate change effects on 

vegetation distribution, carbon, and fire in California. Ecological Applications 13(6): 

1667–1681. 

Logan, J.A., J. Régnière and J.A. Powell. 2003. Assessing the impacts of global warming on 

forest pest dynamics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(3): 130–137. 

Long, J.W., L. Quinn-Davidson and C.N. Skinner., eds. 2014. Science synthesis to support 

socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 723 p. 

Lyderson, J. and M. North. 2012. Topographic variation in structure of mixed-conifer forests 

under an active-fire regime. Ecosystems 15: 1134-1146. 

Lydersen, J.M., M.P. North, E.E. Knapp and B.M. Collins. 2013. Quantifying spatial patterns of 

tree groups and gaps in mixed-conifer forests: reference conditions and long-term 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

672

changes following fire suppression and logging. Forest Ecology and Management 304: 

370-382. 

Mallek, C., H. Safford, J. Viers and J. Miller. 2013. Modern departures in fire severity and area 

vary by forest type, Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades, California, USA. Ecosphere 

4(12: art153. 

Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer. 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats of California. California 

Department of Fish and Game. Available at: 

https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/wildlife_habitats.asp#guide_pub

McDowell, N., W.T. Pockman, C.D. Allen, D.D. Breshears, N. Cobb, T. Kolb, J. Plaut, J. Sperry, 

A. West, D.G. Williams and E.A. Yepez. 2008. Mechanisms of plant survival and 

mortality during drought: why do some plants survive while others succumb to drought? 

New phytologist 178(4): 719-739. 

McKelvey, K.S. and J.D. Johnston. 1992. Historical perspectives on forests of the Sierra Nevada 

and the Transverse Ranges of Southern California: Forest conditions at the turn of the 

century. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 225-246 p. 

McKelvey, K.S., C.N. Skinner, C.R. Chang, D.C. Erman, S.J. Husari, D.J. Parsons, J.W. van 

Wagtendonk and C.P. Weatherspoon. 1996. An overview of fire in the Sierra Nevada. In 

Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress (Vol. 2, pp. 1033-1040).

McIver, J., M. Brunson, S. Bunting, J. Chambers, P. Doescher, J. Grace, A. Hulet, D. Johnson, S. 

Knick, R. Miller and M. Pellant. 2014. A synopsis of short-term response to alternative 

restoration treatments in sagebrush-steppe: the SageSTEP Project. Rangeland Ecology & 

Management 67(5): 584-598. 

Merriam, K. 2013. Natural range of variation in hardwood vegetation in the Sierra Nevada, 

California over the Holocene Epoch. Unpublished document. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/plants-animals/?cid=stelprdb5434436. 

Metzger, J.P. and H. Décamps. 1997. The structural connectivity threshold: an hypothesis in 

conservation biology at the landscape scale. Acta Oecologica 18(1): 1-12. 

Meyer, M.D. 2015. Forest fire severity patterns of resource objective wildfires in the southern 

Sierra Nevada. Journal of Forestry 113(1): 49‒56. 

Meyer, M.D. 2013a. Natural range of variation (NRV) for red fir forests in the bioregional 

assessment area. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Unpublished report. 

82 p. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/plantsanimals/?cid=stelprdb5434436. (5 March 2015).

Meyer, M.D. 2013b. Natural range of variation (NRV) for subalpine forests in the bioregional 

assessment area. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Unpublished report. 

60 p. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/plantsanimals/?cid=stelprdb5434436. (5 March 2015).
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

673

Meyer, M.D., B. Estes, B. Bulaon and M. MacKenzie. 2015. Reference conditions in 

contemporary Sierra Nevada red fir forests with an active fire regime. Department of 

Interior, National Park Service, Investigator Annual Report. Study no. 00619. 

McGinnis, T.W., J.E. Keeley, S.L. Stephens and G.B. Roller. 2010. Fuel buildup and potential fire 

behavior after stand-replacing fires, logging fire-killed trees and herbicide shrub removal 

in Sierra Nevada forests. Forest Ecology and Management 260(1): 22-35. 

Millar, C.I. and N.L. Stephenson. 2015. Temperate forest health in an era of emerging 

megadisturbance. Science 349 (6250): 823-826. 

Millar C.I., N.L. Stephenson and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: 

managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17: 2145‒2151. 

Millar, C.I., R.D. Westfall, D.L. Delany, M.J. Bokach, A.L. Flint and L.E. Flint. 2012. Forest 

mortality in high-elevation whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) forests of eastern California, 

USA: influence of environmental context, bark beetles, climatic water deficit, and 

warming. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 42 (4): 749-765. 

Miller, R.F., J.C. Chambers and M. Pellant. 2014a. A field guide for selecting the most 

appropriate treatment in sagebrush and piñon-juniper ecosystems in the Great Basin: 

Evaluating resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annual grasses, and 

predicting vegetation response. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-322. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 66 p. 

Miller, R., J. Ratchford, B.A. Roundy, R.J. Tausch, C. Pereia, A. Hulet and J. Chambers. 2014b. 

Response of conifer–encroached shrublands in the Great Basin region to prescribed fire 

and mechanical treatments. Rangeland Ecology and Management 67: 468–481. 

Miller, J.D. and H.D. Safford. 2012. Trends in wildfire severity 1984-2010 in the Sierra Nevada, 

Modoc Plateau and southern Cascades, California, USA. Fire Ecology 8(3): 41-57. 

Monleon V.J. and H.E. Lintz. 2015. Evidence of tree species’ range shifts in a complex landscape. 

PLoS ONE 10 (1): e0118069. 

Morgan, P., G.H. Aplet, J.B. Haufler, H.C. Humphries, M.M. Moore and W.D. Wilson. 1994. 

Historical range of variation: a useful tool for evaluating ecosystem change. Journal of 

Sustainable forestry 2 (1-2): 87-111. 

Moritz, C., J.L. Patton, C.J. Conroy, J.L. Parra, G.C. White and S.R. Beissinger. 2008. Impact of a 

century of climate change of small-mammal communities in Yosemite National Park, 

USA. Science 322: 261‒264. 

North, M., ed. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

184 p. 

North, M. 2014. Forest ecology. Pages 103-126 in: Long, J.W., L.N. Quinn-Davidson and C.N. 

Skinner, eds. 2014. Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience in the Sierra 

Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

674

North, M., A. Brough, J. Long, B. Collins, P. Bowden, D. Yasuda, J. Miller and N. Sugihara, 

2015. Constraints on mechanized treatment significantly limit mechanical fuels reduction 

extent in the Sierra Nevada. Journal of Forestry 113(1): 40-48. 

North, M.P. and M.D. Hurteau. 2011. High-severity wildfire effects on carbon stocks and 

emissions in fuels treated and untreated forest. Forest Ecology and Management 261(6: 

1115-1120. 

North, M., J. Innes and H. Zald. 2007. Comparison of thinning and prescribed fire restoration 

treatments to Sierran mixed-conifer historic conditions. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 37(2): 331-342. 

North, M. and P. Manley. 2012. Chapter 6: Managing forests for wildlife communities. Pp. 73-80 

in M. North, ed. Managing Sierra Nevada Forests. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PSW-GTR-237. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California. 184 p.

North, M. and J. Sherlock. 2012. Chapter 9: Marking and assessing forest heterogeneity. In: 

Managing Sierra Nevada Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 95-105 p. 

North, M., P. Stine, K. O’Hara, W. Zielinski and S. Stephens. 2009. An ecosystem management 

strategy for Sierra mixed-conifer forests. 2nd printing, with addendum. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. 49 p. 

Noss, R.F., J.F. Franklin, W.L. Baker, T. Schoennagel and P.B. Moyle. 2006. Managing fire-prone 

forests in the western United States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4(9): 481-

487. 

Nydick, K. and C. Sydoriak. 2011a. The strategic framework for science in support of 

management in the southern Sierra Nevada, California. Park Science 28(1): 41‒43. 

Nydick, K. and C. Sydoriak. 2011b. Alternative futures for fire management under a changing 

climate. Park Science 28(1): 44‒47. 

Panek, J., D. Saah, A. Esperanza, A. Bytnerowicz, W. Fraczek and R. Cisneros. 2013. Ozone 

distribution in remote ecologically vulnerable terrain of the southern Sierra Nevada, CA. 

Environmental pollution 182: 343-356. 

Parisien, M.A., D.R. Junor and V.G. Kafka. 2007. Comparing landscape-based decision rules for 

placement of fuel treatments in the boreal mixedwood of western Canada. International 

Journal of Wildland Fire 16(6): 664-672. 

Parisien, M.A., C. Miller, A.A. Ager and M.A. Finney. 2010. Use of artificial landscapes to 

isolate controls on burn probability. Landscape Ecology 25(1): 79-93 

Parisien, M.A., S. Snetsinger, J.A. Greenberg, C.R. Nelson, T. Schoennagel, S.Z. Dobrowski and 

M.A. Moritz. 2012. Spatial variability in wildfire probability across the western United 

States. International Journal of Wildland Fire 21(4): 313-327. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

675

Potter, D.A., 1998. Forested communities of the upper montane in the central and southern Sierra 

Nevada. USDA Forest Service. PSW-GTR-169. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 319 p. 

Pyke D.A., S.E. Shaff, A.I. Lindgren, E.W. Schupp, P.S. Doescher, J.C. Chambers, J.S. Burnham 

and M.M. Huso. 2014. Region-wide ecological responses of arid Wyoming big sagebrush 

communities to fuel treatments. Rangeland Ecology and Management 67: 455–467. 

Rambo, T., T. Schowalter and M. North. 2014. Canopy arthropod responses to thinning and 

burning treatments in old-growth mixed-conifer forest in the Sierra Nevada, California. 

Forest Ecology and Management 326: 91-100. 

Raphael, M.G. and M.L. Morrison. 1987. Notes: Decay and dynamics of snags in the Sierra 

Nevada, California. Forest Science 33(3): 774-783. 

Raphael, M.G. and M. White. 1984. Use of snags by cavity-nesting birds in the Sierra Nevada. 

Wildlife monographs 86: 3-66. 

Rau, B.M., J.C. Chambers, D.A. Pyke, B.A. Roundy, E.W. Schupp, P. Doescher and T.G. 

Caldwell. 2014. Soil resources influence vegetation and response to fire and firesurrogate treatments in sagebrush-steppe ecosystems. Rangeland Ecology and 

Management 67: 506–521. 

Rau, B.M., R. Tausch, A. Reiner, D.W. Johnson, J.C. Chambers, R.R. Blank and A. Lucchesi. 

2010. Influence of prescribed fire on ecosystem biomass, carbon, and nitrogen in a 

pinyon-juniper woodland. Rangeland Ecology and Management 63(2): 197-202. 

Reiner, A., M.R. Gallagher, N. Skowronski, M. Dickison and C. Ewell. 2016. Interactions of the 

2015 Cabin Fire and recent wildfires on the Sequoia National Forest. Unpublished report 

on file at: http://www.fs.fed.us/adaptivemanagement/publications.php 

Ritchie, M.W. and E.E. Knapp. 2014. Establishment of a long-term fire salvage study in an 

interior ponderosa pine forest. Journal of Forestry 112(5): 395-400. 

Ritchie, M.W., E.E. Knapp and C.N. Skinner. 2013. Snag longevity and surface fuel accumulation 

following post-fire logging in a ponderosa pine dominated forest. Forest Ecology and 

Management 287: 113-122. 

Roberts, S. 2015. Dinkey Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program ecological 

monitoring annual report. Unpublished document available in project record.

Rodriquez-Buritica, S. and K. Suding. 2013. A natural resource condition assessment for Sequoia 

and Kings Canyon National Parks: Appendix 10 – foothills vegetation. Natural Resources 

Report NPS/SEKI/NRR-2013/665.10. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado 

Roundy, B., R.F. Miller, R.J. Tausch, K. Young, A. Hulet B. Rau, B. Jessop, J.C. Chambers and D. 

Egget. 2014. Understory cover responses to pinon–juniper treatments across tree 

dominance gradients in the Great Basin. Rangeland Ecology and Management 67: 482–

494. 

Rudnick, D.A., S.J. Ryan, P. Beier, S.A. Cushman, F. Dieffenbach, C.W. Epps, L.R. Gerber, J. 

Hartter, J.S. Jenness, J. Kintsch and A.M. Merenlender. 2012. The role of landscape 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

676

connectivity in planning and implementing conservation and restoration priorities. Issues 

in Ecology 16: 2-20. 

Rundel, P.W. 2011. The diversity and biogeography of the alpine flora of the Sierra Nevada, 

California. Madroño 58(3): 153‒184. 

Safford, H.D. 2013. Natural range of variation (NRV) for yellow pine and mixed conifer forests 

in the bioregional assessment area, including the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascades, and 

Modoc and Inyo National Forests. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Unpublished report. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/plants-animals/?cid=stelprdb5434436. (5 March 2015).

Safford, H.D., M. Coppoletta, B.E. Estes, S.E. Gross, K.E. Merriam, M.D. Meyer, M. Slaton and 

H. Stone. 2013. Natural range of variation (NRV) for terrestrial ecosystems in the 

bioregional assessment area, including the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascades, and Modoc 

and Inyo National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Unpublished 

report. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/plantsanimals/?cid=stelprdb5434436. (4 February 2015).

Safford, H.D. and K.M. Van de Water. 2014. Using fire return interval departure (FRID) analysis 

to map spatial and temporal changes in fire frequency on national forest lands in 

California. Research Paper. PSW-RP-266. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Safford, H.D., M. North and M. Meyer. 2012a. Chapter 3: Climate change and the relevance of 

historical forest conditions. In: North, M., ed. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station: 23‒45. 

Safford, H.D., G.D. Hayward, N.E. Heller and J.A. Wiens. 2012b. Historical ecology, climate 

change, and resource management: Can the past still inform the future? In Wiens, J.A., 

G.D. Hayward, H.D. Safford and C.M. Giffen, eds. Historical environmental variation in 

conservation and natural resource management. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell: 46–52. 

Saracco, J.F., R.B. Siegel and R.L. Wilkerson. 2011. Occupancy modeling of black-backed 

woodpeckers on burned Sierra Nevada forests. Ecosphere 2(3): 1-17. 

Sawyer, S. 2013. Natural Range of Variation in Non-meadow Riparian Zones. Unpublished 

document. Safford, H.D. 2013. Natural range of variation for yellow pine and mixed 

conifer forests in the assessment area. Unpublished document. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/plants-animals/?cid=stelprdb5434436. 

Schmidt, L., M.G. Hille and S.L. Stephens. 2006. Restoring northern Sierra Nevada mixed 

conifer forest composition and structure with prescribed fires of varying intensities. Fire 

Ecology 2(2): 20-33. 

Schwartz, M.D., K.R. Nydick, J.H. Thorne and A.J. Holguin. 2013. Southern Sierra ecoregional 

fire management exercise based on modeling plausible future scenarios: vegetation 

climate vulnerability section. Draft report in preparation for Sequoia and Kings Canyon 

National Parks and Sequoia National Forest. California Cooperative Ecosystem Studies 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

677

Unit, National Park Service, Task Agreement No. J8C07100024. Unpublished document 

available in project record.

Schwartz, M.W., N. Butt, C.R. Dolanc, A. Holguin, M.A. Moritz, M.P. North, H.D. Safford, N.L. 

Stephenson, J.H. Thorne and P.J. van Mantgem. 2015. Increasing elevation of fire in the 

Sierra Nevada and implications for forest change. Ecosphere 6(7): 1-10. 

Siegel, R.B., M.W. Tingley, R.L. Wilkerson, C.A. Howell, M. Johnson and P. Pyle. 2015. Age 

structure of black-backed woodpecker populations in burned forests. The Auk 133(1): 69-

78. 

Slaton, M. 2013. Inyo National Forest Assessment Topic Paper. Chapter 1: Terrestrial, Aquatic 

and Riparian Ecosystems. Unpublished report on file at: Inyo National Forest, Bishop 

CA. 

Slaton, M. and H. Stone. 2013a. Pinyon-juniper natural range of variation. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region. Unpublished report. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/plants-animals/?cid=stelprdb5434436. (5 March 2015).

Slaton, M. and H. Stone. 2013b. Sagebrush natural range of variation. Unpublished report. 

Vallejo, CA, USDA, Pacific Southwest Region. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/plants-animals/?cid=stelprdb5434436. 

Southern Sierra Partnership. 2010. Framework for cooperative conservation and climate 

adaptation for the southern Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi Mountains, California, USA. 

The Nature Conservancy, Audubon California, Sequoia Riverlands Trust, Sierra Business 

Council. Available at: http://databasin.org/connectivity-center/features/SSP. (4 February 

2015).

Spies, T.A., 2004. Ecological concepts and diversity of old-growth forests. Journal of Forestry 

102(3): 14-20. 

Steel, Z.L., H.D. Safford and J.H, Viers. 2015. The fire frequency-severity relationship and the 

legacy of fire suppression in California forests. Ecosphere 6(1): art8. 

Stephens, S.L., J.M. Lydersen, B.M. Collins, D.L. Fry and M.D. Meyer. 2015. Historical and 

current landscape-scale ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest structure in the Southern 

Sierra Nevada. Ecosphere 6(5): art79. 

Stephens, S.L., B.M. Collins and G. Roller. 2012. Fuel treatment longevity in a Sierra Nevada 

mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management 285: 204-212. 

