Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement

Forest

Service

Stanislaus R5-MB-270 May 2014

National Forest

United States Department of Agriculture

Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement

Stanislaus National Forest

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agencies: None

Responsible Official: Susan Skalski, Forest Supervisor

Stanislaus National Forest

19777 Greenley Road

Sonora, CA 95370

(209) 532-3671

Information Contact: Maria Benech, Team Leader

Stanislaus National Forest

19777 Greenley Road

Sonora, CA 95370

(209) 288-2116

Abstract: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) describes a proposal by the Stanislaus National 

Forest which would include: salvage of dead trees; hazard tree removal along low standard roads; fuel reduction 

for future forest resiliency to fire; and, road improvements for proper hydrologic function. The DEIS discloses the 

direct, indirect and cumulative environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, a no action 

alternative and two additional action alternatives. The Responsible Official has not identified a preferred 

alternative at this stage.

Mail comments to: Stanislaus National Forest

Attn: Rim Recovery

19777 Greenley Road

Sonora, CA 95370

E-mail Comments to: comments-pacificsouthwest-stanislaus@fs.fed.us [Subject: Rim Recovery] 

Comment Period: Comment period starts the day after the Environmental Protection Agency publishes 

a Notice of Availability for the DEIS in the Federal Register.

Reviewer’s Note: It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that 

they are useful to the Agency’s preparation of the EIS. 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 review or judicial review.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of 

Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.-20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an 

equal opportunity provider and employer.
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Summary ......................................................................................................................................xiii

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

1.01 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE.................................................................................................................... 1

1.02 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 1

Project Location ............................................................................................................................. 3

Project Development...................................................................................................................... 3

Forest Plan Direction...................................................................................................................... 7

Relation to Other Rim Fire Projects................................................................................................ 7

1.03 PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................................................ 7

1.04 PROPOSED ACTION........................................................................................................................... 9

Updates to the Proposed Action...................................................................................................13

1.05 PRINCIPAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS ...............................................................................................13

1.06 DECISION FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................................14

Project-Level Pre-decisional Administrative Review (Objection) Process ....................................14

Emergency Situation Determination.............................................................................................14

Alternative Arrangements.............................................................................................................14

1.07 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .....................................................................................................................15

1.08 ISSUES...........................................................................................................................................16

Significant Issues .........................................................................................................................17

1.09 GIS DATA ....................................................................................................................................18

2. The Alternatives .....................................................................................................................19

2.01 HOW THE ALTERNATIVES WERE DEVELOPED ....................................................................................19

Primary Objectives .......................................................................................................................19

Salvage and Fuel Reduction ........................................................................................................20

Salvage ....................................................................................................................................20

Biomass Removal.....................................................................................................................21

Machine Piling and Burning......................................................................................................21

Jackpot Burning........................................................................................................................21

Mastication ...............................................................................................................................21

Drop and Lop............................................................................................................................21

Hazard Tree Removal and Fuel Reduction..................................................................................21

Biomass Removal.....................................................................................................................22

Machine Piling and Burning......................................................................................................22

Roads...........................................................................................................................................22

New Construction .....................................................................................................................22

Reconstruction..........................................................................................................................22

Maintenance.............................................................................................................................23

Stored Roads............................................................................................................................23

Temporary Roads.....................................................................................................................23

Temporary Use - Revert ...........................................................................................................23

Skid Zones................................................................................................................................23

Right-of-Way Acquisition ..........................................................................................................24

Other Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................24

Wildlife Habitat Enhancement ......................................................................................................24

Research......................................................................................................................................24

Forest Plan Amendments.............................................................................................................25

Management Requirements.........................................................................................................25

2.02 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ............................................................................................25

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)....................................................................................................25

Salvage and Fuel Reduction.....................................................................................................25

Hazard Tree Removal and Fuel Reduction ..............................................................................25

Roads .......................................................................................................................................25

Wildlife Habitat Enhancement...................................................................................................26

Management Requirements .....................................................................................................26

Alternative 2 (No Action) ..............................................................................................................27

Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................................. 27

Salvage and Fuel Reduction.....................................................................................................28

i 
Stanislaus

Table of Contents National Forest

Hazard Tree Removal and Fuel Reduction...............................................................................28

Roads .......................................................................................................................................28

Wildlife Habitat Enhancement...................................................................................................28

Research ..................................................................................................................................28

Forest Plan Amendment...........................................................................................................28

Management Requirements .....................................................................................................29

Alternative 4 ................................................................................................................................. 33

Salvage and Fuel Reduction.....................................................................................................33

Hazard Tree Removal and Fuel Reduction...............................................................................33

Roads .......................................................................................................................................33

Wildlife Habitat Enhancement...................................................................................................33

Research ..................................................................................................................................33

Forest Plan Amendment ...........................................................................................................33

Management Requirements .....................................................................................................33

2.03 MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES ............................................34

2.04 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY................................................45

2.05 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................48

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

3.01 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................55

Analysis Process..........................................................................................................................55

Cumulative Effects....................................................................................................................55

Forest Plan Amendments .........................................................................................................56

Forest Plan Direction ................................................................................................................57

Incomplete or Unavailable Information .....................................................................................57

Resource Reports.....................................................................................................................58

Affected Environment Overview ...................................................................................................58

Information on Other Resource Issues.........................................................................................59

Climate Change........................................................................................................................59

Inventoried Roadless Areas......................................................................................................59

Vegetation ................................................................................................................................60

Visual Resources......................................................................................................................60

Yosemite National Park ............................................................................................................60

Analysis Framework.....................................................................................................................61

CEQA and NEPA Compliance .....................................................................................................61

3.02 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................................63

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction ...............................63

Air Quality Management Practices............................................................................................63

Effects Analysis Methodology ......................................................................................................63

Assumptions Specific to Air Quality ..........................................................................................63

Data Sources............................................................................................................................63

Air Quality Indicators.................................................................................................................63

Affected Environment...................................................................................................................64

Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................64

Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................................65

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)................................................................................................65

Alternative 2 (No Action)...........................................................................................................66

Alternative 3..............................................................................................................................66

Alternative 4..............................................................................................................................66

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives....................................................................66

Conformity Determination.............................................................................................................67

3.03 AQUATIC SPECIES...........................................................................................................................69

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction ...............................69

Effects Analysis Methodology ......................................................................................................69

Assumptions Specific to Aquatic Species .................................................................................69

Data Sources............................................................................................................................70

Aquatic Species Indicators .......................................................................................................70

Aquatic Species Methodology by Action...................................................................................71

Affected Environment...................................................................................................................74

Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................................85

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)................................................................................................85

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................108

ii
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................115

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................123

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives ................................................................. 127

3.04 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................131

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................131

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................131

Assumptions Specific to Cultural Resources ..........................................................................131

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................132

Cultural Resources Indicators................................................................................................. 132

Cultural Resources Methodology by Action............................................................................132

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................132

Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................133

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................134

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................134

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................135

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................135

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................135

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives ................................................................. 136

3.05 FIRE AND FUELS ...........................................................................................................................137

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................137

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................137

Assumptions Specific to Fire and Fuels..................................................................................137

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................137

Fire and Fuels Indicators ........................................................................................................137

Fire and Fuels Methodology by Action ...................................................................................137

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................140

Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................140

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................143

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................143

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................145

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................148

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................149

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives ................................................................. 149

3.06 INVASIVE SPECIES ........................................................................................................................151

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................151

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................151

Assumptions Specific to Invasive Species..............................................................................151

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................151

Invasive Species Indicators ....................................................................................................151

Invasive Species Methodology by Action ...............................................................................151

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................152

Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................152

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................154

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................155

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................156

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................157

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................157

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives ................................................................. 157

3.07 RANGE ........................................................................................................................................159

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................159

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................159

Assumptions Specific to Range..............................................................................................159

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................159

Range Indicators ....................................................................................................................159

Range Methodology by Action................................................................................................159

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................159

Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................159

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................162

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................162

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................163

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................164

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................165

iii
Stanislaus

Table of Contents National Forest

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives.................................................................. 166

3.08 RECREATION ................................................................................................................................167

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................167

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................167

Assumptions Specific to Recreation .......................................................................................167

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................167

Recreation Indicators..............................................................................................................167

Recreation Methodology by Action .........................................................................................167

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................167

Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................167

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................171

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................171

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................173

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................174

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................174

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives..................................................................174

3.09 SENSITIVE PLANTS ........................................................................................................................175

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................175

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................175

Assumptions Specific to Sensitive Plants ...............................................................................175

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................175

Sensitive Plant Indicators .......................................................................................................175

Sensitive Plants Methodology by Action.................................................................................176

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................176

Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................178

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................179

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................179

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................180

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................181

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................181

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives..................................................................181

3.10 SOCIETY, CULTURE AND ECONOMY ................................................................................................183

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................183

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................183

Assumptions Specific to Society, Culture and Economy.........................................................183

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................183

Society, Culture and Economy Indicators ...............................................................................183

Society, Culture and Economy Methodology by Action ..........................................................184

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................186

Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................186

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................192

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................192

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................195

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................196

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................197

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives..................................................................199

Environmental Justice ................................................................................................................200

3.11 SOILS ..........................................................................................................................................201

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................201

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................201

Assumptions Specific to Soils................................................................................................. 202

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................203

Soils Indicators .......................................................................................................................203

Soils Methodology by Action...................................................................................................206

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................207

Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................207

Fire Disturbance .....................................................................................................................208

Mechanical Disturbance .........................................................................................................210

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................210

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................211

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................215

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................216

iv
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................217

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives ................................................................. 218

3.12 SPECIAL AREAS ...........................................................................................................................219

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................219

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................220

Assumptions Specific to Special Areas ..................................................................................220

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................221

Special Areas Indicators.........................................................................................................221

Special Areas Methodology by Action ....................................................................................222

Special Interest Areas: Affected Environment...........................................................................223

Special Interest Areas: Environmental Consequences .............................................................224

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................224

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................224

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................225

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................225

Wild and Scenic Rivers: Affected Environment .........................................................................226

Wild and Scenic Rivers: Environmental Consequences............................................................229

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................229

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................232

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................233

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................235

Wilderness: Affected Environment ............................................................................................236

Wilderness: Environmental Consequences...............................................................................236

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................236

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................237

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................237

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................237

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives ................................................................. 237

3.13 TRANSPORTATION.........................................................................................................................239

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................239

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................239

Assumptions Specific to Transportation .................................................................................239

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................239

Transportation Indicators........................................................................................................240

Transportation Methodology by Action ...................................................................................240

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................240

Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................240

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................242

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................242

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................243

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................244

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................244

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives ................................................................. 244

3.14 WATERSHED ................................................................................................................................245

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction .............................245

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................245

Assumptions Specific to Watershed .......................................................................................245

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................246

Watershed Indicators..............................................................................................................246

Watershed Methodology by Action.........................................................................................246

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................247

Watershed Setting..................................................................................................................247

Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................249

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................257

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................257

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................269

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................272

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................277

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives ................................................................. 280

Erosion and Sedimentation ....................................................................................................280

Fuel Loading...........................................................................................................................281

Riparian Vegetation................................................................................................................281

v 
Stanislaus

Table of Contents National Forest

Stream Condition....................................................................................................................281

Water Quality (Beneficial Uses of Water) ...............................................................................281

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction................................................................282

Standards and Guidelines ......................................................................................................282

Beneficial Uses of Water ........................................................................................................282

Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) ...............................................................282

3.15 WILDLIFE .....................................................................................................................................283

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction ..............................283

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................284

Assumptions Specific to Wildlife .............................................................................................284

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................285

Wildlife Indicators....................................................................................................................285

Wildlife Methodology by Action...............................................................................................286

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle: Affected Environment........................................................286

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle: Environmental Consequences ..........................................288

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................289

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................290

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................291

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................291

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle: Summary of Effects...........................................................291

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle: Compliance.......................................................................292

Bald Eagle: Affected Environment.............................................................................................292

Bald Eagle: Environmental Consequences ...............................................................................293

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................294

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................295

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................295

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................295

Bald Eagle: Summary of Effects................................................................................................296

Bald Eagle: Compliance............................................................................................................296

California Spotted Owl: Affected Environment ..........................................................................296

California Spotted Owl: Environmental Consequences.............................................................300

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................302

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................307

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................308

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................314

California Spotted Owl: Summary of Effects .............................................................................315

Great Gray Owl: Affected Environment .....................................................................................317

Great Gray Owl: Environmental Consequences........................................................................318

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................320

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................322

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................323

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................324

Great Gray Owl: Summary of Effects ........................................................................................324

Northern Goshawk: Affected Environment ................................................................................325

Northern Goshawk: Environmental Consequences...................................................................328

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................331

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................334

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................335

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................338

Northern Goshawk: Summary of Effects ...................................................................................339

American Marten: Affected Environment...................................................................................341

American Marten: Environmental Consequences .....................................................................344

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives..............................................................................346

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................347

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................350

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................351

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................353

American Marten: Summary of Effects......................................................................................354

Pacific Fisher: Affected Environment.........................................................................................355

Pacific Fisher: Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................360

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives ..............................................................................362

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................362

vi
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................367

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................368

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................370

Pacific Fisher: Summary of Effects ...........................................................................................371

Pallid Bat and Fringed Myotis: Affected Environment ...............................................................373

Pallid Bat and Fringed Myotis: Environmental Consequences..................................................375

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives..............................................................................376

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................379

Pallid Bat and Fringed Myotis: Summary of Effects: ................................................................. 380

Black-backed Woodpecker: Affected Environment ...................................................................380

Black-backed Woodpecker: Environmental Consequences......................................................384

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................386

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................387

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................388

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................389

Black-backed Woodpecker: Summary of Effects ......................................................................391

Black-backed Woodpecker: Compliance...................................................................................392

Mule Deer: Affected Environment .............................................................................................392

Mule Deer: Environmental Consequences................................................................................394

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................395

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................398

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................399

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................401

Mule Deer: Summary of Effects ................................................................................................401

3.16 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ......................................................................403

3.17 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS ................................................................................................. 403

3.18 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS .........................................................................403

3.19 OTHER REQUIRED DISCLOSURES ...................................................................................................403

4. Consultation and Coordination ..........................................................................................407

4.01 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS...................................................................................................407

4.02 DISTRIBUTION OF THE EIS .............................................................................................................412

Index ............................................................................................................................................415

References ..................................................................................................................................419

A. Abbreviations and Acronyms .............................................................................................447

B. Cumulative Effects Analysis...............................................................................................451

Past Actions ...............................................................................................................................451

Present Actions..........................................................................................................................452

Ongoing Activities...................................................................................................................452

Forest Service ........................................................................................................................452

National Park Service.............................................................................................................453

Private Land ...........................................................................................................................453

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...................................................................................453

C. Glossary................................................................................................................................457

D. Research ...............................................................................................................................469

E. Treatments............................................................................................................................483

E.01 PRIMARY OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................................483

Primary Objectives .................................................................................................................483

E.02 SALVAGE AND BIOMASS TREATMENTS............................................................................................492

E.03 FUELS TREATMENTS......................................................................................................................500

E.04 WATERSHED TREATMENTS.............................................................................................................508

E.05 ROAD TREATMENTS ......................................................................................................................509

vii
Stanislaus

Table of Contents National Forest

List of Maps and Figures

Figure 1.02-1 Rim Fire Vicinity Map .............................................................................................................. 2

Figure 1.02-2 High Soil Burn Severity and High Vegetation Burn Severity Photo......................................... 5

Figure 1.02-3 Moderate Soil Burn Severity and High Vegetation Burn Severity Photo ................................. 5

Figure 1.02-4 Low Soil Burn Severity and Low Vegetation Burn Severity Photo........................................... 5

Figure 1.02-5 Large Fire History Map ........................................................................................................... 6

Figure 1.04-1 Rim Fire Recovery Proposed Action Treatment Units...........................................................10

Figure 1.04-2 Vegetation Burn Severity Map ..............................................................................................11

Figure 1.04-3 Soil Burn Severity Map .........................................................................................................12

Figure 2.02-1 Forest Carnivore Connectivity Corridor Forest Plan Amendment .........................................32

Figure 3.05-1 Fire Regime Map ................................................................................................................142

Figure 3.05-2 2009 Knight Fire, photo taken in 2013 ................................................................................146

Figure 3.11-1 Fifty Percent Soil Cover from Ponderosa Pine Needles......................................................204

Figure 3.13-1 Dead Trees and Roadside Hazards along NFS Road 1N79...............................................242

Figure 3.14-1 HUC Level 6 Watersheds in the Rim Fire Area...................................................................248

Figure 3.15-1 Pin graph of post-fire California spotted owl PAC condition................................................298

Figure 3.15-2 Typical pre-settlement mixed conifer forest, western Sierra Nevada ..................................300

Figure 3.15-3 Pin graph showing post-fire northern goshawk PAC condition............................................327

Figure 3.15-4 Proposed Forest Carnivore Connectivity Corridor...............................................................363

Figure 3.15-5 Modeled black-backed woodpecker density........................................................................390

Alternative 1 Map............................................................................................... map package

Alternative 3 Map............................................................................................... map package

Alternative 4 Map............................................................................................... map package

List of Tables

Table S.01-1 Comparison of Alternatives: Proposed Activities................................................................. xvi

Table S.01-2 Comparison of Alternatives: Summary of Selected Environmental Effects .........................xvii

Table 1.04-1 Updates to the Proposed Action ...........................................................................................13

Table 2.01-1 Primary Objectives................................................................................................................20

Table 2.03-1 Units and roads associated with California red-legged frog breeding habitat........................35

Table 2.03-2 Operating requirements for mechanized equipment operations in RCAs .............................36

Table 2.03-3 Management requirements incorporating BMPs and Forest Plan S&Gs ..............................37

Table 2.03-4 Growing seasons and appropriate identification periods for select Sensitive Plants.............44

Table 2.05-1 Comparison of Alternatives: Proposed Activities..................................................................48

Table 2.05-2 Comparison of Alternatives: Treatment Acres by Primary Objective(s) ...............................49

Table 2.05-3 Comparison of Alternatives: Summary of Effects................................................................. 51

Table 3.01-1 Forest Carnivore Connectivity Corridor Forest Plan Amendment Land Allocations ..............57

Table 3.02-1 Alternative 1: Emissions for Machine Pile Burning (tons/acre).............................................65

Table 3.02-2 Alternative 1: Emissions during wildfire conditions out 20 years (tons/acre)........................65

Table 3.02-3 Alternative 2: Emissions during wildfire conditions out 20 years (tons/acre)........................66

Table 3.02-4 Comparison of total emissions from Machine Pile Burning (tons).........................................67

Table 3.02-5 Comparison of smoke emissions at year 20 under wildfire conditions (tons)........................67

Table 3.02-6 Comparison of smoke emissions at year 20 under wildfire conditions (tons/acre)................67

Table 3.03-1 Transport and storage scenarios ..........................................................................................72

Table 3.03-2 Existing condition habitat summary for CRLF and SNYLF breeding habitats .......................76

Table 3.03-3 Sediment depths for CRLF and SNYLF suitable breeding habitat ........................................78

Table 3.03-4 Occupied and suitable habitat for FYLF in the Rim Fire area................................................80

Table 3.03-5 Occupied and suitable habitat for WPT in the Rim Fire area ................................................81

Table 3.03-6 Watersheds and streams with suitable habitat for FYLF with watershed response ..............84

Table 3.03-7 CRLF and SNYLF direct and indirect effect indicators for each alternative ..........................87

Table 3.03-8 Watershed area, buffers and road treatments in FYLF suitable habitat in Alternative 1 .......92

Table 3.03-9 WPT buffer affected in salvage and roadside hazard tree units in Alternative 1 ...................97

Table 3.03-10 CRLF and SNYLF habitat effects including Cumulative Effects ..........................................102

Table 3.03-11 CRLF and SNYLF breeding habitat watershed effects including Cumulative Effects..........103

Table 3.03-12 Watershed area and buffers in FYLF and WPT suitable habitat in Alternative 1 ................105

Table 3.03-13 Watershed area, buffers and road treatments in FYLF suitable habitat in Alternative 3 .....119

Table 3.03-14 WPT buffer affected by salvage and roadside hazard tree units in Alternative 3 ................120

Table 3.03-15 Watershed area and FYLF and WPT buffers affected by salvage in Alternative 3..............122

viii
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

Table 3.03-16 Buffer and watershed area affected in FYLF suitable habitat in Alternative 4.....................125

Table 3.03-17 WPT buffer affected by salvage and roadside hazard tree units in Alternative 4................126

Table 3.03-18 Comparison of CRLF and SNYLF suitable habitat at risk of direct effects..........................128

Table 3.03-19 Post-fire and post-implementation sediment depths in breeding habitats...........................129

Table 3.05-1 Relationship of Surface Fire Flame Length and Fireline Intensity to Suppression 

Interpretations.....................................................................................................................139

Table 3.05-2 Fuel Models ........................................................................................................................139

Table 3.05-3 Weather Parameters High Conditions (90th Percentile Weather).......................................140

Table 3.05-4 Comparison of Expected Fire Severity and Actual Fire Severity by Fire Regime ...............143

Table 3.05-5 Predicted average flame lengths, fireline intensity and firefighter production rates under the 

Alternative 1 within treatment units (FlamMap 5.0).............................................................145

Table 3.05-6 Flame lengths and fireline intensities under Alternative 2...................................................147

Table 3.05-7 Fire behavior by alternative over the next 20 years ............................................................149

Table 3.06-1 Invasive Species within Rim Fire perimeter and each alternative .......................................152

Table 3.06-2 Invasive Plant Locations by specific treatments in each alternative....................................154

Table 3.07-1 Allotment burn severity and erosion hazard data................................................................160

Table 3.07-2 General rangeland vegetation types and burn severity.......................................................161

Table 3.07-3 Alternative 1 treatments in affected grazing allotments.......................................................162

Table 3.07-4 Alternative 3 treatments in affected grazing allotments.......................................................165

Table 3.07-5 Alternative 4 treatments in affected grazing allotments.......................................................165

Table 3.07-6 Allotment area and length of fences treated by each alternative ........................................166

Table 3.08-1 National Visitor Use Monitoring Classified Activities ...........................................................169

Table 3.08-2 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes within the Rim Recovery project area..............169

Table 3.08-3 Tractor Units within 1 Mile of Camp Tawonga ....................................................................172

Table 3.08-4 Alternative 2: Potential Impacts and Risks to Developed Recreation ................................173

Table 3.08-5 Alternative 2: Potential Impacts and Risks to Dispersed Recreation ................................. 174

Table 3.09-1 Sensitive Plants Summary of Effects ..................................................................................182

Table 3.10-1 Historical Population by County 1970 – 2010 .....................................................................187

Table 3.10-2 Projected Population by County 2000 – 2050.....................................................................187

Table 3.10-3 Ethnic Minority Populations in the Region of Impact...........................................................187

Table 3.10-4 Age, Income and Poverty Characteristics in the Region of Impact .....................................188

Table 3.10-5 Tuolumne County Industry Employment and Labor Force by Annual Average...................188

Table 3.10-6 Mariposa County Industry Employment and Labor Force by Annual Average....................189

Table 3.10-7 Key Measures Used as Inputs to Calculate Economic Impacts ..........................................199

Table 3.10-8 Annual Jobs Supported by Each Alternative.......................................................................200

Table 3.11-1 Activities expected to affect soil resources with each action alternative .............................202

Table 3.11-2 Soil families and associated properties used in analysis ....................................................208

Table 3.11-3 Soil Burn Severity for selected fires in relation to the Rim Fire ...........................................209

Table 3.11-4 Soil Burn Severity of the maximum extent of activity ..........................................................209

Table 3.11-5 Summary of existing condition of indicators........................................................................210

Table 3.11-6 Summary of Indicators by Alternative .................................................................................218

Table 3.12-1 Wild and Scenic River Corridors Affected by the Rim Fire..................................................226

Table 3.12-2 Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River Classifications ................................................................228

Table 3.12-3 Roadside and Powerline Hazard Tree Removal................................................................. 232

Table 3.12-4 Twomile Ecological Restoration Projects (Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River) .........232

Table 3.13-1 Existing Transportation System by Jurisdiction...................................................................240

Table 3.13-2 National Forest System Roads by Maintenance Level .......................................................241

Table 3.14-1 Hydrologic Unit Code System (HUC)..................................................................................247

Table 3.14-2 Principal Watersheds in the Rim Fire Area .........................................................................249

Table 3.14-3 Soil Burn Severity for Selected Fires in Relation to the Rim Fire........................................250

Table 3.14-4 Rim Fire Watershed Condition Overview............................................................................252

Table 3.14-5 Riparian Conservation Area Soil and Vegetation Burn Severity .........................................254

Table 3.14-6 Rim Fire Stream Condition Summary .................................................................................255

Table 3.14-7 Alternative 1: Post-Fire and Post-Implementation Erosion Rates and Percent Change for 

Each Watershed .................................................................................................................259

Table 3.14-8 Alternative 1: Salvage Logging by Soil Burn Severity Within 100 feet of a Perennial Stream, 

Intermittent Stream, or Special Aquatic Feature ................................................................. 259

Table 3.14-9 Alternative 1: Annual Percent ERA for each HUC 6 and HUC 7 Analysis Watershed ........265

Table 3.14-10 Alternative 2: Annual Percent ERA for each HUC 6 and HUC 7 Analysis Watershed ........272

Table 3.14-11 Alternative 3: Post-Fire and Post-Implementation Erosion Rates and Percent Change for 

Each Watershed .................................................................................................................273

ix
Stanislaus

Table of Contents National Forest

Table 3.14-12 Alternative 3: Salvage Logging by Soil Burn Severity Within 100 feet of a Perennial Stream, 

Intermittent Stream, or Special Aquatic Feature ................................................................. 274

Table 3.14-13 Alternative 3: Annual Percent ERA for each HUC 6 and HUC 7 Analysis Watershed ........277

Table 3.14-14 Alternative 4: Post-Fire and Post-Implementation Erosion Rates and Percent Change for 

Each Watershed .................................................................................................................278

Table 3.14-15 Alternative 4: Salvage Logging by Soil Burn Severity Within 100 feet of a Perennial Stream, 

Intermittent Stream, or Special Aquatic Feature ................................................................. 279

Table 3.14-16 Alternative 4: Annual Percent ERA for each HUC 6 and HUC 7 Analysis Watershed ........280

Table 3.15-1 Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Candidate (C), Sensitive species (S), and other species of 

conservation concern considered in this analysis. Some species may also be identified as 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) or Neotropical Birds further on in this section..........284

Table 3.15-2 Proposed treatments within potential elderberry habitat area .............................................289

Table 3.15-3 Units within one-half mile of bald eagle nests .....................................................................295

Table 3.15-4 Treatment unit overlap within post-fire PACs, Alternative 1 ................................................303

Table 3.15-5 Snag retention level in basal area per acre, Alternative 1................................................... 304

Table 3.15-6 Project road miles in PACs by road type, Alternative 1.......................................................304

Table 3.15-7 Project road miles in HRCAs by road type, Alternative 1....................................................305

Table 3.15-8 Water sources and landings within PACs, Alternative 1 .....................................................306

Table 3.15-9 Biomass in critical winter deer range units, Alternative 1....................................................306

Table 3.15-10 Treatment unit overlap within post-fire PACs, Alternative 3 ................................................309

Table 3.15-11 Snag retention level in basal area per acre, Alternative 3...................................................310

Table 3.15-12 Project road miles in PACs by road type, Alternative 3.......................................................311

Table 3.15-13 Project road miles in HRCAs by road type, Alterative 3......................................................312

Table 3.15-14 Water sources and landings within PACs, Alternative 3 .....................................................313

Table 3.15-15 Biomass in critical winter deer range units, Alternative 3....................................................313

Table 3.15-16 Snag retention level in basal area per acre, Alternative 4...................................................314

Table 3.15-17 Summary of effects for California spotted owl.....................................................................316

Table 3.15-18 Treatment unit overlap within great gray owl PACs, Alternative 1.......................................320

Table 3.15-19 Project road miles in great gray owl PACs by road type, Alternative 1 ...............................321

Table 3.15-20 Overlap acres of PACs with activities and acres mitigated .................................................322

Table 3.15-21 Treatment unit overlap within great gray owl PACs, Alternative 3.......................................323

Table 3.15-22 Project road miles in great gray owl PACs by road type, Alternative 3 ...............................324

Table 3.15-23 Summary of effects for great gray owl ................................................................................325

Table 3.15-24 Treatment unit overlap within post-fire goshawk PACs, Alternative 1................................. 331

Table 3.15-25 Snag retention level in basal area per acre, Alternative 1...................................................332

Table 3.15-26 Project road miles in goshawk PACs by road type, Alternative 1........................................332

Table 3.15-27 Water sources and landings within goshawk PACs, Alternative 1 ......................................333

Table 3.15-28 Biomass in critical winter deer range units, Alternative 1....................................................333

Table 3.15-29 Treatment unit overlap within post-fire goshawk PACs, Alternative 3................................. 335

Table 3.15-30 Snag retention level in basal area per acre, Alternative 3...................................................336

Table 3.15-31 Road miles in PACs by road type, Alternative 3..................................................................336

Table 3.15-32 Water sources and landings within PACs, Alternative 3 .....................................................337

Table 3.15-33 Biomass in critical winter deer range units, Alternative 3....................................................337

Table 3.15-34 Snag retention level in basal area per acre, Alternative 4...................................................338

Table 3.15-35 Summary of effects for northern goshawk ..........................................................................340

Table 3.15-36 Pre- and post-fire moderate to high capability habitat for marten........................................342

Table 3.15-37 Proposed treatments in marten moderate and high capability habitat ................................346

Table 3.15-38 Snags retained in salvage units within potential marten habitat, Alternative 1....................347

Table 3.15-39 Miles of road treatments, Alternative 1................................................................................348

Table 3.15-40 Snags retained in salvage units within potential marten habitat, Alternative 3....................352

Table 3.15-41 Miles of road treatments, Alternative 3................................................................................353

Table 3.15-42 Snags retained in salvage units within potential marten habitat, Alternative 4....................353

Table 3.15-43 Miles of road treatments, Alternative 4................................................................................354

Table 3.15-44 Summary of effects for marten............................................................................................355

Table 3.15-45 High and moderate capability habitat for pacific fisher........................................................357

Table 3.15-46 Pre- and post-fire high and moderate capability habitat for fisher.......................................358

Table 3.15-47 Proposed treatments in fisher moderate and high capability habitat...................................362

Table 3.15-48 Snags retained in salvage units within potential fisher habitat, Alternative 1 ......................364

Table 3.15-49 Miles of road treatments within potential fisher habitat, Alternative 1..................................365

Table 3.15-50 Snags retained in salvage units within potential fisher habitat, Alternative 3 ......................369

Table 3.15-51 Miles of road treatments within potential fisher habitat, Alternative 3..................................370

Table 3.15-52 Snags retained in salvage units within potential fisher habitat, Alternative 4 ......................371

x 
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

Table 3.15-53 Miles of road treatments within potential fisher habitat, Alternative 4 ................................. 371

Table 3.15-54 Summary of effects for fisher..............................................................................................372

Table 3.15-55 Snags retained in treatment units and within suitable forest habitat ...................................377

Table 3.15-56 Summary of the minimum number of snags retained by alternative ...................................380

Table 3.15-57 Amount of suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat in the Rim Fire area........................382

Table 3.15-58 Amount of suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat on public lands only........................383

Table 3.15-59 Proposed treatments in suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat and corresponding 

predicted pairs retained, Alternative 1.................................................................................386

Table 3.15-60 Cumulative proposed treatments in suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat and 

corresponding predicted pairs retained, Alternative 1.........................................................387

Table 3.15-61 Cumulative proposed treatments in suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat and 

corresponding predicted pairs retained, Alternative 2.........................................................387

Table 3.15-62 Proposed treatments in suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat and corresponding 

predicted pairs retained, Alternative 3.................................................................................388

Table 3.15-63 Cumulative proposed treatments in suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat and 

corresponding predicted pairs retained, Alternative 3.........................................................389

Table 3.15-64 Proposed treatments in suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat and corresponding 

predicted pairs retained, Alternative 4.................................................................................389

Table 3.15-65 Retention units for black-backed woodpecker habitat, Alternative 4...................................389

Table 3.15-66 Cumulative proposed treatments in suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat and 

corresponding predicted pairs retained, Alternative 4.........................................................391

Table 3.15-67 Summary of predicted pair density of black-backed woodpeckers .....................................391

Table 3.15-68 Non-merchantable material removal for mule deer, Alternative 1.......................................396

Table 3.15-69 Miles of road treatments proposed, Alternative 1................................................................396

Table 3.15-70 Non-merchantable material removal for mule deer, Alternatives 3 and 4 ...........................400

Table 3.15-71 Miles of road treatments, Alternatives 3 and 4....................................................................400

Table 3.15-72 Summary of non-merchantable material removal ...............................................................401

Table 3.15-73 Summary of road treatments ..............................................................................................402

Table B.01-1 Present National Forest System land disturbance actions..................................................452

Table B.01-2 Present private lands disturbance actions ..........................................................................453

Table B.01-3 Foreseeable Future NFS land disturbance actions.............................................................455

Table E.01-1 Primary Objectives for Treatment Units in Alternatives 1, 3 and 4......................................484

Table E.02-1 Salvage and Biomass Treatment Units in Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 ......................................492

Table E.03-1 Fuels Treatment Units in Alternatives 3 and 4 ....................................................................500

Table E.04-1 Watershed Treatments for Alternatives 3 and 4..................................................................508

Table E.05-1 Road Treatments in Alternatives 1, 3 and 4........................................................................509

xi
Stanislaus

Table of Contents National Forest

xii
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary

Summary

The Forest Service prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in compliance with 

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

regulations. This DEIS discloses the environmental impacts that would result from the proposed 

action, a no action alternative and 2 additional action alternatives developed in response to issues 

raised by the public. The Responsible Official has not identified a preferred alternative at this stage.

Background

The Rim Fire started on August 17, 2013 in a remote area of the Stanislaus National Forest near the 

confluence of the Clavey and Tuolumne Rivers about 20 miles east of Sonora, CA. Over several 

weeks it burned 257,314 acres, or 400 square miles including 154,530 acres of National Forest 

System (NFS) lands. The fire also burned within Yosemite National Park (78,895 acres), Sierra 

Pacific Industries private timberland (16,035 acres), other private land (7,725 acres) and Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) land (129 acres). 

The Rim Fire Recovery (Rim Recovery) project is located within the Rim Fire perimeter in the 

Stanislaus National Forest on portions of the Mi-Wok and Groveland Ranger Districts. The project 

boundary includes all NFS lands within the fire plus a few locations where road and roadside 

improvements extend slightly outside the perimeter.

Purpose and Need

The Forest Service identified the following needs for this project.

1. Capture Economic Value through Salvage Logging

The tremendous number of dead trees across this large landscape creates the need for the removal 

of this perishable commodity in a timely manner. Leaving the dead trees on site would create a 

large and dangerous fuel load in this vast area, and future removal of the down material if desired, 

would be very difficult, costly, and time consuming. 

2. Provide Worker and Public Safety

The Rim Fire significantly increased the risk to human life, safety and property. Providing a safe 

environment for both public use and the administration of affected roads and facilities is critical. 

3. Reduce Fuels for Future Forest Resiliency

Harvesting dead timber reduces the existing fuel load of standing dead trees to protect multiple 

resources including soils and watersheds from future high-intensity fires. In order to reintroduce 

fire into these areas as soon as possible, the current fuel load needs to be reduced. 

4. Improve Road Infrastructure to Enhance Hydrologic Function

Road sediment increases are likely to occur in high soil burn severity areas and to a lesser extent 

in moderate soil burn severity areas. Ensuring that water is properly funneled through these 

systems to drainages that can move and utilize this resource is critical for protection of 

watersheds and soils, and also to provide the best aquatic habitat within these systems. 