Stephens, S.L., C.I. Millar and B.M. Collins. 2010. Operational approaches to managing forests 

of the future in Mediterranean regions within a context of changing climates. 

Environmental Research Letters 5:1‒9. 

Stephens, S.L., R.E. Martin and N.E. Clinton. 2007. Prehistoric fire area and emissions from 

California's forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. Forest Ecology and 

Management 251(3): 205-216. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

678

Stephens, S.L. and J.J. Moghaddas. 2005. Experimental fuel treatment impacts on forest structure, 

potential fire behavior, and predicted tree mortality in a California mixed conifer forest. 

Forest Ecology and Management 215(1): 21-36. 

Sugihara, N.G., J.W. Van Wagtendonk and J. Fites-Kaufman,. 2006a. Fire as an ecological 

process. In Sugihara, N.G., J.W. van Wagtendonk, K.E. Shaffer, J. Fites-Kaufman and 

A.E. Thode, eds. Fire in California’s Ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California 

Press. pp. 58-74. 

Sugihara, N.G., J.W. van Wagtendonk, K.E. Shaffer, J. Fites-Kaufman and A.E. Thode. 2006b. 

Fire in California's Ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 596 p. 

Swanson, M.E., J.F. Franklin, R.L. Beschta, C.M. Crisafulli, D.A. DellaSala, R.L. Hutto, D.B. 

Lindenmayer and F.J. Swanson. 2011. The forgotten stage of forest succession: earlysuccessional ecosystems on forest sites. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9(2): 

117-125. 

Sydoriak C., J.A. Panek, J.J Battles and K.R. Nydick. 2013. A natural resource condition 

assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. National Resources Report 

NPS/SEKI/NRR-2013/665. Fort Collins, CO: National Park Service.

Turner, M. G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual review of 

ecology and systematics 20: 171-197. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment: Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. 

Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS) 2004. National Report on 

Sustainable Forests-2003. FS-766. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2011. National Report on 

Sustainable Forests- 2010. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2012. Giant Sequoia 

National Monument Management Plan. Porterville, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sequoia National Forest. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013a. Final Sierra Nevada 

bio-regional assessment. Document number R5-MB-268. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 199 p.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013b. Final Inyo National 

Forest assessment. Document number R5-MB-266. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 229 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013c. Final Sequoia 

National Forest assessment. Document number R5-MB-267. Vallejo, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 

266 p. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

679

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013d. Final Sierra National 

Forest assessment. Document number R5-MB-269. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 268 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS) 2013e. Snapshot bioregional 

assessment from Living Assessment wikispaces website. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. April 9, 2013. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS) 2013f. Snapshot Inyo 

National Forest assessment from Living Assessment wikispaces website. Vallejo, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. September 2, 

2013 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013g. Snapshot Sequoia 

National Forest assessment from Living Assessment wikispaces website. Vallejo, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. August 2, 

2013 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013h. Snapshot Sierra 

National Forest assessment from Living Assessment wikispaces website. Vallejo, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. July 2, 2013 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2015. FSH 1909.12. Land 

Management Planning Handbook. January 30, 2015 

United States Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency (USDA and 

EPA). 2015. Pollinator research action plan. Available at: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/Pollinator%20Research%2

0Action%20Plan%202015.pdf (February 2016) 

United States Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Interior (USDA and USDI). 

2015. Pollinator friendly best management practices for federal lands. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/BMPs/documents/PollinatorFriendlyBMPsF

ederalLandsDRAFT05152015.pdf (February 2016) 

Vaillant, N.M., E.K. Noonan-Wright, A.L. Reiner, C.M. Ewell, B.M. Rau, J.A. Fites-Kaufman 

and S.N. Dailey. 2015. Fuel accumulation and forest structure change following 

hazardous fuel reduction treatments throughout California. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire 24(3): 361-371. 

Vaillant, N. 2009. Characterizing fire severity patterns in three wildland fire use incidents in the 

southern Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service. Unpublished report available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/adaptivemanagement/reports/fbat/SQF_WildlandFireUse_Report_20

09_Vaillant.pdf (December 2015) 

Van de Water, K.M. and H. D. Safford. 2011. A summary of fire frequency estimates for 

California vegetation before Euroamerican settlement. Fire Ecology 7(3): 26-58. 

Van Zuuk, K. 2014. Region 5 Draft Pollinator Best Management Practices. Unpublished 

document available in project record in the references section.
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

680

Vankat, J.L. and J. Major. 1978. Vegetation changes in sequoia national park, California. Journal 

of Biogeography 5(4): 377-402. 

Van Mantgem, P.J., N.L. Stephenson, J.C. Byrne, L.D. Daniels, J.F. Franklin, P.Z. Fulé, M.E. 

Harmon, A.J. Larson, J.M. Smith, A.H. Taylor and T.T. Veblen. 2009. Widespread 

increase of tree mortality rates in the western United States. Science 323(5913): 521-524. 

Van Mantgem, P.J., N.L. Stephenson, E. Knapp, J. Battles, J. and J.E. Keeley. 2011. Long-term 

effects of prescribed fire on mixed conifer forest structure in the Sierra Nevada, 

California. Forest Ecology and Management 261(6): 989-994. 

van Wagtendonk, J.W. and J. Fites-Kaufman. 2006. Sierra Nevada bioregion. In Sugihara, N.G., 

J.W. van Wagtendonk, K.E. Shaffer, J. Fites-Kaufman and A.E. Thode, eds. Fire in 

California’s Ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. pp. 264–294. 

Wayman, R.B. and M. North. 2007. Initial response of a mixed-conifer understory plant 

community to burning and thinning restoration treatments. Forest Ecology and 

Management 239: 32-44. 

Webster, K.M. and C.B. Halpern. 2010. Long-term vegetation responses to reintroduction and 

repeated use of fire in mixed-conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada. Ecosphere 1(5): 9. 

Westerling, A.L., J. Milostan and A.R. Keyser. 2015. Changing fire, fuels and climate in the 

Sierra Nevada. Final report under USFS Cooperative Agreement: Modeling Potential Fire 

Impacts with Landscape Vegetation Scenarios and Changing Climate for the Sierra 

Nevada and Other Areas in the Western U.S. University of California Merced. 43 p. 

Unpublished document available in project record. 

Westerling, A.L. and A. Keyser. 2016. Changing fire, fuels and climate in the Sierra Nevada. Addon high fire severity analysis. Draft report under USFS Cooperative Agreement: 

Modeling Potential Fire Impacts with Landscape Vegetation Scenarios and Changing 

Climate for the Sierra Nevada and Other Areas in the Western U.S. University of 

California Merced. Unpublished document available in project record.

Wiens, J.A., G.D. Hayward, H.D. Safford and C.M. Giffen, eds. 2012. Historical environmental 

variation in conservation and natural resource management. Oxford, UK: WileyBlackwell: 46–52. 

Wills, R. 2006. Central Valley Bioregion. Southeastern deserts bioregion. In Sugihara, N.G., J.W. 

van Wagtendonk, K.E. Shaffer, J. Fites-Kaufman and A.E. Thode, eds. Fire in 

California’s Ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. pp. 295-320. 

Wisdom, M.J. and J.C. Chambers. 2009. A landscape approach for ecologically based 

management of Great Basin Shrublands. Rostoration Ecology 17: 740-749. 

Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems

Arkle, R.S. and D.S. Pilliod. 2010. Prescribed fires as ecological surrogates for wildfires: a 

stream and riparian perspective. Forest Ecology and Management 259(5): 893-903. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

681

Bales, R.C., J.J. Battles, Y. Chen, M.H. Conklin, E. Holst, K.L. O’Hara, P. Saksa and W. Stewart. 

2011. Forests and water in the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Watershed Ecosystem 

Enhancement Project, UC Merced, November 29, 2011. 

Berg, N.H. and D.L. Azuma. 2007. Bare soil and rill formation following wildfires, fuel reduction 

treatments, and pine plantations in the southern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. 

International journal of wildland fire 19.4 (2010): 478-489. 

Bêche, L.A., S.L. Stephens and V.H. Resh. 2005. Effects of prescribed fire on a Sierra Nevada 

(California, USA) stream and its riparian zone. Forest Ecology and Management 218(1): 

37-59. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2008. California aquatic invasive species 

management plan. 2008. Sacramento, CA: State of California Resources Agency, 

California Department of Fish and Game.

Cayan, D.R., S. Kammerdiener, M.D. Dettinger, J.M. Caprio and D.H. Peterson. 2001. Changes 

in the onset of spring in the western United States. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 82(3): 399–

415. 

Cayan, D.R., E.P. Maurer, M.D. Dettinger, M. Tyree and K. Hayhoe. 2008, Climate change 

scenarios for the California region: Climatic Change 87: 21-42. 

Das, T., M.D. Dettinger, D.R. Cayan and H.G. Hidalgo. 2011. Potential increase in floods in 

California’s Sierra Nevada under future climate projections. Climatic Change 109(1): 71-

94. 

DeBano, L.F. 2000. The role of fire and soil heating on water repellency in wildland 

environments: a review. J. of Hydrology 231:195-206. 

Fites-Kaufman, J.A., A.F. Bradley and A.G. Merrill. 2006. Fire and plant interactions. Fire in 

California’s ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley, 94-117. 

Faunt, C.C., editor. 2009, Groundwater availability of the Central Valley Aquifer, California: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1766, 225 p. 

Frissell, C.A., M. Scurlock and R. Kattelmann. 2012. SNEP Plus 15 Years: Ecological and 

conservation science for freshwater resource protection and federal land management in 

the Sierra Nevada. Portland, OR: Pacific Rivers Council Science Publication 12-001. 

Fryjoff-Hung and Viers, 2012. Sierra Nevada multi-source meadow polygons compilation (v 1.0). 

Center for Watershed Sciences, UC Davis. http://meadows.ucdavis.edu/data/4

Furnish, J. 2013. Management indicator species: Aquatic invertebrate monitoring report. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Unpublished document on file at Pacific 

Southwest Regional Office, Vallejo, CA.

Harris, R.R. 1989. Riparian cCommunities of the Sierra Nevada and their environmental 

relationships. In: Abell, D.L., Technical Coordinator. 1989. Proceedings of the California 

Riparian Systems Conference: protection, management, and restoration for the 1990s: 

1988 September 22-24, Davis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-110. Berkeley, CA: 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

682

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture. p. 393-398. 

Henery , S. Purdy , J. Williams , J. Hatch , K. Fesenmyer , M.Drew , D. Lass , and C.Knight . 

2011. Meadow Restoration to Sustain Stream Flows and Native Trout: A novel approach 

to quantifying the effects of meadow restorations to native trout. A collaborative report to 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation by Trout Unlimited, California Trout, University 

of Nevada, Reno, and University of California, Davis. 

Hopkinson, P., Hammond, M., Bartolome, J., Brooks, M., Berlow, E.L., Klinger, R., Matchet, 

J.R., Moore, P., Ostoja, S., Soulard, C., Joppa, L., Williams, R., Alvarez, O., Guo, Q., 

Haultain, S., Frenzel, E. & Saah, D. (2013) A natural resource condition assessment for 

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 13 - Meadows. Natural Resource 

Report NPS/SEKI/NRR- 2013/665.13, National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, 

103 pp. 

Howard, Jeanette, Kirk Klausmeyer, and Kurt Fesenmyer. 2013. Below the surface: California’s 

freshwater biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy of California. San Francisco, CA. 20 

pp. 

Hubbert, K., Busse, M., Overby, S., Shestak, C. and Gerrard, R., 2015. Pile burning effects on 

soil water repellency, infiltration, and downslope water chemistry in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin, USA. Fire Ecology. 11(2): 100-118. 

Hunsaker, C.T. and D.G. Neary. 2012. Sediment loads and erosion in forest headwater streams of 

the Sierra Nevada, California. In Proceedings of a workshop for the International 

Association of Hydrological Sciences, General Assembly in Melbourne. Revisiting 

Experimental Catchment Studies in Forest Hydrology. Wallingford, United Kingdom pp. 

195-204. 

Hunsaker, C., J.W. Long and D. Herbst. 2014. Watershed and stream ecosystems. Chapter 6.1 in 

Long, J.W.. L. Quinn-Davidson and C.N. Skinner. 2014. Science Synthesis to Support 

Socioecological Resilience In The Sierra Nevada And Southern Cascade Range. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 723 p. 

Hunsaker, C. and J. Long. 2014. Forested riparian areas. Chapter 6.2, in Long, J.W.. L. QuinnDavidson and C.N. Skinner. 2014. Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience 

In The Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-247. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 723 p. 

Isaak, D.J. and B.E. Rieman. 2013. Stream isotherm shifts from climate change and implications 

for distributions of ectothermic organisms. Global Change Biology 19(3): 742-751. 

Isaak, D.J., S. Wollrab, D. Horan and G. Chandler. 2012. Climate change effects on stream and 

river temperatures across the northwest US from 1980–2009 and implications for 

salmonid fishes. Climatic Change 113(2): 499-524. 

Kattelmann, R. and M. Embury. 1996, Riparian areas and wetlands, Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 

Project: Final report to Congress, Vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

683

management options: Davis, CA, University of California, Centers for Water and 

Wildland Resources.

Katz, J., P.B. Moyle, R.M. Quiñones, J. Israel and S. Purdy. 2013. Impending extinction of 

salmon, steelhead, and trout (Salmonidae) in California. Environmental Biology of Fishes 

96(10-11): 1169-1186. 

Kelley, R. 2015a. Regional summary of BMP effectiveness matrix, Inyo National Forest. 

BMPEP_Nine_Matrix_R01_INF, Unpublished data on file at USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Regional Office, Vallejo, CA. 

Kelley, R. 2015b. Regional summary of BMP effectiveness matrix, Sequoia National Forest. 

BMPEP_Nine_Matrix_R01_SQF. Unpublished data on file at USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Regional Office, Vallejo, CA. 

Kelley, R. 2015c. Regional summary of regional summary of BMP effectiveness matrix, Sierra 

National Forest. BMPEP_Nine_Matrix_R01_SNF. Unpublished data on file at USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Regional Office, Vallejo, CA.

Knapp, R.A. 2005. Effects of nonnative fish and habitat characteristics on lentic herpetofauna in 

Yosemite National Park, USA. Biological Conservation 121: 265-279. 

Knapp, R.A. and K.R. Matthews. 2000a. Effects of nonative fishes on wilderness lake ecosystems 

in the Sierra Nevada and recommendations for reducing impacts. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. Proceeedings. RMRS-P-15-Vol-5, p. 312-317. 

Knapp, R.A. and K.R. Matthews. 2000b. Non-native fish introductions and the decline of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog from within protected areas: Conservation Biology 14: 428-

438. 

Knapp, R.A., D.M. Boiano and V.T. Vredenburg. 2007. Removal of nonnative fish results in 

population expansion of a declining amphibian (mountain yellow-legged frog, Rana 

muscosa): Biological Conservation 135: 11-20. 

Knowles, N. and D.R. Cayan. 2002. Potential effects of global warming on the Sacramento/San 

Joaquin watershed and the San Francisco estuary. Geophysical Research Letters 29(18): 

38-1. 

Kondolf, G.M., R. Kattelmann, M. Embury and D.C. Erman. 1996. Status of riparian habitat. In 

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, Vol. II, Chapter 36. Davis, 

CA: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. 

Long, J.W., L. Quinn-Davidson, and C.N. Skinner, eds. 2014. Science synthesis to support 

socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 723 p. 

Luce, C.H. and Z.A. Holden. 2009. Declining annual streamflow distributions in the Pacific 

Northwest United States, 1948–2006. Geophysical Research Letters 36(16).
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

684

Mazza, R. 2015. Heed the Head: Buffer benefits along headwater streams. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Science 

Findings 178, October 2015. 

Micheli, E.R. and J.W. Kirchner. 2002. Effects of wet meadow riparian vegetation on streambank 

erosion. 1. Remote sensing measurements of streambank migration and erodibility. Earth 

Surface Processes and Landforms 27(6): 627-639. 

Moghaddas E. and K. Hubbert. 2014. Chapter 5.1 Soils. In Long, J.W., L. Quinn-Davidson and 

C.N. Skinner. 2014. Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience in the Sierra 

Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 723 p. 

Moore, J.W., D.B. Herbst, W.N. Heady and S.M. Carlson, 2012. Stream community and 

ecosystem responses to the boom and bust of an invading snail. Biological Invasions 14: 

2435–2446. 

Moyle, P.B. and P.J. Randall. 1996. Biotic integrity of watersheds. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 

Project: Final report to Congress, Vol. II. Davis, CA: University of California. 975-985. 

Moyle, P.B., J.V. Katz and R.M. Quiñones. 2011. Rapid decline of California’s native inland 

fishes: a status assessment. Biological Conservation 144(10): 2414-2423. 

Moyle, P.B., J.D. Kiernan, P.K. Crain and R.M. Quinones. 2013. Climate change vulnerability of 

native and alien freshwater fishes of California: a systematic assessment approach. PLoS 

One 8(5): e63883. 

Neary, D.G., K.C. Ryan and L.F. DeBano. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on 

soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 4, 250p. 

Null, S.E., J.H. Viers and J.F. Mount. 2010. Hydrologic response and watershed sensitivity to 

climate warming in California's Sierra Nevada. PLoS One 5(4): e9932. 

Null, S.E., J.H. Viers, M.L. Deas, S.K. Tanaka and J.F. Mount. 2013. Stream temperature 

sensitivity to climate warming in California’s Sierra Nevada: impacts to coldwater 

habitat. Climatic Change 116(1): 149-170. 

Olson, D. 2015. Personal Communication with Deanna Olson, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR, November 27, 2015. 

Overpeck, J., G. Garfin, A. Jardine, D. Busch, D. Cayan, M. Dettinger, E. Fleishman, A. 

Gershunov, G. MacDonald, K. Redmond, W. Travis and B. Udall. 2012. Summary for 

decision makers. Assessment of climate change in the southwest United States: a 

technical report prepared for the US National Climate Assessment. p. 18. 

Parrotta, J.A. and R.L. Trosper, eds. 2011. Traditional forest-related knowledge: Sustaining 

communities, ecosystems and biocultural diversity (Vol. 12). Springer Science & 

Business Media. 622 p. 

Perry, L.G., L.V. Reynolds, T.J. Beechie, M.J. Collins and P.B. Shafroth. 2015. Incorporating 

climate change projections into riparian restoration planning and design. Ecohydrology 

8(5): 863-879. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

685

Pettit, N.E. and R.J. Naiman. 2007. Fire in the riparian zone: characteristics and ecological 

consequences. Ecosystems 10(5): 673-687. 

Poff, R.J. 1996. Effects of silvicultural practices and wildfire on productivity of forest soils. In 

Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress (Vol. 2).

Podolak, K, D. Edelson, S. Kruse, B. Aylward, M. Zimring and N. Wobbrock. 2015. Estimating 

the water supply benefits from forest restoration in the northern Sierra Nevada. An 

unpublished report of The Nature Conservancy prepared with Ecosystem Economics, San 

Francisco CA, 2015. 

Potyondy, J.P. and T.W. Geier. 2011. Watershed condition classification technical guide. FS-978. 

Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 41 pp. 

Purdy, S.E., P.B. Moyle and K.W. Tate. 2012. Montane meadows in the Sierra Nevada: comparing 

terrestrial and aquatic assessment methods: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 

184: 6967-6986. 

Quiñones, R.M. and P.B. Moyle. 2015. California’s freshwater fishes: status and management. 

Fishes in Mediterranean Environments 2015.001: 20p. 

Rieman, B.E., D. Isaak, S. Adams, D. Horan, D. Nagel, C. Luce and D. Myers. 2007. Anticipated 

climate warming effects on bull trout habitats and populations across the interior 

Columbia River basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136(6): 1552-

1565. 

Roche, L. 2013. Meadow conditions on national forest grazing allotments. Unpublished report. 

Davis, CA: University of California, Davis, Rangeland Watershed Laboratory. Available 

online at: 

http://rangelandwatersheds.ucdavis.edu/main/projects/sierra_nevada_meadows_overview

.html

Schindler, D.E., R.A. Knapp and P.R. Leavitt. 2001. Alteration of nutrient cycles and algal 

production resulting from fish introductions into mountain lakes. Ecosystems 4: 308-321. 

Schwartz, M.W., J. Thorne and A. Holguin. 2013. A natural resource condition assessment for 

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks: Appendix 20a – biodiversity. Natural 

Resource Report NPS/SEKI/NRR—2013/665.20a. Fort Collins, CO: National Park 

Service.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2015. State Water Resources Control Board 

website accessed 12/15/2015. 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/public_trust_resources/#ben

eficial

Stewart, I.T., D.R. Cayan and M.D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing 

across western North America. Journal of Climate 18: 1136–1155. 

Thom, D. and R. Seidl. 2015. Natural disturbance impacts on ecosystem services and biodiversity 

in temperate and boreal forests. Biological Reviews.
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

686

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of 

Decision. Vallejo, CA: Pacific Southwest Region. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2011a. Region Five 

ecological restoration: leadership intent. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 4 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS) 2011b. Watershed Condition 

Framework: A framework for assessing and tracking changes to watershed condition. FS977. May 2011. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS) 2012. National Best 

Management Practices for water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. 

FS-990. April 2012. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013a. Final Inyo National 

Forest assessment. Document number R5-MB-266. Vallejo, CA: Pacific Southwest 

Region. December 2013. 229 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013b. Final Sequoia 

National Forest assessment. Document number R5-MB-267. Vallejo, CA: Pacific 

Southwest Region. December 2013. 266 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013c. Final Sierra National 

Forest assessment. Document number R5-MB-269. Vallejo, CA: Pacific Southwest 

Region. December 2013. 268 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013d. Final Sierra Nevada 

bio-regional assessment. Document number R5-MB-268. Vallejo, CA: Pacific Southwest 

Region. December 2013. 199 p. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2015. California water quality 

assessment report. Online database available at: 

http://ofmpub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_state.control?p_state=CA

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Programmatic Biological Opinion on 

nine forest programs on nine national forests in the Sierra Nevada of California for the 

endangered Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, endangered northern distinct population 

segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and threatened Yosemite toad. 

FF08ESMF00-2014-F-0557. 

van Wagtendonk, J.W. and J. Fites-Kaufman. 2006. Sierra Nevada bioregion. In Sugihara, N.G., 

J.W. van Wagtendonk, K.E. Shaffer, J. Fites-Kaufman and A.E. Thode, eds. Fire in 

California’s Ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 264–294. 

Viers, J.H. and D.E. Rheinheimer. 2011. Freshwater conservation options for a changing climate 

in California's Sierra Nevada. Marine and Freshwater Research 62(3): 266-278. 

Viers, J.H., S.E. Purdy, R.A. Peek, A. Fryjoff-Hung, N.R. Santos, J. Katz, J.D. Emmons, D.V. 

Dolan and S.M. Yarnell. 2013. Montane meadows in the Sierra Nevada: Changing 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

687

hydroclimatic conditions and concepts for vulnerability assessment. Center for Watershed 

Sciences Technical Report CWS-2013-01. Davis, CA: University of California, Davis.

Vredenburg, V.T., R. Bingham, R. Knapp, J.A.T. Morgan, C. Moritz and D. Wake. 2007. 

Concordant molecular and phenotypic data delineate new taxonomy and conservation 

priorities for the endangered mountain yellow-legged frog. Journal of Zoology 

271(2007): 361–374. 

Weixelman, D.A., B. Hill, D.J. Cooper, E.L. Berlow, J.H. Viers, S.E. Purdy, A.G. Merrill and S.E. 

Gross. 2011. A field key to meadow hydrogeomorphic types for the Sierra Nevada and 

southern Cascade Ranges in California. Gen. Tech. Rep. R5-TP-034. Vallejo, CA. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 34 pp. 

Wenger, S.J., D.J. Isaak, C.H. Luce, H.M. Neville, K.D. Fausch, J.B. Dunham, D.C. Dauwalter, 

M.K. Young, M.M. Elsner, B.E. Rieman, A.F. Hamlet and J.E. Williams. 2011a. Flow 

regime, temperature, and biotic interactions drive differential declines of trout species 

under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 14175-

14180. 

Wenger, S.J., Daniel J. Isaak, J.B. Dunham, K.D. Fausch, C.H. Luce, H.M. Neville, B.E. Rieman , 

M.K. Young, D.E. Nagel, D.L. Horan and G.L. Chandler. 2011b. Role of climate and 

invasive species in structuring trout distributions in the interior Columbia River Basin, 

USA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68: 988-1008. 

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier 

spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science 313(5789): 940-943. 

Wolf, E.C. and D.J. Cooper. 2015. Fens of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA: patterns of 

distribution and vegetation. Mires and Peat 15: Article 8, 8pp. 

Young, C.A., M.E. Escobar-Arias, M. Fernandes, B. Joyce, M. Kiparsky, J.F. Mount, V.K. Mehta, 

D. Purkey, J.H. Viers and D. Yates. 2009. Modeling the hydrology of climate change in 

California’s Sierra Nevada for subwatershed scale adaptation1. Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association 45(6): 1409-1423. 

Wildlife, Fish and Plants

Long, J.W., L. Quinn-Davidson and C.N. Skinner, eds. 2014. Science synthesis to support 

socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 723 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013a. Final Inyo National Forest 

assessment. Document number R5-MB-266. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 229 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013b. Final Sequoia National Forest 

assessment. Document number R5-MB-267. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 266 p. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

688

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013c. Final Sierra National Forest 

assessment. Document number R5-MB-269. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 268 p. 

At-risk Terrestrial Wildlife Species

Anthony, B. and D.A. Clark. 2008. Burned landscapes of southwestern Oregon: What’s in it for 

northern spotted owls? Fire Science Brief, Issue 15 (October), pp. 1-6. 

Auble, G.T., J.M. Friedman and M.L. Scott. 1994. Relating riparian vegetation to present and 

future streamflows. Ecological Applications 4: 544-554. 

Baker, H.B, 1958. Land snail dispersal. The Nautilus 71: 141-148. 

Besser, T.E., E.F. Cassirer, K.A. Potter, J. VanderSchalie, A. Fischer and D.P. Knowles. 2008. 

Association of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae infection with population-limiting respiratory 

disease in free-ranging Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis). J 

Clin Microbiol. 46: 423–430. 

Besser. T. E., E.F. Cassirer, K.A. Potter, K. Lahmers, J.L. Oaks, S. Shanthalingam, S. Srikumaran 

and W.J. Foreyt. 2014. Epizootic pneumonia of bighorn sheep following experimental 

exposure to mycoplasma ovipneumoniae. PLoS ONE 9(10): e110039. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110039. 

Bias, M.E. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1992. Habitat associations of California spotted owls in the central 

Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:584-595. 

Blakesley, J.A., B.R. Noon and D.R. Anderson. 2005. Site occupancy, apparent survival, and 

reproduction of California spotted owls in relation to forest stand characteristics. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 69(4): 1554-1564. 

Bombay, H.L., T.M. Benson, B.E. Valentine and R.A. Stefani. 2003. A willow flycatcher survey 

protocol for California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region. 57 pp. 

Bond, M.L., R.J. Gutiérrez, A.B. Franklin, W.S. LaHaye, C.A. May and M.E. Seamans. 2002. 

Short-term effects of wildfires on spotted owl survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and 

reproductive success. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30(4): 1022-1028. 

Bond, M.L., D.E. Lee, R.B. Siegel and J.P. Ward Jr. 2009. Habitat use and selection by California 

spotted owls in a postfire landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7): 1116-1124. 

Bond, M.L., M.E. Seamans and R.J. Gutiérrez. 2004. Modeling nesting habitat selection of 

California spotted owls (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) in the central Sierra Nevada 

using standard forest inventory metrics. Forest Science 50: pp.773-780. 

Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall and M.C. Hoshovsky. 2000. Invasive plants of California’s 

wildlands. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bradley, N.L., A.C. Leopold, J. Ross and W. Huffaker. 1999. Phenological changes reflect climate 

change in Wisconsin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96(17): 9701-

9704. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

689

Bradley, P.V., M. J. O’Farrell, J. A. Williams, J. E. Newmark. Editors. 2005. The revised Nevada 

Bat Conservation Plan. Nevada Bat Working Group, Reno, Nevada. 209 pp 

Brandt, J. Personal communication. Based on the population size and use patterns observed in 

2010, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service condor biologist estimated that it would be at least 

5 years before condors explore Sequoia National Forest with sufficient frequency to 

establish a reproductive territory (Pers. Comm. J. Brandt, USFWS 2010).

Brooks, M.L. and R. Minnich. 2006. Southeastern desert bio-region. In: Fire in California 

Ecosystems, N.G. Sugihara, J.W. van Wagtendonk, J. Fites-Kaufman, K.E. Shaffer and 

A.E. Thode (eds.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Brookshire, J.E., B.J. Kauffman, D. Lyten and N. Otting. 2002. Cumulative effects of wild 

ungulate and livestock herbivory on riparian willows. Oecologia 132(4): 559-566. 

Browning, M.R. 1993. Comments on the taxonomy of Empidonax traillii (Willow Flycatcher). 

Western Birds 24(4): 241-257. 

Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The Birds of North America Online 

(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North 

America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/506. 

Bull, E.L. and J.R. Duncan. 1993. Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa). The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Retrieved from the Birds of 

North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/041.

Bunn, D., A. Mummert, M. Hoshovsky, K. Gilardi and S. Shanks. 2007. California wildlife: 

conservation challenges: California’s wildlife action plan. Prepared by the UC Davis 

Wildlife Health Center. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 

Burch, J.B. and T.A. Pearce. 1990. Terrestrial gastropoda. In: Dindal, D.L., ed., Soil biology 

guide. John Wiley and Sons, New York. pp. 201-309. 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015a. California State Wildlife Action 

Plan, 2015 Update: A Conservation Legacy for Californians. Edited by Gonzales, A.G. 

and J. Hoshi. Prepared with assistance from Ascent Environmental, Inc., Sacramento, 

CA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015b. Letter on the Inyo National Forest 

Draft Proposed Species of Conservation Concern. Received by the Inyo National Forest 

on August 14, 2015. 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Species account for great gray owl (Strix 

nebulosi), Accessed at https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/ on November 

16, 2015. 

Call, D.R. Gutiérrez, R.J. and J. Verner. 1992. Foraging habitat and home-range characteristics of 

California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada. Condor Vol. 94:880-888. 

Chatfield, A.H. 2005. Habitat selection by a California spotted owl population: a landscape scale 

analysis using resource selection functions. Dept. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation 

Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota. 59pp. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

690

Choe, D-H, T. Kasumi, C. M. Lopez, and K. Campbell. 2004. Pheromone-assisted techniques to 

improve the efficacy of insecticide sprays against Linepithema humile (Hymenoptera: 

Formicidae). Journal of Economic Entomology (107:1):319-325. 

Clark, D.A. 2007. Demography and habitat selection of northern spotted owls in post-fire 

landscapes of southwestern Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 

USA.

Clark, D.A., R.G. Anthony and L.S. Andrews. 2011. Survival rates of northern spotted owls in 

post-fire landscapes of southwest Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 45 (1): 38-47. 

Clifford, D.L., B.A. Schumaker, T.R. Stephenson, V.C. Bleich, M. Leonard-Cahn, B.J. Gonzales, 

W.M. Boyce and J.A.K. Mazet. 2007. Modeling risks of disease transmission from 

domestic sheep to bighorn sheep: Implications for the persistence and restoration of an 

endangered endemic ungulate. UC Davis Wildlife Heath Center Department of Fish and 

Game Resource Assessment Program Final Report. February 9, 2007. 

Coates, P.S. and D.J. Delehanty. 2010. Nest predation of greater sage-grouse in relation to 

microhabitat factors and predators. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(2):240-248. 

Coates, P.S., B.J. Halstead, E.J. Blomberg, B. Brussee, K.B. Howe, L. Wiechman, J. 

Tebbenkamp, K.P. Reese, S.C. Gardner and M.L. Casazza. 2014. A hierarchical 

integrated population model for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in the 

Bi-State distinct population segment, California and Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2014-1165, 34 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141165. 

Cole, D.N. and L. Yung, eds. 2010. Beyond naturalness: rethinking park and wilderness 

stewardship in an era of rapid change. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Collins, B.M. and G.B. Roller. 2013. Early forest dynamics in stand-replacing fire patches in the 

northern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Landscape Ecology 28(9): 1801-1813. 

Collins, B. and C.N. Skinner. 2014. Chapter 4.1 Fire and Fuels. In: Long, J.W.; Quinn-Davidson, 

L.; Skinner, C.N., eds. Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience in the 

Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades, PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 17-54. 

Collins, B. and S. Stephens 2010. Stand-replacing patches within a ‘mixed severity’ fire regime: 

quantitative characterization using recent fires in a long-established natural fire area. 

Landscape Ecology 25:927-939. 13pp. 

Collins, B.M., J.M. Lydersen, R.G. Everett, D.L. Fry and S.L. Stephens. 2015. Novel 

characterization of landscape-level variability in historical vegetation structure. 

Ecological Applications 25(5): 1167-1174. 

Conner, M.M., J.J. Keane, C.V. Gallagher, G. Jehle, T.E. Munton, P.A. Shaklee and R.A. Gerrard. 

2013. Realized population change for long-term monitoring: California spotted owl case 

study. Journal of Wildlife Management 77(7): 1449-1458. 

Coppoletta, M., K.E. Merrim, and B.M. Collins. 2016. Post-fire vegetation and fuel development 

influences fire severity patterns in reburns. Ecol Appl. Accepted Author Manuscript. 

doi:10.1890/15-0225. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

691

Craig, D. and P.L. Williams. 1998. Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). In The riparian bird 

conservation plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in 

California. California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v2.html. 

Crimmins, S.M., S.Z. Dobrowski, J.A. Greenberg, J.T. Abatzoglou and A.R. Mynsberge. 2011. 

Changes in climatic water balance drive downhill shifts in plant species’ optimum 

elevations. Science 331: 324-327. 

DeSante and George 1994. Population trends in the landbirds of western North America. Studies 

in Avian Biology No. 15:173-190. 

Dugger, K.M, R.G. Anthony and L.S. Andrews. 2011. Transient dynamics of invasive 

competition: Barred owls, spotted owls, habitat, and the demons of competition present. 

Ecological Applications 21(7): 2459-2468. 