5. Enhance Wildlife Habitat

Because the fire burned through 46 California spotted owl PACs, as well as thousands of acres of 

other critical habitat, retaining old forest structures (large snags and downed logs) is important at 

this time since future recruitment of these old forest features is not expected to occur until 

decades to centuries into the future.

xiii
Stanislaus

Summary National Forest

Proposed Action

The Forest Service proposed action, within the Rim Fire perimeter on NFS lands includes:

 Salvage of dead trees and fuel reduction (28,326 acres)

 Hazard tree removal and fuel reduction along low standard roads (341 miles or 16,315 acres) 

 Road reconstruction (319.9 miles) and road maintenance (216.1 miles) 

 New road construction (5.4 miles) 

 Temporary road construction (13.2 miles) 

 Rock quarry sites (7)

 Water sources (81 locations) 

Significant Issues

Scoping identified issues which are a point of discussion, dispute, or debate with the Proposed 

Action. An issue is an effect on a physical, biological, social, or economic resource. An issue is not an 

activity; instead, the predicted effects of the activity create the issue. Significant Issues are used to 

formulate alternatives, prescribe mitigations measures, or analyze environmental effects. Issues are 

significant because of the extent of their geographic distribution, the duration of their effects, or the 

intensity of interest or resource conflicts. Significant issues listed are based on public comments. 

1. Health and Safety

a. Existing conditions do not provide a safe environment for administration and public use of 

roads because hazard trees pose a threat to health and safety. 

b. Public conflicts with logging operations along roads and worker conflicts along power lines 

and Highway 120 pose threats to worker and public safety. 

2. Snag Forest Habitat

a. Proposed activities may affect black-backed woodpecker (BBWO) populations because the 

woodpeckers may occur at higher densities in areas treated and the project does not include 

avoidance measures or limited operating periods for nesting BBWO. 

b. Proposed activities may affect spotted owls because remapping of existing Protected Activity 

Centers (PACs) and Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs) burned in the fire would damage this 

still viable and important owl habitat.

3. New Road Construction

a. Proposed new road construction may affect roadless areas and destroy habitat because these 

areas are currently undisturbed and inaccessible to motor vehicles.

4. Wildlife Habitat

a. Proposed activities may affect critical deer winter range as well as oak and green island 

habitat because the project does not include specific protection or enhancement measures.

b. Proposed management requirements seem excessive (i.e., a one mile buffer for suitable frog 

habitat and 20 down logs within streams every mile) because these measures are not 

necessary and the cost of implementation is high.

5. Salvage Logging

a. Proposed activities may reduce biodiversity, threaten rare plants, and impact the 

outstandingly remarkable values and integrity of the Clavey River due to impacts from 

salvage logging.

b. Application of sporax may affect implementation of the logging because it is not necessary 

and adds costs.

6. Soil and Watershed Impacts

a. Proposed activities may affect streams with significant sedimentation and soil loss because of 

the already compromised condition of these areas and insufficient buffers. 

xiv
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The action alternatives (Alternatives 1, 3 and 4) and the no action alternative (Alternative 2) are 

considered in detail. The no action alternative, as required by the implementing regulations of NEPA, 

serves as a baseline for comparison among the alternatives (73 Federal Register 143, July 24, 2008; p. 

43084-43099). The following sections describe each of the alternatives considered in detail (see Map 

Package and project record for detailed maps of each alternative). 

Table S.01-1 provides a summary of the proposed activities included in each alternative and 

Appendix E (Treatments) provides detailed information for each specific treatment unit.

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

Alternative 1 includes salvage logging on up to 28,326 acres including 24,127 acres of ground based, 

16 acres of ground based/skyline swing, 2,930 acres of helicopter, and 1,253 acres of skyline 

treatments. Proposed fuel treatments include 7,626 acres of biomass removal, 24,143 acres of 

machine piling and burning and 4,199 acres of jackpot burning. Fell and remove hazard trees (green 

and dead) adjacent to 341 miles of forest roads outside of proposed salvage units, amounting to 

16,315 acres. Some non-merchantable trees may be felled and left in place. Alternative 1 includes 5.4 

miles of new road construction, 319.9 miles of route reconstruction and 216.1 miles of road 

maintenance along low standard roads. Within Critical Winter Deer Range and adjacent to Yosemite 

National Park, units (totaling 1,351 acres) were identified for salvage and/or biomass removal to 

achieve desired forage/cover ratios and to provide for deer passage and access. 

Alternative 2 (No Action)

Alternative 2 (No Action) provides a baseline for comparison with the other alternatives (Table S.01-

1). Under Alternative 2 (No Action), general salvage and hazard tree abatement and removal adjacent 

to lower standard roads would not occur. None of the viable timber would be removed from this area 

leaving tens to hundreds of tons of fuel per acre once these trees fall down and rendering access for 

firefighting virtually impossible. No hazard tree removal would occur adjacent to lower standard 

roads, leaving thousands of existing hazard trees to fall on their own as a result of natural forces. 

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 responds to issues and concerns related to Snag Forest Habitat, New Road Construction, 

Wildlife Habitat, and Soil and Watershed Impacts (Chapter 1.08). Compared to Alternative 1, it 

addresses those issues by proposing additional wildlife habitat enhancement including biomass 

removal in Critical Deer Winter Range and the Forest Carnivore Connectivity Corridor (FCCC) 

Forest Plan Amendment, additional soil and watershed protection (mastication and drop and lop), and 

less new road construction. It also includes research to help answer wildlife, fuels, watershed, and 

soils questions. 

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3 except that it replaces new road construction with temporary 

roads and drops 2,500 acres of salvage logging in highly suitable BBWO habitat. Alternative 4 

responds to issues and concerns related to Snag Forest Habitat, New Road Construction, Wildlife 

Habitat, and Soil and Watershed Impacts (Chapter 1.08) by proposing the same action items as 

Alternative 3 for wildlife habitat enhancement (including biomass removal in Critical Deer Winter 

Range and the FCCC Forest Plan Amendment) and, soil and watershed protection (mastication and 

drop and lop). It also includes research to help answer wildlife, fuels, watershed, and soils questions. 

Compared to Alternative 3, Alternative 4 further addresses the Snag Forest Habitat issue with 

additional BBWO habitat retention and the New Road Construction issue with no new road 

construction. 

xv
Stanislaus

Summary National Forest

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

NEPA requires that federal agencies rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

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

detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments and internal scoping suggested the alternatives briefly 

described below. Chapter 2.04 provides the reasons for eliminating them from detailed study. 

a. Remove the Maximum Amount of Timber Value

Salvage all NFS lands; produce 5,000 board feet or more per acre; eliminate expensive logging 

systems to maximize returns; minimize snags retained; and, limit biomass removal costs. 

b. Hazard Tree Removal Only

Cut and remove only dead trees adjacent to low standard roads. 

c. Retain 100 Percent Black-Backed Woodpecker Modeled Pairs

Retain 100 percent of BBWO pairs on NFS lands; reduce salvage by 7,500 acres; and, reduce 

hazard tree removal by 1,000 acres. 

d. Retain 75 Percent of the Black-Backed Woodpecker Modeled Pairs

Retain 75 percent of BBWO pairs on NFS lands; and, reduce salvage by half.

e. Retain Pre-Fire Spotted Owl PAC Boundaries, No PAC Remapping or Retiring

Retain the 46 burned spotted owl PACs in their original location. 

f. Natural Succession

Allow natural recovery; decommission roads; and, reduce erosion, sedimentation and grazing. 

Comparison of Alternatives

Table S.01-1 compares the alternatives with a summary of proposed activities.

Table S.01-1 Comparison of Alternatives: Proposed Activities

Proposed Treatments1 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Salvage ground based (acres) 24,127 0 26,252 24,176

Salvage ground based/skyline swing (acres) 16 0 16 16

Salvage aerial based helicopter (acres) 2,930 0 3,035 2,568

Salvage skyline system (acres) 1,253 0 1,096 1,066

Subtotal Salvage (acres) 28,326 0 30,399 27,826

Hazard Tree Removal (miles) 341 0 314.8 324.6

Subtotal Hazard Tree Removal (acres) 16,315 0 15,253 15,692

Total Hazard Tree and Salvage (acres) 44,6412 0 45,6522 43,5182

Biomass Removal 7,626 0 8,379 7,975

Mastication 0 0 1,309 1,309

Drop and Lop 0 0 2,228 1,798

Machine Piling and Burning 24,143 0 22,036 20,320

Jackpot Burning 4,199 0 4,147 3,650

Total Fuels (acres) 35,9682 0 38,0992 35,0522

New Construction (miles) 5.4 0 1.0 0

Reconstruction (miles) 319.9 0 323.6 315.0

Maintenance (miles) 216.1 0 200.6 209.3

Subtotal Construction and Maintenance (miles) 541.4 0 525.2 524.3

Temporary Road (new miles) 3.9 0 9.5 8.4

Temporary Road (existing miles) 9.3 0 22.7 22.1

Temporary Use – Revert (miles) 8.4 0 3.3 3.3

Subtotal Temporary Roads (miles) 21.6 0 35.5 33.8

Total Roads (miles) 563.0 0 560.7 558.1

Private Roads Needing Right-of-Way (miles) 11.2 0 11.2 11.2

Rock Quarry Sites 7 0 7 7

Potential Water Sources 81 0 81 81

1 Salvage includes removal of dead trees and fuel reduction; Hazard Tree includes removal of hazard tree and fuel reduction. 2 Salvage and Hazard Tree acres overlap with Fuel Reduction acres and do not total.

xvi
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary

Summary of Environmental Consequences

Table S.01-2 compares the alternatives with a summary of selected environmental effects.

Table S.01-2 Comparison of Alternatives: Summary of Selected Environmental Effects

Resource/Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Air Quality

Smoke Emissions 

from Machine Pile 

Burning

effects to local 

communities and 

Yosemite would be 

minimal due to 

controlled emissions

none from pile burning, 

but under uncontrolled 

circumstances this 

amount of material 

would cause issues for 

sensitive groups

same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Aquatics

Foothill yellowlegged frog, 

Western pond turtle, 

hardhead, California 

red-legged frog, 

Sierra Nevada 

yellow-legged frog

may affect individuals 

but not likely to lead to 

a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of 

viability

none similar to alternative 1 similar to alternative 1 

Cultural

Cultural Resources none no direct effects, 

moderate indirect and 

cumulative effects; 

may affect resources 

same as alternative 1; 

however, watershed 

treatments will benefit 

cultural sites 

same as alternative 3 

Fire and Fuels

Fire Behavior fire effects in treated 

units significantly 

reduced

future fires would burn 

with increasingly higher 

intensities

similar to alternative 1; 

treatments provide 

break in fuel profiles

same as alternative 3

Fire Suppression 

Capability

high capability; 

reduced fuel 

continuities; increased 

safety; reduced 

potential for resource 

damage; potential for 

reduced costs

capability dramatically 

declines over time; fire 

effects exceed 

firefighter capabilities; 

fireline production rates 

decline over time

same as alternative 1 same as alternative 3

Fuel Loading surface fuel loading 

reduced to 10 

tons/acre; reduced risk 

of substantial erosion 

and sedimentation 

caused by future 

stand-replacing fire

Increased surface fuel 

loading over time, to an 

estimated 98 tons/acre 

in 30 years; future 

reburn likely to lead to 

substantial erosion and 

sedimentation

surface fuel loading 

reduced to 10-20 

tons/acre; reduced risk 

of substantial erosion 

and sedimentation 

caused by future 

stand-replacing fire

same as alternative 3

Invasive Species

Habitat Alteration 

and Vectors

high risk for habitat 

alteration; high risk of 

increased vectors

none moderate risk for 

habitat alteration and 

moderate to high risk 

of increased vectors 

because of additional 

management 

requirements

same as alternative 3 

Range

Rangeland 

Vegetation

no long term changes 

to vegetation types; 

beneficial effect on 

rangeland vegetation 

condition

no direct effects; 

potential for negative 

indirect effects from 

falling dead trees 

same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Recreation

Recreation Access 

and Opportunities

negative effects on 

some developed 

recreation sites; short 

term negative impacts

to dispersed 

recreation; positive 

effects to public safety 

and recreation access

negative long-term 

effects to recreation 

access and public 

safety; closure of some 

developed recreation 

sites is likely to result 

in over-use of open 

developed sites

same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

xvii
Stanislaus

Summary National Forest

Resource/Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Sensitive Plants

Sensitive Plants management 

requirements would 

protect sensitive plants 

no direct effects; 

negative indirect 

effects might occur 

from falling dead trees

similar to alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Society

Social and Cultural 

Impacts

administrative access 

enhanced, dispersed 

recreation open, and 

public firewood 

gathering allowed 

administrative access 

constrained, dispersed 

recreation closed, and 

public firewood 

gathering not allowed

same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Temporary 

Employment 

Generation

6,659 jobs supported none 6,318 jobs supported 5,511 jobs supported

Soils

Soil Stability and 

Effective Soil Cover

slight improvements to 

erosion

erosion rates remain 

high, slightly higher 

than alternative 1

improves cover, 

erosion hazard ratings, 

and erosion rates in 

WSAs

similar to alternative 3

Watershed

Riparian Vegetation beneficial effects to 

riparian obligate trees 

and shrubs; 

management 

requirements protect 

fens and meadows

none same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Stream Condition no measurable 

changes in stream flow 

or channel incision; 

stream banks not 

degraded; increases 

LWD and sediment 

storage

no measurable 

changes in stream flow 

or channel incision; 

initially less ground 

cover along stream 

banks; large levels of 

LWD and sediment 

storage over time

no measurable 

changes in stream flow 

or channel incision; 

stream banks not 

degraded; increases 

LWD and sediment 

storage, but less than 

alternative 2

same as alternative 3

Water Quality 

(Beneficial Uses of 

Water)

water temperature not 

affected; some 

sedimentation; limited 

potential for registered 

borate compound to 

contaminate surface 

waters; no effects to 

beneficial uses 

none same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Wildlife

Valley elderberry 

longhorn beetle

may affect but not 

likely to adversely 

affect

no effect same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Bald eagle, 

American marten, 

Pacific fisher, Pallid 

bat and fringed 

myotis

may affect individuals 

but is not likely to result 

in a trend toward 

Federal listing or loss 

of viability

no effect same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

California spotted 

owl, Great gray owl, 

Northern goshawk

may affect individuals 

but is not likely to result 

in a trend toward 

Federal listing or loss 

of viability

no effect same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Black-Backed 

woodpecker

lowest predicted pair 

density; retains 41 

percent of modeled 

pairs

none; retains 100 

percent of modeled 

pairs 

second lowest 

predicted pair density; 

retains 46 percent of 

modeled pairs

highest predicted pair 

density of the action 

alternatives; retains 54 

percent of modeled 

pairs

Mule deer improves 1,352 acres 

of Critical Deer Winter 

Range 

none improves 4,416 acres 

of Critical Deer Winter 

Range

same as alternative 3

LWD=Large Woody Debris; WSA= Watershed Sensitive Area

xviii
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action

1. Purpose of and Need for Action

The Forest Service prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the 

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

regulations. This Draft EIS discloses the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts that 

would result from the proposed action and alternatives. 

1.01 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE

The document is organized into the following chapters and sections: 

 Chapter 1 (Purpose of and Need for Action): briefly describes the proposed action, the need for 

that action, and other purposes to be achieved by the proposal. It also details how the Forest 

Service informed the public of the proposed action and how the public responded. 

 Chapter 2 (The Alternatives): provides a detailed description of the proposed action as well as 

alternatives developed in response to comments raised by the public during scoping and 

information gained after the formulation of the proposed action and public scoping period. It 

includes a summary comparison of the action and effects of the alternatives.

 Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences): describes the 

environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. 

 Chapter 4 (Consultation and Coordination): provides a list of preparers and others consulted 

during the development of the EIS. 

 Index: provides page numbers by document topic. 

 References: provides a list of references and literature cited in the EIS.

 Appendices: provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the EIS.

 Map Package: the separate map package includes large scale maps showing treatment units and 

other information included in each alternative. 

Additional documentation, including detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the 

project record located at: Stanislaus National Forest, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370. 

1.02 BACKGROUND

The Rim Fire started on August 17, 2013 in a remote area of the Stanislaus National Forest near the 

confluence of the Clavey and Tuolumne Rivers about 20 miles east of Sonora, CA. Exhibiting high to 

extreme fire behavior with multiple flaming fronts, the fire made runs of 30,000 to 50,000 acres on 

two consecutive days. It quickly spread up the Tuolumne River watershed and its main tributaries: 

Clavey River, North Fork Tuolumne, Middle Fork Tuolumne, South Fork Tuolumne and Cherry 

Creek. It also overlapped into the North Fork Merced River. Overall, 98% of the Rim Fire occurred in 

the Tuolumne River watershed. Over several weeks it burned 257,314 acres, or 400 square miles

including 154,530 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands. The fire also burned within Yosemite 

National Park (78,895 acres), Sierra Pacific Industries private timberland (16,035 acres), other private 

land (7,725 acres) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land (129 acres)1

. 

The Rim Fire is the third largest wildfire in California history and the largest wildfire in the recorded 

history of the Sierra Nevada. It is also California’s largest forest fire, burning across a largely conifer 

dominated forest landscape. The two larger fires were wind driven brush fires near San Diego in 2003 

1 All acreage figures are based on fire perimeter and land ownership information as of October 24, 2013.

1 

 
Chapter 1 Stanislaus

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest

and in Lassen County in 2012. Figure 1.02-1 shows the location of the Rim Fire within the

boundaries of the Stanislaus National Forest, Yosemite National Park and the local counties 

(Mariposa and Tuolumne).

Figure 1.02-1 Rim Fire Vicinity Map

The Rim Fire burned between about 1,000 to 7,000 feet in elevation in a mixed severity mosaic 

pattern through all the principal vegetative communities within it. The fire impacted a range of 

California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) vegetation classes including grass-oak woodlands, 

chaparral, lower westside ponderosa pine, mixed conifer forests and high elevation true fir and 

2 
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action

lodgepole pine. The mosaic pattern of the fire resulted in areas of high, moderate and low vegetation 

burn severity (Figure 1.04-2) and soil burn severity (Figure 1.04-3). 

In addition, part of the land was unburned as fire went around some of the natural features and moist 

riparian areas. Ground fire stayed out of the tree crowns in some areas with more widely-spaced trees 

and slight amounts of understory. Weather and timing played key roles in vegetation burn severity; 

where fire entered during the night or at a time when humidity was higher and the weather calmer, the 

fire behavior was less volatile. In these and other low soil and vegetation burn severity areas, the

result was an underburn that consumed some of the woody fuels on the forest floor leaving green, 

lightly burned trees in its path. In the moderate severity burn areas much of the canopy was killed, but 

some over-story trees survived. In the high vegetation and soil burn severity areas, the fire engulfed 

nearly all of the chaparral, conifer plantations and forests that previously covered the landscape, in 

some locations continues for miles. Plume-driven fire episodes were the primary driver for much of 

the high mortality areas where thinning and under burning occurred in the recent years, but with little 

effect on severity or intensity. In these areas, the fire consumed the vegetation, which serves as a 

barrier to erosion during winter rains and food or cover for wildlife, leaving only ash behind. All that 

remain are severely damaged trees that are not expected to survive and standing charred trees with 

few limbs or needles, or no needles either on the tree or ground beneath. 

Due to dangerous conditions from trees damaged or killed by the Rim Fire, access to the project is 

currently closed to the general public. After determining that circumstances within the burn area 

presented unsafe conditions for public travel, Stanislaus Forest Supervisor Susan Skalski issued a 

temporary Forest Order (STF 2013-08) prohibiting public use within the burn area on August 22, 

2013. The Forest Supervisor issued several updates changing the closure area in response to current 

conditions for public safety (2013-09 on 8/23/2013; 2013-10 on 8/31/2013; 2013-11 on 9/12/2013; 

2013-14 on 9/27/2013; 2013-15 on 11/18/13). On April 14, 2014, the Forest Supervisor issued the 

current temporary Forest Order (STF 2014-01), opening portions of the previous closure area and 

prohibiting public use within the remaining portions of the burn area until November 18, 2014. 

Project Location

The Rim Fire Recovery (Rim Recovery) project is located within the Rim Fire perimeter in the 

Stanislaus National Forest on portions of the Mi-Wok and Groveland Ranger Districts. The project 

boundary includes all NFS lands within the fire plus a few locations where road and roadside 

improvements extend slightly outside the perimeter.

Project Development

An event as large as the Rim Fire provides an opportunity to consider restoration at a landscape scale, 

considering the many ecological structures, processes, and functions that are desirable and sustainable 

for future forested conditions. The Forest Plan (USDA 2010a, p. 5-15) includes goals to create a fire 

resilient forest where fire is an integral part of the ecosystem, not a landscape altering force. To 

sustain forests into the future, natural and prescribed fire will be an important tool to protect this area 

from another stand replacing event. To that end, Stanislaus National Forest Fire and Fuels managers 

together with Researchers from the Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW) compiled a strategy 

for the Rim Fire area outlining conditions along with features on the landscape that could help reduce 

the size and severity of future fires. The goal is not to prevent fires within the forest, but to modify 

fire behavior to lower severity, and to bring these areas back to a more historic heterogeneous 

structure where fire complements and sustains the system instead of destroying it. The proposed 

structures include shaded fuel breaks along roads, large blocks of forest with lower densities adjacent 

to critical areas (i.e., private property and wildlife emphasis areas), heterogeneous forest structure 

throughout the area (planting in clumps and variable spacing of trees), limited amounts of plantations 

on southern and southwestern slopes where natural fire return intervals are high and the tree growing 

ability is low, and prescribed and natural fire occurs within stands every 5 to 20 years. Such features 

3 
Chapter 1 Stanislaus

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest

located across the landscape provide safe locations for firefighters to work from during wildfires and 

to utilize during prescribed burning activities. The fire and fuels strategy fits well with the 

overarching objective of sustainable old forests for wildlife and timber production. Several critical 

wildlife species lost habitat within the Rim Fire; therefore, providing opportunities to return forests to 

this area is critical for sustainable populations and connectivity of habitat for wildlife movement and 

expansion. 

Simultaneously, Forest wildlife biologists and PSW subject matter scientists evaluated the post-fire 

Protected Activity Center (PAC) conditions to determine viability of each one and options for those 

no longer providing the desired habitat. In addition, foresters verified the vegetation burn severity and 

identified economically feasible timber harvest of dead trees estimated to be a minimum of 5,000 

board feet (BF) per acre of trees 16 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) and greater per acre. These 

three efforts, along with Interdisciplinary (ID) Team review of the area and identification of the 

potential issues, led to the formation of the Proposed Action and associated Management 

Requirements.

PSW researchers met with the Forest’s Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) several times during the fall 

and winter to identify research questions and opportunities across this landscape. This effort proposed 

several areas within burned spotted owl PACs to be left intact for long-term research on fire effects 

on spotted owls, black-backed woodpeckers, and other species. In addition, a multitude of other 

wildlife, watershed, and forestry studies are proposed within the burn area. Using satellite imagery, 

the ID Team conducted a unit by unit review of the proposed action in December and identified 

desired changes. The two additional action alternatives also incorporate public scoping comments, 

input from collaborative partners (Rim Fire Technical Team and Yosemite Stanislaus Solutions), 

Tuolumne County officials, and local California Fish and Wildlife Service biologists.

In March 2009, PSW released General Technical Report 220, “An Ecosystem Management Strategy 

for Sierran Mixed-Conifer Forests” (GTR 220) (North et al. 2009a). GTR 220 emphasized the 

importance of learning from historic conditions to determine sustainable desired conditions. This 

report summarized recent scientific literature suggesting that land managers produce different stand 

structures and densities across the landscape using topography and historic fire behavior to guide 

treatments. Historically, both topography and fire influenced forest structure and composition in the 

Sierra Nevada. Management that creates and mimics those historic stand structures and fire-mediated 

processes will help restore the natural role of fire on the landscape, create structural heterogeneity at 

multiple scales, and improve habitat quality by providing multilayered canopies and other key 

structures associated with sensitive wildlife species, such as the Pacific fisher, California spotted owl, 

and northern goshawk. Although there are no known occurrences of the Pacific fisher on the 

Stanislaus National Forest, nor is there specific management direction on the Forest to manage for 

fishers, the fisher is imperiled. Because of this, the ID Team identified habitat connectivity for 

potential future expansion of forest carnivore populations for the purpose of restoring and enhancing 

their habitat. In addition, critical deer winter range exists within the Rim Fire area. Yosemite Deer 

Herd travel, into and through the area, is important for this species to access lower elevation forage, 

such as grass, oaks, and nutritious acorns, needed for winter survival. 

Forest Service direction and intent, recent science summarized by GTR 220, and the Rim Fire 

Vegetation Resiliency Strategy (project record) provide an extensive foundation of information to 

draw from during the Rim Recovery planning effort. The analysis in this document focuses on 

restoring ecosystem function, process, and resiliency by addressing issues related to vegetative 

composition and structure, forest health, fuels, hardwood and wildlife habitat improvement, and 

socio-economic objectives. Although these are long-term goals, how and where salvage logging is 

conducted, if conducted at all, will set the stage for future activities in this area and provide some 

habitat components within the burn that will not be naturally available for decades to come (i.e., large 

down woody material). 

4 
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action

Figure 1.02-2 shows high soil burn severity and high vegetation burn severity. Figure 1.02-3 shows 

moderate soil burn severity and high vegetation burn severity. Figure 1.02-4 shows low soil burn 

severity and low vegetation burn severity. 

Figure 1.02-2 High Soil Burn Severity and High Vegetation Burn Severity Photo

Figure 1.02-3 Moderate Soil Burn Severity and High Vegetation Burn Severity Photo

Figure 1.02-4 Low Soil Burn Severity and Low Vegetation Burn Severity Photo

5 
Chapter 1 Stanislaus

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest

The Rim Fire is not the first wildfire that occurred in this area. Since 1950, ten large fires burned fully 

or partially within the Rim Fire area leaving portions of the area now burned up to four times over 

that period. Figure 1.02-5 shows the large fire history of this wildfire dominated landscape.

Figure 1.02-5 Large Fire History Map

6 
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action

Salvage logging of burned trees and roadside hazard trees is the first step in the process of long-term 

forest recovery. In order to provide critical structures within the recovering forests over time, 

retention of snags (dead standing trees) and down logs are necessary initial components for rebuilding 

wildlife habitat and healthy soils and watersheds. Snags provide short term benefits for many species 

of wildlife, and long-term down woody structure. Most of the burned forested stands were overstocked due to decades of fire exclusion and now have far more dead trees within them than would 

have occurred naturally. In addition, the vast area of high severity burn is far larger than historic gap 

sizes would have been in the Sierra Nevada, setting up another severe fire scenario if not treated. In 

the short-term, while the dead trees are still standing and before the vegetation re-grows, the fire 

intensity would be low. Over time, if the dead trees and logs were left in place impacts to multiple 

resources including severe soil damage (hydrophobic soils) would result and be far more damaging 

than the Rim Fire (Monsanto and Agee 2008). 

Forest Plan Direction

The Forest Service completed the Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Forest Plan) on October 28, 1991 (USDA 1991). The Stanislaus National Forest “Forest Plan 

Direction” presents the current Forest Plan management direction, based on the original Forest Plan, 

as amended (USDA 2010a). The Forest Plan Compliance Checklist (project record) provides 

additional details.

Relation to Other Rim Fire Projects

The Rim Fire Hazard Tree (Rim HT) project is the first of multiple recovery and restoration projects 

that may be proposed over the next several years. The April 25, 2014 decision approved removal of 

both hazard trees and trees felled during fire suppression or rehabilitation to provide a safe 

environment for administration and public use within and adjacent to high use roads and developed 

facilities. The Rim HT project has independent utility and will be undertaken regardless of any further 

recovery actions.

The Rim Recovery project is the second Rim related project in progress. The Forest Service published 

a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in the Federal Register 

on December 6, 2013 (78 Federal Register 235, December 6, 2013; p. 73498-73499). The Rim 

Recovery proposed action includes salvage of dead trees; removal of hazard trees and dead trees 

along lower use roads open to the public; fuel reduction for future forest resiliency to fire; and road 

improvements for proper hydrologic function. The Rim Recovery treatment areas do not overlap with 

the Rim HT project treatment areas. The Rim Recovery project does not include any roads or 

facilities included under the Rim HT project. 

Future projects may address reforestation, ecosystem restoration, fuels treatments, and other forest 

restoration activities; however, no specific proposals or details are available and it would be 

speculative to address them at this time.

1.03 PURPOSE AND NEED

The Forest Service identified the following needs for this project.

1. Capture Economic Value through Salvage Logging

The tremendous number of dead trees across this large landscape creates the need for the removal 

of this perishable commodity in a timely manner. If removed within the next 2 years, the value of 

the dead trees would pay for their removal from the forest and potentially for other future 

restoration treatments. Leaving the dead trees on site would create a large and dangerous fuel load 

in this vast area, and future removal of the down material if desired, would be very difficult, 

7 
Chapter 1 Stanislaus

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest

costly, and time consuming. The value of these trees is short lived, and will continue to decline 

over time. Even with implementation within the first year, it is estimated that trees below 16-inch 

diameter at breast height (dbh) would no longer have value. The diameter size of a tree with 

economic value will only increase over time as the trees deteriorate with time.

2. Provide Worker and Public Safety

Currently, the area contains excessive stretches of fire-killed and structurally compromised trees 

along low standard forest roads not included in the Rim HT project. The dramatic change in 

forest condition as a result of the Rim Fire significantly increased the risk to human life, safety 

and property. Miles of hazard trees now comprise much of the overall forest structure. Providing 

a safe environment for both public use and the administration of affected roads and facilities is 

critical, and the reason for the removal of dead and damaged trees that could fall onto roads. In 

addition, fighting future fires in these areas would be dangerous, due to the multiple dead trees 

and fuel loading. The Chief of the Forest Service and the Regional Forester stress that the safety 

of the public and our employees is our central concern. Within the transportation corridors, 

hazard tree management is vital to everyone’s safety (USDA 2012c). 

3. Reduce Fuels for Future Forest Resiliency

Harvesting dead timber supports the objectives of the Rim Fire Vegetation Resiliency Strategy 

(project record) by reducing the existing fuel load of standing dead trees to protect multiple 

resources including soils and watersheds from future high-intensity fires. Key areas identified as 

treatments needed for resiliency may be less economical to log, but are critical for creating 

greater fire resiliency of future forests. Removing burned trees and fuels where tree mortality 

exceeds the needs for snag and log recruitment is the first step to meet desired fuels conditions. 

The goal is to leave no more than 20 tons per acre and 10 tons per acre in Strategically Placed 

Landscape Area Treatments (SPLATS) while working with other resources to ensure soil and 

hydrologic stability. Higher levels would make this area more prone to future high-intensity fires, 

burning through the recovering forest before it could mature. In order to reintroduce fire into 

these areas as soon as possible, the current fuel load needs to be reduced to a level where fire 

would burn in patchy mostly low, and some moderate, vegetative burn severities. 

4. Improve Road Infrastructure to Enhance Hydrologic Function

One of the most potentially damaging factors for watershed and soils resources is the improper 

movement of water from the road system within the burn. Road sediment discharge increases are 

expected as a result of the Rim Fire. Most increases are likely to occur in high soil burn severity 

areas and to a lesser extent in moderate soil burn severity areas. Problems include areas where 

road drainage is not fully functional and culverts at road-stream crossings are undersized or 

damaged. The undersized culverts cannot handle post-fire flow volume and the additional woody 

debris and sediment it carries. Ensuring that water is properly funneled through these systems to 

drainages that can move and utilize this resource is critical for protection of watersheds and soils, 

and also to provide the best aquatic habitat within these systems. 

5. Enhance Wildlife Habitat

Because the fire burned through 46 California spotted owl PACs, as well as thousands of acres of 

other critical habitat, retaining old forest structures (large snags and downed logs) is important at 

this time since future recruitment of these old forest features is not expected to occur until 

decades to centuries into the future. The fire also burned through critical deer winter range. Deer 

migration access to winter foraging areas is essential for a thriving deer herd. Downed trees and 

the potential for more dead trees to fall would continue to inhibit herd access to critical winter 

8 
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action

habitat and browse. Additional needs within the burn area to promote various species in the short 

and long-term include: 

- Unlogged burned forest areas across the landscape to provide sufficient habitat for wildlife 

species dependent on post-fire environments (i.e. black-backed woodpecker).

- A forest carnivore connectivity corridor linking Yosemite National Park wildlife populations 

to future habitat providing opportunities for these species to move north into the Stanislaus 

National Forest.

- Areas within critical winter deer range for salvage and non-merchantable material removal to 

achieve desired forage and cover ratios and deer migration access to critical winter range. 

- Enhancement of native vegetation cover, stabilization of channels by non-structural means, 

and minimization of adverse effects from existing roads and exposed bare soil within 

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) and the Clavey River Critical Aquatic Refuge (CAR).

1.04 PROPOSED ACTION

This is the Proposed Action, as described in the Notice of Intent (78 Federal Register 235, December 

6, 2013; p. 73498-73499), with corrections based on updated data and map information and 

completion of PAC remapping as stated in the scoping package. These corrections and refinements 

provide additional resource protection and a more accurate and informed proposed action. 

The Forest Service proposed action, within the Rim Fire perimeter in the Stanislaus National Forest, 

includes: salvage of dead trees; removal of hazard trees along roads open to the public and roads 

used to access and implement proposed treatments; fuel reduction for future forest resiliency to fire; 

and, road improvements for proper hydrologic function. Implementation is expected to begin summer 

2014 and continue up to 5 years. Roadside hazard trees will be designated for removal using the 

Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region, 

April 2012 (Report RO-12-01). Dead trees in salvage units will be designated for removal based on 

“no green needles visible from the ground”. Proposed treatments in the project area include: 

 Salvage of dead trees and fuel reduction (28,326 acres) including ground based mechanized 

equipment such as harvesters and rubber tired skidders (24,127 acres), ground based/skyline 

swing (16 acres) and aerial based helicopter (2,930 acres) or cable systems (1,253 acres).

 Removal of hazard trees and fuel reduction along existing low standard forest roads (341 miles or 

16,315 acres).

 Reconstruction (319.9 miles) and maintenance (216.1 miles) for proper hydrologic function and 

stream protection. 

 New construction (5.4 miles) to allow for salvage removal and long-term access for future 

activities.

 Temporary road construction (13.2 miles). Temporary roads will be decommissioned following 

completion of project activities.

 Rock quarry sites (7 sites) identified to accommodate road needs.

 Water sources (81 locations) identified for road construction, reconstruction and maintenance as 

well as long-term resource needs.

No salvage treatments are proposed within Wilderness or Inventoried Roadless Areas. No salvage 

treatments are proposed within the wild classification segments of the Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

Hazard tree removal is considered within all river segment classifications. Project design will 

incorporate water quality and other Best Management Practices (BMPs) according to regional and 

national guidance. 

Merchantable trees [likely those dead trees greater than 16 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) by 

the time of harvest] would be removed as sawlogs and non-merchantable trees of smaller diameters 

9 
Chapter 1 Stanislaus

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest

may be removed as biomass, masticated (shredded), felled and lopped, or machine piled and burned. 

Harvest would occur in a timely manner to minimize loss of value; dead trees lose their value within 

2 years, or even less for smaller diameter material. It is anticipated salvage harvest operations would 

begin as soon as August 2014 and continue for up to 5 years. Figure 1.04-1 shows the treatment units

included in the Proposed Action. 

Chapter 2.02 includes a detailed description of this proposal under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). 

Figure 1.04-1 Rim Fire Recovery Proposed Action Treatment Units

10 
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action

Figure 1.04-2 shows vegetation burn severity mapped with the proposed action treatment units.

Figure 1.04-2 Vegetation Burn Severity Map

11
Chapter 1 Stanislaus

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest

Figure 1.04-3 shows soil burn severity mapped with the proposed action treatment units. 