Estes, B. 2013a. Historic range of variability for chaparral in the Sierra Nevada and southern 

Cascades. Unpublished report. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Estes. B. 2013b. Historic range of variability for aspen in the Sierra Nevada and south Cascades. 

Unpublished report. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region. 

Ewell, C., A. Reiner and S. Williams. 2012. Wildfire interactions of the 2011 Lion Fire and recent 

wildfires on the Sequoia National Forest and Sequoia National Park. USDA Forest 

Service, Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team. Report to the USFS 

Washington Office. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/adaptivemanagement/reports/Lion_Wildfire_Interactions_Final.pdf

(December 2015).

Fites-Kaufman, J.A., E. Noonan and D. Ramirez. 2003. Evaluation of wildland use fires on the 

Sequoia and Stanislaus National Forests in 2003: Effects in relation to historic regimes 

and resource benefits. USDA Forest Service. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/adaptivemanagement/reports/SQF_STF_WFU_report_final_updateJ

an2013.pdf (December 2015).

Fites-Kaufman, J.A., P. Rundel, N. Stephenson and D.A. Weixelman. 2007. Montane and 

subalpine vegetation of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges. In Barbour, M.G.; 

Keeler-Wolf, T.; Schoenherr, A.A., eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. Berkeley, 

CA: University of California Press: 456‒501. 

Forister, M.L., A.C. McCall, N.J. Sanders, J.A. Fordyce, J.H. Thorne, J. O’Brien, D.P. Waetjen 

and A.M. Shapiro. 2010. Compounded effects of climate change and habitat alteration 

shift patterns of butterfly biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

107: 2088-2092. 

Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl 

in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs No. 87: 1-64. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

692

Franklin, J.F. and J.A. Fites-Kaufman. 1996. Assessment of late-successional forests of the Sierra 

Nevada. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. Final report to Congress. Davis, CA: 

University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources 2: 627–662. 

Franzreb, K. E. 1989. Ecology and conservation of the endangered least Bell's vireo. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Biol. Rep. 89(1) 17 pp. 

Gaines. D. 1974. Review of the status of the yellow-billed cuckoo in California: Sacramento 

Valley Populations. Cooper Ornithological Society (76:2): 204-209. 

Gaines, D. and S. A. Laymon. 1984. Decline, status and preservation of the yellow-billed cuckoo 

in California. Western Birds (15:2): 49-80. 

Gaines, D. 1992. Birds of Yosemite and the east slope. Artemisia Press, Lee Vining, CA. 352 pp. 

(revised 2nd printing).

Gallion, T. Kern red-winged blackbird. In: Shuford, W. D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. 

California bird species of special concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, 

and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies 

of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California 

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Gardali T., N.E. Seavy, R.T. DiGaudio and L.A. Comrack. 2012. A climate change vulnerability 

assessment of California’s at-risk birds. PLoS ONE 7(3): e29507. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029507. 

George, T.L. and S. Zack. 2001. Spatial and temporal considerations in restoring habitat for 

wildlife. Restoration Ecology 9(3): 272-279. 

Glenn, E.M., R.G. Anthony and E.D. Forsman. 2010. Population trends in northern spotted owls: 

Associations with climate in the Pacific Northwest. Biological Conservation 143:2543-

2552. 

Glenn, E.M., R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman and G.S. Olson. 2011. Local weather, regional climate, 

and annual survival of the northern spotted owl. Condor 113:159-176. 

Green, G.A., H.L. Bombay and M.L. Morrison. 2003. Conservation assessment of the willow 

flycatcher in the Sierra Nevada. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation and the 

University of California. 67 pp. 

Grenfell Jr., W. E. 1988. Montane riparian. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship. Available at: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/wildlife_habitats.asp 

Grinnell, J. 1912. A new member of the Perognathus parvus group of pocket mice. Proc. Biol. 

Soc. Wash. 25:127-128. 

Grinnell, J. and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Published by the 

Club, Berkeley, CA. 

Gross, S. and M. Coppoletta. 2013. Historic range of variability for meadows in the Sierra 

Nevada and south Cascades. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

693

Grumbine, R.E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8:27-38. 

Grumbine, R.E. 1997. Reflections on ecosystem management. Conservation Biology 11:41-47. 

Gutiérrez, R.J., and S. Harrison. 1996. Applying metapopulation theory to spotted owl 

management: a history and critique. Pp. 167-185. In McCullough, D., ed. 

Metapopulations and Wildlife Conservation. Island Press, Covelo, CA. 

Hall, E.R. 1981. Mammals of North America. John Wiley & Sons. New York, New York. 

Hartley, S., R. Harris, and P.J. Lester. 2006. Quantifying uncertainty in the potential distribution 

of an invasive species: climate and the Argentine ant. Ecology Letters (9):1068-1079. 

Haufler, J. B. 1999. Strategies for conserving terrestrial biological diversity. In: Practical 

Approaches to the Conservation of Biological Diversity, Baydack, R. K., Campa, H., III 

and Haufler, J. B. (Eds.), Ch. 2, pp. 17-30, Island Press, Covelo, CA. 

Hauptfeld, R.S. and J.M. Kershner. 2014. Sierra Nevada individual species vulnerability 

assessment briefing: American marten. Version 1.0. EcoAdapt, Bainbridge Island, WA. 

Document is available on-line at EcoAdapt (http://ecoadapt.org/programs/adaptation---

consultations/calcc).

Henneman, C. 2010. Yellow-billed cuckoo surveys in the South Fork Kern River Valley in 2009. 

Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. 

February 18, 2010. 17 pp. 

Holthausen, R. S. 2002. White paper on managing for population viability. Draft. July, 2003. 

Received from Apache Sitgreaves National Forest on 16 November, 2015. 

Holway D.A. 1998. Effect of Argentine ant invasions on ground dwelling arthropods in northern 

California riparian woodlands. Oecologia 116: 252–258. 

Holyoak, M. and E. Graves. 2010. Trial monitoring scheme for the valley elderberry longhorn 

beetle. Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office, 

Sacramento, California. In fulfillment of contract 81420–8–J120. 30 pp. 

Hughes, J.M. 2015. Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of 

North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/418. 

Hull, J.M., A. Englis Jr., J.R. Medley, E.P. Jepsen, J.R. Duncan. H.B. Ernest, J.J. Keane. 2014. A 

new subspecies of great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) in the Sierra Nevada of California, 

USA, Journal of Raptor Research 48(1):68-77. 

Hull, J.M., J.J. Keane, W.K. Savage, S.A. Godwin, A.A. Shafer, E.P. Jepsen, R. Gerhardt, C. 

Stermer, H.B. Ernest. 2010a. Range-wide genetic differentiation among North American 

great gray owls (Strix nebulosa) reveals a distinct lineage restricted to the Sierra Nevada, 

California. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (56): 212-221. 

Hull, J.M., J.J. Keane, L. Tell, H.B. Ernest. 2010b. West Nile virus antibody surveillance in three 

Sierra Nevada raptors of conservation concern. Condor 112 (1):168-172. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

694

Huxel, G.R. 2000. The effect of the Argentine ant on the threatened valley elderberry longhorn 

beetle. Biological Invasions 2: 81–85, 2000. 

Irwin, L.L., L.A. Clark, D.C. Rock and S.L. Rock. 2007. Modeling foraging habitat of California 

spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(4):1183-1191. 

Jenness, J.S., P. Beier and J.L. Ganey. 2004. Associations between forest fire and Mexican spotted 

owls. Forest Science 50(6): 765-772. 

Jockusch, E.L. D.B. Wake and K.P. Yanev. 1998. New species of slender salamanders, 

Batrachoseps (Amphibia: Plethodontidae), from the Sierra Nevada of California. 

Contributions in Science, No. 472, pp. 1-17. 

Kalamandeen, M. and L. Gillson. 2007. Demything “wilderness”: implications for protected area 

designation and management. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:165-182. 

Kalinowski, R.S., M.D. Johnson and A.C. Rich. 2014. Habitat relationships of great gray owl 

prey in meadows of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Wildlife Society Bulletin (38:3): 547-

556. 

Keane, J.J. 2014. California Spotted Owl: Scientific considerations for forest planning. In:

Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern 

Cascade Range (Vol2), Long, J. W., L. Quinn-Davidson, and C. N. Skinner (Eds.) Ch. 

7.2, pp. 437-467, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General 

Technical Report (PSW-GTR-247), Albany, CA.

Keane, J.J, H.B. Ernest and J.M. Hull. 2011. Conservation and management of the great gray owl 

2007-2009: Assessment of multiple stressors and ecological limiting factors. UC Davis. 

Final Report. April 2011. 

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 25:49–64. 

Kucera, T.E., W.J. Zielinski, and R.H. Barrett. 1995. Current distribution of the American marten, 

Martes americana, in California. California Fish and Game 81: 96-103. 

Kyle K. and R. Kelsey. 2011. Results of the 2011 tricolored blackbird statewide survey. 

Sacramento, CA, Audubon California. Available: http://tricolor.ice.ucdavis.edu/content/

?results-2011-statewide-survey. Accessed 27 July 2013. 

Landres, P.B., P. Morgan and F.J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability 

concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9(4): 1179-1188. 

Lannoo, M. 2005. Amphibian declines: The conservation status of United States species. 

Berkeley, CA: Univ. California Press.

Launer, A.E., D.D. Murphy, S.A. Laymon, and M.D. Halterman. 1990. 1990 distribution and 

habitat requirements of the yellow-billed cuckoo in California. Admin. Rept. To The 

Nature Conservancy.
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

695

Lawler, J.J., H.D. Safford and E.H. Girvetz. 2012. Martens and fishers in a changing climate. pp. 

371-397, In Aubry, K.B., ed. Biology and conservation of martens, sables, and fishers: a 

new synthesis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Laymon, S. A., M. D. Halterman, and M. J. Whitfield. 1987. Nesting ecology of the yellow-billed 

cuckoo on the Kern River: 1987, prepared for the California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (formerly Game) and The Nature Conservancy.

Lee, D.E.; Bond, M.L.; Siegel, R.B. 2012. Dynamics of breeding-season site occupancy of the 

California spotted owl in burned forests. Condor. 114(4): 792–802. 

Lenihan, J.M., R. Drapek, D. Bachelet and R.P. Neilson. 2003. Climate change effects on 

vegetation distribution, carbon, and fire in California. Ecological Applications 13(6): 

1667–1681. 

Linsley, E.G. and J.A. Chemsak. 1972. Cerambycidae of North America. Part VI, No. 1. 

Taxonomy and classification of the subfamily Lepturinae. University of California 

Publications in Entomology 69: 1-138. 

Loarie, S.R., B.E. Carter, K. Hayhoe, S. McMahon, R. Moe, C.A. Knight and D.D. Ackerly. 

2008. Climate change and the future of California’s endemic flora. PLoS ONE 3: e2502. 

Long, J. W., L. Quinn-Davidson and C. N. Skinner, eds. 2014. Science synthesis to support 

socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range, General 

Technical Report, PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Lyderson, J. and M. North. 2012. Topographic variation in structure of mixed-conifer forests 

under an active-fire regime. Ecosystems 15: 1134-1146. 

Lydersen, J.M., M.P. North, E.E. Knapp and B.M. Collins. 2013. Quantifying spatial patterns of 

tree groups and gaps in mixed-conifer forests: reference conditions and long-term 

changes following fire suppression and logging. Forest Ecology and Management 304: 

370-382. 

Mailliard. J. 1915a. Further remarks on the upon the Kern red-wing. The Condor. 17:228-230. 

Mailliard, J. 1915b. The Kern redwing—Agelaius phoeniceus aciculatus. Condor 17:12–15. 

Mallek, C., H. Safford and S. Sawyer. 2012. A summary of current trends and probable future 

trends in climate and climate-driven processes in the Inyo National Forest and adjacent 

lands. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. Accessed at 

http://fsweb.r5.fs.fed.us/program/ecology/climate/ on November 16, 2015. 

Mallek, C., H. Safford, J. Viers and J. Miller. 2013. Modern departures in fire severity and area 

vary by forest type, Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades, California, USA. Ecosphere 

4(12: art153. 

Mathewson, H.A., H.L. Loffland, M.L. Morrison, L. Vormwald and C. Cocimano. 2007. 2007 

annual report and preliminary demographic analysis for willow flycatcher monitoring in 

the central Sierra Nevada, in partial fulfillment of cost share agreement 06-CR-11052007 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

696

between Texas A&M University and U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Region 5. Tahoe National 

Forest. December 31, 2007. 59 pp. 

Maurer, J. 2006. 2005 Great gray owl survey in Yosemite National Park. Unpublished report, 

Yosemite National Park.

McCracken, G.F. 1986. Why are we loosing our Mexican free-tailed bats? Bats 3:1–4. 

McGreedy, C. 2005. Mono Basin willow flycatcher project 2005 progress report. PRBO 

Contribution #1298. Stinson Beach, CA: Point Reyes Bird Observatory (Point Blue 

Conservation Science). 37 pp. 

Meese, R.J., E.C. Beedy and W.J. Hamilton, III. 2014. Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), 

The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 

Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/423/articles/introduction

Merriam, K. 2013. Natural range of variation in hardwood vegetation in the Sierra Nevada, 

California over the Holocene Epoch. Unpublished report. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Meyer, M.D. 2013a. Natural range of variation of red fir forests in the Bioregional Assessment 

area. Unpublished report. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region. 

Meyer, M.D. 2013b. Natural range of variation of subalpine forests in the Bioregional Assessment 

area. Unpublished report. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region. 

Meyer, M.D. 2015. Forest fire severity patterns of resource objective wildfires in the southern 

Sierra Nevada. Journal of Forestry 113(1): 49‒56. 

Meyer, M.D., H. Safford, S. Sawyer. 2012a (Dec 14). A summary of current trends and probable 

future trends in climate and climate-driven processes in the Sequoia National Forest and 

the neighboring Sierra Nevada. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Accessed at 

http://fsweb.r5.fs.fed.us/program/ecology/climate/ on November 16, 2015. 

Meyer, M.D., H. Safford, S. Sawyer. 2012b (Dec 14). A summary of current trends and probable 

future trends in climate and climate-driven processes in the Sierra National Forest and the 

neighboring Sierra Nevada. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region. Accessed at 

http://fsweb.r5.fs.fed.us/program/ecology/climate/ on November 16, 2015. 

Miller, J.D. and H.D. Safford. 2012. Trends in wildfire severity 1984-2010 in the Sierra Nevada, 

Modoc Plateau and southern Cascades, California, USA. Fire Ecology 8(3): 41-57. 

Miller, J.D., H.D. Safford, M. Crimmins and A. E. Thode. 2009. Quantitative evidence for 

increasing forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Mountains, 

California and Nevada, USA. Ecosystems 12:16-32. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

697

Miller J.D., C.N. Skinner, H.D. Safford, E.E. Knapp and C.M. Ramirez. 2012. Trends and causes 

of severity, size, and number of fires in northwestern California, USA. Ecol. Appl. 

22:184–203. 

Moritz, C., J.L. Patton, C.J. Conroy, J.L. Parra, G.C. White, S.R. Beissinger. 2008. Impact of a 

century of climate change on small-mammal communities in Yosemite National Park, 

USA. Science 322: 261-943. 

Nekola, J.C. 1999. Terrestrial gastropod nchness of carbonate cliff and associated habitats in the 

great lakes region of North Amerka. Malacologia 41:23 1-252. 

Nekola, J.C. and Smith, T.M. 1999. Terrestrial gastropod richness patterns in Wisconsin carbonate 

cliff communities. Malacologia 41:253-269. 

Noon B.R. and K.S. McKelvey. 1996. Management of the spotted owl: A case history in 

conservation biology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1996. 27:135–62. 

North, M. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-237. 

Albany CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 184 p. 

North, M., J. Innes and H. Zald. 2007. Comparison of thinning and prescribed fire restoration 

treatments to Sierran mixed-conifer historic conditions. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 37(2): 331-342. 

North, M., P. Stine, K. O’Hara, W. Zielinski and S. Stephens. 2009. An ecosystem management 

strategy for Sierran mixed-conifer forests. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-220. 

Albany CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 49 p. 

Nydick, K. and C. Sydorlak. 2011a. The Strategic framework for science in support of 

management in the southern Sirrea Nevada. California. Park Science 28(1): 41-43. 

Nydick, K. and C. Sydorlak. 2011b. Alternative futures for fire management under changing 

climate. Park Science 28(1): 44-47. 

O'Farrell, M.J. and E.H. Studier. 1973. Reproduction, growth and development in Myotis 

thysanodes and M. lucifugus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Ecology 54:18-30. 

Pagel, J.E., K.J. Kritz, B.A. Millsap and R.K. Murphy. 2013. Bald and golden eagle mortalities at 

wind energy facilities in the contiguous United States. Journal of Raptor Research 47(3): 

311-315. 

Parmesan. C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change, Annual 

review of Ecology and Systematics, 37: 637-669. 

Parmesan, C. and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts 

across natural systems, Nature, 421: 37-42. 

Peery, M.Z., R.J. Gutiérrez, R. Kirby, O.E. LeDee and W. LaHaye. 2012. Climate change and 

spotted owls: potentially contrasting responses in the southwestern United States. Global 

Change Biology 18:865-880. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

698

Pearce, T.A. and A. Örstan. 2006. Terrestrial gastropoda. In: Sturm, C.F., T.A. Pearce and A. 