Figure 1.04-3 Soil Burn Severity Map

12
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action

Updates to the Proposed Action

The Forest updated the proposed action based on subsequent field information and a unit-by-unit ID 

Team review. The updated proposed action differs from the original scoping package (Scoping) with 

over half the changes in relation to the remapping of the severely burned California spotted owl, great 

grey owl, and goshawk PACs as called for in the scoping package. Additional roads analysis led to 

additional categories of road actions. Temporary roads occur in two sub-categories (new and existing) 

to better capture impacts. In addition, the category “temporary use – revert” tracks non-system roads 

needed for project access and also anticipated as needed for future use separate from the Forest 

Transportation System (FTS).

Table 1.04-1 displays and compares the Proposed Action from Scoping with the updates identified for 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) in this draft EIS. 

Table 1.04-1 Updates to the Proposed Action

Proposed Treatments1 Proposed Action 

(Scoping)

Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Salvage (ground based) 25,174 acres 24,127 acres

Salvage (ground based/skyline swing) 0 acres 16 acres

Salvage (aerial based helicopter) 3,147 acres 2,930 acres

Salvage (skyline system) 1,327 acres 1,253 acres

Subtotal Salvage 29,648 acres 28,326 acres

Hazard Tree Removal 369 miles 341 miles

Subtotal Hazard Tree Removal 17,890 acres 16,315 acres

Total Hazard Tree and Salvage 47,538 acres 44,641 acres

New Construction 6 miles 5.4 miles

Reconstruction 327 miles 319.9 miles

Maintenance 164 miles 216.1 miles

Subtotal Construction and Maintenance 497 miles 540.6 miles

Temporary Road Construction 14 miles

Temporary Road Construction (new) 3.9 miles

Temporary Road Construction (existing) 9.3 miles

Subtotal Temporary Road Construction 14 miles 13.2 miles

Temporary Use - Revert 8 miles 8.4 miles

Total Road 519 miles 562.2 miles

Rock Quarry Sites 75 7

Potential Water Sources 95 81 

1 Salvage Treatments include removal of dead trees and fuel reduction; Hazard Tree Treatments include hazard tree 

removal and fuel reduction.

1.05 PRINCIPAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires that all major federal actions 

significantly affecting the human environment be analyzed to determine the magnitude and intensity 

of those impacts and that the results be shared with the public and the public given opportunity to 

comment. The regulations implementing NEPA further require that to the fullest extent possible, 

agencies shall prepare EISs concurrently with and integrated with environmental analyses and related 

surveys and studies required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, and other environmental review laws and executive orders. Other laws that 

apply to this project include: the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960; the National Forest 

13
Chapter 1 Stanislaus

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest

Management Act of 1976; the Clean Air Act of 1990; the Clean Water Act of 1972; and, the Forest 

and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. 

1.06 DECISION FRAMEWORK

As the Responsible Official, the Forest Supervisor may decide to: (1) select the proposed action; (2) 

select one of the alternatives; (3) select one of the alternatives after modifying the alternative with 

additional mitigating measures or combination of activities from other alternatives; or, (4) select the 

no action alternative, choosing not to authorize the Rim Recovery project. In making this decision, 

the Forest Supervisor will consider such questions as:

 How well does the selected alternative meet the purpose and need described in this EIS?

 How well does the selected alternative move the project area toward the desired conditions 

established in the Forest Plan? 

 Does the selected alternative mitigate potential adverse effects?

Project-Level Pre-decisional Administrative Review (Objection) Process

This project is subject to comment pursuant to 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and B. Only those who 

submit timely project specific written comments2

 during a public comment period are eligible to file 

an objection. Individuals or representatives of an entity submitting comments must sign the comments 

or verify identity upon request. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who 

comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public 

inspection. 

Emergency Situation Determination

In order to facilitate implementation of this project, the Forest Service Chief granted an Emergency 

Situation Determination (ESD) pursuant to 36 CFR 218.21 (78 Federal Register 59, March 27, 2013; 

p. 18481-18504) on April 23, 2014. An emergency situation is a situation on NFS lands for which 

immediate implementation of a decision is necessary to achieve one or more of the following: relief 

from hazards threatening human health and safety; mitigation of threats to natural resources on NFS 

or adjacent lands; avoiding a loss of commodity value sufficient to jeopardize the agency's ability to 

accomplish project objectives directly related to resource protection or restoration (36 CFR 

218.21(b)). The determination that an emergency situation exists is not subject to administrative 

review (36 CFR 218.21(c)). With an ESD granted, the project is not subject to the pre-decisional 

objection process (36 CFR 218.21(d)).

Alternative Arrangements

In order to facilitate implementation of this project, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) granted alternative arrangements in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.11 on December 9, 2013. 

With these alternative arrangements for the Rim Recovery project, CEQ specifically approved the 

following: 

 Shortened the public comment period for the draft EIS from 45 to 30 days. 

 Eliminated the minimum 90-day requirement between the Notice of Availability of the draft EIS 

and the publication of the Record of Decision (ROD).

 Eliminated the 30-day waiting period between the publication of the final EIS and the ROD. 

2 Specific written comments. Written comments are those submitted to the responsible official or designee during a designated 

opportunity for public participation (§ 218.5(a)) provided for a proposed project. Written comments can include submission of 

transcriptions or other notes from oral statements or presentation. For the purposes of this rule, specific written comments should be 

within the scope of the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and must include supporting reasons for the 

responsible official to consider.

14

 
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action

CEQ also included the following requirements for the Forest: 

 Continue to enhance public and stakeholder engagement during the scoping initiated by the 

December 6, 2013 Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS. 

 Continue active engagement of interested parties throughout the preparation of the EIS. 

 Continue communication with the Yosemite Stanislaus Solutions collaborative group. 

 Attend and continue communication with the Sierra Nevada Conservancy and parties 

participating in the Rim Fire Landscape Restoration Technical Workshop on December 18, 2013. 

 Post the Final EIS and proposed ROD on the Forest Service website for public review 5 to 10 

business days prior to publishing the official Notice of Availability in the Federal Register.

1.07 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public participation is important at numerous points during the analysis. The Forest Service seeks 

information, comments and assistance from federal, state and local agencies and individuals or 

organizations that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. 

Because of the critical need to begin implementation as soon as possible, this project focused on 

unprecedented up front public involvement. The Forest engaged two large collaborative groups. One 

local group, Yosemite Stanislaus Solutions (YSS) includes a wide variety of local county 

stakeholders including the timber industry, environmental organizations and business leaders. YSS 

fosters partnerships among private, nonprofit, state and federal entities with a common interest in the 

health and well-being of the landscape and communities in the Tuolumne River Watershed. The 

group fosters an all-lands strategy to create a heightened degree of environmental stewardship, local 

jobs, greater local economic stability, and healthy forests and communities. The other group, known 

as the Rim Fire Technical Team consists of representatives from state and national environmental 

organizations, the timber industry and other government entities with a more national or statewide 

interest base. The Forest Service met with both of these groups on several occasions including field 

trips into the burn area and all day workshops identifying the long-term goals of this landscape and 

future desired conditions. 

The Forest held its first field trip into the Rim Fire on October 16, 2013 with individuals from the 

Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians, Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center (CSERC), Sierra 

Club, Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources and Environment (TuCARE), California Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Audubon Society, Tuolumne County Supervisors, logging companies, sawmills, 

Sierra Nevada Conservancy and the local collaborative group YSS. On November 14, 2013 the Rim 

Fire Technical Team toured the burn area with several stops and discussions with Forest Service 

managers and researchers.

Public Scoping Period (30-days) for the Notice of Intent

The Forest Service conducts scoping according to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations (40 CFR 1501.7). In addition to other public involvement, scoping initiates an early and 

open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIS and for identifying the 

significant issues related to a proposed action. This scoping process allows the Forest Service not 

only to identify significant environmental issues deserving of study, but also to deemphasize 

insignificant issues, narrowing the scope of the EIS process accordingly (40 CFR 1500.4(g)). 

The Forest Service first listed the Rim Recovery project online in the Stanislaus National Forest 

Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on December 5, 2013. The project first appeared in the 

published quarterly SOPA in January 2014. The Forest distributes the SOPA to about 160 parties and 

it is available on the internet [http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110516]. 

15
Chapter 1 Stanislaus

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest

The Forest Supervisor sent a scoping letter and package to 131 individuals, permittees, organizations, 

agencies, and Tribes interested in this project on December 5, 2013. The letter requested specific 

written comments on the Proposed Action during the initial 30-day designated opportunity for public 

participation. The Forest Service published a Notice of Intent (NOI) that asked for public comment on 

the proposal between December 6, 2013 and January 6, 2013 (78 Federal Register 235, December 6, 

2013; p. 73498-73499). Interested parties submitted 4,200 total letters during the comment period 

including 174 unique individual letters and 4,026 form letters. Other interested parties submitted 

3,627 form letters (late) after the comment period closed. The Scoping Summary (project record) 

identifies specific comments and shows how the ID Team used them to identify issues (Chapter 1.08). 

The Forest Service held public open houses at the Supervisor’s Office on December 13 and 14, 2013. 

They were advertised on local radio stations, in the local newspaper, on the Stanislaus National Forest 

website, through a “tweet” to more than 68,000 followers, through direct mailings to those on the 

SOPA mailing list, and to those who showed interest in the project. Over 25 people attended the open 

houses where the Forest described the preliminary purpose and need for the project as well as 

proposed recovery treatments. ID Team members participated and answered questions regarding the 

project and proposed action. 

Ongoing Public Involvement

The Forest held a follow up public open house at the Supervisor’s Office on February 13, 2014. It 

was advertised on local radio stations, in the local newspaper, on the Stanislaus National Forest 

website, and through a “tweet” to more than 68,000 followers. Over 50 people attended the open 

house where the Forest described the alternatives developed since the original scoping package 

described the proposed action. 

In addition to the ongoing discussions with YSS, over the past few months the Forest organized

several tours into the Rim Fire area for congressional aides, local government, and other interested 

parties. The Forest provides a monthly update to the Tuolumne Board of Supervisor’s Natural 

Resources Committee. Forest Service representatives have also spoken with many local and statewide 

businesses, interest groups and service clubs including Hetch Hetchy, TuCARE, Blue Ribbon 

Coalition, American Forest Resource Council, Range Permittees, Rotary Clubs, Stanislaus 

Wilderness Volunteers, Sierra Forest Legacy, timber operators and the Lions Club. 

1.08 ISSUES

The Forest reviewed the purpose and need, proposed action and scoping comments in order to 

identify issues (Scoping Summary, project record). An issue is a point of discussion, dispute, or 

debate with the Proposed Action; an issue is an effect on a physical, biological, social, or economic

resource; an issue is not an activity; instead, the predicted effects of the activity create the issue. The 

Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and non-significant. The Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “...identify 

and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by 

prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...”

Significant issues are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed 

action. Significant Issues are used to formulate alternatives, prescribe mitigation measures, or analyze 

environmental effects. Issues are significant because of the extent of their geographic distribution, the 

duration of their effects, or the intensity of interest or resource conflicts. 

Non-Significant Issues are those: 1) outside of the scope of the proposed action; 2) already 

determined through law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the 

decision to be made; 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific fact; 5) a comment, opinion, or 

16
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action

statement of position; or, 6) a question for clarification or information. Although non-significant 

issues are not used to formulate alternatives or prescribe mitigation measures, the EIS will disclose all 

significant environmental effects including any related to non-significant issues. The Scoping 

Summary (project record) identifies non-significant issues and reasons why they were found nonsignificant.

As described above, issues are significant because of the extent of their geographic distribution, the 

duration of their effects, or the intensity of interest or resource conflicts. Based on public comments, 

the Forest developed significant issues to formulate and compare alternatives, prescribe mitigation 

measures, or analyze and compare the environmental effects of each alternative. Significant issues are 

listed below with issue statements based on public comments submitted during scoping. 

Significant Issues

1. Health and Safety

a. Existing conditions do not provide a safe environment for administration and public use of 

roads because hazard trees pose a threat to health and safety. 

b. Public conflicts with logging operations along roads and worker conflicts along power lines 

and Highway 120 pose threats to worker and public safety. 

2. Snag Forest Habitat

a. Proposed activities may affect Black-backed Woodpecker (BBWO) populations because the 

woodpeckers may occur at higher densities in areas treated and the project does not include 

avoidance measures or limited operating periods for nesting BBWO. 

b. Proposed activities may affect Spotted Owls because re-mapping of existing PACs and Home 

Range Core Areas (HRCAs) burned in the fire would damage this still viable and important 

owl habitat.

3. New Road Construction

a. Proposed new road construction may affect roadless areas and destroy habitat because these 

areas are currently undisturbed and inaccessible to motor vehicles. 

4. Wildlife Habitat

a. Proposed activities may affect critical deer winter range as well as oak and green island 

habitat because the project does not include specific protection or enhancement measures.

b. Proposed management requirements seem excessive (i.e., a one mile buffer for suitable frog 

habitat and 20 down logs within streams every mile) because these measures are not 

necessary and the cost of implementation is high.

5. Salvage Logging

a. Proposed activities may reduce biodiversity, threaten rare plants, and impact the outstanding 

remarkable values and integrity of the Clavey River due to impacts from salvage logging.

b. Application of sporax may affect implementation of the logging because it is not necessary 

and adds costs.

6. Soil and Watershed Impacts

a. Proposed activities may affect streams with significant sedimentation and soil loss because of 

the already compromised condition of these areas and insufficient buffers. 

17
Chapter 1 Stanislaus

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest

1.09 GISDATA

The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. Geographic Information 

System (GIS) data and product accuracy may vary. They may be developed from sources of differing 

accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation and/or, incomplete 

while being created or revised. Using GIS products for purposes other than those intended may yield 

inaccurate or misleading results.

The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace GIS products without 

notification. The information contained within Chapter 2 (The Alternatives) of this EIS takes 

precedence in case of disagreement with the GIS data (including maps created using that data).

18
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

2. The Alternatives

This Chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Rim Fire Recovery project. It 

presents the alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative and 

providing a clear basis for choice among the options for the Responsible Official and the public. It 

includes the action alternative or the Proposed Action (Alternative 1), the no action alternative 

(Alternative 2), and two additional action alternatives (3 and 4) that provide a comprehensive range 

for the decision maker. The no action alternative serves as a baseline for comparison purposes (73 

Federal Register 143, July 24, 2008; p. 43084-43099). Based on the issues identified through public 

comment on the proposed action as well as the unique opportunities created by the Rim Fire, the 

Forest Service developed the other action alternatives that achieve the purpose and need through 

different combinations and types of activities than the proposed action. Some of the information used 

to compare the alternatives is based on the design of the alternative, and some of the information is 

based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative.

This chapter is divided into five sections:

 Chapter 2.01 describes how the alternatives were developed. 

 Chapter 2.02 presents the alternatives considered in detail.

 Chapter 2.03 describes the management requirements common to all action alternatives.

 Chapter 2.04 presents the alternatives considered, but eliminated from detailed study, including 

the rationale for eliminating them.

 Chapter 2.05 compares the alternatives based on their environmental, social and economic

consequences including a comparative display of the projected effects of the alternatives.

2.01 HOW THE ALTERNATIVES WERE DEVELOPED

The planning area includes NFS lands, on the Stanislaus National Forest, outside of Wilderness. It 

does not include any private, state or other federal lands. Each alternative assumes that other adjacent 

federal lands, such as those administered by Yosemite National Park will be managed according to 

existing management plans and applicable federal laws. Each alternative also assumes that private 

lands will meet applicable state and federal land use regulations.

Chapter 2.02 displays the alternatives fully considered in detail including three action alternatives and 

the no action alternative, while Chapter 2.04 describes other alternatives considered, but eliminated 

from detailed study. Appendix D (Research) and Appendix E (Treatments) provide detailed 

information related to the alternatives. The separate map package includes large scale maps showing 

treatment units and other information included in each alternative.

Primary Objectives

The action alternatives represent a wide range of perspectives designed to address the purpose and 

need (Chapter 1.03) and the issues identified through scoping (Chapter 1.08). The purpose and need 

includes five primary objectives identified for the proposed action (Chapter 1.03). In addition to those 

five objectives, the ID Team identified research as a sixth primary objective for developing 

Alternatives 3 and 4. 

Table 2.01.1 displays the six primary objectives used to identify treatments and develop the action 

alternatives while Table 2.05-2 shows acres by primary objective and Appendix E (Treatments)

shows primary objectives for each specific treatment unit.

19
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

Table 2.01-1 Primary Objectives

Primary Objective Purpose

1. Economic Value Capture the economic value of hazard trees and dead trees which pays for their 

removal from the forest and potentially for other future restoration treatments.

2. Public and Worker 

Safety

Remove dead and dying hazard trees adjacent to Forest Roads and project access 

areas. This primary objective also includes the health and safety of workers and 

permittees during range fence installation and maintenance.

3. Fuel Reduction Reduce fuels to provide for future forest resiliency and firefighting safety and 

success. Additional treatments in SPLATS and Defense Zones.

4. Enhance Hydrologic 

Function

Improve road infrastructure to enhance hydrologic function of roads. This only applies 

to roads so it will not be displayed in table 2.05-2 which displays unit acres.

5. Enhance Wildlife 

Habitat 

Retain specific old forest components (large snags and down logs) and/or remove 

material to improve wildlife habitat.

a. Deer Habitat Improvement – Removal of dead trees (commercial and noncommercial) for movement and access, and to achieve desired forage/cover 

ratios

b. Snag Retention

6. Research Utilize the unique scale and intensity of the Rim Fire to answer questions and provide 

more information on a wide range of research topics.

The action alternatives were developed and described according to the following activity groups 

where applicable. 

Salvage and Fuel Reduction

The action alternatives vary in the number of acres proposed for salvage harvest, the type of harvest, 

associated fuel reduction treatments (e.g. biomass or tractor piling). 

Merchantable trees [likely those dead trees greater than 16 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) by 

the time of harvest] would be removed as sawlogs and non-merchantable trees of smaller diameters 

may be masticated (shredded), felled and lopped, machine piled and burned, or removed as biomass. 

Harvest would occur in a timely manner to minimize loss of value; dead trees lose their value within 

2 years or even less for smaller diameter material. Salvage and hazard tree removal are expected to 

take place first in order to capture the highest economic value of the standing timber and to remove 

hazard trees for safety of operations. Biomass removal may be completed simultaneously with the 

salvage operation or occur as a second entry into the area. Post-harvest evaluation would determine 

the extent of treatments necessary to meet fuels, watershed, and wildlife objectives for ground cover 

and fuel loading. It is anticipated salvage harvest operations would begin as early as August 2014 and 

continue for up to 5 years. Actual timing may vary based on deterioration of material, weather and 

resource availability (personnel and budget). The action alternative maps in the map package show 

the unit locations. 

Salvage

Dead conifer trees greater than 16 inches dbh (this diameter will vary based on tree merchantability at 

the time of harvest) would be removed utilizing ground based mechanized equipment where practical. 

Ground based equipment would include harvesters and rubber tired skidders. Helicopter logging or 

skyline systems would be utilized on steeper slopes and where necessary to meet resource objectives. 

Feller-bunchers may be utilized on skyline and helicopter units where slopes are less than 45 percent. 

Only trees with no green needles (as seen from the ground) would be removed. Residual live trees 

within salvage units would be protected during harvest operations and retained. Management 

Requirements identify the snag and down log retention guidelines. All activity generated fuels would 

be treated to meet the fuels desired conditions.

20
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

Biomass Removal

Biomass treatments would entail the mechanical removal of un-merchantable trees between 4 inches 

and 16 inches dbh (this varies depending on log merchantability and the desire for retaining material 

onsite for various resource needs). These trees would be removed as firewood, shavings logs, 

pulpwood, removed for biomass fuel for electric cogeneration plants, or decked and left on site for 

public firewood cutting. The biomass treatments would likely be conducted at the same time as the 

thinning treatments, but depending on availability of equipment and operators, this activity may occur 

as a second entry after the timber is removed.

Machine Piling and Burning

Machine piling and burning is the use of mechanical equipment to push brush skeletons, small dead 

trees and excess downed fuels into piles for burning. This method would be used in areas where high 

fuel loads remain post-harvest. In order to meet wildlife and soils objectives, piling would be 

conducted in a manner that would leave the down logs, greater than 20 inches diameter (large end) 

and 10 feet in length, out of the piles. 

Jackpot Burning

Jackpot burning is the prescribed burning of heavy concentrations of down woody fuels. This type of 

burning would allow for the majority of the area to retain ground cover while reducing the heavy 

concentrations of fuels post-harvest. This treatment is proposed within the helicopter and skyline 

units where machine piling is not feasible. 

Mastication

Alternatives 3 and 4 would include mastication treatments consisting of the shredding of brush 

skeletons and small dead trees (generally under 10 inches dbh). The shredded material generated

would be left on site. This treatment would be conducted in areas that do not meet the minimum 

requirements for soil cover and/or are in watershed sensitive areas (WSAs). Criteria for evaluating the 

need for this action included: proposed recovery activities, burn severity, percent slope, slope shape, 

slope length, existing and potential soil cover, proximity to intermittent and perennial drainages, and 

proximity to high runoff response soils. This treatment would not be used where post treatment fuel

levels exceed objectives. This treatment would also be used in predominantly brushy areas for deer 

habitat enhancement.

Drop and Lop

Alternatives 3 and 4 would include drop and lop proposed in portions of units identified as WSAs to 

increase ground cover. Criteria for evaluating the need for this action are the same as described above 

for mastication. This treatment would involve felling non-merchantable trees less than 10 inches dbh 

and lopping them into pieces small enough to ensure the material is not stacked and has as much 

ground contact as practical. A minimum 50 percent effective ground cover is desired but may be 

limited by fuel objectives. 

Hazard Tree Removal and Fuel Reduction

Due to hazardous conditions created by the Rim Fire, all of the action alternatives propose hazard tree 

removal along low standard roads and trails used in the project as well as routes accessing salvage 

and fuels reduction units including those within all Wild and Scenic River segment classifications. 

Routes used in the project would be assessed for hazard trees and abated where they exist; however, it 

should be noted that many areas would receive no treatments because there is no hazard or threat to 

health and safety (i.e. low severity burn resulted in no tree mortality, forest structure is composed of 

small trees or shrub layer). Hazard trees would be designated for removal using the Hazard Tree 

Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region, April 2012 

21
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

(USDA 2012c). Only those green trees deemed to be imminent hazards (high certainty of mortality or 

failure within the next two years) would be removed and all green trees would be marked (not 

designated by description in the timber sale contract). These areas would also receive fuels reduction 

treatments.

Biomass Removal

Biomass treatments would entail the mechanical removal of un-merchantable trees between 4 inches 

and 16 inches dbh (this varies depending on log merchantability and the desire for retaining material 

onsite for various resource needs). These trees would be removed as firewood, shavings logs, 

pulpwood, removed for biomass fuel for electric cogeneration plants, or decked and left on site for 

public firewood cutting. The biomass treatments would likely be conducted at the same time as the 

thinning treatments, but depending on availability of equipment and operators, this activity may occur 

as a second entry after the timber is removed.

Machine Piling and Burning

Machine piling and burning is the use of mechanical equipment to push brush skeletons, small dead 

trees and excess downed fuels into piles for burning. This method would be used in areas where high 

fuel loads remain post-harvest. In order to meet wildlife and soils objectives, piling would be 

conducted in a manner that would leave the down logs, greater than 20 inches diameter (large end) 

and 10 feet in length, out of the piles. 

Roads

All of the action alternatives propose either maintenance or road reconstruction to support the 

removal of logs and biomass from treatment units as well as hazard trees adjacent to lower standard 

forest roads. In addition, Alternatives 1 and 3 propose new construction to access some salvage units

and reduce log yarding distances. Each action alternative includes several miles of temporary roads to 

minimize skidding distances. Several areas identified as “skid zones” would be used to move dead 

trees from the unit to the designated landing outside the unit boundary. No changes in allowed public 

uses would occur on any existing National Forest System Road (NFSR) or National Forest System 

Trail (NFST) used for the project.

New Construction

Alternatives 1 and 3 would include new roads that designed to engineering standards according to 

assigned road management objectives. Expected actions include vegetation clearing, excavation and 

embankment, blading and shaping, installation of drainage structures, and importing of armoring and 

surfacing rock material as needed. All new roads would be added to the FTS, gated and closed to 

public vehicular traffic, and would remain available for long-term administrative use for future access 

and management of NFS lands. 

Reconstruction

Reconstruction generally includes work to improve and restore roads. This work would improve the 

road conditions as needed for safe and efficient haul of forest products as well as for proper 

hydrologic function and stream protection in accordance with applicable BMPs. Actions may include 

surface improvement; construction of drainage dips, culverts, riprap fills or other drainage or 

stabilization features with potential disturbance outside the established roadway (toe of fill to top of 

cut); realignment; and widening of curves as needed for log trucks and chip van passage. 

Reconstruction also includes the actions identified in the Maintenance category, such as removal of 

roadside hazard trees.

22
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

Maintenance

Roads used for the project that are in functioning condition would be maintained. Maintenance 

preserves the function of the road but generally does not include improvements. Maintenance 

activities generally include: blading; brushing; removal of roadside hazard trees; repair and/or 

replacement of road surfaces; cleaning, repair, or installation of drainage structures such as culverts, 

ditches, and dips; dust abatement; removal and installation of closure barriers; and installation or 

repair of signs. Maintenance activities generally do not disturb ground outside the existing road prism 

(toe of fill to top of cut) other than removal of material around culvert inlets.

Stored Roads

Some Maintenance Level 1 roads (currently closed and stored) would be opened and receive the 

appropriate maintenance or reconstruction treatments as described above. By definition, these roads 

are expected to be used intermittently when needed for project access, but kept closed for periods of 

years between uses. Following the project, these roads would be physically closed to all motor vehicle 

travel by using native material barriers such as boulders, berms, cull logs and stumps. Beyond the 

closure, the integrity of Maintenance Level 1 roads would be preserved to the extent practicable, 

implementing measures as necessary to reduce sediment delivery from the road surface and fills and 

reduce the risk of crossing failure and stream diversion, making it hydrologically neutral.

Temporary Roads

Temporary roads are not intended to be a permanent part of the road system and would be 

decommissioned after use. Temporary roads may overlay existing corridors or be newly constructed 

features. Some NFSTs currently managed for either motorized or non-motorized use, are proposed as 

temporary roads. These would be put back to their previous use after project completion.

Construction of temporary roads may include vegetation clearing, excavation, blading and shaping to 

provide for safe project access and removal of forest products. New and existing temporary roads 

would have improvements necessary to attain stabilization of the roadbed and fill slopes, including 

employing measures such as out-sloping, drainage dips, and water-spreading ditches. Unlike 

permanent roads, temporary roads would only have the minimal investment and drainage required to 

minimize resource impacts while providing for safe use and passage of haul vehicles during the short 

life of the route.

After a temporary road has served the project purpose, the Forest Service would coordinate 

decommissioning. This involves: removing bridges and culverts, eliminating ditches, subsoiling and 

out-sloping the roadbed, removing ruts and berms, effectively blocking the road to vehicular traffic, 

and building cross ditches and water bars. When bridges and culverts are removed, associated fills 

shall also be removed to the extent necessary to permit normal maximum flow of water.

Temporary Use - Revert

Some segments identified for temporary project use would revert to their existing use post-project. 

These routes are associated with authorized or other needed uses (for example, access to a water tank 

under special use permit), and are expected to still be utilized into the future. Temporary use routes 

would be improved to a minimal standard for haul, while also improved to minimize adverse 

environmental impacts, maintain stabilization, and ensure proper drainage. These routes would 

continue to exist after the project is completed.

Skid Zones

The term skid zone is being used to identify areas where landings for units harvested using ground 

based equipment are not located either within or adjacent to the units. The skid zones encompass an 

area that skidding equipment may traverse to take logs from the unit to the landing, using a specified 

skid trail pattern that would be determined during harvest operations by a FS timber sale 

23
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

administrator. The intent is to identify areas outside units that need to be surveyed and assessed for 

potential impacts due to treatment activities.

Right-of-Way Acquisition

Some roads under private jurisdiction would provide more efficient access to the project. These roads 

would require a Forest Service right-of-way or access agreement to allow for access and haul of forest 

products. Where appropriate, public easements would be pursued; at a minimum administrative 

access would be needed for project use.

Other Infrastructure

Available water and rock material sources within and adjacent to the project area would be utilized to 

support project road work. Roads providing access to and from these sites would also be maintained.

Wildlife Habitat Enhancement

The action alternatives vary by type and amount of wildlife habitat enhancement treatments for 

critical deer range and increased snag retention. 

Research

Alternatives 3 and 4 include research proposals to evaluate impacts of proposed activities. Research 

opportunities are abundant within the Rim Fire perimeter and scientists from PSW and managers 

from the Stanislaus National Forest are working together and collaborating with universities and 

others to take advantage of this unique opportunity (a fire of this scale and intensity). The primary 

study design at this time is to allocate 44 California Spotted Owl (CSO) sites affected by the Rim Fire 

into treatment groups. Some treatment units were dropped from the project and some unit boundaries 

were modified based on the needs of the research proposals. Sample units consist of 200 hectare (494 

acres) circular core areas around the centroid (nest/main roost) for each of the 44 CSO sites. Sample 

units were arrayed across gradients by amount of post-fire suitable habitat and proposed salvage/road 

hazard tree treatment acres and then allocated to one of three treatment groups: (1) Controls; (2) Light 

Salvage prescription (retain approximately 100 square feet of Basal Area); and (3) High Salvage 

prescription (retain approximately 30 square feet of Basal Area). These 38 locations would serve as 

the sample units for the research to address “site occupancy” (i.e. the proportion of sites occupied by 

a species of interest through time) to assess response of CSO post fire. Occupancy surveys would be 

conducted annually for 5 years beginning in 2014. Assuming a best case treatment schedule, salvage 

treatments would be initiated in late Fall 2014 and continue through at least 2016. Two years of posttreatment surveys are needed to assess the effects of both wildfire and salvage-logging. Occupancy 

surveys would assess reproduction. Researchers may also conduct radio-telemetry work to document 

habitat use and foraging behavior of CSOs during the five year period post-fire. The study would be 

adapted to utilize the specific timing and spatial implementation of treatments.

These large 200 hectare sample units (13 units as controls, 12 units as light salvage, and 13 units as 

normal salvage) would also serve as footprints for a number of other research projects. The 200 

hectare units can provide a canvas for strip transects to conduct small mammal trapping grids and 

avian monitoring using point count surveys. They would also be used for monitoring cavity use and 

foraging behavior of black-backed woodpeckers using standard nest searching protocols. These units 

would serve as sites to quantify effects of salvage and several mitigation treatments on hillslope soil

erosion. Silt fences would be installed to measure erosion rates in small (less than 0.5 acre) treated 

and untreated swales within areas of high soil burn severity. Also, water quality research would 

evaluate the effects of salvage logging and erosion mitigation treatments on sediment yield and peak 

discharge at the small watershed scale. This study would use paired small catchment (10 to 20 acres) 

to measure total sediment yields, runoff and peak flow as well as small hillslope sediment fences to 

24
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

quantify hillslope contributions. Additional research is likely to occur within the Rim Fire, but would 

utilize the proposals and activities in this EIS as the basis for treatment and non-treatment pairings.

Forest Plan Amendments 

Alternatives 3 and 4 include a Forest Plan Amendment designating a Forest Carnivore Connectivity 

Corridor (FCCC). 

Management Requirements

The action alternatives include management requirements designed to implement the Forest Plan and 

to minimize or avoid potential adverse impacts. Each action alternative lists the management 

requirements specific to it and Chapter 2.03 identifies those common to all action alternatives. 

Management requirements are mandatory components of each alternative and will be implemented as 

part of the proposed activities.

2.02 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

The action alternatives (Alternatives 1, 3 and 4) and the no action alternative (Alternative 2) are 

considered in detail. The no action alternative, as required by the implementing regulations of NEPA, 

serves as a baseline for comparison among the alternatives (73 Federal Register 143, July 24, 2008; p. 

43084-43099). The following sections describe each of the alternatives considered in detail (see Map 

Package and project record for detailed maps of each alternative).

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

This is the Proposed Action, as described in the Notice of Intent (78 Federal Register 235, December 

6, 2013; p. 73498-73499), with corrections based on updated data and map information and 

completion of PAC re-maps as stated in the scoping package (Chapter 1.04). These corrections and 

refinements provide additional resource protection and a more accurate and informed proposed 

action. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) includes the treatments and actions described below. Table 

2.05-1 provides a summary of the proposed activities and Appendix E (Treatments) provides detailed 

information for each specific treatment unit. 

Salvage and Fuel Reduction

Alternative 1 includes salvage logging on up to 28,326 acres including 24,127 acres of ground based, 

16 acres of ground based/skyline swing, 2,930 acres of helicopter, and 1,253 acres of skyline 

treatments. Proposed fuel treatments include: 7,626 acres of biomass removal, 24,143 acres of 

machine piling and burning and 4,199 acres of jackpot burning. 

Hazard Tree Removal and Fuel Reduction

Fell and remove hazard trees (green and dead) adjacent to 341 miles of forest roads outside of 

proposed salvage units, amounting to 16,315 acres. Some non-merchantable trees may be felled and 

left in place.

Roads

Alternative 1 includes 5.4 miles of new construction, 319.9 miles of reconstruction and 216.1 miles of 

maintenance. About 3.9 miles of temporary road construction (new), 9.3 miles of temporary road 

construction (existing), and 8.4 miles of existing temporary use routes tied to current and future uses 

would be used for the project and then reverted afterwards to their original use. 

25
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

Wildlife Habitat Enhancement

Within Critical Winter Deer Range and adjacent to Yosemite National Park units were identified for 

salvage and/or biomass removal to achieve desired forage/cover ratios and to provide for deer passage 

and access. These units encompass 1,351 acres and include: L03, L06, L07, L202, L203A, L203B, 

L204A, L204B, L205, L206, M201, O201, and P201. 

Management Requirements

Alternative 1 includes the following management requirements in addition to the Management 

Requirements Common to All Action Alternatives (Chapter 2.03). 

1. Whole tree yard merchantable trees within ground based salvage units where fuel levels exceed 

desired amounts. If breakage from trees occurs during logging operations and debris amount 

exceeds 10 tons/acre, piling and burning and/or jackpot burning may be utilized. 

2. Where existing fuel loads are less than or equal to 5 tons/acre, some trees may be felled and left 

in place or masticated into pieces less than 2 feet in length to reduce potential soil erosion and 

maintain soil productivity. Total fuel loading for these units should not exceed 10 tons/acre with a 

fuel bed depth of less than or equal to 12 inches. Woody debris less than or equal to 8 inches in 

diameter will not exceed 3 tons/acre.

3. Piling and burning, and/or jackpot burning may be used to reduce fuel loading when dead and 

down woody fuels (3 inches and above) within salvage units exceed 10 tons/acre. 

4. Meet habitat needs for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) aquatic species: 

a. Maintain a 30 foot no cut and no equipment buffer around areas identified as suitable 

California red-legged frog aquatic habitat (breeding and non-breeding) including: 1) 0.16 

miles of Middle Fork Tuolumne River located in unit V10; 2) 2.7 miles of unnamed stream 

(flowing out of Birch Lake) and tributary in unit U01; and, 3) Homestead pond located in unit 

Y02. This requirement does not apply to operations for hazard tree removal. 

b. In suitable Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (SNYLF) habitat within 75 feet of proposed 

activities where no surveys have been completed (Looney Creek) a qualified biologist will 

perform a visual encounter survey before project implementation. If SNYLF are detected, 

establish a 75 foot no equipment buffer from the high water mark. 

c. To provide key pieces of wood to the channel, retain a minimum of 20 pieces of large woody 

debris (LWD, trees of the largest diameters) per mile of perennial and intermittent channels in 

salvage units. These snags should be felled into the stream in an upstream direction (greater 

than 45 degrees from perpendicular) to the maximum extent possible in order to actively 

recruit large wood to the channel. If these trees pose an unacceptable fuels risk, retain the 

largest portion of the bole equivalent to three times the bankfull width of the stream.

d. Adjacent to Abernathy Meadow (Unit U01), retain 12 down logs per acre around the 

perimeter of the meadow, extending 300 feet from the edge of the meadow to replace 

important elements for western pond turtle habitat. These trees shall be felled and left on the 

ground and be representative of the largest 50 percent of the trees in the retention zone. 

e. Do not allow new construction, including temporary roads, within 0.25 miles of Abernathy 

Meadow in Unit U01 or within 0.25 miles of “Big Kibbie Pond” in unit O02. 

f. To minimize direct impact to foothill yellow-legged frogs, do not allow skidding directly 

across the main stream channel in units H11, H13, K01, K02 and L03. 