Valdés, eds., The mollusks: A guide to their study, collection, and preservation. American 

Malacological Society. pp. 261-285. 

Perrine, J.D., Campbell, L.A., Green, G.A. 2010. Conservation assessment for the Sierra Nevada 

red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator). R5-FR-010. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 42 p. 

Piaggio, A. 2005. Western bat working group species account (Corynorhinus townsendii) 

Townsend’s big-eared bat. Accessed at: http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/

Pierson, E.D. 1998. Tall trees, deep holes, and scarred landscapes: conservation biology of North 

American bats. In Kunz, T.H. and P.A. Racey, eds. Bat Biology and Conservation. 

Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington D.C. 

Pierson, E.D. and W.E. Rainey. 1998. Distribution, status, and management of Townsend’s bigeared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in California. Wildlife Management Division Bird 

and Mammal Conservation Program Final Report for Contract No. FG7129. California 

Dept. Fish and Game. 34 pp.

Roura-Pascual, N., A.V. Suarez, C. Gòmez, P. Pons, Y. Touyama, A.L. Wild and A. Townsend 

Peterson. 2004. Geographical potential of Argentine ants (Linepithema humile Mayr) in 

the face of global climate change. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (271): 

2527-2534. 

Roura-Pascual, N., C. Hui, T. Ikeda, G. Leday, D.M. Richardson, and others. 2011. Relative roles 

of climatic suitability and anthropogenic influence in determining the pattern of spread in 

a global invader. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 108, issue 1, pp. 

220-225. 

Rich, A. 2007. Territory status of California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) 

following fuel reduction treatments: management case studies from the Stanislaus 

National Forest, Poster presented at Raptor Research Foundation. 

Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, and others. 2004. 

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. 

Roberts, S. and M. North. 2012. California spotted owls. Chapter 5 In North, M., ed. Managing 

Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Roberts, S.L., J.W. van Wagtendonk, A.K. Miles and D.A. Kelt. 2011. Effects of fire on spotted 

owl site occupancy in a late-successional forest. Biological Conservation 144: 610-619. 

Root, T.L., J.T. Price, K.R. Hall, S.H. Schneider, C. Rosenzweig and J.A. Pounds. 2003. 

Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421:57-60. 

Rotta, G.W. 2011. Assessment of impacts of the Moonlight Fire on sensitive wildlife species 

habitat, Quincy, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Plumas National 

Forest. Unpublished report. 29 pp. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

699

Sacks, B.N., C.B. Quinn and P.B. Alden. 2015. Sierra Nevada red fox monitoring: Phase 1. 

Report prepared for the U.S. Forest Service. Davis, CA: University of California. April 

21, 2015. 

Safford, H.D. 2013. Natural range of variation (NRV) for yellow pine and mixed conifer forests 

in the Bioregional Assessment area, including the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascades, and 

Modoc and Inyo National Forests. Unpublished report. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Safford, H. D., G. Hayward, N. E. Heller, and J. Wiens. 2012a (in press). Historical ecology, 

climate change and resource management: can the past still inform the future? Pages __, 

in: J. Wiens, G. Hayward, H. Safford, and C. Giffen (eds). Historical environmental 

variation in conservation and natural resource management: Past, present and future. John 

Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 

Safford, H.D., M. North and M.D. Meyer. 2012b. Climate change and the relevance of historical 

forest conditions. In: Managing Sierra Nevada Forests, North M. (Ed.), Ch. 3, pp23-46, 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report 

(PSW-GTR-237), Albany, CA.

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results 

and Analysis 1966–2007, version 5.15.2008. U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife 

Research Center, Laurel, Maryland.

Sawyer, S.C. 2013. Natural range of variation of non-meadow riparian habitat in the Bioregional 

Assessment area. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region.

Scheller, R.M., W.D. Spencer, H. Rustigian-Romsos, A.D. Syphard, B.C. Ward and J.R. Strittholt. 

2011. Using stochastic simulation to evaluate competing risks of wildfires and fuels 

management on an isolated forest carnivore. Landscape Ecology 26: 1491-1504. 

Shuford, W. D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California bird species of special concern: A ranked 

assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate 

conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field 

Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, 

Sacramento.

Schwartz, M.W., N. Butt, C.R. Dolanc, A. Holguin, M.a. Moritz, M.P. North, H.D. Safford, N.L. 

Stephenson, J.H. Thorne and P.J. van Mantgem. 2015. Increasing elevation of fire in the 

Sierra Nevada and implications for forest change. Ecosphere 6(7): 1-10. 

Scott, M.L., S.K. Skagen and M.F. Merigliano. 2003. Relating geomorphic change and grazing to 

avian communities in riparian forests. Conservation Biology 17: 284-296. 

Seamans, M.E. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 2007. Habitat selection in a changing environment: the 

relationship between habitat alteration and spotted owl territory occupancy and breeding 

dispersal. Condor 109: 566-576. 

Sedgwick, J.A., 2001, Geographic variation in the song of willow flycatchers—Differentiation 

between Empidonax traillii adastus and E.t. extimus: Auk, v. 118, p. 366-379. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

700

Serena, M. 1982. The status and distribution of the willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) in 

selected portions of the Sierra Nevada, 1982. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Wildlife 

Management Branch Admin. Report No. 82-5.28pp. 

Siegel, R.B. and D.F. DeSante. 1999. Draft avian conservation plan for the Sierra Nevada 

Bioregion: a report to California Partners in Flight. Point Reyes Station, CA: The 

Institute for Bird Populations. 

Siegel, R.B., R.L. Wilkerson and D. DeSante. 2008. Extirpation of the willow flycatcher from 

Yosemite National Park. Western Birds 39:8-21. 

Slaton, M. and H. Stone. 2013a. Pinyon-juniper natural range of variation. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region. Unpublished report. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/plants-animals/?cid=stelprdb5434436. (5 March 2015).

Slaton, M. and H. Stone. 2013b. Sagebrush natural range of variation. Unpublished report. 

Vallejo, CA, USDA, Pacific Southwest Region. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/plants-animals/?cid=stelprdb5434436. 

Spencer, W., H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, R. Scheller, W. Zielinksi, R. Truex. 2011. Using 

occupancy and population models to assess habitat conservation opportunities for an 

isolated carnivore population. Biological Conservation (144): 788-803. 

Spencer, W.D., S.C. Sawyer, H.L. Romsos, W.J. Zielinksi, R.A. Sweitzer, C.M. Thompason, K.L. 

Purcell, D.L. Clifford, L. Cline, H.D. Safford, S.A. Britting and J. M. Tucker. 2015. 

Southern Sierra Nevada fisher conservation assessment. Unpublished report produced by 

Conservation Biology Institute. January, 2015 

Spencer, W.D., S.C. Sawyer, H.L. Romsos, W.J. Zielinski, C.M. Thompson, and S.A. Britting. 

2016. Southern Sierra Nevada fisher conservation strategy. Unpublished report produced 

by Conservation Biology Institute.

Stanley, T.R. and F.L. Knopf. 2002. Avian responses to late-season grazing in a shrub-willow 

floodplain. Conservation Biology 16:225-231. 

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin 

Steel, Z.L., M.L. Bond, R.B. Siegel and P. Pyle. 2011. Avifauna of Sierra Nevada network parks: 

assessing distribution, abundance, stressors, and conservation opportunities for 145 bird 

species. Natural Resource Report NPS/SIEN/NRR—2011. Fort Collins, CO National 

Park Service.

Stephens, S.L., J.M. Lydersen, B.M. Collins, D.L. Fry and M.D. Meyer. 2015. Historical and 

current landscape-scale ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest structure in the Southern 

Sierra Nevada. Ecosphere 6(5): art79. 

Stephenson, T. Pers Comm. 2013. On the Sierra National Forest, the species has two summer 

populations that migrate to and from winter ranges at lower elevations on the Inyo 

National Forest (T. Stephenson, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, pers. comm., 

2013).
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

701

Stralberg, D., D. Jongsomjit, C.A. Howell, M.A. Snyder, J.D. Alexander, J.A. Wiens and T.L. 

Root. 2009. Re-shuffling of species with climate disruption: a no-analog future for 

California birds? PLoS ONE 4(9): e6825. 

Sydoriak C., J.A. Panek, J.J Battles and K.R. Nydick. 2013. A natural resource condition 

assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. National Resources Report 

NPS/SEKI/NRR-2013/665. Fort Collins, CO: National Park Service.

Talley, T.S., M. Holyoak and D.A. Piechnik. 2006. The effects of due on the federally threatened 

valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Environmental Management 37(5): 647-658. 

Tempel, D.J., R.J. Gutierrez, S.A. Whitmore, M.J. Reetz, R.E. Stoelting, W.J. Berigan, M.E. 

Seamans and M.Z. Peery. 2014. Effects of forest management on California spotted owls: 

implications for reducing wildfire risk in fire-prone forests. Ecological Applications 

24(8): 2089-2106. 

Thompson, C.M., W.J. Zielinski and K.L. Purcell. 2011. Evaluating management risks using 

landscape trajectory analysis: a case study of California fisher. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management 75(5): 1164-1176. 

Tingley, M.W., W.B. Monahan, S.R. Beissinger and C. Moritz. 2009. Birds track their Grinnellian 

niche through a century of climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences 106: 19367-19643. 

Tricolored Blackbird Working Group. 2009. Conservation plan for the tricolored blackbird 

(Agelaius tricolor). 2.0 Update. Kester, S., ed. San Francisco, CA: Sustainable 

Conservation.

Tucker, J.M., M.K. Schwartz, R.L. Truex, S.M. Wisely and F.W. Allendorf. 2014. Sampling 

affects the detection of genetic subdivision and conservation implementations for fisher 

in the Sierra Nevada. Conservation Genetics 15: 123-136.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004. Biological studies in support of 

Endangered Species Act compliance for routine operation of Isabella Dam and Lake, 

California. Summary of 1997-2003 survey results for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

and Least Bell’s Vireo in the Kern River Valley, Kern County, California. Prepared by 

Jones & Stokes, 2600 V Street, Sacramento, CA. pp.33. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2000. Landbird strategic 

plan. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment: Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. 

Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013a. Final Inyo National 

Forest assessment. Document number R5-MB-266. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 229 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013b. Final Sequoia 

National Forest assessment. Document number R5-MB-267. Vallejo, CA: U.S. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

702

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 

266 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013c. Final Sierra National 

Forest assessment. Document number R5-MB-269. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 268 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2015a. Draft Interim 

Recommendations for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National 

Forest System Lands. Unpublished Document. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. May 29, 2015 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2015b. Scoping package for 

Isabella Tamarisk Control Project. Lake Isabella, CA: U.S. Department of Agricuture, 

Forest Service, Sequoia National Forest, Kern River Ranger District. March 17, 2015. 

United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). 1998. Yelloweared pocket mouse, Perognathus xanthonotus. Species Account prepared by by David 

Laabs in support of the West Mojave Plan EIS/EIR, Accessed at: 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/cdd/wemo.html

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. Recovery plan 

for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Dated June 28, 1984. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Designation of 

critical habitat for the least Bell's vireo. Federal Register 59(22):4845-4867. 

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Recovery plan 

for the California condor. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 1.74 p. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/960425.pdf

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Final recovery 

plan southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). Albuquerque, NM, iix+ 210 pp., Appendices A-O. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/2002/020830c.pdf

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006a. 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. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register: 

May 24, 2006, Volume 71, Number 100, pages 29886-29908. 

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006b. Least Bell's 

vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) 5-year review summary and evaluation. Carslbad, CA: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants; Designation of critical habitat for Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (Ovis 

Canadensis sierrae) and taxonomic revision; Final rule. Federal Register. August 15, 

2008.
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

703

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009a. Eagle permits; 

Take necessary to protect interests in particular localities; Final rules. Federal Register 50 

CFR Parts 13 and 22. September 11, 2009. 

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009b. Least Bell's 

vireo spotlight species action plan. USFWS, Pacific Southwest Region, Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office.

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Yellow-billed 

cuckoo surveys in the South Fork Kern River Valley in 2009. Final report. Weldon, CA: 

Southern Sierra Research Station. 23 p. 

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Yellow-billed 

cuckoo surveys in the South Fork Kern River Valley in 2010. Final Report. Weldon, CA: 

Southern Sierra Research Station. 24 p. 

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013a. California 

condor (Gymnogyps californianus) 5 year review: Summary and evaluation of .USFWS 

California Condor Recovery Plan, Fourth Revision. Portland, Oregon. 64 p. 

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013b. Endangered 

and threatened wildlife and plants; Threatened status for the Bi-State Distinct Population 

Segment of greater sage-grouse with special rule; Proposed rule. Federal Register Vol. 78 

No. 208. October 28, 2013. 

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014a. Presentations 

on Sierra bighorn recovery by Sierra bighorn biologists and the USFWS during the Sierra 

Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Team meeting on June 24, 2014. 

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014b. Southwestern 

willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) 5 year review: Summary and Evaluation. 

Phoenix, AZ: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona 

Ecological Services. August 15, 2014. 104 pp. 

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015a. Small subset of 

Sierra Nevada red fox warranted for ESA listing service finds subspecies not in danger of 

extinction across its entire range, Questions and Answers. October 1, 2015. 

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015b.Species Report 

(Vulpes vulpes necator). Sacramento, CA. 78 p. August 14, 2015. 

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015c. Successful 

conservation partnership keeps Bi-State sage-grouse off endangered species list. Press 

Release, April 21, 2015: http://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ID=DD5B828AEFD6-2D90-B779A121E74DD059. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2010. Analysis of California condor (Gymnogyps 

californianus) use of six management units using locations data from global positioning 

system transmitters, southern California, 2004-2009 – Initial Report. Prepared by 

Johnson, M., J. Kern, and S. M. Haig, 72 p. 

Unitt, P. 1987. Empidonax traillii extimus: An endangered subspecies. Western Birds 18:137-162. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

704

Vaillant, N. 2009. Characterizing fire severity patterns in three wildland fire use incidents in the 

southern Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service. Unpublished report available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/adaptivemanagement/reports/fbat/SQF_WildlandFireUse_Report_20

09_Vaillant.pdf (December 2015) 

Van Mantgem, P.J., N.L. Stephenson, J.C. Byrne, L.D. Daniels, J.F. Franklin, P.Z. Fulé, M.E. 

Harmon, A.J. Larson, J.M. Smith, A.H. Taylor and T.T. Veblen. 2009. Widespread 

increase of tree mortality rates in the western United States. Science 323(5913): 521-524. 

van Riper III, C., J.J. Fontaine and J.W. van Wagtendonk. 2013. Great gray owls (Strix nebuloa) 

in Yosemite National Park: on the importance of food, forest structure, and human 

disturbance. Natural Areas Journal 33(3): 286-295. 

Verner, J. and K.L. Purcell. 1988. Subalpine conifer. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship. 

Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/wildlife_habitats.asp

Verner, J., K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutiérrez, G.I. Gould, Jr. and T.W. Beck., Technical 

Coordinators. 1992. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current 

status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/rsl/projects/wild/gtr_133/gtr133_index.html

Weller, T.J. 2005. Western bat working group species account fringed myotis (Myotis 

thysanodes). Accessed at: http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/

Westerling, A.L., J. Milostan and A.R. Keyser. 2015. Changing fire, fuels and climate in the 

Sierra Nevada. Final report under USFS Cooperative Agreement: Modeling Potential Fire 

Impacts with Landscape Vegetation Scenarios and Changing Climate for the Sierra 

Nevada and Other Areas in the Western U.S. University of California Merced. 43 p. 

Unpublished document available in project record. 

White, A.M., P.N. Manley, G.L. Tarbill, T.W. Richardson, R.E. Russell, H.D. Safford and S.Z. 

Dobrowski. 2015. Avian community responses to post-fire forest structure: implications 

for fire management in mixed conifer forests. Animal Conservation: 1-9. 

White, C.M., N.J. Clum, T.J. Cade and W.G. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). In 

Poole, A., ed. The birds of North America online. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 

Accessed from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/660/articles/ 

Whitfield, M.J. 2014. Letter report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Sacramento District) 

regarding summary of flycatcher and vireo population surveys, monitoring and brownheaded cowbird control at the South Fork Wildlife Area, Kern County. Weldon, CA: 

Southern Sierra Research Station. August 29, 2014. 

Wiens, J.A., G.D. Hayward, H.D. Safford and C.M. Giffen, eds. 2012. Historical environmental 

variation in conservation and natural resource management. Oxford, UK: WileyBlackwell: 46–52. 

Williams, D.F., H.H. Genoways and J.K. Braun. 1993. Taxonomy. pp. 38-196. In: Genoways. 

H.H. and J.H. Brown, eds. Biology of the Heteromyidae. Special Publication, The 

American Society of Mammologists.
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

705

Williams, P.J., R.J. Gutiérrez and S.A. Whitmore. 2011. Home range and habitat selection of 

spotted owls in the central Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management 75(2): 333-

343. 

Winter, J. 1986. Status, distribution and ecology of the great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) in 

California. M.S. Thesis, San Francisco State University, CA.

Wu, J.X., R.B. Siegel, H.L. Loffland, M.W. Tingley, S.L. Stock, K.N. Roberts, J.J. Keane, J.R. 

Medley, R Bridgman and C. Stermer. 2015. Diversity of great gray owl nest sites and 

nesting habitats in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 79(6): 937-947. 

Yasuda, D.A. 2008. Declaration on October 21, 2008 for Sierra Forest Legacy et al. vs Mark Rey, 

Tuolumne County Alliances for Resources and Environment et al., California Ski 

Industry Assoc. and Quincy Library Group) 

Zeiner, D., W. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. Mayer and M. White. 1990. California's wildlife, Volume III: 

Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Zielinski, W.J. 2014. The forest carnivores: marten and fisher. Chapter 7.1. In: Long, J.W., L. 

Quinn-Davidson and C.N. Skinner, eds. Science synthesis to support socioecological 

resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range (Vol2), General Technical 

Report PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. pp. 437-467. 

Zielinski, W.J., J.A. Baldwin, R.L. Truex, J.M. Trucker and P.S. Flebbe. 2013. Estimating trends 

in occupancy for the southern Sierra fisher Martes pennant population. Journal of Fish 

and Wildlife Management (4:1): 1-17. 

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, F.V. Schlexer, L.A. Campbell and C. Carroll. 2005. Historical and 

contemporary distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, 

U.S.A. Journal of Biogeography. 32: 1385–1407. 

At-risk Aquatic Species

Bales, R.C., J.J. Battles, Y. Chen, M.H. Conklin, E. Holst, K.L. O’Hara, P. Saksa and W. Stewart. 

2011. Forests and water in the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada watershed ecosystem 

enhancement project, UC Merced, November 29, 2011. 

Bradford, D.F., R.A. Knapp, D.W. Sparling, M.S. Nash, K.A. Stanley, N.G. Tallent-Halsell, L.L. 

McConnell and S.M. Simonich. 2011. Pesticide distributions and population declines of 

California, USA, alpine frogs, Rana muscosa and Rana sierrae. Environ Toxicol Chem 

30(3): 682-691. 

Briggs, C.J., V.T. Vredenburg, R.A. Knapp and L.J. Rachowicz. 2005. Investigating the 

population-level effects of chytridiomycosis: an emerging infectious disease of 

amphibians. Ecology 86:3149-3159. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2008. California aquatic invasive species 

management plan. 2008. Sacramento, CA: State of California Resources Agency, 

California Department of Fish and Game.
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

706

Davidson, C. and G.M. Fellers. 2005. Bufo canorus Camp 1916, Yosemite Toad. Pp. 400-401. In:

Lannoo, M. (Ed.), Amphibian declines: The conservation status of United States species. 

Volume 2: Species accounts. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press. 1094 pp.

Davidson, C. and R. A. Knapp. 2007. Multiple stressors and amphibian declines: dual impacts of 

pesticides and fish on yellow-legged frogs. Ecological Applications 17:587-597. 

DeBano, L.F., D.G. Neary and P.F. Ffolliott. 1998. Fire’s effects on ecosystems. New York John 

Wiley and Sons. 333p. 

Elliot, W.J., I.S. Miller and L. Audin, eds. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel 

management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

station. 299p. 

Frissell, C.A., M. Scurlock and R. Kattelmann. 2012. SNEP Plus 15 Years: Ecological and 

conservation science for freshwater resource protection and federal land management in 

the Sierra Nevada. Portland, OR: Pacific Rivers Council Science Publication 12-001. 

Fryjoff-Hung, A. and J.H. Viers. 2013. Sierra Nevada meadow hydrology assessment. Final 

project report to the USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region. Davis, CA: 

University of California, Davis. 1114 pp. 

Grenfell, Jr., W.E. 1988. Montane Riparian. Pages 84-85 In Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer, 

Jr., eds. 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats of California. Sacramento, CA: California 

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Gross, S. and M. Coppoletta. 2013. Natural range of variation (NRV) for meadows in the 

bioregional assessment area, including the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascades, and Modoc 

and Inyo National Forests. Unpublished report, Vallejo, CA, USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region. 

Hunsaker, C., J.W. Long and D. Herbst. 2014. Watershed and stream ecosystems. Chapter 6.1 in 

Long, J.W.; L. Quinn-Davidson and C.N. Skinner. 2014. Science Synthesis to Support 

Socioecological Resilience In The Sierra Nevada And Southern Cascade Range. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 723 p. 

Hunsaker, C. and J. Long. 2014. Forested riparian areas. Chapter 6.2, in Long, J.W.; L. QuinnDavidson and C.N. Skinner. 2014. Science Synthesis To Support Socioecological 

Resilience In The Sierra Nevada And Southern Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. 723 p. 

Kattelmann, R. and M. Embury. 1996, Riparian areas and wetlands, Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 

Project: Final report to Congress, Vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for 

management options: Davis, CA, University of California, Centers for Water and 

Wildland Resources.

Knapp, R.A. 2005. Effects of nonnative fish and habitat characteristics on lentic herpetofauna in 

Yosemite National Park, USA. Biological Conservation 121: 265-279. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

707

Knapp, R.A. and K.R. Matthews. 2000a. Effects of non-native fishes on wilderness lake 

ecosystems in the Sierra Nevada and recommendations for reducing impacts. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Proceedings. RMRS-P-15-Vol-5, p. 312-317. 

Knapp, R.A. and K.R. Matthews. 2000b. Non-native fish introductions and the decline of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog from within protected areas: Conservation Biology 14: 428-

438. 

Knapp, R.A., D.M. Boiano and V.T. Vredenburg. 2007. Removal of nonnative fish results in 

population expansion of a declining amphibian (mountain yellow-legged frog, Rana 

muscosa). Biological Conservation 135: 11-20. 

Landres, P.B., P. Morgan and F.J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability 

concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9(4): 1179-1188. 

Moore, J.W., D.B. Herbst, W.N. Heady and S.M. Carlson, 2012. Stream community and 

ecosystem responses to the boom and bust of an invading snail. Biological Invasions 14: 

2435–2446. 

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Moyle, P.B. and P.J. Randall. 1998. Evaluating the biotic integrity of watersheds in the Sierra 

Nevada, California. Conservation Biology 12(6): 1318-1326. 

Moyle, P.B., R.M. Yoshiyama and R.A. Knapages. 1996. Status of fish and fisheries. Pages 953-

973. In: Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: Final report to Congress, assessments and 

scientific basis for management options, Vol II, Chapter 33. Davis, CA: Univ. of Calif., 

Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

Neary, D.G., K.C. Ryan, L.F. DeBano, J.D. Landsburg and J.K. Brown, eds. 2005. Wildland fire 

in ecosystems: Effects of fire on soil and water. RMRS-GTR-42 vol 4. Ogdon, UT. 

USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250p. 

Perry, L.G., L.V. Reynolds, T.J. Beechie, M.J. Collins and P.B. Shafroth. 2015. Incorporating 

climate change projections into riparian restoration planning and design. Ecohydrology 

8(5): 863-879. 

Podolak, K, D. Edelson, S. Kruse, B. Aylward, M. Zimring and N. Wobbrock. 2015. Estimating 

the water supply benefits from forest restoration in the northern Sierra Nevada. An 

unpublished report of The Nature Conservancy prepared with Ecosystem Economics, San 

Francisco CA, 2015. 

Purdy, S.E., P.B. Moyle and K.W. Tate. 2012. Montane meadows in the Sierra Nevada: comparing 

terrestrial and aquatic assessment methods: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 

184: 6967-6986. 

Rachowicz, L.J., R.A. Knapp, J.A.T. Morgan, M.J. Stice, V.T. Vredenburg, J.M. Parker and C.J. 

Briggs. 2006. Emerging infectious disease as a proximate cause of amphibian mass 

mortality. Ecology 87:1671-1683. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

708

Reeder, N.M.M., A.P. Pessier and V.T. Vredenburg. 2012. A reservoir species for the emerging 

amphibian pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis thrives in a landscape decimated by 

disease: Plos One v. 7. 

Sada, D. and K.F. Pohlmann. 2002. Spring inventory and monitoring protocols. In Sada, D.W. and 

S.E. Sharpe, eds. 2004. Conference proceedings. Spring-fed wetlands: Important 

scientific and cultural resources of the Intermountain Region, May 7-9, 2002, Las Vegas, 

NV. DHS Publication No. 41210. 

Schindler, D.E., R.A. Knapp and P.R. Leavitt. 2001. Alteration of nutrient cycles and algal 

production resulting from fish introductions into mountain lakes. Ecosystems 4: 308-321. 

Schwartz, M.W., J. Thorne and A. Holguin. 2013. A natural resource condition assessment for 

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks: Appendix 20a – biodiversity. Natural 

Resource Report NPS/SEKI/NRR—2013/665.20a. Fort Collins, CO: National Park 

Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment: Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. Vallejo, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of 

Decision. Vallejo, CA: Pacific Southwest Region. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2011. Watershed condition 

framework: A framework for assessing and tracking changes to watershed condition. FS977. Washington, D.C.: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 24 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013. Final Inyo National Forest 

assessment. Document number R5-MB-266. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 229 p. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Programmatic Biological Opinion on 

Nine Forest Programs on Nine National Forests in the Sierra Nevada of California for the 

Endangered Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog, Endangered Northern Distinct 

Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog, and Threatened Yosemite 

Toad. FF08ESMF00-2014-F-0557. 

Viers, J.H. and D.E. Rheinheimer. 2011. Freshwater conservation options for a changing climate 

in California's Sierra Nevada. Marine and Freshwater Research 62(3): 266-278. 

Vredenburg, V.T., R. Bingham, R. Knapp, J.A.T. Morgan, C. Moritz and D. Wake. 2007. 

Concordant molecular and phenotypic data delineate new taxonomy and conservation 

priorities for the endangered mountain yellow-legged frog. Journal of Zoology 

271(2007): 361–374. 

At-risk Plant Species

Baldwin, B.G., D. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D. Wilken, eds. 2012. The 

Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California, 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of CA 

Press.
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

709

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2014. California Natural Diversity Database. 

Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch. 

Data downloaded November 2014. 

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2015. Inventory of rare and endangered p(online edition, 

v8-02). Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. Website 

http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 27 May 2015].

Guilliams, C.M. and J. Clines. 2012. Conservation assessment for Calyptridium pulchellum

(Eastw.) Hoover – Mariposa pussypaws. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region. 

Jepson Flora Project. 2015. Jepson EFlora. Online database edited by B.G. Baldwin, D.J. Keil, S. 

Markos, B.D. Mishler, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti and D.H. Wilken. 

http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html [accessed May 29, 2015].

Meyer, M.D. 2013. Natural Range of Variation (NRV) for subalpine forests in the bioregional 

assessment area, including the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascades, and Modoc and Inyo 

National Forests. Unpublished report. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Meyer, M.D., B. Bulaon, M. MacKenzie, H.D. Safford. 2014. Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) 

mortality monitoring in the Inyo National Forest. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5). Internal Report. 

Perkins, J. 2015. Fire enhances whitebark pine seedling establishment, survival, and growth. Fire 

Ecology 11(2): 84-99. 

Slaton, M.R., S. Gross, M. Meyer. 2014. Whitebark pine: R5 Spatial Stratification for 

Monitoring. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region (Region 5). Internal Report. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013. Inyo National Forest 

Snapshot of Living Assessment with species accounts for whitebark pine and Ramshaw 

Meadows abronia.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS) and U.S. Department of 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Conservation agreement for 

Abronia alpina (Ramshaw Meadows abronia), Tulare County, CA. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo National Forest and U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Office.

Revision Topic 3: Sustainable Recreation and Designated 

Areas

Sustainable Recreation

California State Parks. 2002. California Outdoor Recreation Plan 2002: An element of the 

California Outdoor Recreation Planning Program. Sacramento, CA: California State 

Parks, Planning Division. 78 p. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

710

Clark, R.N. and G.H. Stankey. 1979. The recreation opportunity spectrum: A framework for 

planning, management, and research. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-98. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 32 p. 

Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/cdt/carrying_capacity/gtr098.pdf

Doucette, J.E. and D.N. Cole. 1993. Wilderness visitor education: information about alternative 

techniques. General Technical Report. GTR-INT-295. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 

English, D.B.K., P. Froemke and K. Hawkos, K. 2014. Paths more traveled: Predicting future 

recreation pressures on America’s national forests and grasslands—a Forests on the Edge 

report. FS-1034. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 36 p. 

Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media/types/publication/field_pdf/paths-moretraveled-final-9-28-15.pdf 

Morris, D. and M. Walls. 2009. Climate change and outdoor recreation resources. Washington, 

DC: Resources for the Future. 26 p. 

http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-BCKORRG_ClimateChange.pdf

National Association of Recreation Resource Planners (NARRP). 2009. Principles of Recreation 

Resource Planning. Marienville, PA. 6 p. 

Pond, P.D. 2007. Taking charge of the wild: Keeping an eye on trail use can be difficult with 

unmanaged recreation. Parks and Recreation 42(6). 

https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-224777628/taking-charge-of-the-wild-keepingan-eye-on-trail

Roberts, N.S., D.J. Chavez, B.M. Lara and E.A. Sheffield. 2009. Serving culturally diverse 

visitors to forests in California: a resource guide. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Ryan, R.L. 2005. Social science to improve fuels management: A synthesis of research on 

aesthetics and fuels management. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-261. St. Paul, MN: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 58 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2007a. Recreation facility 

analysis: 5 year program of work and programmatic results of implementation. Bishop, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo National Forest. December 13, 

2007. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2007b. Recreation facility 

analysis: 5 year program of work and programmatic results of implementation. Clovis, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Sierra National Forest. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2008. Recreation facility 

analysis: 5 year program of work and programmatic results of implementation.

Porterville, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Sequoia National Forest.

May 13, 2008. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

711

 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2011a. National visitor use 

monitoring master report. Bishop, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Inyo National Forest. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2011b. National visitor use 

monitoring master report. Porterville, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Sequoia National Forest.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2012. National visitor use 

monitoring master report. Clovis, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Sierra National Forest.

Watts, C.E., Jr. and C.L. Fisher, eds. 2010. Proceedings of the 2009 northeastern recreation 

research symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-66. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 276 p. Available at: 

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs-p66.pdf

Winter, P.L., J.W. Long, F.K. Lake and S. Charnley. 2014. Broader context for social, economic, 

and cultural components. Chap. 9.1. In: Long, J.W., L. Quinn-Davidson, C.N. Skinner, 

eds. Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and 

southern Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 501-541. 

Heritage Resources

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013. Programmatic 

Agreement among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), 

California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, 

and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: Regarding the processes for 

compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for management 

of the historic properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region. 

Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 

Agreement entered on 2/6/2013. 

Wilderness

Cole, D.N. and L. Yung, editors. 2010. Beyond naturalness: Rethinking park and wilderness 

stewardship in an era of rapid change. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. 

Landres, P., C. Barns, S. Boutcher, T. Devine, P. Dratch, A. Lindholm, L. Merigliano, N. Roeper 

and E. Simpson. 2015. Keeping it wild 2: An updated interagency strategy to monitor 

trends in wilderness character across the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Lindenmayer, D. B. and Fischer, J. (2006). Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an 

ecological and conservation synthesis. Island Press, Washington D.C. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS) 2013a. Snapshot Inyo National Forest 

assessment from Living Assessment wikispaces website. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. September 2, 2013. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

712

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS) 2013b. Snapshot Sequoia National 

Forest assessment from Living Assessment wikispaces website. Vallejo, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. August 2, 2013. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS) 2013c. Snapshot Sierra National 

Forest assessment from Living Assessment wikispaces website. Vallejo, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. July 2, 2013. 

United States Department of Interior, National Park Service (USDI NPS). 2015. Wilderness 

stewardship plan for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Record of Decision and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement. Three Rivers, CA: U.S. Department of Interior, 

National Park Service, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. 

White, P.S., J. Harrod, J.L. Walker and A. Jentsch, Anke. 2000. Disturbance, scale, and boundary 

in wilderness management. In: McCool, S.F., D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrie and J. O’Loughlin, 

comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change conference—Volume 2: Wilderness 

within the context of larger systems; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings 

RMRS-P-15-VOL-2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. p. 27-42. 

Eligible and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers

Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council. 1999. The Wild & Scenic River Study 

Process. Technical report of the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating 

Council. December 1999. Retrieved from:

http://www.rivers.gov/documents/study-process.pdf. 

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail

Bureau of Land Management, CA State Office. 2015. Renewable Energy Summary. Retrieved 

from: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/energy.html

California State Parks. 2011. California outdoor recreation economic study: statewide 

contributions and benefits. Denver, CO. BBC Research & Consulting. Retrieved from: 

http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/795/files/ca%20outdoor%20rec%20econ%20studystatewide%2011-10-11%20for%20posting.pdf

California State Department of Finance. 2014. Report P-1 (Age): State and County Population 

Projections by Major Age Groups, 2010-2060 (by decade). Retrieved from:

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/P-1/. 

Caprio, A., M.B. Keifer and K. Webster. 2006. Long term effects of the 1992 Rainbow Fire, 

Devils Postpile National Monument. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service.