5. Forest Service Manual 2550-Soil Management-R5 Supplement (USDA 2012) and Forest Plan 

Direction (USDA 2010) provide standards and guidelines for soil management and are the basis 

for soil requirements to minimize potential impacts: 

a. Spread existing windrows within units following treatments. A soil scientist will evaluate 

spreading operations on slopes greater than 25 percent to ensure standards are met.

26
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

6. Provide for a forest carnivore connectivity corridor for fisher and marten, linking Yosemite 

National Park, the North Mountain inventoried roadless area west to the Clavey River, including 

the following proposed salvage units: L02, L05, M1 through M10, M12, M13, M15, M16, M18, 

M19, and N1. 

7. Consider additional snags and downed logs to meet habitat needs in Old Forest Emphasis Areas 

(OFEA), Spotted Owl Home Range Core Areas (HRCA), and forest carnivore connectivity 

corridor (FCCC).

8. Consider avoiding construction of new landings and skid trails within PACs. 

9. Consider avoiding road construction within 0.25 miles of nest roost sites. 

10. Within critical winter deer range and migration corridors, remove or pile and burn nonmerchantable material to protect remnant oaks and achieve desired forage/cover ratios identified 

in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. This includes proposed units 

L03, L06, L07, L202 through L206, M201, O201 and P201. 

11. Consider mitigating areas where roadside hazard treatments are within PACs and HRCAs by 

adding acreage to the PAC and/or HRCA equivalent to the treated acres of the most suitable 

habitat available.

12. Prevent introduction and spread of noxious weeds:

a. Where possible above 4,000 feet elevation, prior to use, manually treat dense infestations of 

weeds in areas utilized by project equipment/vehicles to prevent spread, if flowers or seeds 

are present on the plants.

b. Flag and avoid infestations of high priority noxious weeds during project activities. Manual 

methods such as hand thinning may take place within noxious weed sites if timed for before 

seed set.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

Alternative 2 (No Action) provides a baseline for comparison with the other alternatives (Table 2.05-

1). Under Alternative 2 (No Action), general salvage and hazard tree abatement and removal adjacent 

to lower standard roads would not occur. Current management plans would continue to guide 

management of the project area. None of the viable timber would be removed from this area leaving 

tens to hundreds of tons of fuel per acre once these trees fall down and rendering access for 

firefighting virtually impossible. No hazard tree removal would occur adjacent to lower standard 

roads, leaving thousands of existing hazard trees to fall on their own as a result of natural forces. 

These roads would likely remain closed to public access. The cost of future activities where removal 

of this material is essential to implementation would be far more expensive and perhaps become cost 

prohibitive. The maintenance and reconstruction would not be implemented to accomplish the project 

goal of a properly functioning road infrastructure. 

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 responds to issues and concerns related to: Snag Forest Habitat; New Road 

Construction, Wildlife Habitat; and, Soil and Watershed Impacts (Chapter 1.08). Compared to 

Alternative 1, it addresses those issues by proposing: additional wildlife habitat enhancement 

(including biomass removal in Critical Deer Winter Range and the FCCC Forest Plan Amendment); 

additional soil and watershed protection (mastication and drop and lop); and, less new construction. It 

also includes research to help answer wildlife, fuels, watershed, and soils questions. Alternative 3 

includes the treatments and actions described below. Table 2.05-1 provides a summary of the 

proposed activities and Appendix E (Treatments) provides detailed information for each specific 

treatment unit.

27
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

Salvage and Fuel Reduction

Alternative 3 salvage and fuels treatments are similar to Alternative 1; however, it includes two 

additional fuel treatments (mastication and drop and lop) to mitigate impacts of the fire and logging 

on soil and water resources.

Alternative 3 includes salvage logging on up to 30,399 acres including 26,252 acres of ground based, 

16 acres of ground based/skyline swing, 3,035 acres of helicopter, and 1,096 acres of skyline 

treatments. Proposed fuels treatments include: 8,379 acres of biomass removal, 22,036 acres of 

machine piling and burning and 4,147 acres of jackpot burning, 1,309 acres of mastication, and 2,228 

acres of drop and lop. 

Hazard Tree Removal and Fuel Reduction

Alternative 3 involves felling and removing of hazard trees (green and dead) adjacent to 314.8 miles 

of forest roads, amounting to 15,253 acres, outside of proposed salvage units. Some nonmerchantable trees may be felled and left in place.

Roads

Alternative 3 includes 1.0 mile of new construction, 323.6 miles of reconstruction and 200.6 miles of 

maintenance. It also includes 9.5 miles of temporary road construction (new), 22.7 miles of temporary 

road construction (existing), and 3.3 miles of existing temporary roads tied to current and future uses 

would be used for the project and then reverted afterwards to their original use. 

Wildlife HabitatEnhancement

Alternative 3 includes several additional treatment units to enhance the Critical Deer Winter Range 

(Appendix E). In addition, the FCCC Forest Plan Amendment provides for long-term movement of 

wildlife from Yosemite National Park through the Stanislaus National Forest. 

Research

Alternative 3 includes the Research projects described in Chapter 2.01. Appendix D (Research) 

provides additional details for the individual research proposals. 

Forest Plan Amendment

Alternative 3 includes a Forest Plan Amendment designating a 4 mile wide Forest Carnivore 

Connectivity Corridor (FCCC), as habitat for old-forest habitat associated species, particularly forest 

carnivores (portions of this corridor also overlap critical deer range). Figure 2.02-1 shows the corridor 

would lead from Yosemite National Park and North Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) west 

to the Clavey River. The corridor includes the following proposed units that would be managed for 

Old Forest Emphasis: L02, L05, M1 through M10, M12, M13, M15, M16, M18, M19, and N1. 

This Forest Plan Amendment changes the land allocation on 9,923 acres from General Forest to Old 

Forest Emphasis Area (OFEA) and includes the following desired condition. Other existing land 

allocations (Wild and Scenic River, PAC, HRCA, and OFEA) allocations would remain unchanged 

(Table 3.01-1).

Desired Condition: the Forest Carnivore Connectivity Corridor (FCCC) provides habitat 

connectivity for forest carnivores, linking Yosemite National Park and the North Mountain 

Inventoried Roadless Area west to the Clavey River. For habitat connectivity, a future forested area is 

desired with a minimum of 50 percent of the forested area having at least 60 percent canopy cover; 

more than 10 tons per acre of coarse woody debris in decay classes 1 and 2; and, an average of 6 

snags per acre. Habitat structures are important to retain that may constitute rest sites as described in 

Freel 1991 and Lofroth et al. 2010 (e.g. plate 7.7 and 7.8). 

28
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

Management Requirements

Alternative 3 includes the following management requirements in addition to the Management 

Requirements Common to All Action Alternatives (Chapter 2.03). 

1. Complete all burning under approved burn and smoke management plans. Acquire burn permits 

from the appropriate county Air Pollution Control District(s) which will determine when burning 

is allowed. The California Air Resources Board provides daily information on "burn" or "no 

burn" conditions. Design and implement burn plans to minimize particulate emissions. 

2. Retain 10 to 20 tons per acre coarse woody debris greater than 3 inches. The goal is to maintain a 

total fuel load of 10 tons per acre, and not to exceed 20 tons per acre when it is needed to meet 

other resource requirements. Do not exceed 5 tons per acre woody debris less than 3 inches in 

diameter.

3. Do not exceed 12 inch fuel depth within SPLATS and 18 inch fuel depth outside SPLATS.

4. Meet habitat needs for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) aquatic species: 

a. To avoid California red-legged frog take, fell trees away from 1) 0.16 miles of Middle Fork 

Tuolumne River located in unit V10; 2) 2.7 miles of unnamed stream (flowing out of Birch 

Lake) and tributary in unit U01D; and 3) Homestead pond located in unit Y02. 

b. Ensure California red-legged frog cover is provided in the upland habitat located within unit 

U01D. Consultation between the Sale Administrator and an aquatic biologist will occur 

during harvest. If the area is found to be deficient in downed material, drop and lop dead trees 

8 to 16 inches dbh uniformly across the landscape at a rate of 3 to 5 tons/acre. Provide a 

minimum of 5 standing dead trees per acre within RCAs adjacent to all perennial channels 

that are within or bordering salvage units. These snags should have the largest diameters 

possible and be located within 100 feet of the edge of the active channel. To minimize direct 

impact to western pond turtle, limit the ground based equipment to the maximum extent 

possible in units S01, S04 (within 1⁄4 mile of the South Fork Tuolumne River), V10 and V14B 

between June 1 and July 15. 

5. Forest Service Manual 2550-Soil Management-R5 Supplement (USDA 2012) and Forest Plan 

Direction (USDA 2010) provide standards and guidelines for soil management and are the basis 

for soil requirements to minimize potential impacts: 

a. In high burn severity areas, leave a 20 foot buffer of small trees (non-merchantable) adjacent 

to motorized trail segments, and 10 to 20 tons of surface material.

b. Ground-based operations will occur when soil moisture is relatively dry in the 4 to 8 inch 

depth range. Consultation with a Soil Scientist will occur prior to start-up of operations. 

Suspend operations whenever soil moisture conditions are such that excessive damage would 

occur. In high burn severity areas, use the Very High Erosion Hazard Rating when 

considering application of erosion control measures.

6. Ensure consistency with Forest Plan and Regional Conservation strategies for terrestrial wildlife:

a. Snag retention in OFEA, HRCA and FCCC units: the intent is to retain legacy structure 

where it exists for long-term resource recovery needs (i.e., the development of future old 

forest habitat with higher than average levels of large conifer snags and down woody 

material). Retain all hardwood snags greater than or equal to 12 inches diameter at breast 

height (dbh). Retain an average of 30 square feet of basal area of conifer snags across each 

unit by starting at the largest snag and working down, with a minimum of four and a 

maximum of 6 per acre.

b. In OFEA, HRCA, FCCC, and in roadside hazard units within Protected Activity Centers 

(PACs), retain the largest size classes of down woody material at a rate of 15 to 20 tons per 

29
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

acre on a unit basis. In all units, emphasize down woody material retention greater than 100 

feet from roadsides. 

c. Where roadside hazard treatments are within PACs and HRCAs, add acreage to the PAC

and/or HRCA equivalent to the treated acres of the most suitable habitat available.

d. Within viable post-fire PACs, flag and avoid current and historic nest trees and avoid altering 

screening vegetation within 500 feet; if hazard abatement is deemed immediately necessary, 

coordinate with a wildlife biologist and with other disciplines (e.g. recreation) as needed to 

identify options for the deciding official. 

e. Reduce LOPs in PACs to 0.25 mile area around a nest site if surveys are conducted.

f. Within critical winter deer range and migration corridors, remove or pile and burn nonmerchantable material to protect remnant oaks and achieve desired cover/forage ratios 

identified in collaboration with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and partners. 

This includes proposed units L03, L04, L07, L201 through L206, M201 through M204, O201 

and P201. 

g. Flag and avoid hardwood aggregations and meadows and seeps within units. Aggregations 

are 1/10 to 1/2 acre groups of sprouting hardwood or of meadow/seep vegetation. Groups or 

meadows/seeps may be linear along drainages. Reaching in and end lining allowed. Groundbased equipment prohibited. Exceptions should be limited but may be made for operability in 

consultation with the sale administrator and project biologist.

7. Ensure consistency with Forest Plan and other direction for sensitive and watch list plants.

a. For roadside hazard tree abatement, where it is not possible to fully avoid a Sensitive Plant 

occurrence, a botanist will review the site with the Sale Administrator and advise on the least 

impactive method to use for the site, such as timing of impacts, directionally fall trees away 

from dense concentrations, full suspension removal of the log, partial suspension, or buck and 

leave the log.

b. Hide, obscure or block appearance of motorized access created by the project to “lava cap” 

habitats. Existing patches of live or dead brush or other vegetation on the edges of the “lava 

caps” can be utilized for this purpose.

c. In Unit A01B avoid mastication slash on “lava cap” soils.

d. In order to protect occurrences of Peltigera gowardii, conduct project activities in such a way 

that sediment is not added to or accumulates within occurrences, especially in Corral Creek at 

Sections 17 and 20, T1N, R18E, the unnamed tributary to Clavey River in Section 18, T1N, 

R18E; the unnamed tributary to Skunk Creek in Section 21, T1N, R18E; and, Twomile Creek 

in Section 36, T3N, 17E; and Section 1, T2N, R17E. 

e. During helicopter salvage operations, avoid flying logs over cliff habitats in and adjacent to 

unit X23. Off-road equipment will not track within 25 feet of the bases or tops of cliffs and 

large rock outcrops, or through gravelly openings with shallow soils in units X18, X19 and 

X23 nor in the roadside hazard tree removal of Forest Roads 1S60Y, 1S79, 1S80, 2S65D, 

2S66Y, and 2S66YA. Manual removal of fuels, directional felling and tree removal using an 

articulating arm or equipment which allows for full suspension may occur in these equipment 

exclusion areas during the dry, non-growing period for the rare plant species, approximately 

July 1 through November 30 

f. Avoid adverse effects to Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii), Tanoak (Notholithocarpus 

densiflorus), California nutmeg (Torreya californica) and Sierra sweet bay (Myrica 

hartwegii) trees and saplings during all project activities. During reconstruction activities, 

avoid these species unless the trees or saplings create a safety hazard or interfere with the 

integrity of the road surface. Prune limbs to obtain sight distance rather than masticate the 

trees or saplings.

30
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

8. Conduct a pre-project implementation invasive plant inventory of all project areas subject to 

project associated ground disturbance. This inventory, along with previous survey information, 

will be utilized to implement the requirements below.

a. Flag and avoid infestations of high and moderate priority weeds in all project locations 

subject to ground disturbance from either mechanical or foot traffic (e.g. project units, 

staging/landing areas, turnouts, roads). Units currently included are: B32, D04B, E01B, F11, 

F16, F23A, H11, H12X, K02, L04, L202, L202B, L203, L204, L205, L206, M202A, M203, 

N01, Q14A, R01A, R04A, R04B, R12X, R17X, R19A, R19B, R19D, S02, S03, V10, V13, 

V14B, V14C, X04, X06, X116, X118X and X119X (70 acres). 

b. In areas needed for implementation of the proposed activities, manually treat new or 

expanding portions of post-Rim Fire infestations before seed dispersal. Manual treatment will 

entail the cutting, digging, or pulling of all flower heads and/or vegetative reproductive parts 

(i.e. rhizomatous root parts). The Weed Risk Assessment (project record) describes species 

specific treatments.

c. Where re-using landing and/or staging areas is necessary, the topsoil (top 6-8 inches) may be 

pushed into a wind-row and covered to prevent seed dispersal. Topsoil will be pushed back 

into place following project completion.

d. Conduct maintenance activities in a manner which reduces the risk of weed spread, such as: 

avoiding soil movement out of weed sites; grading toward weed infestations, not away; or 

utilizing manual methods. 

e. Obtain construction materials, including crushed rock, drain rock, riprap and soil, from 

sources free of high and moderate priority weeds. If sources do contain these priority weeds, 

either flag and avoid or move topsoil to a nearby location that will not be disturbed and cover. 

9. Protect and avoid all surviving proven and candidate rust resistant sugar pine trees during 

operations. 

10. Place all fuel piles as far from wilderness and National Park boundaries as possible. Place piles 

behind remaining vegetation/topography and out of view.

11. No harvest operations on weekends from Memorial Day through Labor Day within units where 

log haul requires the use of Evergreen Road.

12. No operations on weekends beginning Memorial Day through Labor Day in areas adjacent to 

Lost Claim and Sweetwater Campgrounds (units Y01B, Y01D, V12A and V12B). 

13. Identify and protect NFSTs during operations. Trails, if damaged, will be restored in kind 

according to Forest Service standards including the placement of rolling dips. 

14. Close skid trails to motorized travel with earth berms, logs and/or rocks after operations are 

complete. Do not use stumps or root wads to close skid trails. 

15. Avoid using water sources in developed recreation sites while facilities are open to public use.

16. Maintain existing cattleguards to Forest Service standards during post-harvest maintenance.

31
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

Figure 2.02-1 Forest Carnivore Connectivity Corridor Forest Plan Amendment

32
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3 except that it replaces new construction with temporary roads 

and drops 2,500 acres of salvage logging in highly suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat. 

Alternative 4 responds to issues and concerns related to: Snag Forest Habitat; New Road 

Construction, Wildlife Habitat; and, Soil and Watershed Impacts (Chapter 1.08) by proposing the 

same action items as Alternative 3 for wildlife habitat enhancement (including biomass removal in 

Critical Deer Winter Range and the FCCC Forest Plan Amendment) and, soil and watershed

protection (mastication and drop and lop). It also includes research to help answer wildlife, fuels, 

watershed, and soils questions. Compared to Alternative 3, Alternative 4 further addresses the Snag 

Forest Habitat issue with additional black-backed woodpecker habitat retention and, the New Road 

Construction issue with no new construction. Alternative 4 includes the treatments and actions 

described below. Table 2.05-1 provides a summary of the proposed activities and Appendix E 

(Treatments) provides detailed information for each specific treatment unit.

Salvage and Fuel Reduction

Alternative 4 includes salvage logging on up to 27,826 acres including 24,176 acres of ground based, 

16 acres of ground based/skyline swing, 2,568 acres of helicopter, and 1,066 acres of skyline 

treatments. Proposed fuels treatments include: 7,975 acres of biomass removal, 20,320 acres of 

machine piling and burning and 3,650 acres of jackpot burning, 1,309 acres of mastication, and 1,798 

acres of drop and lop. 

Hazard Tree Removal and Fuel Reduction

Alternative 4 involves felling and removing of hazard trees (green and dead) adjacent to 324.6 miles 

of forest roads, amounting to 15,692 acres, outside of proposed salvage units. Some nonmerchantable trees may be felled and left in place. 

Roads

Alternative 4 includes 315.0 miles of reconstruction and 209.3 miles of maintenance. Alternative 4 

does not include new construction. It includes 8.4 miles of temporary road construction (new), 22.1 

miles of temporary road construction (existing) and 3.3 miles of existing temporary use routes tied to 

current and future uses would be used for the project and then reverted afterwards to their original 

use.

Wildlife Habitat Enhancement

Alternative 4 includes the same wildlife enhancement treatments as Alternative 3. 

Research

Alternative 4 includes the same research treatments as Alternative 3. 

Forest Plan Amendment

Alternative 4 includes the same FCCC Forest Plan Amendment as Alternative 3. 

Management Requirements

Alternative 4 includes the same management requirements as Alternative 3. 

33
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

2.03 MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION 

ALTERNATIVES

Based on a site specific review of each alternative, resource specialists identified the following 

management requirements that would be implemented under the action alternatives (1, 3 and 4). 

1. Whole tree yard merchantable trees within ground based salvage units where fuel levels exceed 

desired amounts.

2. Meet habitat needs for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) aquatic species: 

a. Prohibit mechanical operations within 1 mile of areas identified as suitable California redlegged frog breeding habitat during the wet season (the first rainfall event depositing more 

than 0.25 inches of rain on or after October 15 until April 15). 

b. To minimize direct impacts to California red-legged frogs, do not locate burn piles within 100 

feet of Homestead pond located in unit Y02 (suitable California red-legged frog breeding 

habitat), within 50 feet of the 0.16 miles of Middle Fork Tuolumne River located in harvest 

unit V10, or within 50 feet of the 2.7 miles of unnamed stream (flowing out of Birch Lake) 

and tributary in harvest unit U01 (suitable California red-legged frog aquatic non-breeding 

habitat). 

c. When igniting hand piles within 1 mile of suitable California red legged frog breeding 

habitat, ignite only on one side, not to exceed half the circumference of the pile, on the side 

furthest from the nearest aquatic feature.

d. Locate roads and landings at least 300 feet away from suitable California red legged frog 

breeding and non-breeding aquatic habitat. Construction within 1 mile of suitable habitat 

must occur during the dry season (typically April 15 through October 15). Table 2.03-1 

shows road treatments for the breeding habitat areas.

e. Retain existing downed large woody debris 24 inches and greater in diameter at the small end 

that is either crossing a perennial channel or within 30 feet of the stream edge. Tops may be 

removed if fuel issues are a concern; however, 50 percent of the tree bole should remain in 

the RCA. 

f. To minimize direct impacts to foothill yellow-legged frogs, do not fall timber directly across 

the stream in units F11, F15, F17, F18, H13A, K01, K02, L01, L02B, L203 and L205. This 

requirement also applies to hazard tree removal along roads: 1N36, 1N41, 1N50, 1N50A, 

1N50C and 1N79B. 

g. Prohibit equipment operations in units U01B and O02A, within 300 feet of Abernathy 

Meadow and Little Kibbie Pond from June 1 through July 15 and during periods when these 

features have no standing water.

h. Use screening devices on water drafting pumps and use pumps with low entry velocity to 

minimize impacts to aquatic species. A drafting box measuring 2 feet on all sides covered in a 

maximum of 0.25 inch screening is required. 

i. USFWS Consultation: Continue further consultation with the USFWS to comply with 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (must be completed prior to a decision). 

34
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

Table 2.03-1 Units and roads associated with California red-legged frog breeding habitat

Breeding 

Habitat

Treatment

Units

Hazard Tree Removal Road Treatments

Drew Creek W03, V06, V10 01N10, 01N10C, 01S30, 01S30B, 01S52, 01S58, 01S58A, 

01S58B, 01S58E, 01S58F, 01S61, 01S99Y, 18E217, 18E219, 

18EV420, 18EV421, 18EV422, 18EV424, FR14720, 

FR14722, FR1981, FR36710, FR4100, FR4875, FR7858, 

FR9139

Temporary Road: 

FR4100, 18EV420, 

18EV422

Birch Lake 

and Mudd 

Lake

U01, Q14A, 

Q14B, Q15, 

Q16

01S19, 01S19A, 01S20Y, 01S32, 01S68Y, 01S96, 19EV211, 

19EV214, FR8799

Reconstruct: 01S18Y, 

01S19, 01S19A, 

01S20Y, 01S32, 

01S68Y, 01S96, 

19EV214

Homestead 

Pond

Y02, Y03 01N10, 01S08YA, 01S21Y, 01S23E, 01S48Y, FR9772, 

TR9835

Reconstruct: 01S08Y, 

01S08YA, FR98671

Hunter Creek 

and ponds

NONE 01N01H, 01N01K, 01N02, 01N02B, 01N13, 01N13A, 01N13B, 

01N17, 01N17A, 01N18, 01N18A, 01N19, 01N25, 01N25A, 

01N25B, 01N27, 01N27A, 01N27B, 01N34Y, 01N35, 01N38, 

01N38A, 01N39, 01N40, 01N43, 01N43B, 01N43C, 01N43D, 

01N48, 01N48A, 01N48B, 01N54, 01N67, 01N78, 02N11D, 

02N11F, 11624B, 11624C, 11708A, 11708B, 11717B, 

11719C, 11721E, 11728B, 11728C, 11729A, 11730C, 

11731A, 16E179, 18E317, FR7965

NONE

Harden Flat 

Ponds

R15, S11, 

V14B, X104, 

X109, X115, 

X116, X120, 

X25

01S03B, 01S62, 01S75, 01S75Y 01S03B, 01S09, 

01S62, 01S64, 

01S75Y, FR5310

3. Management requirements designed to protect water quality and watershed conditions are derived 

from Regional and National BMPs (USDA 2011a, USDA 2012) and Riparian Conservation 

Objectives (RCOs) (USDA 2004). Riparian resources within Riparian Conservation Areas 

(RCAs) and the Critical Aquatic Refuge (CAR) will be protected through compliance with the 

RCOs outlined in the Forest Plan (USDA 2010). BMPs protect beneficial uses of water by 

preventing or minimizing the threat of discharge of pollutants of concern. BMPs applicable to this 

project are listed below with site-specific requirements and comments. Project planners and 

administrators (e.g., layout, Sale Administrator, Contracting Officer Representative) are 

responsible for consulting with a hydrologist and/or soil scientist prior to or during project 

implementation for interpretation, clarification, or adjustment of watershed management 

requirements.

a. Mechanized Equipment Operations within RCAs/CAR. On the Stanislaus National 

Forest, ground-based mechanized equipment operations in RCAs are divided into three zones. 

The exclusion zone, at the edge of streams or wetlands, prohibits mechanized equipment use. 

Next, the transition zone allows light mechanized activity. Last, the outer zone allows activity 

to increase to standard operations beyond the RCA. Together, these zones comprise a wide, 

graduated RCA buffer zone intended to achieve RCOs as well as vegetation management 

objectives. The purpose of mechanized RCA operations is to reduce fuel loading and improve 

riparian vegetation community condition close to streams and wetlands. These operations are 

carefully conducted to prevent detrimental soil impacts and retain a high percentage of 

ground cover in the RCA. Where ground cover is minimal in an RCA, such as following 

wildfire, specialized low ground pressure vehicles become the primary type of equipment 

used. They minimize disturbance during timber removal operations and can be used to 

increase ground cover by chipping and distributing woody debris. Forest guidance for 

Mechanized Equipment Operations in RCAs (Frazier 2006) as summarized above was 

35
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

developed for RCA vegetation management operations in unburned areas. It has since been 

revised to include post-wildfire operations. Table 2.03-2 provides a summary of the operating 

requirements for mechanical operations in RCAs. 

Table 2.03-2 Operating requirements for mechanized equipment operations in RCAs

Stream Type1 Zone Width

(feet)

Equipment

Requirements Element Operating Requirements

Perennial/

Intermittent 

and Special 

Aquatic 

Features 

(SAFs)

Exclusion 0 - 15 Mechanical 

Harvesting/

Shredding2: Prohibited

0 - 50 Skidding3: Prohibited

Transition 15 - 100 Mechanical 

Harvesting/

Shredding: Allowed

Streamcourse 

Debris

Remove activity-created woody debris to 

above the high water line of stream 

channels

Vegetation Retain remaining post-fire obligate riparian 

shrubs and trees that have live crown 

foliage or are resprouting (e.g., willows, 

alder, dogwoods and big leaf maples)

Streambanks Do not damage streambanks with 

equipment.

50 - 100 Skidding: Allowed Skid Trails Use existing skid trails except where 

unacceptable impact would result. Do not 

construct new primary skid trails within 

100 feet of the stream

Stream 

Crossings

The number of crossings should not 

exceed an average of 2 per mile

Outer 

(Perennial/SAFs)

100 -

300

Mechanical 

Harvesting/ Shredding/ 

Skidding: Allowed 

Skid Trails Allow skid trail density and intensity to 

gradually increase with distance from the 

Transition Zone

Outer 

(Intermittent)

100 -

150

Mechanical 

Harvesting/ Shredding/ 

Skidding: Allowed

Skid Trails Allow skid trail density and intensity to 

gradually increase with distance from the 

Transition Zone

Ephemeral Exclusion 0 - 15 Mechanical 

Harvesting/

Shredding: Prohibited

0 - 25 Skidding: Prohibited

Transition 15 - 50 Mechanical 

Harvesting/

Shredding: Allowed

25 - 50 Skidding: Allowed Stream 

Crossings

The number of crossings should not 

exceed an average of 3 per mile

1 Perennial streams flow year long. Intermittent streams flow during the wet season but dry by summer or fall. Ephemeral streams flow 

only during or shortly after rainfall or snowmelt. Special aquatic features (SAFs) include lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal 

pools and springs. 2 Low ground pressure track-laying machines such as feller bunchers and masticators. 3 Rubber-tired skidders and track-laying tractors.

b. Management Requirements Incorporating BMPs and Forest Plan S&Gs. Table 2.03-3 

presents management requirements pertaining to: erosion control plans; operations in RCAs; 

road activities; stream crossings; log landings; skid trails; suspended log yarding; water 

sources, rock borrow pits/quarries, slope and soil moisture limitations, servicing and refueling 

of equipment; burn piles; application of registered borate compound; water quality 

monitoring; and, cumulative watershed effects 

36
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

Table 2.03-3 Management requirements incorporating BMPs and Forest Plan S&Gs

Management Requirements BMPs/Forest Plan1/Locations

Erosion Control Plan

- Prepare a project area Erosion Control Plan (USDA 2011a) approved by the 

Forest Supervisor prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing project 

activities. Prepare a BMP checklist before implementation.

Regional BMPs

2-13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other 

activities)

1-13 Erosion Prevention and Control 

Measures During Operations

1-21 Acceptance of Timber Sale Erosion 

Control Measures before Sale Closure

National Core BMPs

Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control

Forest Plan S&Gs

194 (RCO 4)

Locations: all areas where ground-disturbing 

activities occur.

Operations in Riparian Conservation Areas

- Delineate riparian buffers along streams and around special aquatic features 

within project treatment units as described above in Table 2.03-2.

- Fell trees harvested within RCAs directionally away from stream channels and 

SAFs unless otherwise recommended by a hydrologist or biologist. Fall hazards 

trees that cannot be removed either parallel to the contour of the slope or into the 

channel, as recommended by a hydrologist or biologist.

- Maintain or provide ground cover (e.g., maintain post-fire conifer needle cast; 

provide logging slash, straw, wood chips, felled or masticated small burned trees) 

within 100 feet of perennial and intermittent streams and SAFs to the maximum 

extent practicable to minimize erosion and sedimentation. A minimum of 50% well 

distributed ground cover is desired. 

- Minimize turning mechanical harvesters/shredders in the RCA Transition Zone to 

limit disturbance.

- Exclude mechanized equipment between the near-stream roads that closely 

parallel both sides of Corral Creek [1N01, 1N08 on the west and 1N74 (south of 

junction with 1N74C) and 1N74C on the east] unless otherwise recommended by 

a hydrologist or soil scientist. Smooth out all end lining ruts within this area. The 

maximum mechanized equipment exclusion width is the RCA width (300 feet).

- The Sale Administrator shall coordinate with a hydrologist prior to operating 

around Scout Spring Gully (Unit T22).

- The Sale Administrator shall coordinate with a hydrologist prior to operating in unit 

T27B to protect the Bear Gully restoration site, the stream channel downstream of 

the site, and the alluvial flat.

- In areas with less than 50% soil cover and slopes greater than 15%, the following 

requirements apply:

- From 0-50 feet from perennial and intermittent stream banks, smooth out feller 

buncher or end lining ruts greater than 4 inches in depth.

- From 50-100 feet from perennial and intermittent stream banks, smooth out 

feller buncher or end lining ruts greater than 4 inches in depth or waterbar these 

ruts following the waterbar spacing guidelines for a very high erosion hazard 

rating. 

- Increase the ground-based equipment exclusion zone in RCAs to 100 feet on 

slopes between 25 and 35% with slope lengths greater than 100 feet, high burn 

severity, and immediately adjacent to perennial and intermittent channels within 

the following units: D04B, D12, E01B, E02, E03B, F11, G01, G03B, L02D, M01, 

M05A, M15, N01I, R16, S02, S04, T04B, T04C, T27B, U03, V13, V14B, V14C. 

Prior to implementation, these sites will be evaluated in the field by a hydrologist 

or soil scientist to identify on the ground areas where exclusion is required.

Regional BMPs

1-4 Using Sale Area Maps and/or Project 

Maps for Designating Water Quality 

Protection Needs

1-8 Streamside Zone Designation

1-10 Tractor Skidding Design

1-18 Meadow Protection During Timber 

Harvesting

1-19 Streamcourse and Aquatic Protection

5-3 Tractor Operation Limitations in Wetlands 

and Meadows

5-5 Disposal of Organic Debris

7-3 Protection of Wetlands

National Core BMPs

Aq Eco-2 Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems

Plan-3 Aquatic Management Zone Planning

Veg-1 Vegetation Management Planning

Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control

Veg-3 Aquatic Management Zones

Veg-4 Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding 

Operations

Forest Plan S&Gs

193 (RCO 2)

194 (RCO 3)

194 (RCO 4)

195 (RCO 5)

Locations: All units containing RCAs and 

SAFs, and specifically the portions of units 

mentioned in this section of Table 2.03-3.

Road Construction and Reconstruction

- Maintain erosion-control measures to function effectively throughout the project 

area during road construction and reconstruction, and in accordance with the 

approved erosion control plan.

- Stabilize disturbed areas with certified weed free mulch, erosion fabric, vegetation, 

rock, large organic materials, engineered structures, or other measures according 

to specification and the erosion control plan.

- Set the minimum construction limits needed for the project and confine 

disturbance to that area.

- Adjust surface drainage structures to minimize hydrologic connectivity by: 

discharging road runoff to areas of high infiltration and high surface roughness; 

Regional BMPs

2-2 General Guidelines for the Location and 

Design of Roads

2-3 Road Construction and Reconstruction

2-8 Stream Crossings

2-13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other 

activities)

National Core BMPs

Road-3 Road Construction and 

Reconstruction

Forest Plan S&Gs

37
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

Management Requirements BMPs/Forest Plan1/Locations

armoring drainage outlets to prevent gully initiation; and, increasing the number 

drainage facilities within RCAs.

- Minimize diversion potential by installing diversion prevention dips that can 

accommodate overtopping runoff. Place diversion prevention dips downslope of 

crossing, rather than directly over the crossing fill, and in a location that minimizes 

fill loss in the event of overtopping. Armor diversion prevention dips when the 

expected volume of fill loss is significant.

- Locate and designate waste areas before operations begin. Deposit and stabilize 

excess and unsuitable materials only in designated sites. Do not place such 

materials on slopes with a high risk of mass failure, in areas subject to overland 

flow (e.g., convergent areas subject to saturation overland flow), or within the 

RCA. Provide adequate surface drainage and erosion protection at disposal sites.

- Do not permit side casting in RCAs. Prevent excavated materials from entering 

water or RCAs.

- Schedule operations during dry periods when rain, runoff, wet soils, snowmelt or 

frost melt are less likely. Limit operation of equipment when ground conditions 

could result in excessive rutting, soil compaction (except on the road prism or 

other surface to be compacted), or runoff of sediments directly to streams.

- Stabilize project area during normal operating season when the National Weather 

Service predicts a 50% or greater chance of precipitation.

- Keep erosion-control measures sufficiently effective during ground disturbance to 

allow rapid closure when weather conditions deteriorate.

- Complete all necessary stabilization prior to precipitation that could result in 

surface runoff. 

- Scatter construction-generated slash on disturbed areas. Ensure ground contact 

between slash and disturbed slopes. Windrow slash at the base of fills to reduce 

sedimentation. Ensure windrows are placed along contours with ground contact 

between slash and disturbed slope.

- Monitor contractor’s plans and operations to assure contractor does not open up 

more ground than can be substantially completed before expected winter 

shutdowns, unless erosion-control measures are implemented.

- Install erosion-control measures on incomplete roads prior to precipitation or the 

start of winter (November 16 through March 31) and in accordance with the 

Erosion Control Plan. Remove ineffective temporary culverts, culvert plugs, 

diversion dams, or elevated stream crossings; leaving a channel at least as wide 

as before construction and as close to the original grade as possible. Install 

temporary culverts, side drains, cross drains, diversion ditches, energy 

dissipaters, dips, sediment basins, berms, dikes, debris racks, pipe risers, or other 

facilities needed to control erosion. Remove debris, obstructions, and spoil 

material from channels, floodplains, and riparian areas. Do not leave project areas 

for the winter with remedial measures incomplete. Provide protective cover for 

exposed soil surfaces.

62

193 (RCO 2)

194 (RCO 4)

Locations: all new construction and 

reconstruction.