Outdoor Industry Association. 2012. Outdoor recreation economy report. Boulder, CO. Retrieved 

from https://outdoorindustry.org/pdf/OIA_OutdoorRecEconomyReport2012.pdf

Outdoor Foundation 2014. 2014 Outdoor recreation participation report. Retrieved from: 

http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/research.participation.2014.html

PCT Visitor Use Statistics. (no date). Retrieved from 

http://www.pcta.org/our-work/trail-and-land-management/pct-visitor-use-statistics/. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

713

Strayed, C. 2012. Wild: From lost to found on the Pacific Crest Trail. New York, NY: Alfred A. 

Knopf 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 1982a. Comprehensive 

management plan for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail. Portland, Oregon. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 1982b. ROS primer and 

field guide, R6-REC-021-90. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 1988. Inyo National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 1995. Landscape aesthetics: 

A handbook for scenery management (SMS). Agriculture Handbook Number 701 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2012. Clearing after the 

Devil’s Windstorm – Cutting blowdown trees from trails, Inyo National Forest, 

California. Unpublished briefing paper. Bishop, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Inyo National Forest. October 24, 2012. 20 pp. Retrieved from 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/inyo/home/?cid=stelprdb5355082

Tribal Relations and Uses

Alexander, C., N. Bynum, E. Johnson, U. King, T. Mustonen, P. Neofotis, N. Oettlé, C. 

Rosenzweig, C. Sakakibara, V. Shadrin, M. Vicarelli, J. Waterhouse and B. Weeks 2011. 

Linking indigenous and scientific knowledge of climate change. BioScience 61(6): 477-

484. 

Anderson, M.K. 1999. The fire, pruning, and coppice management of temperate ecosystems for 

basketry material by California indian tribes. Human Ecology 27(1): 79-113. 

Anderson, M.K. and M.J. Moratto. 1996. Native American land-use practices and ecological 

impacts. Chapter 9 In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, Vol. II, 

Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis, CA: University of 

California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. pp. 187-206. 

Arkush, B.S. 1993. Yokuts trade networks and native culture change in central and eastern 

California. Ethnohistory 40: 619–640. 

Arkush, B.S. 1994. Prehistoric trade networks and the ethnographic record in central California. 

North American Archaeologist 14(3): 191-197. 

Blackburn, T.C. and K. Anderson, eds. 1993. Before the wilderness: Environmental management 

by native Californians. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, CA.

Brown, G, and C.C. Harris. 1993. The implications of work force diversification in the U.S. 

Forest Service. Administration and Society 25(1): 85-113. 

Burger, J. 2008. Environmental management: Integrating ecological evaluation, remediation, 

restoration, natural resource damage assessment and long-term stewardship on 

contaminated lands. Science of the Total Environment 400: 6-19. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

714

Burger, J., M. Gochfied, K. Pletnikoff, R. Snigaroff, D. Snigaroff and T. Stamm. 2008. 

Ecocultural attributes: Evaluating ecological degradation in terms of ecological goods 

and services versus subsistence and tribal values. Risk Analysis 28(5): 1261-1271. 

California Department of Water Resources. 2014. 2014 CA Water Plan update: Water dependent 

cultural resources strategy. Tribal Advisory Committee. Unpublished Report. Available 

at: http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/tac/Resources%20Strategy(sl_rev)_clean.pdf

California Natural Resource Agency. 2014. Safeguarding California: Reducing climate risk: An 

update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Sacramento, CA: California 

Natural Resources Agency. July 31, 2014. 

http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Final_Safeguarding_CA_Plan_July_31_2014.pdf 

Carver, S., A. Watson, T. Waters, R. Matt, K. Gunderson and B. Davis 2009. Developing 

computer-based participatory approaches to mapping landscape values for landscape and 

resource management, Chapter 21. In S. Geertman, J. Stillwell (eds.). Planning support 

systems best practice and new methods, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-8952-7_21, © 

Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

Chartkoff, J.L. 2001. Exchange systems and sociopolitical complexity in the central Sierra 

Nevada: Perspectives on the impact of coastal colonization on inland communities. 

Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 23(1): 125-138. 

Chief, K., J.J. Daigle, K. Lynn, K.P. Whyte. 2014. Indigenous experiences in the U.S. with 

climate change and environmental stewardship in the Anthropocene. In: Sample, V.A. and 

R.P. Bixler, eds. Forest conservation and management in the Anthropocene: Conference 

proceedings. RMRS-P-71. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 161-176. 

Collins, B.M., S.L. Stephens, J.J. Moghaddas and J. Battles 2010. Challenges and approaches in 

planning fuels Treatments across fire-excluded forested landscapes. Journal of Forestry 

108(1): 24-31. 

Farris, G.J. 1982. Pine nuts as an aboriginal food source in California and Nevada: Some 

contrasts. Journal of Ethnobiology 2(2): 114-122. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2015. Social protection for 

building resilience of forest dependent people, Discussion No. 114. Global Forum on 

Food Security and Nutrition. http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/forum/discussions/socialprotection-forestry. 

Haney, J.W. 1992. Acorn exploitation in the eastern Sierra Nevada. Journal of California and 

Great Basin Anthropology 14(1): 94-109. 

Jemigan, V.B.B, A.L. Salvatore, D.M. Styne and M. Winkleby. 2012. Addressing food insecurity 

in a Native American reservation using a community-based participatory research. Health 

Education Research 27(4): 645-655. 

Jones, T.L. and K.A. Klar (eds.) 2007. California prehistory: Colonization, culture, and 

complexity. AltaMira Press, 394 p. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

715

Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology 

Bulletin 78. 

Lake, F.K. 2011. Working with American Indian tribes on wildland fires: Protecting cultural 

heritage sites in northwestern California. Fire Management Today 71(3). *Includes Yurok 

Tribe side bar.

Lake, F.K. 2013. Historical and cultural fires, tribal management and research issues in northern 

California: trails, fires, and tribulations. Occasion Vol. 5, March 2013, access: 

http://arcade.stanford.edu/journals/occasion/files/article_pdfs/OCCASION_v05i01_Lake

_050613.pdf

Lake, F.K. and J.W. Long. 2014. Chapter 4.2-Fire and tribal cultural resources. In Long et al. 

(eds.) Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and 

southern Cascade Range. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-247. pp 173-186. 

Lenihan, J.M., R. Drapek, D. Bachelet and R.P. Neilson. 2003. Climate change effects on 

vegetation distribution, carbon, and fire in California. Ecological Applications 13(6): 

1667-1681. 

Mason, L., G. White, G. Morishima, E. Alvarado, L. Andrew, F. Clark, M. Durglo, J. Durglo, J. 

Eneas, J. Erickson, M. Friedlander, K. Hamel, C. Hardy, T. Harwood, F. Haven, E. Isaac, 

L. James, R. Kenning, A. Leighton, P. Pierre, C. Raish, B. Shaw, S. Smallsalmon, V. 

Stearns, H. Teasley, M. Weingart, S. Wilder. 2012. Listening and learning from traditional 

knowledge and western science: A dialogue on contemporary challenges of forest health 

and wildfire, Journal of Forestry 110(4): 187-193. 

McAvoy, L., P. Shirilla and J. Flood. 2004. American Indian gathering and recreation uses of 

National Forest, Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium 

GTR-NE-326, pp 81-87. 

McDonald, D., T. McDonald and L. McAvoy. 2000. Tribal wilderness research needs and issues 

in the United States and Canada. In: McCool, S.F., D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrie, J. 

O’Loughlin, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change conference. Vol. 2: 

Wilderness within the context of larger systems; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. 

Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. pp 290-294. 

Miller, J.D., H.D. Safford, M. Crimmins and A.E. Thode. 2009. Quantitative evidence for 

increasing forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Mountains, 

California and Nevada, USA. Ecosystems 12(1), 16-32. 

Miller, C. and D.L. Urban. 1999. Forest pattern, fire and climatic change in the Sierra Nevada. 

Ecosystems 2: 76-87. 

Moratto, M.J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc. Orlando, FL. 798 p. 

Moritz, M.A. and S.L. Stephens. 2008. Fire and sustainability: Considerations for California’s 

altered future climate. Climatic Change 87 (Suppl 1):S265–S271. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

716

Noonan-Wright, E.K., T.S. Opperman, M.A. Finney, G.T. Zimmerman, R.C. Seli, L.M. Elenz, 

D.E. Calkin and J.R. Fiedler. 2011. Developing the US Wildland Fire Decision Support 

System. Journal of Combustion 2011, Article ID 168473, 14 p. 

North, M.P., K.M. Van de Water, S.L. Stephens and B.M. Collins. 2009. Climate, rain shadow, 

and human-use influences on fire regimes in the eastern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. 

Fire Ecology 5(3): 20-34. 

Parker, P.L. and T.F. King. 1998. Guidelines for evaluating and documenting traditional cultural 

properties. National Register Bulletin 38. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, National Register, History and Education National Register of Historic Places. 

1990. Revised 1992 and 1998. 28 p. 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb38.pdf 

Pimentel, D, M. McNair, L. Buck, M. Pimentel and J. Kamil. 1997. The value of forests to world 

food security. Human Ecology 25(1): 91-120. 

Pollard, S.J.T., G.J. Davis, F. Coley and M. Lemon. 2008. Better environmental decision making: 

recent progress and future trends. Science of the Total Environment 400, pages: 20-31. 

Raish, C., A. Gonzalez-Caban, C.J. Condie. 2005. The importance of traditional fire use and 

management practices for contemporary land managers in the American Southwest. 

Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards 6(2): 115-122. 

Show, S.B. and E.I. Kotok. 1924. The role of fire in the California pine forests. USDA Bulletin 

number 1294. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.: GPO. 

Sierra Nevada Alliance. 2010. Sierra climate change toolkit: planning ahead to protect Sierra 

natural resources and rural communities, third edition. South Lake Tahoe, CA. 123 p. 

http://sierranevadaalliance.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/3reditionclimatechangetoolkit.pdf

Spier, R. F.G. 1978. Monache and Foot Hill Yokuts. In Heizer, R.F. (ed.) California-Volume 8, 

Handbook of North American Indians, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC. pp 426-

436, and 471-484 respectively.

Stephens, S.L. and L.W. Ruth. 2005. Federal forest-fire policy in the United States. Ecological 

Applications 15(2): 532-542. 

Stumpff, L.M. 2000. In wilderness there is life: An American Indian perspective on theory and 

action for wildlands. In: McCool, S.F., D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrie, J. O’Loughlin, comps. 

2000. Wilderness science in a time of change conference. Vol 2: Wilderness within the 

context of larger systems; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-

Vol-2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. pp 98-102. 

Timbrook, J., J.R. Johnson and D.D. Earle. 1993. Vegetation burning by the Chumash. In: 

Blackburn and Anderson (eds.) Before the wilderness: Environmental management by 

native Californians. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, CA. pp 117-150. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

717

Timmons, R.S., L. deBano and K.C. Ryan. 2012. Chapter 9: Implications of fire management on 

cultural resources. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42, Vol. 3. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. pp 171-191. 

Toupal, R.S. 2003. Cultural landscapes as a methodology for understanding natural resource 

management impacts in the western United States. Conservation Ecology 7(1): 12. 

Turner, N.J. and K.L. Turner. 2008. Where our women used to get the food: cumulative effects 

and loss of ethnobotanical knowledge and practice: case study from coastal British 

Columbia. Botany 86: 103-115. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008. Policies on American Indians and Alaska 

Natives. Departmental Regulation 1340-007. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. March 14, 2008. 7 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2016. Forest Plan Revision: 

Public Involvement Milestones and Timeline. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Unpublished Document. February 

2016. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3804577.pdf 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). 2010. 

Discussion paper-NWCG GIS data layer standard: Fire cultural sites and fire cultural 

surveys, Dec. 13, 2010: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/CRM/fire_and_heritage/gis_fire.html. 

Vogel, H.J. 2001. The clash of stories at Chimney Rock: A narrative approach to cultural conflict 

over Native American sacred sites on public land. Santa Clara Law Review 41: 757-806. 

Voggesser, G., K. Lynn, J. Daigel, F.K. Lake and D. Ranco. 2013. Cultural impacts to tribes from 

climate change influences on forests. Climatic Change 120: 615-626. 

Watson, A.M., R. Matt, T. Waters, K. Gunderson, S. Carver and B. Davis. 2009. Mapping 

tradeoffs in values at risk at the interface between wilderness and non-wilderness lands. 

In: Gonzalez-Caban, A., tech. coord. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium 

on fire economics, planning, and policy: Common problems and approaches. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-227. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. p. 375-387. 

Watson, A., R. Matt, K. Knotek, D.R. Williams and L. Yung. 2011. Traditional wisdom: 

Protecting relationship with wilderness as a cultural landscape. Ecology and Society 

16(1): 36. 

Welch, J.R. 2012. Chapter 8: Effects of fire on intangible cultural resources: Moving toward a 

landscape approach. In: Ryan, K.C., A.T. Jones, C.L. Koerner, K.M. Lee, tech. eds. 2012. 

Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on cultural resources and archaeology. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 3. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 157-170. 

Yablon, M. 2004. Property rights and sacred sites: Federal regulatory responses to American 

Indian religious claims on public land. The Yale Law Journal 113(7): 1623-1662. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

718

Zeanah, D.W. 2002. Central Place Foraging and Prehistoric Pinyon Utilization in the Great Basin, 

Chapter 8 In Fitzhugh, B. and J. Habu. Beyond Foraging and Collecting, pp. 231-256. 

Springer US.

Zedeño, N., D. Austin and R. Stoffle. 1997. Landmark and landscape: A contextual approach to 

the management of American Indian resources. Culture and Agriculture 19(3): 123-129. 

Benefits to People and Communities

Forest Products and Management

Dixon, G.E. comp. 2002. Essential FVS: A user’s guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. 

Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest 

Management Service Center. 226p. (Revised: November 2, 2015).

Franklin, J.F., T.A. Spies, R. Van Pelt, R., A.B. Carey, D.A. Thornburgh, D.R. Berg, D.B.

Lindenmayer, M.E. Harmon, W.S. Keeton, D.C. Shaw, K. Bible and J. Chen. 2002. 

Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural 

implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. Forest Ecology and Management 

(155) 399-423. 

Latham, P. and J. Tappeiner. 2002. Response of old-growth conifers to reduction in stand density

in western Oregon forests. Tree Physiology (22) 137-146. 

McKelvey, K.S. and J.D. Johnston. 1992. Historical perspectives on the forests of the Sierra 

Nevada and the Transverse Ranges of Southern California: Forest conditions at the turn 

of the century. In Verner, J., K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutierrez, G.I. Gould, Jr. 

and T.W. Beck, , Technical Coordinators. The California Spotted Owl: A technical 

assessment of its current status. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 225-246 p. 

North, M., P. Stine, K. O'Hara, W. Zielinski and S. Stephens. 2009. An ecosystem management 

strategy for Sierran mixed-conifer forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49 p 

North, M., ed. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

184 p. 

North, M., P. Stine, K. O’Hara, W. Zielinski and S. Stephens. 2009. An ecosystem management 

strategy for Sierra mixed-conifer forests. 2nd printing, with addendum. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. 49 p. 

Schmidt, D.A., A.H. Taylor and C.N. Skinner. 2008. The influence of fuels treatment and 

landscape arrangement on simulated fire behavior, Southern Cascade range, California. 

Forest Ecology & Management (255) 3170-3184. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of 

Decision. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

719

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013a. Final Sequoia 

National Forest assessment. Document number R5-MB-267. Vallejo, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 

266 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013b. Final Sierra National 

Forest assessment. Document number R5-MB-269. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2013. 268 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2016. Cut and Sold Reports, 

2010-2014. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/products/soldharvest/cut-sold.shtml

Economic Conditions

Alkire, C. 2012. Economic contribution of Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area designation. 

Prepared for The Wilderness Society. September, 2012. 

California Department of Finance. 2012. Occupational projections of employment. Labor Market 

Info. 

California State Controller's Office. 2012. Counties annual report FY 2011. Sacramento, CA. 

Charnley, S. 2013. Strategies for job creation through forest management. Chapter 9.4 in Long, 

J.W., L. Quinn-Davidson and C.N. Skinner, tech. editors. Science synthesis to support 

forest plan revision in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades. Draft Final Report. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 504 p. 

Dean Runyan and Associates. 2012. California travel impacts by county, 1992-2010 2011 

Preliminary State & Regional Estimates April 2012 p.149. 

English, D. 2013. Estimating the visitation to Inyo National Forest that originated within Inyo 

County. Personal Communication. December 9, 2013. 

Gruen Gruen and Associates. 2010. A county at risk: The socio-economic impacts of the proposed 

Yucca Mountain High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository on Inyo County California. A 

Report to the County of Inyo California. November. 

Headwaters Economics 2012. Profile of timber, mining, travel and tourism. Human Dimensions 

Toolkit Bozeman, MT. November. 

Inyo County. 2015. County Analysis of Economic Contributions from Wilderness-Hiking, 

Grazing, OHV, Hunting and Fishing. March 2015. 

Lin, S. and M. Metcalfe. 2013. DRAFT Socioeconomics for the Bioregion – A summary of 

condition and trend for forest plan revision. Unpublished report on file. Vallejo, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. June. 

McIver, C.P., J.P. Meek, M.G. Scudder, C.B. Sorenson, T.A. Morgan, and G.A. Christensen. 

2015. California’s forest products industry and timber harvest, 2012. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-908. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 49 p. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

720

Metcalfe, M., T. Koehler, A. Brough and V. Emly, 2013. DRAFT Ecosystem services in the 

bioregion – A summary for forest plan revision. Working Paper. Vallejo, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 5. v2. June 2013. 

Michael, J. 2009. Unemployment in the San Joaquin Valley in 2009. Business Forecasting Center 

Eberhardt School of Business. August 11. 

Morris, G. 2000. Biomass energy production in California: The case for a biomass policy 

initiative. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, US Department of Energy. NREL/SR570-28805. November 2000. 

North Fork Community Development Council (NFCDC). 2013. North Fork mill site bioenergy 

project Upcoming Public Meetings. March.

Richards, C. 2015a. Personal Conversation with Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

and Southern California Edison concerning employees located in Inyo County. February 

2015. 

Richards, C. 2015b. Personal Conversation with Mammoth Lakes Tourism concerning visitation. 

February 2015. 

Richards, C. 2015c. Personal Conversation with Adena Fansler Inyo County Mining Inspector 

concerning surface mining in the county. February 2015. 

Sierra Business Council. 2012. Eastern Sierra Innovation and Prosperity. An Industry Cluster 

Approach to Economic Sustainability in California’s Inyo and Mono Counties. 

September 2012. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2015. Strategic Plan: FY 2010-2015. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2008. TMECA Economic 

Contribution Reports. Region 5 Travel Management Part B forest level economic 

analysis. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2010. Connecting people 

with America’s great outdoors, A framework for sustainable recreation. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2012. Fiscal year 2006-

2012 planning and budget advice. Pacific Southwest Region 5 Vallejo, CA. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013a. Final Sierra National 

Forest assessment. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Document 

Number R5-MB-269. December 2013. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013b. Final Sequoia 

National Forest assessment. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 

Document Number R5-MB-267. December 2013. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2013c. Final Inyo National 

Forest assessment. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Document 

Number R5-MB-266. December 2013. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

721

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2014. The estimated 

economic contributions of National Forests and Grasslands. White Paper - Ecosystem 

Management Coordination. December 2014. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2015a. All service receipts 

(ASR) final payment detail report PNF (ASR-10-03). January 2015. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2015b. USDA FS Economic 

contributions model Sierra National Forest. January 2015. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest, Service (USDA FS). 2015c. USDA FS Economic 

contributions model Sequoia National Forest. January 2015. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2015d. USDA FS Economic 

contributions model Inyo National Forest. January 2015. 

United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USDI BOR). 2013. Friant Dam 

http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Central+Valley+Project January 8, 

2013. 

Social Conditions

Allen, S.D., D.A. Wickwar and F.P. Clark. 2009. Values, beliefs, and attitudes technical guide for 

Forest Service land and resource management, planning, and decisionmaking. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Brown, G., M. Kelly and D. Whitall. 2013. Which ‘public'? Sampling effects in public 

participation GIS (PPGIS) and volunteered geographic information (VGI) systems for 

public lands management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 57(2). 

California Air Response Planning Alliance. 2008. Wildfire smoke: a guide for public officials. 

Sacramento, CA: 53 p. 

Charnley, S. 2013. Strategies for job creation through forest management. In: Long, J.W., L. 

Quinn-Davidson and C.N. Skinner, eds. Science synthesis to support forest plan revision 

in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades, Draft final report. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 504. 

Chapter 9.4. 

Chavez, D.J. 2012. Latinos and Outdoor Recreation. In: Cordell, H.K., ed. Outdoor Recreation 

Trends and Futures. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station. 

Chavez, D.J. and D.D. Olson. 2008. Chapter 6: Diverse users of four urban National Forests: 

Participation, preferences, and perceptions. In: Chavez, D.J., P.L. Winter and J.D. Absher, 

eds. Recreation visitor research: Studies of diversity. PSW-GTR-210. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Cordell, H.K. 2012. Outdoor recreation trends and futures: a technical document supporting the 

Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-150. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 167 p.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental justice: Guidance under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C.: 34 p.
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

722

Long, J.W., C.N. Skinner and M. North. 2014. Chapter 1.2 Integrative approaches: Promoting 

socioecological resilience. In: Long, J.W., L. Quinn-Davidson and C.N. Skinner, eds. 

Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and 

Southern Cascades, PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station: 17-54. 

Mahler, B. 2012. Tracking American Participation in Outdoor Recreation. In: Cordell, H.K., ed. 

Outdoor Recreation Trends and Futures. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service Southern 

Research Station.

McAvoy, L., P. Shirilla and J. Flood. 2004. American Indian gathering and recreation uses of 

national forests. Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. 

81-87 p. 

Roberts, N.S., D.J. Chavez, B.M. Lara and E.A. Sheffield. 2009. Serving culturally diverse 

visitors to forests in California: a resource guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-222. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 76 p. 

United States Census Bureau. American Community Survey and Puerto Rico Community Survey 

2011 Subject Definitions. 

United States Census Bureau. 2015. 2010 Geographic Terms and Concepts. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1997. Department Regulation 5600-002 

Environmental Justice. Washington, D.C.: 35 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2003. Department Regulation 4300-4 Civil 

Rights Impact Analysis. Washington, D.C.: 20 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 1986. Forest Service 

Handbook 1709.11 - Civil Rights Handbook, Chapter 30 - Civil Rights Impact Analysis. 

Washington, D.C.: 44 p.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2012. Future of America's 

Forests and Rangelands: Forest Service 2010 Resources Planning Act Assessment. 

General Technical Report WO-87. Washington, DC. 198 p. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2015. The Rising Cost of 

Wildfire Operations: Effects on the Forest Service's Non-Fire Work. Washington, D.C.: 

16 p. 

Westerling, A.L., J. Milostan and A.R. Keyser. 2015. Changing fire, fuels and climate in the 

Sierra Nevada. Final report under USFS Cooperative Agreement: Modeling potential fire 

impacts with landscape vegetation scenarios and changing climate for the Sierra Nevada 

and other areas in the Western U.S. University of California Merced. Unpublished 

document available in project record. 43 p. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

723

Index

air quality, 21, 26, 32, 37, 116, 118 

class I airsheds (wilderness), 120, 124, 

126, 128, 130 

Clean Air Act, 3, 118, 640 

smoke from prescribed fire, 119

smoke from wildfires, 119 

alternatives

alternative A, the existing forest plans, 20

alternative B, 24 

alternative B, the proposed forest plans, 13

alternative C, 14, 31 

alternative D, 15, 36, 575 

comparison of, 45, 50, 51, 52, 54 

considered but eliminated from detailed 

study, 40 

development process, 13 

aquatic and riparian ecosystems, 263, 272 

influence of climate change, 271 

lakes and ponds, 57, 174, 192, 195, 270, 

289, 320, 351, 402, 410, 420, 423, 426, 

437, 470, 514, 517, 518, 520, 521, 543, 

584, 601, 608, 636, 720 

meadows, fens, and springs, 268, 403, 419, 

420, 424, 426 

riparian vegetation, 265, 271, 274, 276, 

278, 280 

streams and rivers, 267, 353, 357, 401, 

410, 412, 413, 418, 420, 421, 423, 426, 

444 

aquatic species, 397, 407, 705

aquatic species diversity, 265, 274, 276, 278, 

280 

aspen, 220

assumptions, 56 

at-risk species, 22, 27, 29, 34, 39, 219, 305, 

306, 340, 409, 605 

federally listed, candidate or proposed, 306 

federally listed aquatic species, 

determinations, 427

federally listed plant species, 

determinations, 458

federally listed wildlife species, 

determinations, 396

wildlife, 239, 259, 308, 321, 344, 688 

bald eagle, 313, 334 

bats, 17, 24, 320, 349, 351, 352, 696 

Pacific fringe-tailed bat, 327 

best available science, 55

butterflies, 314, 320, 342, 381

California condor, 324, 703 

carbon sequestration and stability, 205, 216, 

225, 227, 231, 238, 241, 243, 247 

civil rights, 599, 606

climate change, 20, 57

influences on fire trends, 58

resilience to, 22, 28, 34, 38, 265, 272, 274, 

276, 278, 280 

trends, 58 

complex early seral habitat, 16, 28, 33, 38, 

250, 319, 435, 436 

connectivity, 211, 216, 227, 232, 239, 241, 

244, 247 

conservation strategies and assessments, 308

critical aquatic refuges, 22, 28, 34, 38, 46, 

47, 48, 266, 267 

critical habitat, 313, 321, 323, 324, 396, 399, 

427, 641 

Death Valley National Park, 1, 634 

derived under the Endangered Species Act,, 

305 

designated areas, 49

Devils Postpile National Monument, 1, 634, 

712 

drivers and stressors, 57 

ecological indicators, 253

ecological integrity, 133

ecological resilience, 21, 27, 33, 37, 166 

ecological sustainability, 210, 221, 229, 237, 

240, 243, 246, 250 

ecological vulnerability and adaptation, 251, 

255, 389 

economic conditions, 578, 580 

effects to local communities, 589, 590, 

592, 594 

importance of water, 584 

national forest contributions, 582, 584 

recreation and tourism, 581, 583, 719 

revenues, 581

timber sector jobs, 582 

unemployment, 580 

ecosystem processes and functions, 204, 223 

Endangered Species Act, 307 

environmental justice, 599, 608
Index

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

724

fire

ecological role, 89, 204, 210, 211, 223, 

225, 246 

fire regime, 204, 210, 215, 223, 229, 237, 

241, 243, 246 

fire return interval, 211 

fire management, 87, 96 

fire management zones, 21, 25, 32, 37, 96, 

98, 99 

managing wildfire to meet resource 

objectives, 21, 26, 32, 37, 93, 119 

National Cohesive Wildland Fire 

Management Strategy, 88, 655, 664 

fire trends, 66 

fire history, 61 

fire size, 63

intensity and severity, 65 

forest products, 564

fuelwood, 569 

special forest products, 569 

fuel reduction treatments, 95 

Giant Sequoia National Monument, 15 

great gray owl, 17, 23, 334 

greater sage-grouse, 23, 30, 35, 39, 333 

habitats 

aquatic habitat for wildlife, 381, 387 

caves and cliffs, 385

eastside vegetation, 366

for aquatic wildlife, 319 

for cavity excavators, 220 

for terrestrial wildlife, 316

montane forests, 368 

special habitats, 219 

upper montane, subalpine, and alpine 

vegetation, 381

heritage resources, 503, 512 

impacts to, 557 

prehistoric sites, 505, 506 

sites surveyed, 507, 510 

Hispanic visitors, 600, 604, 608, 609, 618, 

635, 636, 648 

human health and safety, 606, 615 

Indian tribes 

Tule River Indian Reservation, 1, 2, 608 

insects and pathogens, 74, 77, 81 

bark beetles, 78, 658 

defoliators, 80 

dwarf mistletoes and root diseases, 80

non-native insects and diseases, 80

trends, 81 

interdisciplinary team members, 625

invasive species, 20, 272, 453 

Inyo National Forest 

description, 1 

issues, 10, 12, 676 

ecological resilience, wildlife habitats, and 

wildfire, 10 

forest products, 12

forest resilience and forest density, 11

fuels treatments and fire management, 11

protecting aquatic diversity, 11 

recommended wilderness, 12

smoke, 12 

watershed restoration, 11

John Muir Trail, 538, 539 

Kern red-winged blackbird, 332 

Kern River drainage, 69, 156, 259 

Kings River Special Management Area, 2, 15

least Bell's vireo, 323

management areas, 45, 548 

migratory birds, 343, 344

minority and low-income populations, 600, 

609, 610, 619 

national parks 

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National 

Parks, 245, 538, 539 

Yosemite National Park, 1, 73, 83, 164, 

244, 282, 315, 325, 332, 337, 514, 527, 

538, 568, 596, 634, 670, 673, 683, 696, 

700, 704, 706 

National Register of Historic Places, 504, 

508, 510 

natural range of variation, 133, 659, 660, 

661, 672, 676, 696, 699, 706 

need for change, 6, 308

Nevada Enhancement Act, 4, 7, 18, 19, 468, 

479, 485 

notice of intent, 9 

old forests, 21, 216, 232, 235 

Pacific Crest Trail, 532, 536 

competitive events, 540, 547, 550 

economic effects, 543 

management, 536 

nearby renewable energy projects, 542, 

549 

permits, 538 

scenery management of, 540 

vegetation management and wildfire 

effects, 541, 542 

visitor use, 537, 547
Index

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

725

Pacific fisher, 23, 30, 39, 179, 185, 232, 328 

Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher 

Conservation Strategy, 14, 16, 28, 30, 

31, 35, 309, 311, 364, 378 

partnerships, 18 

peregrine falcon, 334 

plants, 428, 432, 446, 613, 708 

federally listed plant species, 433, 447, 

454, 455, 456, 458 

floristic biogeographic subdivisions, 430, 

431, 432, 446, 450 

pollinators, 208, 220 

pseudoscorpion, 343 

public engagement sessions, 8, 9 

public participation, 8 

Ramshaw Meadows abronia, 432, 434, 444, 

453, 454, 455, 709 

range management, 345, 627 

recreation, 24, 461 

access, 464

facilities, 462

partnerships and volunteers, 465 

recreation opportunity spectrum, 463, 468, 

472, 475, 479, 486, 493 

use and activities, 464, 469, 473, 476 

responsible official, 3, ii, 8, 625 

revision topics, 6 

ecological integrity, 7, 21, 27, 33, 37, 133, 

666 

fire management, 7, 21, 25, 32, 37, 86, 663 

sustainable recreation and designated 

areas, 7, 24, 31, 36, 39, 460, 709 

salamanders, 339, 347 

scenery, 465, 471, 474, 477, 478, 483, 490, 

496 

scenic character, 466

scenic integrity, 20, 465, 466, 484, 485, 

492, 498, 535 

scenic stability, 467, 483, 490, 497 

the Scenery Management System, 20

the Visual Management System, 24, 465, 

547, 548 

Sequoia National Forest

description, 2 

Sierra marten, 17, 24, 330 

Sierra National Forest

description, 2 

Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, 326, 703 

Sierra Nevada red fox, 309, 325 

snails, 314, 341, 342 

social and economic benefits, 564 

social conditions, 598

values, 598, 604 

species of conservation concern, 16, 308 

aquatic species, 399 

aquatic species outcomes, 427

birds, 313 

butterflies and moths, 314 

mammals, 313 

plant species, 434, 448, 454, 455, 456, 

457, 458 

snails, 314

terrestrial amphibians, 314

wildlife species outcomes, 397

spotted owl, 16, 23, 29, 34, 39, 335, 373, 

694, 718 

Interim Recommendations for the 

Management of California Spotted Owl 

Habitat, 14, 16, 23, 28, 29, 31, 34, 311, 

364, 378, 656, 702 

State Historic Preservation Office, 508, 511, 

623 

timber production, 564, 570 

suitability, 566, 567 

tribes, 506, 619, 633 

access to areas, 554, 558, 559, 560, 561, 

562 

consultation with, 10, 623 

effects of wilderness designation on, 560 

traditional areas, 557

traditional uses, 17, 210, 220, 225, 228, 

237, 240, 243, 245, 249, 554, 555, 556, 

605, 613 

tribal relations, 552, 554, 558, 610

tribal uses, 505 

use of fire, 553, 555 

Tricolored blackbird, 309, 332, 701 

valley elderberry longhorn beetle, 321 

vegetation

composition and structure, 161, 168 

vegetation types, 133, 134, 142, 146, 162, 

163, 205, 207, 210, 222, 252, 253 

eastside vegetation, 156

montane forests, 150, 163, 164, 171, 182, 

193, 198 

subalpine and alpine vegetation, 154, 161, 

172, 174, 188, 194, 196, 200, 202, 224, 

226, 231, 238, 318 

upper montane forests, 152, 164, 171, 174, 

187, 191, 194, 195, 200, 202, 224, 226, 

231, 238, 317, 381 

westside foothill vegetation, 148, 316, 361 
Index

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans – Vol. 1

726

water, 266, 272, 282, 305 

water quality, 266, 272, 282, 284, 285, 

287, 288, 292, 294, 296, 298, 300, 302, 

303, 305, 634 

water quantity, 284, 286, 290, 292, 294, 

296, 298, 300, 303, 304 

watershed condition, 266, 272, 282, 286, 

290, 295, 297, 299, 301, 303, 351, 402, 

407, 453, 686 

western yellow-billed cuckoo, 323

whitebark pine, 447 

wild and scenic rivers, ii, vii, 18, 525, 526, 

527, 528, 531, 532, 712 

classification, 526

determining eligibility, 526 

existing designated rivers, 527 

existing recommended rivers, 18, 528 

inventory of rivers, 525 

suitability, 526 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 525, 643, 654 

wilderness, 18, 346 

coordination with other agencies, 524 

existing designated wilderness areas, 514 

National Wilderness Preservation System, 

12, 446, 512, 516, 520, 521, 524, 613, 

614 

preliminary wilderness recommendation, 

519 

proposed recommended wilderness, 515 

recommended wilderness, 15, 24, 31, 36, 

40, 44, 46, 47, 48, 515, 516, 517, 518, 

519, 554, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562 

the Wilderness Act, 513 

wilderness character, 513

wildlife

related plan components, 348 

willow flycatcher, 17, 23, 309, 322, 331, 689, 

701 

yellow-eared pocket mouse, 327 

Yosemite toad, 23, 30, 36, 39, 411, 706, 708