Road Maintenance and Operations

- Clean ditches and drainage structure inlets only as often as needed to keep them 

functioning. Prevent unnecessary or excessive vegetation disturbance and 

removal on features such as swales, ditches, shoulders, and cut and fill slopes.

- Maintain road surface drainage by removing berms, unless specifically designated 

otherwise. 

- Accompany grading of hydrologically connected road surfaces and inside ditches 

with erosion and sediment control installation.

- Divert springs across roads to prevent them from pooling and diverting on or along 

the road. A layer of coarse rock with geotextile fabric or other treatments may be 

necessary.

- Ensure that after maintenance activities (i.e., grading/earthwork activities) the final 

road surface drainage system will remove water from the road surface with the 

purpose to minimize concentrated runoff to an area. Ensure that existing 

metal/drain gutters are in working condition and /or install them as needed.

- Conduct road watering for maintenance, dust abatement, and road surface 

protection using approved existing water sources locations. (See Water Sources 

Development and Use below)

Regional BMPs

2-4 Road Maintenance and Operations

2-13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other 

activities)

National Core BMPs

Road-4 Road Operations and Maintenance

Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control

Forest Plan S&Gs

193 (RCO 2)

194 (RCO 4)

Locations: all roads with maintenance or 

project use.

38
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

Management Requirements BMPs/Forest Plan1/Locations

Stream Crossings

Design of New or Reconstructed Crossings

- Design permanent stream crossings (new construction and replacement culverts) 

to pass the 100-year flood flow plus associated sediment and debris; armor to 

withstand design flows and provide desired passage of fish and other aquatic 

organisms.

- Locate and design crossings to minimize disturbance to the water body. Use 

structures appropriate to the site conditions and traffic. Favor armored fords for 

streams where vehicle traffic is seasonal or temporary, and where the ford design 

maintains the channel pattern, profile and dimension. 

- Install stream crossings according to project specifications and drawings. Design 

should sustain bankfull dimensions of width, depth and slope, and maintain 

streambed and bank resiliency.

- Construct diversion prevention dips to accommodate overtopping of runoff if 

diversion potential exists. Locate diversion prevention dips downslope of the 

crossing rather than directly over crossing fill; armor diversion prevention dips 

based on soil characteristics and risk. Install cross drains (e.g., rolling dips; 

waterbars) to hydrologically disconnect the road above the crossing and to 

dissipate concentrated flows.

Construction, Reconstruction and Maintenance Operations

- Keep excavated materials out of channels, floodplains, wetlands and lakes. Install 

silt fences or other sediment- and debris-retention barriers between the water 

body and construction material stockpiles and wastes. Dispose unsuitable 

material in approved waste areas outside of the RCA. 

- Inspect and clean equipment; remove external oil, grease, dirt and mud and repair 

leaks prior to unloading at site. Inspect equipment daily and correct identified 

problems before entering streams or areas that drain directly to water bodies. 

Remove all dirt and plant parts to ensure that noxious weeds and aquatic invasive 

species are not brought to the site.

- Remove all project debris from the stream in a manner that will cause the least 

disturbance.

- Minimize streambank and riparian area excavation during construction. Stabilize 

adjacent disturbed areas using mulch, retaining structures, and or mechanical 

stabilization materials. 

- Ensure imported fill materials meet specifications, and are free of toxins and 

invasive species. 

- Divert or dewater stream flow for all live streams or standing water bodies during 

crossing installation and invasive maintenance.

Regional BMPs

2-8 Stream Crossings

2-13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other 

activities)

National Core BMPs

AqEco-2 Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems

Road-7 Stream Crossings

Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control

Forest Plan S&Gs

62

193 (RCO 2)

194 (RCO 4)

Locations: all stream crossings on 

constructed, reconstructed and maintained 

roads.

Closure of Temporary and ML 1 Roads

- Remove road stream crossings and other culverts identified at high risk of failure 

and posing a threat to water quality before a road is closed. 

- Block closed roads to prevent vehicle access.

- Road-stream crossings deemed safe to leave in place will be treated to remove 

the potential for streamflow diversions in the event of a crossing failure or 

blockage, and, where needed, will have rock armor added to downstream 

crossing fill to prevent erosion.

- Ensure that the road, culvert, and all hydrologically connected drainage structures 

are cleaned, and sediment and erosion controls are intact and functioning prior to 

closure.

- Ensure road is effectively drained (e.g. waterbars, dips, outsloping) and treated to 

return the road prism to near natural hydrologic function. 

- Treat and stabilize road surfaces through subsoiling, scattering slash, and/or 

revegetation. Reshape and stabilize side slopes as needed. 

Regional BMPs

2-6 Road Storage

2-7 Road Decommissioning

2-13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other 

activities)

National Core BMPs

Road-6 Road Storage and Decommissioning

Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control

Forest Plan S&Gs

57

193 (RCO 2)

Locations: all roads post-project closed or 

ML1 status.

Log Landings

- Re-use log landings to the extent feasible. Existing landings within RCAs may be 

used when sedimentation effects can be mitigated by erosion prevention 

measures. 

- Do not construct new landings within 100 feet of perennial or intermittent streams 

and SAFs and 50 feet of ephemeral streams. 

- See the Soils Management Requirements for subsoiling requirements.

Regional BMPs

1-12 Log Landing Location

1-16 Log Landing Erosion

National Core BMPs

Veg-6 Landings

Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control

Forest Plan S&Gs

194 (RCO 4)

Locations: all landings.

39
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

Management Requirements BMPs/Forest Plan1/Locations

Skid Trails

- Design and locate skid trails to best fit the terrain, volume, velocity, concentrations 

and direction of runoff water in a manner that would minimize erosion and 

sedimentation. 

- Locate new primary skid trails at least 100 feet from perennial and intermittent 

streams and SAFs and new secondary skid trails at least 50 feet from perennial 

and intermittent streams and SAFs. Locate all skid trails at least 25 feet from 

ephemeral streams. Primary skid trails typically have 20 or more passes and 

result in detrimental compaction or displacement of soils. Secondary skid trails 

have fewer passes and result in minor compaction or displacement. 

- Use existing skid trails wherever possible except where unacceptable resource 

damage may result. Existing skid trails <100 feet from streams may be used if 

they are rehabilitated following use to improve infiltration from their current state.

- Skid trails within 100 feet of steams will be given priority for subsoiling.

- See Soils Management Requirements for additional requirements on rehabilitating 

skid trails. 

Regional BMPs

1-10 Tractor Skidding Design

1-17 Erosion Control on Skid Trails

National Core BMPs

Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control

Veg-4 Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding 

Operations

Forest Plan S&Gs

194 (RCO 4)

Locations: all ground-based yarding system 

units.

Suspended Log Yarding

- Fully suspend logs to the extent practicable when yarding over RCAs and 

streams.

- Locate skyline corridors to minimize damage to live streamside trees or 

resprouting streamside burned trees and shrubs.

- Install skyline corridor erosion control measures prior to each winter season to 

ensure runoff will be well dispersed and not concentrated down corridors. 

Measures may include water bars constructed in alternating directions, smoothing 

of ruts, and/or logging slash lopped to contract specifications.

Regional BMPs

1-11 Suspended Log Yarding in Timber 

Harvesting

2-13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other 

activities)

National Core BMPs

Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control

Veg-5 Skyline and Aerial Yarding Operations

Locations: all units using skyline yarding 

systems.

Water Sources

- For water drafting on fish-bearing streams: do not exceed 350 gallons per minute 

for streamflow greater than or equal to 4.0 cubic feet per second (cfs); do not 

exceed 20% of surface flows below 4.0 cfs; and, cease drafting when bypass 

surface flow drops below 1.5 cfs. 

- For water drafting on non-fish-bearing streams: do not exceed 350 gallons per 

minute for streamflow greater than or equal to 2.0 cfs; do not exceed 50% of 

surface flow; and, cease drafting when bypass surface flow drops below 10 

gallons per minute. Water sources designed for permanent installation, such as 

piped diversions to off-site storage, are preferred over temporary, short-term-use 

developments. Locate water drafting sites to avoid adverse effects to in-stream 

flows and depletion of pool habitat. 

- Do not allow water drafting from streams by more than one truck at a time.

- Do not construct basins at culvert inlets for the purpose of developing a waterhole, 

as these can exacerbate plugging of the culvert. 

- Gradually remove temporary dams when operations are complete so that 

released impoundments do not discharge sediment into the streamflow

- When diverting water from streams, maintain bypass flows that ensure continuous 

surface flow in downstream reaches, and keep habitat in downstream reaches in 

good condition.

- Locate approaches as close to perpendicular as possible to prevent stream bank 

excavation.

- Treat road approaches and drafting pads to prevent sediment production and 

delivery to a watercourse or waterhole. Armor road approaches as necessary from 

the end of the approach nearest a stream for a minimum of 50 feet, or to the 

nearest drainage structure (e.g., waterbar or rolling dip) or point where road 

drainage does not drain toward the stream. 

- Armor areas subject to high floods to prevent erosion and sediment delivery to 

water courses.

- Install effective erosion control devices (e.g., gravel berms or waterbars) where 

overflow runoff from water trucks or storage tanks may enter the stream, 

- Check all water-drafting vehicles daily and repair as necessary to prevent leaks of 

petroleum products from entering RCAs. Water-drafting vehicles shall contain 

petroleum-absorbent pads, which are placed under vehicles before drafting. 

Water-drafting vehicles shall contain petroleum spill kits. Dispose of absorbent 

pads according to the Hazardous Response Plan.

Regional BMPs

2-5 Water Source Development and 

Utilization

2-13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other 

activities)

National Core BMPs

WatUses-3 Administrative Water 

Developments

AqEco-2 Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems

Forest Plan S&Gs

193 (RCO 2)

194 (RCO 4)

Locations: all water drafting sites.

40
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

Management Requirements BMPs/Forest Plan1/Locations

Rock Borrow Pits/Quarries

- Limit the area of disturbance to the minimum necessary for efficient operations.

- Rehabilitate and stabilize sites after operations are complete to minimize risk of 

off-site movement.

- Where appropriate, install temporary barriers between the extraction area and 

surface waters to prevent sedimentation. 

- Obliterate or decommission temporary access roads unless other treatment is 

required.

- Maintain system roads to quarries or borrow pits.

Regional BMPs

2-12 Aggregate Borrow Areas

2-13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other 

activities)

National Core BMPs

Min-5 Mineral Materials Resource Sites

Locations: all borrow pits.

Slope and Soil Moisture Limitations

- See Soils report for specific slope limitations for operation of ground-based 

equipment.

- See Soils report for wet weather operating restrictions.

Regional BMPs

5-2 Slope Limitations for Mechanical 

Equipment Operation

5-6 Soil Moisture Limitations for Mechanical 

Equipment Operations

National Core BMPs

Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control

Veg-4 Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding 

Operations

Locations: all ground-based equipment units.

Servicing, Refueling, and Cleaning Equipment and Parking/Staging Areas

- Allow temporary refueling and servicing only at approved sites located outside of 

RCAs.

- Rehabilitate temporary staging, parking, and refueling/servicing areas immediately 

following use.

- A Spill Prevention and Containment and Counter Measures (SPCC) plan is 

required where total oil products on site in above-ground storage tanks exceed 

1320 gallons or where a single container exceeds 660 gallons. Review and 

ensure spill plans are up-to-date.

- Report spills and initiate appropriate clean-up action in accordance with applicable 

State and Federal laws, rules and regulations. The Forest hazardous materials 

coordinator’s name and phone number shall be available to Forest Service 

personnel who administer or manage activities utilizing petroleum-powered 

equipment.

- Remove contaminated soil and other material from NFS lands and dispose of this 

material in a manner according to controlling regulations.

- Install temporary wash sites only in areas where the water and residue can be 

adequately collected and either filtered on site or conveyed to an appropriate 

wastewater treatment facility.

Regional BMPs

2-10 Parking and Staging Areas

2-11 Equipment Refueling and Servicing

National Core BMPs

Road-9 Parking and Staging Areas

Road-10 Equipment Refueling and Servicing

Fac-7 Vehicle and Equipment Wash Water

Forest Plan S&Gs

193 (RCO 1)

Locations: designated temporary refueling,

servicing and cleaning sites and 

parking/staging areas.

Application of Registered Borate Compound

- Do not apply fungicide within 10 feet of surface water, when rain is falling, or when 

rain is likely that day (i.e., National Weather Service forecasts 50% or greater 

chance).

- Follow all State and Federal rules and regulations as they apply to pesticides.

Regional BMPs

5-7 Pesticide Use Planning Process

5-8 Pesticide Application According to Label 

Directions and Applicable Legal 

Requirements

5-11 Cleaning and Disposal of Pesticide 

Containers and Equipment

5-12 Streamside Wet Area Protection During 

Pesticide Spraying

National Core BMPs

Chem-1 Chemical Use Planning

Chem-2 Follow Label Directions 

Chem-3 Chemical Use Near Waterbodies

Chem-5 Chemical Handling and Disposal

Forest Plan S&Gs

193 (RCO 1)

Locations: portions of units with applications 

in RCAs.

41
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

Management Requirements BMPs/Forest Plan1/Locations

Burn Piles

- Place burn piles a minimum of 50 feet away from perennial and intermittent 

streams and SAFs and 25 feet from ephemeral streams. Locate piles outside 

areas that may receive runoff from roads. Avoid disturbance to obligate riparian 

vegetation. 

- Do not dozer pile in sensitive watershed areas (areas where mastication or drop 

and lop have been prescribed). Grapple piling is allowed in these areas, but is 

subject to the mechanized equipment restrictions for RCAs. When grapple piling 

in sensitive watershed areas, consult a hydrologist or soil scientist if less than 70% 

ground cover would be retained. 

- Minimize effects on soil, water quality, and riparian resources by appropriately 

planning pile size, fuel piece size limits, spacing, and burn prescriptions in 

compliance with state or local laws and regulations if no practical alternatives for 

slash disposal in the RCA are available.

Regional BMPs

6-2 Consideration of Water Quality in 

Formulating Fire Prescriptions

6-3 Protection of Water Quality from 

Prescribed Burning Effects

National Core BMPs

Fire-1 Wildland Fire Management Planning

Fire-2 Use of Prescribed Fire

Forest Plan S&Gs

194 (RCO 4)

Locations: all pile burning areas, sensitive 

watershed areas.

Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) Analysis

- CWE analysis will be conducted for the project.

Regional BMPs

7-8 Cumulative Off-Site Watershed Effects

Locations: All activities within the project 

watersheds will be analyzed

Water Quality Monitoring

- Conduct implementation and effectiveness monitoring using the Best 

Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP) (USDA 2002) and the 

National Core Monitoring Protocols (FS-990b) (USDA 2012). 

- Conduct project-level in-channel monitoring as required in the Water Quality 

Management Handbook (USDA 2011).

Regional BMPs

7-6 Water Quality Monitoring

Locations: Monitoring locations will be 

detailed in a project monitoring plan.

1 Forest Plan S&Gs indicate page number from Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010).

4. Forest Service Manual 2550-Soil Management-R5 Supplement (USDA 2012) and Forest Plan 

Direction (USDA 2010) provide S&Gs for soil management and are the basis for soil 

requirements to minimize potential impacts. 

a. Where present, maintain soil cover, surface organic matter and soil organic matter consistent 

with the Forest Plan. If the existing condition is deficient, watershed specialists may prescribe 

activities to increase soil cover on sensitive soils or where accelerated runoff and erosion 

could pose unacceptable risk to resources as a result of the proposed action. These activities 

could include mastication or lop and scatter of trees less than 10 inches for mastication and 

up to 16 inches for drop and lop, a cut-to-length logging system, drop and leave, certified 

weed-free straw mulch applications or seeding with approved native seed. Generally, these 

treatments would only be considered in units with greater than 15 percent slopes, high 

Erosion Hazard Ratings and an existing or predicted deficiency in ground cover that would 

persist longer than one season. 

b. Use existing skid trails and landings except where unacceptable resource damage may result 

(i.e. skid trails running on 40 percent slope). Limit disturbed skid trail footprint (main and 

branching secondary trails) to less than 15 percent of the unit area or to the existing disturbed 

area.

c. Subsoil main skid trails and waterbar remaining skid trails prior to each winter season and 

unit close out. Subsoiling will occur on all primary skid trails and on secondary skid trails 

found to be creating an unacceptable risk to soil or water resources. In addition, landings and 

temporary roads will be subsoiled and all erosion control measures applied after use is 

completed. Subsoiling may be excluded from areas of high soil sensitivity, such as shallow or 

rocky soils, when recommended by a soil scientist. Obliterate out-sloped berms. Outslope reused skid trails where gullies formed from water concentration along insloped segments.

d. Segments of pre-existing skid trails and landings causing watershed issues (i.e. concentrating 

water, gullying) will be subsoiled and waterbarred for resource protection, including those 

not used during implementation. 

e. Limit ground based equipment to less than 35 percent slopes unless a soil scientist evaluates 

operations on the steeper slopes. Feller bunchers may do short pitches up to 45 percent slope. 

42
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

5. Ensure consistency with Forest Plan and Regional Conservation strategies for terrestrial wildlife. 

Protected Activity Centers (PACs) apply to spotted owls, goshawks, and great gray owls.

a. In all units retain:

1. All large hardwood snags greater than or equal to 12 inches dbh.

2. A minimum of 4 snags (in the largest size class available) per acre averaged across ten 

acres in mixed conifer forest type. 

3. A minimum of six snags per acre in red fir forest type.

4. The largest size classes of dead and downed logs greater than or equal to 12 inches in 

diameter at the midpoint at a rate of 10 to 20 tons/acre.

b. Maintain a LOP prohibiting vegetation treatments, new construction, blasting, landing 

construction, and helicopter flight paths within 1⁄4 mile of a protected activity center during 

the breeding season for California spotted owls (March 1 through August 15), northern 

goshawks (February 15 through September 15), great gray owls (March 1 through August 15) 

and within 0.5 miles of the known bald eagle nest (January 1 through August 31) unless 

surveys conducted by a Forest Service biologist confirm non-nesting status. 

c. Conduct surveys in compliance with the Pacific Southwest Region’s survey protocols to 

establish or confirm the location of the nest activity center for spotted owl, great gray owl and 

goshawk.

d. For any new permanent road construction within PACs, HRCAs, forest carnivore 

connectivity corridors or winter deer range, designate the route as blocked Level 1 or Level 2 

gated year round. This management requirement does not apply to Alternative 4. 

e. Flag and avoid elderberry plants greater than one inch stem diameter that occur below 3,000 

feet elevation and within 100 feet of planned activities (units V10, V12A, V12B, V13, V14B, 

X15, X16, X25, Y01A, Y01C, and Y01D). 

1. Prohibit ground based mechanical operations and burning within 50 feet of elderberry 

plants.

2. Pile burning and mechanical activities within 100 feet of flagged shrubs will be subject to 

an LOP from April 1 through June 30 of any given year to avoid fire and dust impacts to 

beetles.

3. If additional elderberry shrubs with stems over 1 inch diameter are found prior to or 

during project implementation, they will be similarly avoided and the District wildlife 

biologist will be notified immediately and adequate mitigation measures will be taken.

f. Notify the District Wildlife Biologist if any Federally Threatened, Endangered, Candidate 

species or any Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species are discovered during project 

implementation so that LOPs or other protective measures can be applied, if needed.

6. Apply a registered borate compound to all freshly cut fir stumps 14 inches and greater in diameter 

(green trees only) to limit the spread and establishment of new centers of annosum root disease 

within harvest areas where live trees still exist. Do not apply fungicide within 10 feet of surface 

water, when rain is falling or when rain is likely that day (i.e. National Weather Service forecasts 

50 percent or greater chance); follow all State and Federal rules and regulations as they apply to 

pesticides. 

7. Ensure consistency with Forest Plan and other direction for sensitive plants.

a. Flag and avoid known and new occurrences of Sensitive Plants except as allowed below: 

1. Manual fuel reduction may take place within Clarkia australis, Clarkia biloba ssp. 

australis, Mimulus filicaulis or Mimulus pulchellus occurrences only during the dry nongrowing period (Table 2.03-4). Pile or scatter all material outside Sensitive Plant 

occurrences.

2. Mastication and skid trail legacy compaction subsoiling may be conducted within Clarkia 

australis occurrences only during the dry non-growing period (Table 2.05-4). Do not 

track masticator through occurrences smaller than 0.25 acre. Minimize tracking in 

43
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

occurrences larger than 0.25 acres. Wherever possible, reach into occurrences with 

masticator head to conduct the work instead of tracking through. 

b. In order to protect the habitat for the Sensitive Plants which occupy “lava cap” soils all 

equipment and vehicles will remain on roads through this habitat type (i.e. no parking off 

road, landing construction or staging areas). 

Table 2.03-4 Growing seasons and appropriate identification periods for select Sensitive Plants

Species Growing Season Identification Period Dry, Non-growing Period1

Clarkia australis December 1 - August 15 June 15 - August 15 August 15 - November 30

Clarkia biloba ssp. australis December 1 - July 31 May 15 - July 15 August 1 - November 30

Mimulus filicaulis March 15 - July 15 April 15 - June 30 July 15 - November 30

Mimulus pulchellus March 1 - June 15 April1 - June 1 June 15 - November 30 1 The actual dry, non-growing period will be determined by field observations year to year by a Botanist. The dry, non-growing period is 

the time when these species are most resistant to disturbance activities. All dates are approximate, varying with elevation, weather and 

site conditions.

8. Prevent introduction and spread of noxious weeds:

a. Implement the equipment cleaning requirements in the standard contract provisions for all 

contract operations and activities. 

b. The Forest Service will designate the order, or progression, of unit completion to emphasize 

treating uninfested units before treating infested units to reduce the risk of weed spread from 

infested units into uninfested units. Clean equipment before moving from infested sites and 

prior to being transported from the project area. 

c. Use certified weed-free mulches (woodstraw and rice straw are preferred) where available. 

Stage these materials in weed-free sites only.

d. Obtain construction materials, including crushed rock, drain rock, riprap and soil, from 

sources free of high and moderate priority weeds. If sources do contain these priority weeds 

either flag and avoid or move topsoil to a nearby location that will not be disturbed and cover. 

9. Protect range resources:

a. Avoid damage to rangeland infrastructure (fences, water developments, cattleguards) during 

project implementation. 

b. Any serviceable/intact infrastructure that is damaged during implementation must be repaired 

to Forest Service standards.

c. Consider seeding to provide for site stabilization in areas adjacent to meadows where salvage 

occurs. Use only native, sterile or non-persistent weed-free seed.

d. Avoid snag retention adjacent to critical range infrastructure.

10. Project implementation shall also comply with Programmatic Agreement Among the United 

States Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, The California State Historic Preservation 

Officer, and The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Regarding the Compliance with the 

National Historic Preservation Act for Proposed Actions Pertaining to the RIM Fire Restoration 

and Salvage and the Adverse Effects to Historic Properties caused by the RIM Fire Emergency, 

Tuolumne County, California (RIM PA). 

a. All sites will be delineated on the ground prior to implementation to prevent impacts during 

proposed treatment activities.

b. Any tree inadvertently felled into a cultural site boundary is to be left in place until the 

incident is evaluated by the Heritage Resource specialist and recommendations made to the 

deciding official.

c. If a transportation corridor is found to contain an archaeological deposit, all efforts shall be 

made to avoid using that portion of the travel-way. Alternatively, two foot padding may be 

placed on the travel-way to protect the resource if the placement of the padding is determined 

44
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

sufficient for resource protection by the Forest Engineer. In addition, the pads should be 

easily distinguished from the underlying deposit. 

d. In the event that new cultural resources are discovered during project implementation, the 

district archaeologist must be notified and all activities in the vicinity (150 feet) of the 

resource shall cease until consultations are completed; in accordance with the PA.

e. Heritage Resource Surveys: conduct surveys to determine presence of resources following 

Regional and Rim PA standards. 

f. SHPO Consultation: Forest Service consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (must be 

completed prior to implementation). 

2.04 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED 

STUDY

NEPA requires that federal agencies rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

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

detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments and internal scoping suggested the alternatives briefly 

described below along with a brief response discussing the reasons for eliminating them from detailed 

study. 

a. Remove the Maximum Amount of Timber Value

This alternative, based on scoping comments would salvage every acre within the NFS lands and 

produce 5,000 BF or more per acre and eliminate more expensive logging systems like helicopter 

and skyline to maximize returns. It would minimize the number of snags retained within 

treatment units and across the landscape, and limit the costs associated with biomass removal 

within each sale. Although it meets portions of the purpose and needs to capture economic value, 

promote public and worker safety, and improve the hydrologic function of roads, it was 

considered but eliminated from detailed study for the following reasons: 

- Although most of the large trees would be removed, only minimal fuel treatments would be 

accomplished and no biomass removed (due to the high cost of removal) so it does not meet 

the purpose and need of fuels reduction for forest resiliency.

- It does not meet the purpose and need of wildlife habitat enhancement because it would not 

remove logs and smaller material within Critical Deer Winter Range or leave additional snags 

for various wildlife species.

- The Forest made the decision to not harvest within Roadless Areas such as North Mountain to 

ensure those scenic and less accessible locations were not impacted by project 

implementation.

b. Hazard Tree Removal Only

This alternative, based on scoping comments, would only cut and remove dead trees adjacent to 

low standard NFSRs; all other dead trees would remain. It was considered but eliminated from 

detailed study for the following reasons: 

- It does not meet the purpose and need to capture the economic value since most of this habitat 

includes the largest and most dense stands of dead trees within the burn. 

- If only roadside hazard trees are removed, only minimal fuels reduction would occur across 

this large landscape, making future fires difficult to manage and contain, jeopardizing future 

forest resiliency.

- At a minimal level, it meets the purpose and need of improving the hydrologic function of the 

road system where timber is removed.

45
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

c. Retain 100 Percent Black-Backed Woodpecker Modeled Pairs

This alternative, based on scoping comments raised during collaborative meetings, would retain 

100 percent of black-backed woodpecker pairs on the Stanislaus National Forest as modeled by 

Tingley et al. 2014. This alternative would need to retain about 21,000 more acres than 

Alternative 4. Compared to Alternative 4, this alternative would reduce salvage treatments to 

7,500 acres and hazard tree removal to 14,500 acres. It was considered but eliminated from 

detailed study for the following reasons: 

- It does not meet the purpose and need to capture the economic value since most of this habitat 

includes the largest and most dense stands of dead trees within the burn. 

- Roadside hazard trees would be left standing making roads unsafe for the public and field 

workers.

- It does not meet the purpose and need to reduce fuels for forest resiliency in those areas left 

unlogged. In 10 to 15 years when most of those trees fall to the ground, the large amount of 

fuel in these areas would make future fires difficult to manage and contain, jeopardizing 

future fire resiliency.

- It would not meet the purpose and need of improving the hydrologic function of the road 

system where logs are not removed and roads not improved.

d. Retain 75 Percent of the Black-Backed Woodpecker Modeled Pairs

This alternative, based on scoping comments raised during collaborative meetings, would retain 

75 percent of black-backed woodpecker pairs on the Stanislaus National Forest as modeled by 

Tingley et al. 2014. This alternative would need to retain about 14,000 acres more than 

Alternative 4. Compared to Alternative 4, this alternative would reduce salvage treatments by 

half. It was considered but eliminated from detailed study for the following reasons: 

- It does not meet the purpose and need to capture the economic value since most of this habitat 

includes the largest and most dense stands of dead trees within the burn. 

- Roadside Hazard trees could be removed to protect public and worker health and safety.

- It does not meet the purpose and need to reduce fuels for forest resiliency in those areas left 

unlogged. In 10 to 15 years when most of those trees fall to the ground, the large amount of 

fuel in these areas would make future fires difficult to manage and contain, jeopardizing 

future fire resiliency.

- It would not meet the purpose and need of improving the hydrologic function of the road 

system where logs are not removed and roads not improved.

e. Retain Pre-Fire Spotted Owl PAC Boundaries, No PAC Remapping or Retiring

This alternative, based on scoping comments, would retain the 46 spotted owl PACs burned 

within the Rim Fire in their original location. No remapping of boundaries into adjacent green 

habitat would occur and none that were completely consumed by the fire would be retired. These 

would be kept as suitable habitat for the owls. It was considered but eliminated from detailed 

study for the following reasons: 

- It does not meet the purpose and need to capture the economic value since most of this habitat 

includes the largest and most dense stands of dead trees within the burn. 

- It does not meet the purpose and need to provide worker and public safety since hazard trees 

would not be removed where roads run through PACs. 

- It does not meet the purpose and need to reduce fuels for forest resiliency in those areas left 

unlogged. In 10 to 15 years when most of those trees fall to the ground, the large amount of 

fuel in these areas would make future fires difficult to manage and contain, jeopardizing 

future fire resiliency.

46
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

- It would not meet the purpose and need of improving the hydrologic function of the road 

system where logs are not removed and roads not improved.

- It would eliminate the proposed spotted owl research project. 

f. Natural Succession

This alternative, based on scoping comments, would allow the forest to recover naturally. This 

differs from “No Action” by including measures to reduce erosion and sedimentation, 

decommissioning roads, and curtailing cattle grazing in recovering areas. Salvage logging would 

be reduced or eliminated in sensitive areas. Impacted fisheries would recruit new populations 

from endemic stock migration rather than hatchery augmentation. It was considered but 

eliminated from detailed study for the following reasons: 

- Road decommissioning, cattle grazing, and fisheries recruitment are outside the scope of this 

project.

- It does not meet the purpose and need to capture the economic value since most of this habitat 

includes the largest and most dense stands of dead trees within the burn. 

- It does not meet the purpose and need to reduce fuels for forest resiliency in those areas left 

unlogged. In 10 to 15 years when most of those trees fall to the ground, the large amount of 

fuel in these areas would make future fires difficult to manage and contain, jeopardizing 

future fire resiliency.

- It does not meet the purpose and need of improving the hydrologic function of the road 

system where logs are not removed and roads not improved. 

47
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

2.05 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Chapter 3 describes the environmental consequences of the alternatives. This section compares the 

alternatives by providing summary tables showing the key differences between alternatives. The 

Alternative Comparison Map (project record) displays the locations of treatments considered in all 

action alternatives.

Table 2.05-1 compares the alternatives with a summary of proposed activities.

Table 2.05-1 Comparison of Alternatives: Proposed Activities

Proposed Treatments1 Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Salvage ground based (acres) 24,127 0 26,252 24,176

Salvage ground based/skyline swing (acres) 16 0 16 16

Salvage aerial based helicopter (acres) 2,930 0 3,035 2,568

Salvage skyline system (acres) 1,253 0 1,096 1,066

Subtotal Salvage (acres) 28,326 0 30,399 27,826

Hazard Tree Removal (miles) 341 0 314.8 324.6

Subtotal Hazard Tree Removal (acres) 16,315 0 15,253 15,692

Total Hazard Tree and Salvage (acres) 44,6412 0 45,6522 43,5182

Biomass Removal 7,626 0 8,379 7,975

Mastication 0 0 1,309 1,309

Drop and Lop 0 0 2,228 1,798

Machine Piling and Burning 24,143 0 22,036 20,320

Jackpot Burning 4,199 0 4,147 3,650

Total Fuels (acres) 35,9682 0 38,0992 35,0522

New Construction (miles) 5.4 0 1.0 0

Reconstruction (miles) 319.9 0 323.6 315.0

Maintenance (miles) 216.1 0 200.6 209.3

Subtotal Construction and Maintenance 

(miles)

541.4 0 525.2 524.3

Temporary Road (new miles) 3.9 0 9.5 8.4

Temporary Road (existing miles) 9.3 0 22.7 22.1

Temporary Use – Revert (miles) 8.4 0 3.3 3.3

Subtotal Temporary Roads (miles) 21.6 0 35.5 33.8

Total Roads (miles) 563.0 0 560.7 558.1

Private Roads Needing Right-of-Way (miles) 11.2 0 11.2 11.2

Rock Quarry Sites 7 0 7 7

Potential Water Sources 81 0 81 81 1 Salvage Treatments include removal of dead trees and fuel reduction; Hazard Tree Treatments include hazard tree removal and fuel 

reduction. 

2 Salvage and Hazard Tree treatment acres overlap and are do not total with Fuel Reduction treatments.

48
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

Table 2.05-2 compares the alternatives with a summary of salvage and fuel reduction treatment acres 

by primary objective(s). Table 2.01.1 displays the six primary objectives used to identify treatments 

and develop the action alternatives and Appendix E (Treatments) shows primary objectives for each 

specific treatment unit.

Table 2.05-2 Comparison of Alternatives: Treatment Acres by Primary Objective(s)

Primary Objectives Alternative 1

(acres)

Alternative 2

(acres)

Alternative 3

(acres)

Alternative 4

(acres)

1.Economic Value 2,564 0 406 331

1.Economic Value

2.Public and Worker Safety

24,410 0 1,886 1,774

1.Economic Value

2.Public and Worker Safety

3.Fuel Reduction

0 0 4,499 3,750

1.Economic Value

2.Public and Worker Safety

3. Fuel Reduction

5.Enhance Wildlife Habitat

b.Snag Retention

0 0 4,304 3,928

1.Economic Value

2.Public and Worker Safety

3. Fuel Reduction

6.Research

0 0 360 360

1.Economic Value

2.Public and Worker Safety

3. Fuel Reduction

5.Enhance Wildlife Habitat

b.Snag Retention

6. Research

0 0 1,519 1,519

1.Economic Value

2.Public and Worker Safety

5.Enhance Wildlife Habitat

a. Deer Habitat Improvement

36 0 0 0

1.Economic Value

2.Public and Worker Safety

5.Enhance Wildlife Habitat

a. Deer Habitat Improvement

b.Snag Retention

0 0 519 519

1.Economic Value

2.Public and Worker Safety

5.Enhance Wildlife Habitat

b.Snag Retention

0 0 6,342 5,255

1.Economic Value

2.Public and Worker Safety

5.Enhance Wildlife Habitat

b.Snag Retention

6.Research

0 0 3,369 3,369

1.Economic Value

2.Public and Worker Safety

6. Research

0 0 31 31

1.Economic Value

3. Fuel Reduction

0 0 269 269

1.Economic Value

3. Fuel Reduction

5.Enhance Wildlife Habitat

b.Snag Retention

0 0 446 350

49
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

Primary Objectives Alternative 1

(acres)

Alternative 2

(acres)

Alternative 3

(acres)

Alternative 4

(acres)

1.Economic Value

3. Fuel Reduction

5.Enhance Wildlife Habitat

b.Snag Retention

6.Research

0 0 76 76

1.Economic Value

5.Enhance Wildlife Habitat

a. Deer Habitat Improvement

195 0 0 0

1.Economic Value

5.Enhance Wildlife Habitat 

a. Deer Habitat Improvement 

b.Snag Retention

0 0 185 185

1.Economic Value

5.Enhance Wildlife Habitat

b.Snag Retention

0 0 1,043 965

1.Economic Value

5.Enhance Wildlife Habitat

b.Snag Retention

6.Research

0 0 685 685

2.Public and Worker Safety

3. Fuel Reduction

0 0 150 150

2.Public and Worker Safety

3. Fuel Reduction 

5.Enhance Wildlife Habitat

a. Deer Habitat Improvement

b.Snag Retention

0 0 756 756

2.Public and Worker Safety

3. Fuel Reduction

5.Enhance Wildlife Habitat

b.Snag Retention

0 0 659 659

2.Public and Worker Safety

5.Enhance Wildlife Habitat

a. Deer Habitat Improvement

1,121 0 0 0

2.Public and Worker Safety

5.Enhance Wildlife Habitat

a. Deer Habitat Improvement 

b.Snag Retention

0 0 2,788 2,788

2.Public and Worker Safety

5.Enhance Wildlife Habitat

b.Snag Retention

0 0 15 15

5.Enhance Wildlife Habitat

a. Deer Habitat Improvement

b.Snag Retention

0 0 92 92

totals 28,326 0 30,399 27,826

50
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

Table 2.05-3 compares the alternatives with a summary of effects.

Table 2.05-3 Comparison of Alternatives: Summary of Effects

Resource and 

Indicator

Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Air Quality 

Smoke Emissions 

from Machine Pile 

Burning

effects to local 

communities and 

Yosemite would be 

minimal due to 

controlled emissions

none from pile burning, 

but under uncontrolled 

circumstances this 

amount of material 

would cause issues for 

sensitive groups

same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Aquatics

Foothill yellowlegged frogmay affect individuals 

but not likely to lead to 

a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of 

viability

none similar to alternative 1 similar to alternative 1 

Western pond turtle may affect individuals 

but not likely to lead to 

a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of 

viability

none similar to alternative 1 similar to alternative 1 

Hardhead may affect individuals 

but not likely to lead to 

a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of 

viability

none similar to alternative 1 similar to alternative 1

California redlegged frogmay affect, but not 

likely to adversely 

affect

none similar to alternative 1 similar to alternative 1

Sierra Nevada 

yellow-legged frog

may affect, but not 

likely to adversely 

affect

none similar to alternative 1 similar to alternative 1

Cultural Resources

Cultural Resources none no direct effects, 

moderate indirect and 

cumulative effects; 

may affect fragile 

resources 

same as alternative 1;

however, watershed

treatments will benefit 

cultural sites 

same as alternative 3 

Cultural Resource 

Special Interest 

Area (SIA)

salvage removal will 

enhance or protect the 

cultural values of the 

SIA

none same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Fire and Fuels

Fire Behavior fire effects in treated 

units would be 

significantly reduced

future fires would burn 

with increasingly higher 

intensities

similar to alternative 1; 

treatments provide 

break in fuel profiles 

across the project area

same as alternative 3

Fire Suppression 

Capability

high capability; 

reduced fuel

continuities; increased 

safety; reduced 

potential for resource 

damage; potential for 

reduced suppression 

costs

capability dramatically 

declines over time; fire 

effects exceed 

firefighter capabilities; 

fireline production rates 

decline over time

same as alternative 1 same as alternative 3

Fuel Loading surface fuel loading 

reduced to 10 

tons/acre; reduced risk 

of substantial erosion 

and sedimentation 

caused by future 

stand-replacing fire

Increased surface fuel

loading over time, to an 

estimated 98 tons/acre 

in 30 years; future 

reburn likely to lead to 

substantial erosion and 

sedimentation

surface fuel loading 

reduced to 10-20 

tons/acre; reduced risk 

of substantial erosion 

and sedimentation 

caused by future 

stand-replacing fire

same as alternative 3

51
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

Resource and 

Indicator

Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Invasive Species

Habitat Alteration

and Vectors

high risk for habitat 

alteration; high risk of 

increased vectors

none moderate risk for 

habitat alteration and 

moderate to high risk 

of increased vectors

because of additional 

management 

requirements 

same as alternative 3

Range

Grazing 

Management

beneficial effects none same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Rangeland 

Vegetation

no long term changes 

to vegetation types; 

beneficial effect on 

rangeland vegetation 

condition

no direct effects;

potential for negative 

indirect effects from 

falling dead trees 

same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Recreation

Recreation Access 

and Opportunity

negative effects on 

some developed 

recreation sites; short 

term negative impacts 

to dispersed 

recreation; positive 

effects to public safety 

and recreation access

negative long-term

effects to recreation

access and public 

safety; closure of some 

developed recreation 

sites is likely to result 

in over-use of open 

developed sites

same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Sensitive Plants

Sensitive Plants management 

requirements would 

protect sensitive plants 

no direct effects; 

negative indirect 

effects might occur

from falling dead trees

similar to alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Society

Social and Cultural 

Impacts

administrative access 

enhanced, dispersed 

recreation open, and 

public firewood 

gathering allowed 

administrative access 

constrained, dispersed 

recreation closed, and 

public firewood 

gathering not allowed

same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Temporary

Employment 

Generation

6,659 jobs supported none 6,318 jobs supported 5,511 jobs supported

Soils

Soil Stability and 

Effective Soil Cover

slight improvements to 

erosion

erosion rates remain 

high, slightly higher 

than alternative 1

improves cover, 

erosion hazard ratings, 

and erosion rates in 

WSAs

similar to alternative 3

Porosity improves porosity; 

limited porosity 

decreases in areas off 

skid trails; decreases 

effects of soil sealing

none similar to alternative 1 similar to alternative 1

Transportation

Forest 

Transportation 

System Conditions

beneficial direct, 

indirect and cumulative 

effects

adverse indirect and

cumulative effects

same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

52
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Chapter 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

Resource and 

Indicator

Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Watershed

Erosion and 

Sedimentation 

(Timber and Fuel 

Reduction 

Activities)

negligible change in 

erosion rates in most 

watersheds; one 

watershed with slightly 

elevated erosion and 

two watersheds with 

decreased erosion; 

highest potential for 

erosion and 

sedimentation related 

to fuel reduction

erosion rates similar to 

alternative 1 and 

higher than alternatives 

3 and 4; sedimentation 

would not increase; 

existing skid trail 

sediment transport 

networks remain; 

negligible change or 

decrease in erosion 

rates in most 

watersheds; watershed

treatments increase 

ground cover and 

reduce erosion in 

WSAs; less potential 

for erosion and 

sedimentation in WSAs 

than alternative 1

same as alternative 3

Erosion and 

Sedimentation 

(Road Related 

Activities)

road treatments reduce 

erosion potential; 

reduced erosion 

potential on existing 

temporary roads; some 

erosion and 

sedimentation potential 

for new temporary 

roads, water sources

and material sources

hydrologic connectivity 

of roads and streams 

would remain; existing 

temporary roads not 

decommissioned; 

increased risk of 

stream crossing 

failures and reduced 

accessibility of sites 

similar to alternative 1 similar to alternative 1 

Fuel Loading surface fuel loading 

reduced to 10 

tons/acre; reduced risk 

of substantial erosion 

and sedimentation 

caused by future 

stand-replacing fire

Increased surface fuel

loading over time, to an 

estimated 98 tons/acre 

in 30 years; future 

reburn likely to lead to 

substantial erosion and 

sedimentation

surface fuel loading 

reduced to 10-20 

tons/acre; reduced risk 

of substantial erosion 

and sedimentation 

caused by future 

stand-replacing fire

same as alternative 3

Riparian Vegetation beneficial effects to 

riparian obligate trees 

and shrubs;

management 

requirements protect 

fens and meadows

none same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Stream Condition no measurable 

changes in stream flow 

or channel incision;

stream banks not 

degraded; increases 

LWD and sediment 

storage

no measurable 

changes in stream flow 

or channel incision;

initially less ground 

cover along stream 

banks; large levels of 

LWD and sediment 

storage over time

no measurable 

changes in stream flow 

or channel incision; 

stream banks not 

degraded; increases 

LWD and sediment 

storage, but less

alternative 2

same as alternative 3

Water Quality 

(Beneficial Uses of 

Water)

water temperature not 

affected; some 

sedimentation; limited 

potential for registered 

borate compound to 

contaminate surface 

waters; no effects to 

beneficial uses 

none same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Wildlife

Valley elderberry 

longhorn beetle

may affect but not 

likely to adversely 

affect

no effect same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Bald eagle may affect individuals 

but is not likely to result 

in a trend toward 

federal listing or loss of 

viability

no effect same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

California spotted 

owl

may affect individuals 

and is likely to result in 

a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of 

viability

no effect may affect individuals 

but is not likely to result 

in a trend toward 

federal listing or loss of 

viability

same as alternative 3

53
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

Resource and 

Indicator

Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Wildlife

Great gray owl may affect individuals 

and is likely to result in 

a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of 

viability

no effect may affect individuals 

but is not likely to result 

in a trend toward 

federal listing or loss of 

viability

same as alternative 3

Northern goshawk may affect individuals 

and is likely to result in 

a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of 

viability

no effect may affect individuals 

but is not likely to result 

in a trend toward 

federal listing or loss of 

viability

same as alternative 3

American marten may affect individuals 

but is not likely to result 

in a trend toward 

federal listing or loss of 

viability

no effect same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Pacific fisher may affect individuals, 

but is not likely to 

contribute to the need 

for federal listing or 

result in loss of viability 

no effect same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Pallid bat and 

fringed myotis

may affect individuals, 

but is not likely to 

contribute to the need 

for federal listing or 

result in loss of viability

no effect same as alternative 1 same as alternative 1

Black-Backed 

woodpecker

lowest predicted pair 

density; retains 41 

percent of modeled 

pairs

none; retains 100 

percent of modeled 

pairs

second lowest 

predicted pair density; 

retains 46 percent of 

modeled pairs

highest predicted pair 

density of the action 

alternatives; retains 54 

percent of modeled 

pairs

Mule deer improves 1,352 acres 

of critical deer winter 

range 

none improves 4,416 acres 

of critical deer winter 

range

same as alternative 3

54
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

3. Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

3.01 INTRODUCTION

This Chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments that are 

affected by the proposed action and alternatives and the effects on that environment that would result 

from implementation of any of the alternatives. This Chapter also presents the scientific and 

analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in Chapter 2. 

The “Affected Environment” section under each resource topic describes the existing condition 

against which environmental effects were evaluated and from which progress toward the desired 

condition can be measured. Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for 

comparison of alternatives, including the proposed action, through compliance with standards set 

forth in the Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (Forest 

Plan). The environmental consequences discussion centers on direct, indirect and cumulative effects, 

along with applicable mitigation measures. Effects can be neutral, beneficial or adverse. The 

“Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources” section is located at the end of this 

chapter. These terms are defined as follows:

 Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same place and time as the action.

 Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time, or further removed in distance, but 

are still reasonably foreseeable.

 Cumulative effects are those that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

AnalysisProcess

The environmental consequences presented in Chapter 3 address the impacts of the actions proposed 

under each alternative. This effects analysis was done at the project scale (the scale of the proposed 

action as discussed in Chapter 1). However, the effects findings in this chapter are based on sitespecific analyses. Each resource specialist assessed every alternative at a level sufficient to support 

their effects analysis and identify any necessary site-specific mitigation. The resource reports (project 

record) contain additional details about the analysis process.

Cumulative Effects

According to the CEQ NEPA regulations, “cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment 

which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person 

undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). The cumulative effects analysis area is described under 

each resource, but in most cases includes all NFS, private and other public lands that lie within the 

Rim Fire perimeter. Past activities are considered part of the existing condition and are discussed in 

the “Affected Environment (Existing Conditions)” and “Environmental Consequences” sections 

under each resource. 

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action 

and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of 

past actions. Existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural 

events that affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. This cumulative 

55
Chapter 3.01 Stanislaus

Introduction National Forest

effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior 

actions on an action-by-action basis for three reasons. 

First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to 

obtain. Innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond) impacted current conditions and trying 

to isolate the individual actions with residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing 

the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects 

of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate 

than looking at existing conditions, because information on the environmental impacts of individual 

past actions is limited, and one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century 

that contributed to current conditions. Focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks ignoring 

the important residual effects of past natural events which may contribute to cumulative effects just as 

much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual 

effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event 

contributed those effects. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued an interpretive 

memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can 

conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past 

actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions” (CEQ 2005).

The cumulative effects analysis is consistent with Forest Service NEPA regulations (73 Federal 

Register 143, July 24, 2008; p. 43084-43099), which state, in part: 

“CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to 

determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present effects of 

past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects of the proposal 

for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The final analysis 

documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions considered (including past, 

present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. With respect to past 

actions, during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must 

determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of 

cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect 

effects of their design and implementation could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative 

effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or 

exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about past actions 

may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to 

inform decision making. (40 CFR 1508.7)”

For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in Chapter 3 is based on current environmental 

conditions. Appendix B (Cumulative Effects Analysis) lists present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions potentially contributing to cumulative effects.

Forest Plan Amendments

Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 include a Forest Plan Amendment designating a 4 mile wide FCCC, 

as habitat for old-forest habitat associated species, particularly forest carnivores (portions of this 

corridor also overlap critical deer range). Figure 2.02-1 shows the corridor would lead from Yosemite 

National Park and North Mountain IRA west to the Clavey River. The corridor includes the following 

proposed units that would be managed for Old Forest Emphasis: L02, L05, M1 through M10, M12, 

M13, M15, M16, M18, M19, and N1. This Forest Plan Amendment changes the land allocation on 

9,923 acres from General Forest to OFEA and includes the desired condition described in Chapter 2. 

Other existing land allocations (Wild and Scenic River, PAC, HRCA, and OFEA) allocations would 

remain unchanged (Table 3.01-1). 

The effects analysis in Chapter 3 does not specifically identify effects directly related to the FCCC 

Forest Plan Amendment; however, the analysis discloses effects for Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 

assuming implementation of this Forest Plan Amendment. Since the Forest Plan S&Gs for General

56
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Forest and OFEA are the same (USDA 2010a, p. 190-191), this Forest Plan Amendment is not 

expected to cause any direct, indirect or cumulative effects. 

Table 3.01-1 Forest Carnivore Connectivity Corridor Forest Plan Amendment Land Allocations

Land Allocation Existing Proposed

California Spotted Owl Habitat (PACs and HRCAs) 1,197 1,197

General Forest 9,923 0

Goshawk Habitat (PACs) 176 176

Old Forest Emphasis Areas 794 10,717

Wild and Scenic Rivers 1,213 1,213

Total 13,303 13,303

HRCA=Home Range Core Area; PAC=Protected Activity Center

Forest Plan Direction

The Forest Service completed the Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Forest Plan) on October 28, 1991. The “Forest Plan Direction” (USDA 2010a) presents the current 

Forest Plan management direction, based on the original Forest Plan, as amended. The Forest Plan 

identifies land allocations and management areas within the project area including: Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers, Critical Aquatic Refuge (CAR), Riparian Conservation 

Areas (RCAs), Near Natural, Scenic Corridor, Special Interest Areas, Wildland Urban Intermix, 

Protected Activity Centers (PACs), Old Forest Emphasis Areas, and Developed Recreation Sites. The 

Forest Plan Compliance (project record) document identifies the Forest Plan S&Gs that specifically 

apply to this project and related information about compliance with the Forest Plan. 

Incomplete or Unavailable Information

CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA describe how Federal agencies must handle instances 

where information relevant to evaluating “reasonably foreseeable” 3 adverse impacts of the 

alternatives is incomplete or unavailable. According to 40 CFR 1502.22: 

When an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on the human 

environment in an EIS and there is incomplete or unavailable information, the agency shall always 

make clear that such information is lacking.

a. If the incomplete information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is 

essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are not 

exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the EIS.

b. If the information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be 

obtained because the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are 

not known, the agency shall include within the EIS:

1. A statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable; 

2. A statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to evaluating 

reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment; 

3. A summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the 

reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment; and,

4. The agency’s evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research 

methods generally accepted in the scientific community. 

Chapter 3 identifies incomplete or unavailable information so the reader understands how they are 

addressed. The EIS summarizes existing credible scientific evidence relative to environmental effects 

3 For the purposes of this rule, CEQ states: ‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’ includes impacts which have catastrophic consequences, even if 

their probability of occurrence is low, provided that the analysis of the impacts is supported by credible scientific evidence, is not based on 

pure conjecture, and is within the rule of reason (40 CFR 1502.22). 

57

 
Chapter 3.01 Stanislaus

Introduction National Forest

and makes estimates of effects on theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in 

the scientific community. 

Resource Reports

The resource sections in this chapter provide a summary of these project-specific reports and other 

documents (project record); they are available by request and are incorporated by reference.

Air Quality: Air Quality Report 

Aquatic Species: Aquatic Species – Sensitive Species Report (Aquatic Sensitive Species Report); 

Aquatic Species – Threatened and Endangered Species Report (Aquatic T&E Report); Aquatic 

Management Indicator Species Report (Aquatic MIS Report); Biological Assessment for Rim Fire 

Recovery Project (Aquatic BA)

Cultural Resources: Cultural Resources Report

Fire and Fuels: Fire and Fuels Report (Fuels Report) 

Invasive Species: Noxious Weed Risk Assessment (NRWA)

Range: Rangeland Specialist Report (Range Report)

Recreation: Recreation Report 

Sensitive Plants: Botanical Resources Report (Botany Report); Biological Evaluation for Sensitive 

Plants (Sensitive Plants BE)

Society, Culture and Economy: Social and Economic Report 

Soils: Soils Report

Special Areas: Special Areas Report

Transportation: Transportation Report 

Watershed: Watershed Management Report (Watershed Report)

Wildlife: Terrestrial Biological Assessment, Evaluation, and Wildlife Report Rim Fire Recovery 

(Wildlife BE); Terrestrial Management Indicator Species Report (Wildlife MIS Report) 

Affected Environment Overview

All resources share many aspects of the affected environment. In order to avoid repeating these 

shared elements of the affected environment in each resource section, the following general elements 

of the affected environment are provided. 

The 400 square mile Rim Fire encompasses a diverse and complex landscape. Landforms within the 

Rim Fire are dramatic, punctuated by river canyons, glaciation, a lava cap, and large expanses of 

gentle to moderately steep slopes spread across much of the fire area. Geology is varied and includes 

all three of the principal geologic types in the Sierra Nevada mountain range. Metamorphic rock 

occupies much of the lower elevations and the Sierra granitic batholith and relic volcanic flows 

generally occur at higher elevations. As its watersheds rise in elevation from about 2,000 to 7,000 feet 

they include rock-rimmed river canyons and mountain meadows, major rivers and small secluded 

streams. They have oak grasslands at the lowest elevations, large expanses of mixed conifer forests at 

mid-elevation and even some red fir-lodgepole pine stands at the highest elevations. Cottonwoods and 

quaking aspens occupy occasional streamside and meadow sites at mid to high elevations. 

The Rim Fire area lies within a Mediterranean climate zone consisting of warm, mostly dry summers 

and cool, wet winters. Average summer high temperatures are about 95°F at the lowest elevations and 

75°F at the higher elevations. Average low winter temperatures are about 30°F at the lowest 

elevations and 20°F at the highest. Extreme high and low temperatures vary about 10 to 15 degrees 

from average. Precipitation increases in elevation, with a range of about 30 to 50 inches per year 

across the fire area. 

58
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Information on Other Resource Issues

The alternatives considered in detail do not affect the following resources or localized effects are 

disclosed under other resources; they are not further discussed in Chapter 3. 

Climate Change

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed a “State of Knowledge” paper that outlines 

what is known and what is uncertain about global climate change (EPA 2007). The following 

elements of climate change are known with near certainty: 

1. Human activities are changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Increasing levels of 

greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times, are 

well-documented and understood. 

2. The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human 

activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. 

3. An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0° to 1.7° F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming 

occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and over the oceans (IPCC 2007). 

4. The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods 

ranging from decades to centuries. It is virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of 

greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades. 

5. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet. 

According to EPA (2007), however, it is uncertain how much warming will occur, how fast that 

warming will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including 

precipitation patterns. Given what is known and what is not known about global climate change, the 

following discussion outlines the cumulative effects of this project on greenhouse gas emissions and 

the effects of climate change on forest resources. 

Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N20) emissions generated by project 

activities are expected to contribute to the global concentration of greenhouse gases that affect 

climate change. Projected climate change impacts include air temperature increases, sea level rise, 

changes in the timing, location, and quantity of precipitation, and increased frequency of extreme 

weather events such as heat waves, droughts, and floods. The intensity and severity of these effects 

are expected to vary regionally and even locally, making any discussion of potential site-specific 

effects of global climate change on forest resources speculative. 

Because greenhouse gases from project activities mix readily into the global pool of greenhouse 

gases, it is not currently possible to discern the effects of this project from the effects of all other 

greenhouse gas sources worldwide, nor is it expected that attempting to do so would provide a 

practical or meaningful analysis of project effects. Potential regional and local variability in climate 

change effects add to the uncertainty regarding the actual intensity of this project’s effects on global 

climate change. Further, emissions associated with this project are extremely small in the global 

atmospheric CO2 context, making it impossible to measure the incremental cumulative impact on 

global climate from emissions associated with this project. 

In summary, the potential for cumulative effects is considered negligible for all alternatives because 

none of the alternatives would result in measurable direct and indirect effects on air quality or global 

climatic patterns. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas

All or portions of 3 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) are located on NFS lands within the Rim Fire 

perimeter: 1) the Cherry Lake IRA (1,000 acres) is located in the east-central portion of the Forest 

adjacent to the Emigrant Wilderness and Yosemite National Park; 2) the North Mountain IRA (8,100 

acres) is located in the southeast part of the Forest adjacent to Yosemite National Park; and, 3) the 

59
Chapter 3.01 Stanislaus

Introduction National Forest

Tuolumne River IRA (17,300 acres) is located in the southwest part of the Forest. It contains the 

lower Clavey River and about 18 miles of the Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River. 

The alternatives do not include any activities within or adjacent to these IRAs. Nearby short-term 

road maintenance and other project induced noise is consistent with the Roadless Area 

Characteristics4

 identified in the 2001 Roadless Rule. Therefore, the alternatives are not likely to 

result in direct, indirect or cumulative effects on those characteristics.

Vegetation

The Stanislaus National Forest contains a mosaic of vegetation distributed and controlled primarily by 

climate and soils. The dominant vegetation types occur as broad bands oriented northwest-southeast 

across the Forest occupying general elevation zones. Conifer forests are the predominant vegetation 

type where proposed activities would occur. Action alternatives would remove primarily dead 

vegetation and may damage live trees or plants during harvest operations, but the extent of damage 

would be localized and long term effects to vegetation would be negligible. The range, sensitive 

plants, soils, watershed and wildlife sections disclose any localized effects on specific vegetation.

Visual Resources

In moderate and high severity burn areas, the dramatically altered landscape does not meet Forest 

Plan S&Gs for Visual Quality Objectives (USDA 2010a, p. 63). Most perceived as negative effects to 

the visual resource (flush cut stumps, hand/machine piles, treatment edges, ground disturbance, and 

untreated slash) occurs during implementation. This initial phase is short term and does not represent 

the completed treatment. At the conclusion of treatment, visual signs of activity (i.e., cut stumps or 

track and tire marks) may still be evident but would dissipate over time. Evidence of burning on trees 

and ground features naturally occur in forests with wildfire regimes. 

Overall the proposed treatments would improve visual quality. By treating slash and activity fuels 

through piling and burning, vegetation would regrow providing visually pleasing contrast to 

surrounding features and landforms. With growth of shrubs, grasses, and forbs, the majority of 

evidence of management activities would not be evident to the casual forest visitor. Where project 

activities are proposed within sight distance of Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness or Yosemite 

National Park, distance and geographic features would obscure most treatments from the casual 

observer or users of those areas. As such, the alternatives are not likely to result in direct, indirect or 

cumulative effects on visual resources. 

Yosemite National Park

The Stanislaus National Forest shares a common boundary, much of which is Wilderness, with 

Yosemite National Park to the east. The National Park Service manages park resources and values to 

leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. 

The alternatives considered in detail will not directly affect park resources. Action alternatives will 

increase worker and public safety and improve Forest Service ability to manage future fires, which 

may indirectly benefit park resources and values. Wildlife habitat improvement activities may benefit 

Yosemite National Park wildlife populations by providing corridors for wildlife movement on the 

Stanislaus National Forest.

4 Roadless Area Characteristics are: high quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air; sources of public drinking water; diversity of plant 

and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species 

dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land; primitive, semi-primitive non- motorized, and semi-primitive motorized recreation

opportunities; reference landscapes; natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality; traditional cultural properties and sacred 

sites; and, other locally identified unique characteristics. (66 Federal Register 9, January 12, 2001; p. 3245)

60

 
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Analysis Framework

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with ...other environmental review 

laws and executive orders.” The following resource sections list the applicable laws, regulations, 

policies and Executive Orders relevant to that resource. The resource reports (project record) include 

the surveys, analyses and findings required by those laws. 

CEQA and NEPACompliance

NEPA requires agencies to assess the environmental effects of a proposed agency action and any 

reasonable alternatives before making a decision on whether, and if so, how to proceed. The 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to projects of all California state, regional or 

local agencies, but not to Federal agencies. Its purposes are similar to NEPA. They include ensuring 

informed governmental decisions, identifying ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage through 

feasible mitigation or project alternatives, and providing for public disclosure (CEQA Guidelines, 

15002, subd. (a)(1)-(4)).

The CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA encourage cooperation with state and local agencies in 

an effort to reduce duplication in the NEPA process (40 CFR 1506.2). The CEQ regulations further 

provide agencies with the ability to combine documents, by stating that “any environmental document 

in compliance with NEPA may be combined with any other agency document to reduce duplication 

and paperwork” (40 CFR 1506.4). Furthermore, if an existing document cannot be utilized, portions 

may be incorporated by reference. Like NEPA, CEQA encourages cooperation with Federal agencies 

to reduce duplication in the CEQA process. In fact, CEQA recommends that lead agencies rely on a 

Federal EIS “whenever possible,” so long as the EIS satisfies the requirements of CEQA (Cal. Pub. 

Resources Code, 21083.7). 

Overall, the resource analysis contained in this EIS should meet CEQA requirements; however, the 

following information is provided since this document uses terminology not commonly used in 

CEQA:

 Management Requirements: Chapter 2 lists management requirements. The action alternatives 

include management requirements designed to implement the Forest Plan and to minimize or 

avoid potential adverse impacts. Each action alternative lists the management requirements 

specific to it and Chapter 2.03 identifies those common to all action alternatives. Management 

requirements are mandatory components of each alternative and will be implemented as part of 

the proposed activities.

 Green House Gas Emissions: Chapter 3.01 (Climate Change) and Chapter 3.02 (Air Quality) 

describe and evaluate greenhouse gas emissions.

 Growth Inducing Impacts and Energy Impacts: Chapter 3.10 (Society, Culture and Economy) 

describes population growth and evaluates economic growth inducing impacts. No population 

growth inducing impacts are expected since NFS lands are not available for urbanization. Chapter 

3.10 also describes energy impacts related to haul distance and biomass use for electrical power. 

61
Chapter 3.01 Stanislaus

Introduction National Forest

62
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

3.02 AIR QUALITY

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction

The Stanislaus National Forest “Forest Plan Direction” presents the current Forest Plan management 

direction, based on the original Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as 

amended (USDA 2010). The Forest Plan Direction includes Management Practices (p. 17) and 

Forestwide Standards and Guidelines (p. 33) that apply to Air Quality. 

Air Quality Management Practices

Smoke from prescribed fire is managed so that emissions meet applicable state and federal standards. 

Prescribed fire includes but is not limited to burning of timber residue, which improves wildlife 

habitat and range type conversion. Prescribed fires are managed by the local Air Pollution Control 

District (APCD) and the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments, which require the application of 

Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) to reduce particulate emissions. BACMs are a 

combination of practices intended to reduce emissions to the lowest practicable amount. BACMs are 

accomplished by diluting or dispersing emissions, or by preventing potential emission sources 

whenever possible. Examples of BACMs include: 

 Reducing pollutants by limiting the mass of material burned, burning under moist fuel conditions 

when broadcast burning, shortening the smoldering combustion period, and increasing 

combustion efficiency by encouraging the flaming stage of fire when burning piles. 

 Diluting pollutant concentrations over time by reducing the rate of release of emissions per unit 

area, burning during optimum conditions, and coordinating daily and seasonally with other 

burning permittees in the area to prevent standard exceedences. 

The Forest Plan Compliance (project record) document identifies the Forest Plan S&Gs that 

specifically apply to this project and related information about compliance with the Forest Plan.

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Air Quality

 Emissions were based on a wildfire burning under 90th percentile weather conditions at year 20 

for all scenarios.

 Emissions were only calculated for treatment unit acres as outside treatment units would all have 

the same emission outputs.

 Alternative 2 does not have treatment units so Alternative 3 treatment acres were used since this 

alternative treated the most acres.

 Emissions calculations were based on pile burning on every treated acre (excluding those treated 

by biomass removal or mastication). This is the worst case scenario and will not actually be 

implemented on the ground because of the desire to leave some down woody material for soil

protection. 

Data Sources

 First Order Fire Effects Monitoring Program

 Fire Family Plus Program

 Piled Fuels Biomass and Emissions Calculator

Air Quality Indicators

The Clean Air Act lists 189 hazardous air pollutants to be regulated. Some components of smoke, 

such as polycyclic aromic hydrocarbines (PAH) are known to be carcinogenic. Probably the most 

carcinogenic component is benzo-a-pyrene (BaP). Other components, such as aldehydes, are acute 

63
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus

Air Quality irNational Forest

irritants. In 1994 and 1997, 18 air toxins were assessed relative to the exposure of humans to smoke 

from prescribed and wildfires. The following six toxins were most commonly found in prescribed fire 

smoke:

 Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10): Particulates are the most prevalent air pollutant from 

fires, and are of the most concern to regulators. Research indicates a correlation between 

hospitalizations for respiratory problems and high concentrations of fine particulates. PM2.5 are 

fine particles that are 2.5 microns in diameter or less in size. PM10 are fine particles that are 

between 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter or less in size. Particulates can carry carcinogens and 

other toxic compounds. Overexposure to particulates can cause irritation of mucous membranes, 

decreased lung capacity, and impaired lung function. 

 Methane (CH4): Methane is an odorless, colorless flammable gas. Short term exposure to 

methane may result in feeling tired, dizzy, and headache. There is no long term health effects 

currently associated with exposure to methane.

 Carbon Monoxide (CO): Carbon Monoxide reduces the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, 

a reversible effect. Low exposures can cause loss of time, awareness, motor skills, and mental 

acuity. Also, exposure can lead to heart attack, especially for persons with heart disease. High 

exposures can lead to death due to lack of oxygen. 

 Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless and non-poisonous gas formed 

by combustion of carbon and in the respiration of living organisms. Carbon dioxide is the primary 

greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. Greenhouse gases act like a blanket around 

Earth, trapping energy in the atmosphere and causing it to warm. The buildup of greenhouse 

gases can change Earth's climate and result in dangerous effects to human health and welfare and 

to ecosystems.

 Nitrogen Oxide (NOx): Nitrogen Oxide is a group of different gases made up of different levels 

of oxygen and nitrogen. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) contributes to global warming, hampers the 

growth of plants, and can form with other pollutants to form toxic chemicals. Small levels can 

cause nausea, irritated eyes and/or nose, fluid forming in lungs and shortness of breath. Breathing 

in high levels can lead to rapid, burning spasms, swelling of throat, reduced oxygen intake, a 

larger buildup of fluids in lungs, and/or death. 

 Sulphur Oxide (SOx): Short-term exposure to high enough levels of Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) can 

be life threatening. Generally, exposures to SO2 cause a burning sensation in the nose and throat. 

SO2 exposure can cause difficulty breathing, including changes in the body’s ability to take a 

breath or breathe deeply, or take in as much air per breath. Long term exposure to sulfur dioxide 

can cause changes in lung function and aggravate existing heart disease. Asthmatics may be 

sensitive to changes in respiratory effects due to SO2 exposure at low concentrations. Sulfur 

Dioxide is not classified as a human carcinogen (it has not been shown to cause cancer in 

humans). 

 Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC): The sum of all hydrocarbon air pollutants except 

methane; significant precursors to ozone formation. 

Affected Environment

Existing Conditions

The Rim Recovery project area is located in Tuolumne County and Mariposa County, California. The 

direct, indirect and cumulative effects analysis area for the air quality section of this report is the 

Tuolumne and Mariposa Air Pollution Control Districts, Mountain Counties Air Basin. 

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Green Book, updated December 05, 2013, 

Tuolumne and Mariposa counties are Designated Non-Attainment Areas for ozone; the project area 

falls within these two counties. The Emigrant Wilderness is a class 1 Federal area within the project 

area. Yosemite National Park is a class 1 Federal area adjacent to the project area. The San Joaquin 

64
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Valley, a non-attainment area, runs along the western boundary of the project area. The Forest 

Service will follow the guidelines assigned by the California Air Resource Board [ozone State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), visibility SIPs, and Title 17] to limit state-wide exposure on a cumulative 

basis, in compliance with the Clean Air Act.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Table 3.01-1 displays total emissions for Alternative 1 machine pile burning. Due to the dispersed 

nature of the burn piles, the near complete combustion of piled material, and the control over ignition 

times to favor good smoke dispersion, it is not anticipated that pile burning would substantially 

impact the local communities. Smoke would be transported to the northeast by typically southwest 

winds during the day. At night, smoke from burn piles in the project area would move down 

drainages. All burning would be completed under approved burn and smoke management plans. Piles 

would be constructed and burned under weather conditions that would allow efficient combustion. 

Emissions for machine pile burning were modeled using the Piled Fuels Biomass and Emissions 

Calculator (http://depts.washington.edu/nwfire/piles/). 

Table 3.02-1 Alternative 1: Emissions for Machine Pile Burning (tons/acre)

PM10 PM2.5 CH4 CO CO2 NMHC1

0.8556 0.7272 0.2398 3.2502 142.3482 0.1936

1 NMHC = Non-methane Hydrocarbonsns per pile 

Emissions from wildfires within the project area for Alternative 1 were also modeled. Table 3.02-2 is 

based on the First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM 6.0), the 90th percentile weather for the project 

area, and the estimated fuel loading under Alternative 1 out to year 20. 

Table 3.02-2 Alternative 1: Emissions during wildfire conditions out 20 years (tons/acre)

Out Year PM10 PM2.5 CH4 CO CO2 NOx SOx

1 year 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.9 15.6 0.0 0.0

5 years 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 11.7 0.0 0.0

10 years 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 11.7 0.0 0.0

20 years 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 11.7 0.0 0.0

Road construction, reconstruction, logging and haul, and rock quarry blasting would have a minor 

effect on air quality due to the project’s management requirements and implementation of standard 

dust abatement requirements within all Forest Service Timber Sale contracts.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Additional projects within and adjacent to the project area will utilize prescribed burning: Twomile 

Ecological Restoration: Vegetation Management, Soldier Creek Timber Sale, Reynolds Creek 

Ecological Restoration, and several thousand acres of pile burning on private land. California’s 

Smoke Management Program (Title 17) is designed to prevent cumulative effects from prescribed fire

operations. The program provides allocations of emissions based on the airshed’s capacity and 

forecasted dispersal characteristics. The allocation process considers all burn requests, meteorological 

conditions, forecasted air pollution levels, and uncontrollable events like wildfire. Wildfire emissions 

can overwhelm air basins and most often all prescribed burn requests are denied during wildfire 

events. As a result of the California Smoke Management Program and agency oversight, Alternative 1

is not expected to contribute toward air quality cumulative effects.

65
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus

Air Quality irNational Forest

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Under Alternative 2, no pile burning and no jackpot burning occur; therefore, there would be no 

smoke directly generated from management activities. It is expected that there will continue to be 

lightning and human caused ignitions within the perimeter of the Rim Fire. Where these wildfires 

cannot be contained and they burn into heavy fuels, it is expected that heavy smoke from fire burning 

or smoldering in downed logs would result. This smoke would be blown to the northeast towards 

Yosemite National Park, a federal class 1 area, by typically southwest winds during the day. At night, 

smoke from a fire in this area would move down the drainages and likely cause impacts to the San 

Joaquin Valley, a non-attainment area.

Table 3.02-3 is based on the First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM 6.0), the 90th percentile weather 

for the project area, and the estimated fuel loading under Alternative 2 out to year 20. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Table 3.02-3 Alternative 2: Emissions during wildfire conditions out 20 years (tons/acre)

Out Year PM10 PM2.5 CH4 CO CO2 NOx SOx

1 year 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.90 4.60 0.01 0.00

5 years 0.20 0.20 0.10 2.20 16.5 0.01 0.01

10 years 0.40 0.30 0.20 4.02 27.11 0.02 0.02

20 years 0.61 0.52 0.31 6.70 39.39 0.02 0.03

Alternative 3

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Machine pile burning would generate the same amount of emissions in tons per acre as Alternative 1

(Table 3.02-1). Under a wildfire scenario during the 90th percentile weather conditions emissions for 

Alternative 3 are 399,566 total tons (Table 3.02-5). 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Machine pile burning would generate the same amount of emissions in tons per acre as Alternative 

(Table 3.02-1). Under a wildfire scenario during the 90th percentile weather conditions emissions for 

Alternative 4 are 365,768 total tons (Table 3.02-5). 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

Smoke emissions were modeled for both machine pile burning and for wildfires. Initial pile emissions 

in tons per acre for a single machine pile were modeled using the Piled Fuels Biomass and Emissions 

Calculator. Tons per acre of nonmerchantable timber were calculated from post fire plot sampling. 

These data were then used, along with treatment acres, to derive the total emissions for each 

alternative. 

66
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.02-4 displays total emissions for machine pile burning for each alternative. Total emissions 

from wildfires were generated using the 90th percentile weather, fuel loading at year 20, and 

multiplied by the number of ground acres treatment for each alternative except Alternative 2. For 

Alternative 2, the 30,399 acres identified in Alternative 3 were used for the smoke emission analysis.

Areas outside treatment units would experience similar fire behavior, which would result in similar 

emissions. 

Table 3.02-4 Comparison of total emissions from Machine Pile Burning (tons)

Alternative Acres PM10 PM2.5 CH4 CO CO2 NMHC Total

Alternative 1 16,366 14,003 11,901 3,925 53,193 2,329,671 3,168 2,415,861

Alternative 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Alternative 3 16,564 14,172 12,045 3,972 53,836 2,357,856 3,206.7904 2,445,088

Alternative 4 14,892 12,742 10,829 3,571 48,402 2,119,849 2,883 2,198,277

Table 3.02-5 compares smoke emissions under wildfire conditions by alternative. 

Table 3.02-5 Comparison of smoke emissions at year 20 under wildfire conditions (tons)

Alternative Acres PM10 PM2.5 CH4 CO CO2 NOx SOx Total

Alternative 1 28,326 3,285 2,775 1,600 34,005 330,012 354 226 372,257

Alternative 2 30,399 20,476 17,360 10,352 224,632 1,319,961 744 972 1,594,497

Alternative 3 30,399 3,526 2,979 1,717 36,498 354,210 380 243 399,553

Alternative 4 27,826 3,228 2,727 1,572 33,412 324,256 347 222 365,764

Table 3.02-6 compares smoke emissions in tons per acre for each alternative under year 20 wildfire

conditions. Because similar treatments for all action alternatives would result in a fuel loading of 10 

to 20 tons per acre, estimated emission outputs would likewise be similar for those alternatives. 

Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 reduce emissions by 39.31 tons per acre as compared to Alternative 2. 

Table 3.02-6 Comparison of smoke emissions at year 20 under wildfire conditions (tons/acre)

Alternative Acres PM10 PM2.5 CH4 CO CO2 NOx SOx Total

Alternative 1 28,326 0.12 0.10 0.06 1.20 11.65 0.01 0.01 13.14

Alternative 2 30,399 0.67 0.57 0.34 7.39 43.42 0.02 0.03 52.45

Alternative 3 30,399 0.12 0.10 0.06 1.20 11.65 0.01 0.01 13.14

Alternative 4 27,826 0.12 0.10 0.06 1.20 11.65 0.01 0.01 13.14

Jackpot burning may be utilized within the helicopter and skyline units. The purpose of jackpot 

burning is to reduce heavy concentrations of down woody fuels where access is limited to ground 

based machinery. Emissions for jackpot burning were not modeled due to limitations within fire 

behavior modeling programs that may inaccurately predict the amount of emissions released. Since 

this type of burning would allow for the majority of the area to retain ground cover while reducing the 

heavy concentrations of fuels post-harvest, emissions in tons per acre for jackpot burning would most 

likely fall below emissions for machine pile burning. 

Conformity Determination

The project is located in an area designated as non-attainment for Ozone. The burn treatments under 

Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 will be conducted under an EPA approved California Smoke Management 

Program (SMP). Under the revised Conformity Rules the EPA has included a Presumption of 

Conformity for prescribed fires that are conducted in compliance with a SMP; therefore, the federal 

actions will be presumed to conform and no separate conformity determination will be made. 

67
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus

Air Quality irNational Forest

68
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

3.03 AQUATIC SPECIES

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction

The Forest Plan includes goals and strategy applicable to aquatic species and the Rim Recovery 

project (USDA 2010a): 

 Fish and Wildlife Goal: Provide habitat for viable populations of all native and desired nonnative wildlife, fish and plants. Maintain and improve habitat for Threatened and Endangered 

species and give special attention to sensitive species to see that they do not become Federally 

listed as Threatened or Endangered (p. 5). 

 Aquatic Management Strategy: Identifies endpoints (desired conditions) toward which 

management moves watershed processes and functions, habitats, attributes, and populations. 

Goals of the Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS) include direction to (1) maintain viable 

populations of native and desired non-native species, (2) maintain habitat connectivity for aquatic 

and riparian species, and (3) maintain streamflow patterns and sediment regimes in accordance 

with evolutionary processes. The AMS has six RCOs that include the following element: (RCO 

3) Ensure a renewable supply of large down logs that can reach the stream channel and provide 

suitable habitat within and adjacent to the Riparian Conservation Area (p. 13). 

The Forest Plan Compliance (project record) document identifies the Forest Plan S&Gs that 

specifically apply to this project and related information about compliance with the Forest Plan. 

Effects Analysis Methodology

Project effects analyses covered threatened, endangered, and proposed species where their geographic 

and elevation range and suitable habitat occurred within the Rim Recovery project area. An official 

list of federal threatened, endangered, and proposed species covering the project area was obtained 

from the Sacramento U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office website on December 5, 2013, and updated on 

April 17, 2014 (Document 140417112513). The treatment in this analysis includes recent taxonomic 

changes and proposed listings for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog that were not reflected in the 

official list. Scientific literature, state and federal databases (CNDDB, Aquasurv) were also examined 

to determine if species may occur in the project area.

Assumptions Specific to Aquatic Species

 For the foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF) and western pond turtle (WPT), all intermittent and 

perennial streams below 4,200 feet in elevation provided suitable habitat for the species. This is 

considered a conservative approach because some intermittent streams do not provide any 

perennial water, making occupancy by either species unlikely. If these small, intermittent 

tributaries have very steep pitches (e.g., 20 foot high waterfall), they are also unlikely to be used

by the turtle (Holland 1994). Also, the WPT may also occupy streams above the 4,200 foot 

elevation because one known occupied site above this elevation, but almost all occupied sites are 

lower than 3,000 feet in elevation. Two occupied sites (ponds) are at 5,400 feet within this project 

area with no clear indication of how they became occupied by the species. It is possible that they 

occur at these sites naturally or are an artefact of introduction by humans.

 All suitable habitats are assumed to be occupied by the species because of the limitations inherent 

in visual encounter surveys. Since the FYLF can remain hidden in streamside vegetation, roots, or 

cracks in rocks and WPT detect and hide quickly from surveyors (at long distances), the lack of 

detection during a single survey does not indicate unoccupied habitat. Also, some surveys only 

cover portions of a stream which limits an assumption of occupancy for an entire stream.

 A 300-meter (984 feet) buffer was used for the WPT around suitable aquatic habitats to account 

for upland habitat use. This buffer is assumed to include a large majority of the upland habitat 

69
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

use, but acknowledges that turtles sometimes move distances greater than 300 meters from the 

water.

 In the post-fire environment, most of the sediment from hillslope erosion is assumed to end up in 

a stream. This assumption is more valid for high soil burn severity areas on steep slopes that are 

close to streams. High-severity areas typically have no beneficial ground cover and have waterrepellent layers that allow sediment to be eroded. Roughness in topography, downed wood, rocks, 

and stump holes all have the potential to trap sediment being transported downslope and the 

assumption of 100 percent sediment routing to stream channels is an overestimation. However, 

using this assumption allows for the comparison of erosion rates and sedimentation across all 

alternatives.

 Regardless of the level of project-related activity, changes in sediment from project-related 

activity at the 5th Level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watershed scale are assumed to be 

relatively minor when compared to post-fire sedimentation. For example, the amount of post-fire 

sediment delivered to the Clavey River may have small, localized consequences, but at the point 

of confluence with the Tuolumne, there would be too little sediment to impair biological 

functions. Further, there would be very little detectable change in most aquatic habitats when the 

total amount of project-related sediment is added to the post-fire sediment. This is because large 

bedrock rivers are very effective at storing and transporting fine sediments.

 Species are not present where suitable habitat is not present. 

 Proposed water quality BMPs and management requirements would function as designed and 

reduce the risk of both direct and indirect effects to aquatic species. 

Data Sources

 Stanislaus National Forest basemap, watersheds delineated at multiple scales (Hydrologic Unit 

Codes 5-8), stream gradient layer. 

 Stanislaus National Forest aquatic survey database (Aquasurv).

 Stanislaus Streamscape Survey Inventory (SSI) database.

 California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CWHR) and the California Natural Diversity 

Database. 

 Erosion and sediment modeling (3.09 Soils and 3.14 Watershed. 

 Hydrology, soils and geology BAER reports. 

Aquatic Species Indicators

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

The Aquatic BA evaluated two threatened and endangered species: California red-legged frog 

(CRLF) and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (SNYLF). The indicators used for the analysis of 

potential impacts to these aquatic species are related to habitat suitability, breeding habitat, and 

upland habitat. 

Habitat Suitability

 Estimated post-fire and post-implementation sediment depths (inches) potentially added to 

suitable habitat based on Disturbed WEPP modeling. 

Breeding or Non-breeding Habitat

 Miles of breeding and non-breeding streams or acres of pond with occupied habitat 

 Miles of breeding and non-breeding streams or acres of pond with suitable habitat 

 Miles of breeding and non-breeding streams or acres of pond within units and/or hazard tree 

treatments

 Number of road treatment intersections with breeding and non-breeding streams in analysis area

70
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Upland Habitat

 Acres of available upland habitat

 Acres of occupied upland habitat 

 Acres of upland habitat within units and/or hazard tree treatments 

 Miles of road treatments within upland habitat 

SENSITIVE SPECIES

The Aquatic BE evaluated 3 Forest Service sensitive species: foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF), 

western pond turtle (WPT), and hardhead. The indicators used for the analysis of potential impacts to 

these aquatic species include indicators common to all three species and indicators specific to each 

species.

Common Indicators

 Amount of species-specific buffer affected by the activities in each alternative 

 Proportion of watershed affected by project activities.

Species Specific Indicators

 Percentage of foothill yellow-legged frog buffer (in acres) affected by project activities

 Percentage of western pond turtle buffer (in acres) affected by project activities 

 Percentage of watershed affected by project activities

Aquatic Species Methodology by Action

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

The methodology used in the analysis for the CLRF and the SNYLF were similar. Within the project 

area, occupancy and habitat suitability assessments identified localized analysis areas for each 

species. Discrete analysis areas were defined by suitable breeding habitats and the non-breeding, 

upland and dispersal habitats associated with them. Within each discrete analysis area, effects to 

individuals and effects to habitats were analyzed for each alternative. 

California Red-legged Frog

Perennial and intermittent aquatic habitats at elevations of 4,000 feet or less (except at historic 

localities above this elevation) were assessed for CRLF breeding and non-breeding suitability based 

on the primary constituent elements (PCEs) as defined by the USFWS (Federal Register 2010). The 

direct, indirect and cumulative effects for CRLF were based on suitable breeding habitats within one 

mile of the project area boundaries. The remaining habitat components (non-breeding aquatic, upland 

and dispersal) were then identified within one mile of the breeding habitats. 

Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog

All fish-free, perennial aquatic habitats within proposed project activity boundaries at elevations 

greater than 5,000 feet were assessed for SNYLF breeding suitability based on the PCEs as defined 

by the USFWS (Federal Register 2013b). The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects were conducted 

for SNLYF suitable breeding, non-breeding and upland habitats where project activities were 

proposed within 984 feet of ponds and within 82 feet of any portion of a stream habitat as determined 

by the defined extent of the upland area for each of these habitats (Federal Register 2013b). 

Existing Condition

Known pre-fire habitat characteristics were gathered and summarized to establish a baseline to 

compare how the estimated effects of the Rim Fire would affect each habitat. Most of the suitable 

breeding habitats included in this analysis had some level of pre-fire existing condition information. 

Breeding habitats with unknown pre-fire existing conditions were assessed based solely on the 

estimates of post-fire increases in sediment depth (see Sediment Analysis below) and any changes in 

71
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

habitat suitability are represented in terms of magnitude (Table 3.03-2). For example, a change in 

habitat suitability equaling -1 magnitude is equivalent to a full magnitude reduction in habitat 

suitability (e.g., from high to moderate) and a change equaling -0.5 magnitude would equate to a 

lesser reduction (e.g., from high to high-moderate). 

Pre-fire existing condition assessments utilized a variety of factors. For the CRLF, the primary factors 

considered included, bullfrog presence, depth, and other human caused disturbances (recreation, 

roads, and urban areas). The primary factors contributing to SNYLF pre-fire existing condition 

assessments included depth, gradient and pool presence. These pre-fire existing condition factors 

were used in addition to the PCEs as defined by the USFWS (2010 and 2013b). 

Using the pre-fire existing condition as a baseline, post-fire changes in habitat suitability were 

assessed based on sedimentation estimates (Table 3.03-3). The relative risk that the estimated changes 

in sediment depth may pose in each individual breeding and non-breeding aquatic habitat were 

considered. 

Sediment Analysis

The estimated tons of soil that could be eroded within each breeding watershed post-fire and postimplementation were used for determining the existing condition of each breeding habitat and for 

assessing the effects of each alternative. These estimates are important because they provide an 

indicator for the level of sedimentation that could enter each breeding habitat. 

The initial estimated sediment depths assume 100 percent of the eroded soils within the watershed

would be transported to the breeding habitats and 100 percent stored within and uniformly distributed 

throughout each habitat, essentially equating to the worst-case scenario (100 percent transport and 

100 percent storage). While this worst-case scenario is probable in certain instances, more often, both 

the transportation and storage of eroded soils will occur at reduced rate. The factors capable of 

reducing the transportation and storage of eroded soils considered in this analysis included vegetation 

burn severity, stream gradient, and hillside slope. All pond breeding habitats were analyzed under the 

assumption that any sediment transported to the habitat would be stored (100 percent storage).

Vegetation Burn Severity

Vegetation that burned at moderate to high severities will provide the least soil cover in the years 

following the fire. Since the ground cover was essentially eliminated where vegetation burned at 

moderate to high severity, there is a high risk that eroded soils will be transported to aquatic habitats 

in these areas. Therefore, this analysis used a 100 percent transport scenario to represent sediment 

transport within watersheds that had moderate to high vegetation burn severities (Table 3.03-1).

Low burned and unburned vegetation maintain soil cover similar to pre-fire conditions. Therefore, 

this analysis used the 25 percent transport scenario for breeding habitats located in watersheds where 

the majority of the vegetation remained unburned or burned at low severity (Table 3.03-1). 

Vegetation that primarily burned at moderate severities was subsequently assumed to allow 50

percent transportation of eroded soils to aquatic habitats (Table 3.03-1). 

Table 3.03-1 Transport and storage scenarios 

Vegetation Burn

Severity

Percent 

Transport Scenario

Stream Gradient 

(percent)

Percent 

Storage Scenario

Moderate – High 100 0 – 2 (low) 100

Moderate 50 >2-4 (moderate) 50

Unburned – Low 25 >4 (high) 25

Sediment transport on moderately steep to very steep hillsides is greater than in areas with gently 

sloping terrain. Therefore, hillside slope was considered when assessing the most likely sediment 

72
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

transport scenario for each habitat. The existing condition and subsequent post-implementation 

qualities reflect this inclusion. 

Stream Gradient

Streams with steeper gradients will typically store less sediment because flow velocity and the force 

of gravity are greater in stream systems with steeper gradients. Therefore, this analysis adjusted the 

sediment storage rate in streams in accordance with the associated average stream gradient. For 

example, this analysis used a 100 percent storage scenario for low gradient streams (0-2 percent), a 50 

percent storage scenario for moderate gradient streams (greater than 2-4 percent), and a 25 percent 

storage scenario for high gradient streams (greater than 4 percent) (Table 3.03-1). In streams that have 

low flow most of the year or large portions that flow subsurface the storage scenario percentage was 

increased. The estimated outcome of different transport and storage scenarios are displayed in Table 

3.03-3. 

Cumulative Effects

The spatial boundary for analyzing cumulative effects occurred at two different scales: (1) direct 

overlap with suitable CRLF and SNYLF habitats, and (2) within the breeding watershed scale (Table 

3.03-10 and Table 3.03-11). This was done to provide a detailed look at the activities that could affect 

each suitable habitat and subsequently any individual CRLF or SNYLF inhabiting them. Because 

each of the habitats are fairly isolated with little likelihood of dispersal between them (except SNYLF 

between Little Kibbie and Big Kibbie Ponds), populations or individuals inhabiting these habitats are 

expected to remain within the habitats associated with each identified suitable breeding habitat.

The temporal boundary established for cumulative effects analysis was ten years from present, a 

timeline commensurate with the Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) modeling and related to using 

a threshold of concern (TOC). When the TOC is exceeded there is the risk of increased sedimentation 

in the channel, reduction in deep water habitat volume, reduction in interstitial spaces in the 

streambed, higher turbidity during high stream flow, and reduced primary and secondary productivity. 

These changes in the aquatic system can affect reproduction, ability to avoid predation, and the 

availability of food resources. The CWE modeling indicated all streams would recover to near prefire levels within this time frame.

SENSITIVE SPECIES

For the FYLF and WPT, all streams below 4,200 feet were identified as suitable for the species. For 

the FYLF, all of these stream miles were buffered by 100 feet on both sides to provide an upland area 

for the frog. These two steps identified the number of stream miles to be calculated in the project area 

and amount of upland habitat associated with the streams. For the WPT, the same streams used for the 

FYLF analysis were buffered by a distance of 300 meters (984 feet) on each side of the stream to 

derive an upland habitat area. Both buffer areas (FYLF and WPT) are considered to contain the 

majority of upland habitat used by the species. 

With these upland areas established, the activities proposed in each of the action alternatives were 

placed over the upland areas, or an intersection was created, to estimate the amount of area impacted 

by each activity for each species. Once this intersection of project activities and habitat buffer was 

established, the type of logging system used, volume estimates for “recovered” trees, road action 

types, and water use from designated sources were evaluated to conceptualize an intensity of activity 

occurring within each occupied or suitable watershed. This estimate was used to provide a point of 

reference for the amount of project-related activity occurring close to streams and provide a basis for 

assigning risk of direct and indirect effects to the species and their habitats. Since the types of actions 

in each action alternative were not different (only the amount of each activity differed), this approach 

was considered to be applicable to all of the alternatives.

73
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

For cumulative effects analysis, an internal planning effort identified all ongoing and planned 

activities on public and private lands (Appendix B). For public lands, ongoing actions (e.g., livestock 

grazing) and planned activities (e.g., Rim HT project) were identified on NFS and National Park 

Service (Yosemite NP) lands. For private lands, emergency timber plans were retrieved from CalFire 

to identify the areas where salvage logging occurred or is proposed to occur. 

The spatial boundary for analyzing cumulative effects occurred at several different scales. For some 

small watersheds (7th and 8th level HUC and smaller) that are occupied or provide suitable habitat, 

cumulative effects were narrowed to the scale of the watershed. The reason this was done is to 

provide a detailed look at the activities that could affect small, isolated populations. Populations and 

individuals inhabiting these smaller streams are expected to remain within the watershed and 

complete all life stages in the watershed. Therefore, actions occurring outside of the small watershed, 

but within the larger 5th or 6th level HUC, may have no cumulative bearing on the isolated 

populations. Examples of smaller watersheds include Grapevine (7th level HUC) and Drew (8th level 

HUC) Creeks and the small, unnamed Clavey River tributaries (sub-8th level HUC). The spatial scale 

was also expanded out to larger watershed scales to address populations occurring in larger habitats, 

like the Clavey River. The downstream extent of the analysis area is Don Pedro Reservoir for the 

Tuolumne River watershed and the upper North Fork Merced River 5th level HUC.

The temporal boundary established for cumulative effects analysis was ten years from present, a date 

commensurate with the Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) modeling completed for the project 

(see Watershed Chapter). The reason this time frame was chosen is related to the modeling approach 

using a threshold of concern (TOC) for watersheds. When a watershed exceeds the TOC, there is an 

increased risk that a variety of watershed processes may not occur as they would when a watershed 

functions below the threshold. An example of a watershed process that may not function normally 

when the TOC is exceeded is the stability of the stream within its channel. When the TOC is 

exceeded there is the risk that the streambanks will become unstable and bank erosion can occur. This 

can lead to increased sedimentation in the channel, reduction in deep water habitat volume, reduction 

in interstitial spaces in the streambed, higher turbidity during high stream flow, and reduced primary 

and secondary productivity. These changes in the aquatic system can affect reproduction, ability to 

avoid predation, and the availability of food resources. The CWE model includes recovery times for 

certain actions, like logging, or events, like wildfire, whose effects diminish over time. When a 

watershed returns to below a TOC, natural processes in the stream system are expected to dominate 

and the stream should regain a high degree of stability over time. The CWE modeling indicated all 

streams (at 6th and 7th level HUC scale) would recover to near pre-fire levels within this time frame. 

It should be noted that some elements of the cumulative effects analysis, such as the long term 

recruitment of large woody debris (LWD), may extend 100 or more years into the future, but this 

timeframe could not be applied in the context of reasonably foreseeable future.

Affected Environment

The Rim Fire affected a variety of aquatic habitats including wetlands, ponds, natural and man-made 

lakes, streams, and rivers. The aquatic features at lower elevations, less than 2,500 feet, are primarily 

influenced by rainfall during the wet season (November through April), while aquatic features above 

this elevation are influenced by rainfall, snowpack, or a combination of both. Streams in the rainfall 

zone typically see peak flows following larger rain events and some intermittent streams may support 

surface water for several months. Streams in the rain/snow zones may see very high peak flows if rain 

falls on a snowpack, but streams typically show a period of peak flow as the snow melts in the late 

spring and early summer. 

All of the larger stream systems affected by the Rim Fire are bedrock rivers (versus alluvial rivers) 

shaped by snowmelt runoff during the late spring (mid-May) to middle summer (mid-July). 

Geomorphic complexity in bedrock rivers in the Sierra Nevada requires variable annual flow (winter 

74
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

floods, snowmelt peak flows, winter and summer baseflow), periodic inputs of large volumes of 

sediments (landslides, hillslope mass wasting), and multiple flow thresholds (variable levels of 

flooding) (McBain and Trush 2004). Most of these rivers have steep canyons, and steep tributary 

streams, ascending to more gentle terrain above the canyon rim. 

A very large proportion of the fire area occurred in the Tuolumne River watershed. The Tuolumne 

River originates in Yosemite National Park and has several large tributaries originating in the Park or 

on the Stanislaus National Forest. Five primary tributaries join the Tuolumne within the fire area: the 

Clavey and Middle, North, and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers, and Cherry Creek. The Middle and 

South Fork Tuolumne Rivers originate in Yosemite then flow in a westerly direction to join each 

other and then the main Tuolumne. Cherry Creek and the North Fork Tuolumne and Clavey Rivers 

originate from the Stanislaus and primarily flow in a southerly direction into the Tuolumne. There are 

many minor tributaries to the Tuolumne River and its principal tributaries including: Alder, Big, 

Corral, Drew, Grapevine, Indian, and Jawbone Creeks (Tuolumne River); Basin and Hunter Creeks 

(North Fork Tuolumne River); Big Creek (South Fork Tuolumne River); Eleanor Creek and Granite 

Creek (Cherry Creek); and Hull, Reed (including Bourland, Reynolds, and Little Reynolds Creeks), 

and Twomile Creeks (Clavey River). Additionally, there are numerous very small, typically unnamed 

tributaries to each of these listed streams and rivers.

Obligate riparian vegetation (e.g., willow and alder) along most streams in the affected area is 

typically restricted to a narrow (less than 50 feet) band adjacent to the edge of the water. There are 

some wetlands in fire perimeter that support obligate herbaceous riparian species as dominant plant 

community types. 

The known distribution of all analyzed aquatic species follows and a description of suitable habitat 

for these species is also provided.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

California Red-legged Frog

The CRLF is now likely extirpated from 70 percent of its former range (USFWS 2002). Rangewide, 

the CRLF occurred at elevations from sea level to 5,200 feet, although the highest known extant 

population occurs at 3,346 feet in Placer County (Barry and Fellers 2013). The historic localities in 

the Sierra Nevada over 3,600 feet were possibly introduced (USFWS 2002; Barry and Fellers 2013). 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred that occurrences above 4,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada 

are atypical and has used this elevation as a threshold for critical habitat designation (Federal Register 

2006). 

California red-legged frogs inhabit various aquatic habitats including ponds, marshes, streams, and 

lagoons (Fellers 2005). The timing of breeding varies geographically, but typically occurs from 

November through April (USFWS 2002), which coincides with what will be referred to as the wetseason throughout this section. Females lay from 2,000-6,000 eggs (in masses) that are usually 

attached to vegetation near the water’s surface. Eggs hatch in about 3 weeks. Tadpoles typically 

metamorphose within 11 to 20 weeks, from July to September, but overwinter aquatically at some 

sites (Fellers 2005; Bobzien and DiDonato 2007). Adult movements to terrestrial habitat or between 

aquatic habitats typically commence with the first fall rain (greater than 0.25 inches) and continue 

until April (Fellers and Kleeman 2007; Tatarian 2008). Adults may also disperse when aquatic 

habitats dry out (Fellers and Kleeman 2007). Individual movements of up to 2 miles have been 

reported (Fellers 2005), but 1 mile represents a more average dispersal distance (Federal Register 

2010). 

The CRLF recovery plan (USFWS 2002) identifies introduced species and habitat degradation and 

loss as primary drivers of CRLF population declines. Introduced bullfrogs, crayfish, fish, and plants 

which have become established throughout much of the historic CRLF range, detrimentally affect the 

75
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

CRLF through predation, competition, and reduced habitat quality. Agricultural and urban 

development have destroyed and fragmented much of the historic CRLF habitat. Other factors that 

may have particularly impacted Sierra Nevada populations include dams and impoundments, mining, 

livestock overgrazing, recreation, and timber harvesting.

Timber operations and other related actions conducted within watersheds inhabited by, or containing 

suitable CRLF habitat, may contribute to the degradation of instream and riparian habitat. Possible 

effects of timber operations leading to degraded habitat include, increased sedimentation, removal of 

trees providing bank stability and structure, and altered runoff patterns (USFWS 2002). 

Access roads, haul roads, skid trails, and ground-based tractor yarding systems have great impacts 

related to sedimentation and compaction. Wet weather operations also have more potential for 

impacts. Timber harvesting in upland habitat can also impact CRLFs by causing direct harm or injury 

to frogs that may be dispersing or sheltering. Indirectly, upland timber harvesting may impact CRLFs 

by making them more susceptible to predation by compacting or removing the CRLFs cover or 

refugia (USFWS 2002).

The CRLF has not been detected on the Stanislaus National Forest since 1967 and is considered 

extirpated from the Tuolumne River watershed (USFWS 2002) included in the project area. 

Table 3.03-2 Existing condition habitat summary for CRLF and SNYLF breeding habitats

Habitat Acres Miles3 Avg. Depth4

(feet) Elevation (feet)

Vegetation Burn

Severity (%) Pre-fire

Habitat Quality

Post-fire

Habitat Quality H M L UB

California red-legged frog

Birch Lake1 4.0 0.28 No data 4,500 31 14 18 37 Low No Change

Mud Lake1 2.2 0.31 No data 4,500 0 55 22 23 Low No Change

Drew Creek 1.3 1.75 2,960 to 3,300 50 23 21 5 Moderate-High Low-Unsuitable

Harden Flat Pond 1 0.54 0.12 No data 3,500 11 40 34 16 Moderate Moderate-Low

Harden Flat Pond 2 0.35 0.12 No data 3,500 0 11 3 86 Moderate No Change

Homestead Pond1 0.17 0.06 > 6.5 3,100 86 14 0 0 Moderate Moderate-Low

Hunter Creek2 7.5 1.6 1,600 to 4,000 13 18 18 51 Moderate Moderate-Low

Hunter Creek Pond 1 0.39 0.10 No data 3,880 10 32 44 15 Unknown -1 magnitude

Hunter Creek Pond 2 0.21 0.07 No data 3,760 9 32 46 13 Unknown -1 magnitude

Hunter Creek Pond 3 0.23 0.08 No data 3,880 9 17 59 14 Unknown No Change

Hunter Creek Pond 4 0.35 0.10 No data 3,760 14 41 39 6 Unknown -1 magnitude

Hunter Creek Pond 5 0.37 0.10 No data 3,360 13 35 47 5 Unknown -1 magnitude

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

Bear Creek 0.79 No data 5,000 to 5,200 83 16 1 0 Unknown Unsuitable

Cherry Lake Tributary 1.40 No data 5,000 to 5,900 32 30 30 9 Low Unsuitable

Jawbone Creek 4.62 “deep” 5,000 to 6,700 37 16 33 14 Low-Moderate Low-Unsuitable

Little Reynolds Creek 3.60 < 1.0 5,600 to 6,800 1 11 40 48 Low No Change

Looney Creek 5.00 No data 5,000 to 6,500 <1 6 21 72 Unknown No Change

Lost Creek 1.86 1.00 5,400 to 6,500 5 16 39 41 Low No Change

Niagara Creek 1.44 0.70 5,300 to 5,700 15 37 38 10 Low Low-Unsuitable

Reynolds Creek Tributary 0.82 No data 5,000 to 5,600 8 21 43 28 Unknown -0.5 magnitude

Richards Creek 0.82 < 0.32 5,000 to 6,000 41 37 20 2 Low-Unsuitable Unsuitable

White Fir Creek 1.86 <1.10 5,000 to 5,900 21 22 28 28 Low-Unsuitable Unsuitable

Little Kibbie Pond 0.57 0.12 1.60 5,400 73 27 0 0 Low-Moderate No Change

Big Kibbie Pond 0.71 0.15 3.60 5,400 11 63 26 0 Moderate-High No Change

H=High; M=Moderate; L=Low; UB=Unburned 1 Bullfrogs present 2 Trout present 3 Miles of stream or shoreline of ponds 4 Depths for creeks are average pool depths.

76
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

A total of 9.7 miles of potentially suitable breeding stream habitat, 8.9 acres of potentially suitable 

breeding pond habitat, 332.8 miles of non-breeding stream habitat, and 21,592 acres of upland habitat 

was identified within the project and analysis area. All other habitats were ruled out because they did 

not meet the suitability criterion. Within the Rim Recovery project area, five habitat units (Mather 

Vicinity, Drew Creek, Homestead Pond, Harden Flat, and Hunter Creek) were identified that have 

suitable breeding habitat in two streams (Drew Creek, Hunter Creek) and 10 ponds (Birch Lake, Mud 

Lake, Homestead Pond, and 7 unnamed ponds). Habitat characteristics including size (acres), length 

(miles), average depth (feet), and pre- and post-fire habitat quality determinations are summarized in 

Table 3.03-2. The percent of the landscape within each breeding habitat’s watershed where vegetation 

remained unburned (UB) or burned at high (H), moderate (M), and low (L) severities is also 

displayed in Table 3.03-2. These values were used in determining the likely sediment transport 

scenario for the analysis. 

Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog

Prior to 2007, Rana muscosa and Rana sierrae were considered a single species referred to as 

mountain yellow-legged frogs (Vredenburg et al. 2007). Genetic work however, confirmed 

morphological and acoustic dissimilarities between the northern and southern populations of 

mountain yellow-legged frogs, and accordingly, the frogs were reclassified as two species. 

Mitochondrial DNA indicates that the contact zone between the two species is between the middle 

and south forks of the Kings River. Frogs north of this point are now classified as Sierra Nevada 

yellow-legged frogs (SNYLF, Rana sierrae), and those south, remain mountain yellow-legged frogs 

(MYLF, Rana muscosa). Consequently, the analysis summarized here will address the effects of 

project actions on the SNYLF. Where information applies to both species, the two species will be 

referred to collectively as the MYLF-complex. 

Although frogs of the MYLF- complex were historically abundant throughout the Sierra Nevada, 

current research has reported declines over large expanses of their range and as much as 97 percent on 

Forest Service lands. Where frogs are present, their numbers are relatively low in comparison to 

historical estimates (Brown et al. 2014). The current remaining populations are restricted primarily to 

publicly managed lands within National Forests and National Parks at elevations ranging from 4,500 

to 12,000 feet (CDFG 2011). 

Frogs of the MYLF-complex inhabit high mountain lakes, ponds, marshes, meadows, tarns, and 

streams. They are highly aquatic at all life stages and extensively use deep water ponds deeper than 

6.5 feet that lack introduced fish. Despite their positive correlation with deep water habitats (Knapp 

2005), both tadpoles and adults are most commonly found along open gently sloping shorelines that 

provide shallow waters of only 2 to 3 inches in depth (Mullally and Cunningham 1956; Jennings and 

Hayes 1994; Federal Register 2013a). 

At lower elevations, these species are known to be associated with rocky streambeds and wet 

meadows surrounded by coniferous forests (Zweifel 1955; Zeiner et al. 1988). Streams utilized by 

adults vary from high gradients and numerous pools, rapids, and small waterfalls to streams with low 

gradients and slow flows, marshy edges, and sod banks (Zweifel 1955). These frogs are rarely found 

in small or ephemeral streams which frequently have insufficient depth and hydroperiods for adequate 

refuge and overwintering habitat (Jennings and Hayes 1994). 

The timing of breeding varies annually, but occurs shortly after snowmelt, typically between May and 

July (the dry season). Females lay clutches varying from 15 to 350 eggs (Vredenburg et al. 2005) 

attached to rocks, gravel, and vegetation or under banks (Wright and Wright 1949, Pope 1999). Eggs 

hatch in about 2.5 to 3 weeks (Pope 1999). Tadpoles may take more than 1 year (Wright and Wright 

1949), and often require 2 to 4 years, to reach metamorphosis (Bradford et al. 1993; Knapp and 

Matthews 2000) depending on local climate conditions and site-specific variables. In aquatic habitats 

of high mountain lakes, the adult frogs typically move only a few hundred meters (Matthews and 

77
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

Pope 1999; Pope 1999), but single-season distances of up to 2.05 miles have been recorded along 

streams (Wengert 2008). Adults may move between selected breeding, feeding, and overwintering 

habitats during the course of the year. Though typically found near water, overland movements by 

adults of over 217 feet have been routinely recorded (Pope 1999). The farthest reported distance from 

water is 1,300 feet (Federal Register 2013a). 

Some factors that may impact the MYLF-complex include recreation activities, dams and water 

diversions, livestock grazing, timber management, road construction and maintenance, and fire 

management activities. Timber harvest activities can remove vegetation and cause ground disturbance 

and compaction, leading to erosion (Helms and Tappeniner 1996; Federal Register 2013a). A large 

increase in sedimentation could potentially damage breeding habitat. Timber harvest may also alter 

the annual hydrograph, possibly lowering the water table in riparian habitat. Roads, including those 

associated with timber harvests, may contribute to habitat fragmentation and species disturbance, but 

have not been implicated as primary factors in this species’ decline. 

In some areas, long-term fire suppression has created conditions vulnerable to increased fire severity 

and intensity (McKelvey et al. 1996; Federal Register 2013a). Excessive erosion and siltation of 

habitats following wildfire is a concern in shallow, lower elevation areas below forested stands. 

Severe and intense wildfires may reduce amphibian survival (Russell et al. 1999). Amphibians may 

avoid direct mortality from fire by retreating to wet habitats or sheltering in subterranean burrows 

(Federal Register 2013a). Because these species generally occupy high-elevation habitats, where fire 

is less likely to occur, this is likely a low threat. 

Table 3.03-3 Sediment depths for CRLF and SNYLF suitable breeding habitat

Name

100%/100%1 50%/100%1 50%/50%, 100%/25%

or 25%/100%1 25%/50% or 50%/25%1

PF2

Alt 2

PI3

Alt 1

PI

Alt 3

PI

Alt 4

PF 

Alt 2

PI 

Alt 1

PI

Alt 3

PI 

Alt 4

PF 

Alt 2

PI 

Alt 1

PI

Alt 3

PI 

Alt 4

PF

Alt 2

PI

Alt 1

PI

Alt 3

PI

Alt 4

Birch Lake 4 0.24 0.29 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03

Mud Lake 0.00 NC5 NC NC 0.00 NC NC NC 0.00 NC NC NC 0.00 NC NC NC

Drew Creek 27.75 27.77 26.94 26.94 11.50 13.89 13.47 13.47 6.94 6.94 6.73 6.73 3.47 3.47 3.37 3.37

Harden Flat Pond 1 4.96 5.03 4.76 4.76 2.48 2.51 2.38 2.38 1.24 1.26 1.19 1.19 0.62 0.63 0.59 0.59

Harden Flat Pond 2 0.05 NC5 NC NC 0.02 NC NC NC 0.01 NC NC NC 0.01 NC NC NC

Homestead Pond 3.04 NC NC NC 1.52 NC NC NC 0.76 NC NC NC 0.38 NC NC NC

Hunter Creek 16.65 16.63 16.32 16.32 8.32 8.31 8.16 8.16 4.16 NC 4.08 4.08 2.08 NC 2.04 2.04

Hunter Creek Pond 1 3.08 3.06 3.08 3.08 1.54 1.53 1.54 1.54 0.77 NC NC NC 0.39 0.38 0.39 0.39

Hunter Creek Pond 2 10.39 10.55 10.40 10.40 5.20 5.27 5.20 5.20 2.60 2.64 2.60 2.60 1.30 1.32 1.30 1.30

Hunter Creek Pond 3 1.64 NC NC NC 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.41 NC NC NC 0.21 NC NC NC

Hunter Creek Pond 4 6.22 6.23 6.16 6.16 3.11 3.12 3.08 3.08 1.56 NC 1.54 1.54 0.78 NC 0.77 0.77

Hunter Creek Pond 5 13.65 13.78 13.60 13.60 6.83 6.89 6.80 6.80 3.41 3.44 3.40 3.40 1.71 1.72 1.70 1.70

Bear Creek 40.18 35.96 25.92 36.90 20.09 17.98 12.96 18.45 10.05 8.99 6.48 9.22 5.02 4.50 3.24 4.61

Cherry Creek Trib. 21.45 21.38 19.80 19.80 10.73 10.69 9.90 9.90 5.36 5.35 4.95 4.95 2.68 2.67 2.48 2.48

Jawbone Creek 18.54 18.08 16.64 16.64 9.27 9.04 8.32 8.32 4.64 4.52 4.16 4.16 2.32 2.26 2.08 2.08

Little Reynolds Creek 2.11 2.17 2.07 2.07 1.06 1.09 1.03 1.03 0.53 0.54 0.52 0.52 0.26 0.27 0.26 0.26

Looney Creek 2.59 2.60 2.58 2.58 1.30 NC 1.29 1.29 0.65 NC 0.64 0.64 0.32 0.33 0.32 0.32

Lost Creek 1.50 1.63 1.40 1.40 0.75 0.81 0.70 0.70 0.38 0.41 0.35 0.35 0.19 0.20 0.18 0.18

Niagara Creek 17.03 16.54 13.45 16.17 8.51 8.27 6.72 8.09 4.26 4.14 3.36 4.04 2.13 2.07 1.68 2.02

Reynolds Creek Trib. 13.61 12.98 10.44 13.38 6.80 6.49 5.22 6.69 3.40 3.24 2.61 3.35 1.70 1.62 1.31 1.67

Richards Creek 18.46 18.97 18.33 18.33 9.23 9.49 9.17 9.17 4.61 4.74 4.58 4.58 2.31 2.37 2.29 2.29

White Fir Creek 5.75 5.84 4.62 4.62 2.88 2.92 2.31 2.31 1.44 1.46 1.15 1.15 0.72 0.73 0.58 0.58

Little Kibbie Pond 0.02 0.03 NC NC 0.01 NC NC NC 0.01 NC NC NC 0.00 NC NC NC

Big Kibbie Pond 0.02 0.03 NC NC 0.01 0.02 NC NC 0.01 NC NC NC 0.00 NC NC NC

1 Percent transport/storage scenarios (i.e. 100%/100% = 100 percent transport / 100 percent storage)

2 PF=post-fire 3 PI=post-implementation 4 All depths are in inches 5 NC is no change from post-fire values

78
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

The SNYLF has been found throughout the Stanislaus National Forest in streams, meadows and lakes 

at elevations between 5,400 feet and 9,700 feet, most commonly in high alpine lake habitats. No 

SNYLF (extant or historic) have been found within the Rim Fire perimeter according to Forest and 

CNDDB records. With few exceptions, the stream occurrences associated with wet meadow systems 

are in streams adjacent to or connected to lakes and ponds. The majority of habitats within the project 

area are atypical of habitats where SNYLF are known to occur on the forest.

Within the Rim Recovery project area there are72.4 miles of potentially suitable breeding and nonbreeding perennial stream habitat, 19 breeding and non-breeding ponds with 2.6 miles of shoreline 

and 25.9 acres of habitat, and 2,155.1 acres of upland habitat. All other aquatic habitats were ruled 

out as suitable. Suitable habitats included in the analysis include sections of ten different streams: 

Bear Creek, Little Reynolds, Looney Creek, Lost Creek, Niagara Creek, Reynolds Creek Tributary, 

Jawbone Creek, Richards Creek, Wrights Creek, and an unnamed west shore tributary to Cherry 

Lake, and two ponds (Little Kibbie Pond and Big Kibbie Pond). Table 3.03-3 displays sediment 

depths for CRLF and SNYLF suitable breeding habitat. 

SENSITIVE SPECIES

Foothill yellow-legged frog

The FYLF is a stream breeding frog that spends essentially all of its time in or in very close proximity 

to water. Breeding occurs in late spring (small streams) or early summer (larger streams) when 

predictable or receding flows occur and water temperatures warm. Breeding females typically attach 

egg masses to stable substrates (rocks) in shallow, slow water. Tadpoles emerge in a few weeks and 

begin feeding on algae and diatoms attached to streambed substrates. As tadpoles develop, they 

become wary of potential predators and seek refuge around and under streambed substrates. Tadpoles 

metamorphose into “froglets” by early fall and probably stay near the breeding area for the first 

winter. Adult and sub-adult frogs adopt one of a couple of dispersal strategies outside of the breeding 

season. One strategy involves moving up- or downstream of the breeding area and the frogs remain 

on the same stream. Another strategy involves dispersal into small tributary streams near the breeding 

site. They may remain in these smaller streams associated with very small pools for most of the year. 

Sunny areas for basking and shady areas for refuge are likely important attributes in allowing the frog 

to regulate its body temperature. With the onset of spring, males will move to the breeding areas to 

establish territories and females follow several weeks to months after the males. Females probably 

leave the breeding site immediately following breeding. The FYLF has a known local elevation range 

of 900 to 4,000 feet. On the forest, the highest elevation recorded for breeding on a large river is 

3,000 feet (North Fork Tuolumne River) and 3,600 feet in a small stream (Bull Meadow Creek).

The FYLF is known to occur in the following streams: Drew Creek, Grapevine Creek, and Tuolumne 

River (Tuolumne River watershed); Basin Creek, Hunter Creek, North Fork Tuolumne River (North 

Fork Tuolumne River watershed); Bull Meadow Creek, Indian Springs Creek, unnamed tributary, and 

Clavey River (Clavey River watershed); and Bull Creek, Moore Creek, and North Fork Merced River 

(North Fork Merced River watershed). Many other streams in the fire area provide suitable habitat for 

the FYLF, but occupancy is unknown. Below the confluence of Cherry Creek, the Tuolumne River 

does not provide suitable breeding habitat for the frog. This is because there are drastic fluctuations in 

water associated with releases from Dion Holm Powerhouse on Cherry Creek. These fluctuations 

occur rapidly and daily during the breeding period, and are probably large enough to either scour or 

strand egg masses, both mortality events. Also, the cold water temperatures associated with the 

discharges may be enough to slow development and prevent metamorphosis in a timely manner. The 

Tuolumne River likely played an important role in supporting a number of interconnected subpopulations along the river prior to the construction of upstream dams. This assertion is supported by 

the presence of FYLF populations in most of the main tributaries and in the Tuolumne itself upstream 

of Early Intake which suggests an earlier, extensive distribution pattern of the frog. 

79
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

Most of these populations, especially in small streams (e.g., Basin Creek) are believed to be small and 

consist of less than 20 adults. In the small tributaries that offer dispersal habitat, there could be very 

few individuals occupying the stream. The Clavey River is probably the largest remaining population 

of FYLF in the southern Sierra Nevada. Frogs are known to breed at the confluence with the 

Tuolumne River and above the 1N01 bridge crossing (9 miles) and this analysis assumes multiple 

breeding locations between these two points. Also, the river provides many more miles upstream of 

the bridge that are suitable for breeding. For the primary streams providing suitable habitat for the 

FYLF, Table 3.03-4 shows miles of suitable and occupied FYLF habitat, occupancy status, and 

whether surveys were conducted on the streams.

Table 3.03-4 Occupied and suitable habitat for FYLF in the Rim Fire area

Watershed 

(5th level HUC) Stream Watershed(acres) Occupancy Survey Suitable(miles)

Upland Habitat Acres

(30-meter buffer)

Tuolumne River

Tuolumne River 819,000 Yes Yes 36.5 870

Alder Cr. 1,525 Unknown Yes 5.5 132

Corral Cr. 4,570 Unknown Yes 9.6 230

Drew Cr. 1,697 Yes Yes 4.6 110

Grapevine Cr. 4,488 Yes Yes 10.8 260

Indian Cr. 2,344 Unknown No 2.7 64

Jawbone Cr. 13,136 Unknown Yes 14.3 343

Middle Fork Tuolumne River Middle Fork Tuolumne River 46,635 Unknown Yes 25.5 612

North Fork Tuolumne River

North Fork Tuolumne River 63,849 Yes Yes 75 1,796

Basin Cr. 9,030 Yes Yes 17.8 427

Hunter Cr. 9,482 Yes Yes 21.5 515

South Fork Tuolumne River South Fork Tuolumne River 57,855 Unknown Yes 29.4 704

Cherry Creek

Cherry Cr. 90,892 Unknown No 17.8 428

Eleanor Cr. 59,906 Unknown No 2.3 55

Granite Cr. 4,110 Unknown Yes 6.0 144

Clavey River

Clavey River 100,645 Yes Yes 29 696

Reed Cr. 24,527 Unknown Yes 4.2 101

Adams Gulch 815 Unknown No 0.8 18

Bear Springs Cr. 2,403 Unknown Yes 1.9 45

Bull Meadow Cr. 1,430 Yes Yes 3.0 71

Indian Springs Cr. 356 Yes Yes 0.8 20

Quilty Cr. 1,089 Unknown Yes 1.8 44

Unnamed Tributary 1 773 Unknown No 1.5 36

Unnamed Tributary 2 373 Unknown No 1.0 25

Unnamed Tributary 3 1,343 Unknown Yes 2.3 56

Unnamed Tributary 4 490 Unknown Yes 1.0 24

Unnamed Tributary 5 688 Yes Yes 1.7 41

Cottonwood Cr. 5,307 Unknown Yes 2.3 56

Russell Cr. 560 Unknown No 0.8 20

North Fork Merced River

North Fork Merced River 79,110 Yes Yes 74.4 1,784

Bull Cr. 21,064 Yes Yes 44.7 1,072

Deer Lick Cr. 3,981 Unknown Yes 9.7 233

Moore Cr. 5,896 Yes Yes 11.9 286

Scott Cr. 1,627 Unknown Yes 1.9 46

The analysis area for the FYLF includes the Tuolumne River watershed from Hetch Hetchy in 

Yosemite National Park to the backwaters of Lake Don Pedro. For this portion of the Tuolumne River 

watershed, the analysis area extends upstream each tributary stream to the fire boundary. In many 

instances, the entire watershed area of the smaller tributaries is within the fire area (e.g., Grapevine, 

Corral, and Alder Creeks). For other tributary watersheds, the fire only burned a portion of the total 

watershed area (e.g., Clavey and the Middle, North, and South Forks of the Tuolumne). For the North 

Fork Merced River (about 100,000 acres), the Rim Fire only affected a small portion of several 

80
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

headwater tributaries to the river. In this instance, the analysis boundary only includes the upper 

portion of the North Fork Merced watershed, or the 37,000 acres in the 6th level HUC. 

Western Pond Turtle

The WPT is a species that requires aquatic and terrestrial habitats to meet its life history needs. 

Aquatic habitats are needed for breeding, eating, overwintering, regulating body temperature, refuge, 

and rearing hatchlings. Terrestrial habitats are needed for nesting, aestivation, overwintering, and 

regulating body temperature. The WPT mates under water and the females excavate a nest adjacent to 

aquatic habitat. Nests are typically constructed in open areas (little or no canopy cover) with welldrained soil and on gentle slopes with good solar aspect (south to west facing). The nests are typically 

found within 300 feet of the aquatic feature used by adults, but can be found almost a quarter of a 

mile away from the water. The eggs hatch in several months, but the hatchling turtles remain in the 

nest until the following spring or early summer. The hatchlings seek slow, shallow, and warm water 

where they can forage and grow. Adult and sub-adult turtles can spend much of their year within a 

small geographic area; however, they sometimes make long overland or upstream-downstream 

movements (Reese 1996). Like the FYLF, the turtle prefers a variety of microhabitats for regulating 

body temperature, but basking sites are particularly needed in the early season when air and water 

temperatures are relatively low. Basking also plays an important role for females in that elevated 

body temperature contributes to the development of the eggs. 

Table 3.03-5 Occupied and suitable habitat for WPT in the Rim Fire area

Watershed

(5th level HUC) Stream Occupancy Survey Suitable(miles)

Upland Habitat Acres

(30-meter buffer)

Tuolumne River

Tuolumne River Yes Yes 36.5 8,711

Drew Cr. Yes Yes 4.6 1,011

Grapevine Cr. Yes Yes 10.8 2,565

Jawbone Cr. Unknown Yes 14.3 3,411

Three unnamed ponds Unknown No 10 acres 277

Middle Fork Tuolumne River

Middle Fork Tuolumne River Yes Yes 25.5 5,365

Abernathy Meadow Yes Yes 7.5 132

Grandfather Pond Yes Yes 0.2 acre 82

Mud Lake Yes Yes 3 acres 115

North Fork Tuolumne River

North Fork Tuolumne River Yes Yes 75 16,718

Basin Cr. Unknown Yes 17.8 3,902

Hunter Cr. Yes Yes 21.5 4,912

South Fork Tuolumne River South Fork Tuolumne River Yes Yes 29.4 6,411

Cherry Creek

Cherry Cr. Unknown No 17.8 3,737

Eleanor Cr. Unknown No 2.3 599

Big Kibbie Pond Yes Yes 1 acre 98

Little Kibbie Pond Yes Yes 0.5 acre 86

Clavey River Clavey River Yes Yes 29 3,460

Reed Cr. Unknown Yes 4.2 904

North Fork Merced River

North Fork Merced River Yes Yes 74.4 16,908

Bull Cr. Yes Yes 44.7 9,879

Deer Lick Cr. Unknown Yes 9.7 2,234

Moore Cr. Yes Yes 11.9 2,767

Scott Cr. Unknown Yes 1.9 453

While water is required for some life history aspects, the WPT can use seasonally wet habitats. 

During periods when the aquatic feature is dry, turtles can depart the feature for another nearby 

aquatic habitat or can venture into the terrestrial environment to aestivate. Aestivation is a seasonal 

reduction in activity and body function similar to hibernation. The turtles will locate a site where they 

can dig into the leaf duff, preferably with some overhead cover (shade), and wait until the rain 

replenishes the aquatic habitat. Turtles can also use the terrestrial environment during the winter. The 

81
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

behavior, overwintering, is similar to aestivation because they leave the water (around October), bury 

themselves into the leaf litter under trees or shrubs, and wait until spring. During this time, they may 

move about on the landscape or move to water then back to land. 

The WPT is found frequently in habitats also occupied by the FYLF because they share many of the 

same habitat needs. On the Forest, almost all occurrences of turtles in streams are at elevations less 

than 3,500 feet, but several populations are in ponds at elevations up to 5,400 feet. Table 3.03-5 

shows the streams, ponds, and meadow with known WPT populations and lists the primary streams 

that provide suitable habitat for the turtle.

Hardhead

The hardhead is a large species of minnow that historically occurred in a narrow low-elevation zone, 

approximately 100 to 1,500 feet in elevation, in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada (Moyle 2002). 

Moyle (2002) included the hardhead as one component of an assemblage of native warm water 

species called the pikeminnow-hardhead-sucker assemblage. On the Stanislaus National Forest, 

California roach (a minnow), riffle sculpin, and rainbow trout could also occur with the hardhead in 

rivers with unregulated flows (no dams). The species description given in Moyle (2002) is the basis 

for the species and habitat description that follows.

Hardhead can be found in a variety of flowing water habitats from large intermittent foothill streams 

to large rivers. Larger individuals are typically associated with deep pools while smaller individuals 

are associated with shallow waters along the edge of the stream. For most of the year, the fish does 

not move extensively up- and downstream, opting to remain in a pool or series of pools linked by 

deep run habitat. Hardhead spawn in the spring (April and May) and may migrate upstream long 

distances in larger streams, especially those impacted by reservoirs. Like other minnows, hardhead

likely spawn in gravel substrates in run habitat or at the tail out of pool habitat. Older fish are 

omnivorous, feeding on a mix of filamentous algae (where present) and invertebrates (e.g., crayfish, 

aquatic insects). Smaller fish tend to feed more on aquatic insects or other small invertebrates (e.g., 

snails). Hardhead appear to prefer warm (greater than 20 degreesCentigrade (68 degrees Fahrenheit)) 

water, but like to have access to deeper, cool water as water temperatures increase throughout the 

summer. Alteration of habitat and streamflow by dams and the introduction of predatory fish (mainly 

bass) have had major impacts on the distribution and abundance of the hardhead. 

The status of hardhead in the Tuolumne River is unclear. There are no records of hardhead from 

above Don Pedro Reservoir, but Moyle (2002) indicates a dramatic population decline following 

impoundment of the Tuolumne River. This indicates the fish was present in the river previously. 

However, streamflow is regulated in the Tuolumne all of the way up to O’Shaughnessy Dam, Dion 

Holm Powerhouse on Cherry Creek, a main tributary to the Tuolumne. Forest Service personnel have 

conducted snorkel surveys of the lower Clavey River and observed schools of large minnows; but, 

hardhead are difficult to differentiate from Sacramento pikeminnow when observed from a distance. 

There is a possibility that hardhead continue to persist in the lower Clavey River, North Fork 

Tuolumne River, and possibly Cherry Creek upstream of Holm Powerhouse. Fish surveys conducted 

on the Tuolumne River upstream of Early Intake have not determined the presence of hardhead in that 

stream reach (personal communication with Mike Horvath, San Francisco Public Utilities 

Commission (Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System, Natural Resources Division).

Expected Post-Fire Watershed Response

Since the Rim Fire affected a large portion of the Tuolumne River watershed, including many of the 

smaller watersheds listed above, the previously forested landscape has been altered sufficiently that 

many of the “normal” watershed processes have been altered, sometimes dramatically. These 

processes include erosion of soil from hillslopes and stream channels, storage and transport of 

sediment in stream channels, stream flow, LWD recruitment, and maintenance of cool or cold water 

temperatures. 

82
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Hillslope erosion is a natural process that typically occurs at very low rates (0.1 to 0.5 tons per acre 

(USDA 2013)) in forested conditions. This rate can increase tremendously in landscapes affected by 

wildfire, sometimes greater than four orders of magnitude (10 to greater than 100 tons per acre). 

Under high soil and vegetation burn severity conditions, very little ground cover is left, soil structure 

is highly altered, and water repellent (hydrophobic) conditions exist in the upper soil layers. Rainfall 

on these high severity conditions can detach individual soil particles and the water repellent 

conditions allow the water to flow across the soil surface rather than soak into the soil. As the water 

moves across the soil, it can erode the soil surface (as sheet, rill, and gully erosion) and transport the 

sediment downslope to streams. Factors that contribute to the extent to which the soil erodes include, 

but are not limited to, soil texture, steepness of hillslope, amount of ground cover, and rainfall 

intensity. 

Given large increases in erosion in the fire area, there will be areas with large volumes of sediment 

delivered to stream channels. Many of the small streams will be drastically altered by this sediment 

with the most obvious change being the streambed covered with fine sediment (the stream is “silted 

in”). Using the recent Bagley Fire on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest as an example, Forest Service 

employees measured sediment depths in excess of one meter (3.3 feet) in some stream channels 

(USDA 2013). While this example is a “worst case scenario” (caused by two uncommonly large 

storm events separated by a short period of time), our observations at one stream in the fire area, 

Skunk Creek, indicated the sediment was 1-2 inches deep following a below average precipitation 

year with relatively low intensity precipitation (to date). When large volumes of sediment are 

delivered to a stream channel, habitat complexity is reduced as pool and run habitats fill in and the 

stream bottom becomes relatively uniform. In larger streams like the Clavey River, extensive 

sedimentation could occur, but major reductions in pool volume are not likely because the energy of 

the streamflow is enough to keep the sediment moving downstream. Post-fire erosion rates can return 

to pre-fire rates within five to ten years.

With the loss of vegetation and leaf duff layer on the ground, the amount of flow in the streams, both 

base flow and peak flow, is generally expected to increase. This is because the trees are no longer 

taking up water through their roots and transpiring that water through their leaves (base flow) and the 

water repellent layers will cause the water to run off of the soil surface without being absorbed into 

the leaf duff layer and soil (peak flow). Peak flows can increase many times over in watersheds with 

extensive high severity burn conditions, especially following periods of high intensity rainfall, or 

rainfall of long duration and large amounts. As the streamflow begins to peak after a heavy rainfall in 

a burned watershed, the channel and streambanks are scoured by the water and the banks are eroded 

away. This is called channel erosion and it can be a significant source of sediment after a fire. With 

the loss of trees and other vegetation transpiring water, base flows can increase several fold 

throughout the year. Exaggerated peak flows (compared to pre-fire) should continue for three to five 

years after the fire, and increased base flows could continue for many decades.

The amount of sediment in the channel that is moved downstream or stored in the channel (and 

floodplains) depends on several factors, primarily streamflow and the gradient, or steepness, of the 

stream. In general, the steeper the stream is, the easier it is to transport the fine sediment downstream. 

Large streamflows have more energy than lesser flows and are capable of moving large quantities of 

sediment. In the five to ten years after the fire, channel conditions should be close to pre-fire 

conditions. 

LWD recruitment generally increases after a fire because fire-killed trees eventually fall. Some of the 

trees fall into streams where they can influence stream morphology by catching sediment upstream of 

the tree and creating pool habitat downstream of the tree. Log jams can effectively trap and store 

large volumes of sediment for very long periods of time (greater than 50 years). The sediment stored 

behind the LWD can become important habitat for many aquatic species. The recruitment of LWD in 

streams is highest in the 10-20 years following a fire.

83
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

Water temperatures generally increase in the post-fire environment. This is largely due to the loss of 

vegetation providing shade to the surface of the water. In heavily forested conditions, very little direct 

sunlight hits the water and cool or cold water temperatures are maintained. When canopy cover is 

lost, stream temperatures can increase five degrees Fahrenheit or more for several years following the 

fire. Obligate riparian vegetation (examples, willow and alders) typically re-grows quickly and 

provides enough shading to be beneficial for maintaining cool and cold water. 

For the FYLF, the impact to aquatic habitat is based on expected post-fire watershed response at 

various watershed scales. The estimates rely on (1) the extent to which a watershed was affected by 

fire, (2) the extent of high and moderate severity fire in a watershed, (3) stream gradient, and (4) 

sediment yield calculations when compared to pre-fire conditions. The Watershed Report (project 

record) provides a general narrative for how the primary watersheds (5th and 6th level HUC) are 

expected to respond in the post-fire environment, and those evaluations were used to put the FYLF 

watersheds into categories of watershed response. 

Three general categories were used for these watersheds: low, moderate, and high post-fire response. 

For the low category, the post-fire watershed responses may not be readily observable at suitable 

breeding sites. The ability to reproduce is considered to be a key factor in maintaining recruitment as 

the watersheds recover, because most populations are small and the loss of a recruitment class could 

have a population-level consequence. In high concern watersheds, major impacts are expected to all 

habitat types, especially significant reduction of pool and other deep water habitat. Deep water 

habitats are refuges and critical to overwintering success and escape from perceived predation 

attempts. In moderate concern habitats, extensive sedimentation of all habitats is expected, but deep 

water habitats should be maintained by the scouring action of water. Table 3.03-6 lists the watersheds 

suitable for FYLF and expected level of watershed response.

Table 3.03-6 Watersheds and streams with suitable habitat for FYLF with watershed response

HUC Level and Name Stream Watershed

Response

5 – Big Creek-Tuolumne River Big Creek Low

 6 – Grapevine Creek-Tuolumne River Tuolumne River, Indian Low

Grapevine Moderate

 6 – Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River Tuolumne River Low

Drew Moderate

Alder, Corral, Jawbone High

5 – North Fork Tuolumne River North Fork Tuolumne River, Basin Low

Hunter Moderate

5 – Clavey River Clavey River Low

 6 – Lower Clavey River Clavey River Low

Unnamed Tributaries 1-5, Adams Gulch, 

Bear Springs, Bull Meadow, Indian Springs, Quilty

High

 6 – Middle Clavey River Clavey River, Cottonwood Low

Russell Moderate

 6 – Reed Creek Reed Creek Low

 7 –Lower Reed Creek Reed Creek Moderate

5 – Cherry Creek Cherry Moderate

 6 – Lower Cherry Creek Granite High

5 – Eleanor Creek Eleanor Creek Moderate

5 – Falls Creek-Tuolumne River Tuolumne River Low

5 – Middle Fork Tuolumne River Middle Fork Tuolumne River Moderate

5 – South Fork Tuolumne River South Fork Tuolumne River Moderate

5 – North Fork Merced River North Fork Merced, Bull, Deer Lick, Moore Creek, Scott Low

84
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

General Effects Common to all Species

Mortality and Injury

The operation of equipment and the falling of trees and removal of trees have the potential to injure or 

kill aquatic organisms, particularly those occupying upland habitats. While most organisms close to 

water would be expected to escape into the water, a typical behavioral response by the FYLF and 

WPT, equipment can run over individuals that fail to flee or are unable to move. 

The application of a registered borate compound to freshly cut stumps is proposed under this 

alternative. The risk assessment prepared for the project indicated only one scenario where a 

threshold would be exceeded and that was for an accidental spill of 25 pounds of the compound into a 

small pond (1,000 cubic meters or 324,000 gallons). Under this condition, the concentration of borate 

compound in the water (1.27 milligrams per liter) would barely exceed the “no observable effects 

concentration” (or NOEC) threshold for amphibians. A similar threshold has not been calculated for 

reptiles (like the WPT) and the NOEC for amphibians was applied to the turtle. As the name implies, 

below this threshold, no observable effects to health or reproduction would occur. If the organism is 

exposed to the spill scenario, the animal could become sick, immobile, or even die. This type of 

exposure scenario is unlikely because workers typically carry five or less pounds of the borate 

compound at a time. However, these species can occupy small pools with less volume than the pond 

modeled, and individuals could have their health compromised or die. If only one or very few 

individuals are affected, this to have an effect on the persistence of any of the populations in the 

project area. This is the extent of discussion of borax application for this analysis.

Physical Disturbance

When equipment is operated or forest workers are close to a stream, they could affect the behavior of 

aquatic organisms that are in the terrestrial environment. The typical response is for the individual to 

flee from the disturbance which would typically involve retreating into the water. The individuals 

typically hide under the streambank, rocks, or logs for up to 30 minutes and then return to the edge of 

the stream. They seek refuge if disturbed again and typically stay submerged longer or move away 

from the disturbance. Physical disturbance may interrupt basking, sleeping, or foraging, thereby 

creating the potential to affect physical well-being. A single instance of disturbance may have 

negligible or no effect on the physiology of an individual, but repeated disturbance has the potential 

to affect the physiological fitness of individuals (Rodriguez-Prieto and Fernandez-Juricic 2005). 

Modification of Habitat

The primary impact to habitat expected from tree removal and road actions is an increase in sediment 

delivery caused by equipment operations on fire-affected soils. The operation of rubber-tired 

skidders, feller-bunchers, and harvesters on fire-impacted soils and in near stream environments can 

result in ground disturbance and soil compaction. Most of the timber harvest units coincide with areas 

of moderate and high burn severity, conditions that are more sensitive to disturbance. These areas 

typically have alterations in soil structure that make them more vulnerable to erosion and lack 

beneficial ground cover which can reduce erosion rates. Robichaud, et al. (2011) found a significant 

increase in sediment production originating from the skid trail network in salvage logged units. 

Increased erosion from the skid trails was attributable to increased compaction from repeated passes 

by equipment and the lack of ground cover on the trails (Robichaud et al. 2011). In general, the 

compaction caused by rubber tired skidders is greater than feller-bunchers or forwarders (Robichaud 

et al. 2011). Further discussion of erosion is in the Watershed and Soils sections of this EIS.

85
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

Habitat modifications caused by excess sediment generally include the reduction of deep water 

habitats (pools and runs), loss of microhabitat complexity, and filling the streambed with fine 

sediment. Pool and run habitats can be filled by excess sediment, especially in low gradient (less than 

2 percent) stream reaches. The energy of water in higher gradient reaches (greater than 5 percent) 

tends to have enough erosive force to keep pools scoured and deep water maintained, but the overall 

pool volume may be reduced in low energy sites as sediment accumulates at the edges and tail of the 

pool. Excess sediment also reduces microhabitat complexity and the spaces between streambed 

substrates by filling the streambed with finer sized sediments (silts and sands). In lower gradient 

streams, the overall depth of the stream is typically reduced as the streambed fills with sediment and 

the water spreads out in a thin layer across this sediment. The loss of the small changes in streambed 

depth reduce microhabitat elements by eliminating velocity refuges and filling the spaces between 

larger substrates (gravel, cobble, and boulder) that are used by some species for breeding, foraging, 

and hiding. The change in streambed also influences the production of aquatic insects that use, 

including very specialized use, microhabitats in otherwise unimpaired streams. Aquatic insects play 

key roles in the breakdown of organic matter entering streams, nutrient cycling, and as sources of 

food for many aquatic and terrestrial species.

The recovery of fire-killed timber near streams would reduce the amount of LWD falling into the 

stream or onto the floodplain. LWD plays very important roles in the development of habitat 

complexity and sediment retention in a stream (USDA 1988; Montgomery et al. 1996; May and 

Gresswell 2003). Salvage logging tends to remove the largest trees because they have higher value, 

but the large pieces tend to decay slower and be retained longer. It may take several centuries (greater 

than 300 years) for some portions of the forest to regrow large trees. 

California Red-legged Frog

Effects to Individuals

Because the CRLF has not been detected in the project vicinity since 1927, has not been detected on 

the Forest since 1967, and is considered extirpated from the Tuolumne River watershed by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2002) the risk of injury, mortality, or behavioral disturbance to 

individual CRLF from the actions proposed under Alternative 1 is low. However, since occupancy 

cannot be absolutely ruled out, possible effects to individuals may occur. 

Tree Felling and Removal

Breeding and Non-breeding Aquatic Habitat: The amount of suitable breeding habitat within 1 

mile of project activities is very limited (9.47 miles of stream and 8.87 acres of pond habitat). No 

project activity overlaps with a suitable breeding stream and only one 0.17 acre breeding pond 

(Homestead Pond) representing only 1.92 percent of the suitable pond breeding habitat available in 

the project area (Table 3.03-7). Additionally, there are 332.8 miles of non-breeding stream habitat 

available although only 60.5 miles (18 percent) are perennial or intermittent. Project activities 

proposed under Alternative 1 overlap with only 2 percent of the available CRLF non-breeding 

perennial and intermittent streams (Table 3.03-7). Management requirements are proposed that would 

reduce the risk of harm to individuals: (1) directional felling of trees within RCAs away from stream 

channels and Special Aquatic Features, (2) excluding ground based mechanical equipment within 15 

feet of water bodies, (3) implementing a 30 foot no cut and no equipment buffer around Homestead 

Pond (breeding), a portion of the Middle Fork Tuolumne River (non-breeding) and the unnamed 

stream flowing out of Birch Lake (non-breeding), and (4) prohibiting mechanical operations within 1 

mile of suitable CRLF breeding habitat during the wet season (when CRLF are most likely to be 

present in non-breeding habitats). Because CRLF should be found very close (less than 16 feet) from 

water (Tatarian 2008) the exclusion of ground based mechanical equipment within 15 feet of water 

bodies would reduce risk to an individual frog. 

86
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Despite these management requirements, a frog, if present, could be disturbed by personnel and 

equipment in the vicinity of the aquatic habitats provoking an individual to avoid the threat and seek 

cover. A period of time would elapse before that individual would resume pre-disturbance behavior. 

The frog may spend less time feeding, resting, or breeding, and therefore result in a short term change 

in their energy budget. If an individual is repeatedly disturbed in an area, they may avoid the area, 

essentially being temporarily displaced from their habitat. Prolonged changes to an individual’s 

energy budget or displacement from its habitat may impact an individual’s fitness (Rodriguez-Prieto 

and Fernandez-Juricic 2005) or make them more susceptible to predation. However, the period of 

project related disturbances in any given area is expected to be 1 to 3 days which would not have a 

long lasting or measurable effect to an individual’s fitness or impact the population size or 

persistence. 

Table 3.03-7 CRLF and SNYLF direct and indirect effect indicators for each alternative

Indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

California red-legged frog

Miles of stream or acres of pond of occupied breeding habitat 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

Miles or acres of occupied non-breeding aquatic habitat 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

Acres of occupied upland habitat 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

Miles of breeding stream within units/hazard tree 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

Acres of breeding ponds within units/ hazard tree 0.17(1.92) 0(0) 0.12(1.35) 0.12(1.35)

Number of road treatment intersections with breeding stream in analysis 

area 0 0 0 0 

Miles of perennial and intermittent non-breeding aquatic habitat within units/hazard tree

 Perennial, Intermittent, and Ephemeral 33.33(10.01) 0(0) 29.52(8.87) 29.52(8.87)

 Perennial and Intermittent 6.65(2.00) 0(0) 5.80(1.71) 5.80(1.71)

Number of perennial and intermittent non-breeding stream

intersections with road treatments in analysis area 4 0 17 17

Acres of upland habitat within units/hazard tree treatments 2,680(12.41) 0.0(0) 2,467(11.43) 2,467(11.43)

Miles of road treatment within upland habitat buffer 9.11 0.0(0) 46.63 46.63

 Maintenance 0.0 0.0(0) 36.75 36.75

 Reconstruction 8.16 0.0(0) 8.30 8.30

 Temporary 0.95 0.0(0) 1.59 1.59

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

Miles of stream or acres of pond of occupied breeding/non-breeding

aquatic habitat in analysis or project area 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

Miles of breeding /non-breeding stream within units/hazard tree 6.25(8.63) 0(0) 6.13(8.47) 5.38(7.43)

Acres of breeding/non-breeding pond within units/hazard tree 1.28(4.93) 0(0) 0(0) 0.74(2.90)

Number of breeding and non-breeding stream intersections with 

road treatments in analysis area 5 0 9 9 

Acre of upland habitat within units/hazard tree treatments 248.91(11.50) 0(0) 246.18(11.42) 163.73(7.60)

Miles of road treatment within upland habitat buffer 1.21 0.0(0) 1.69 1.69

 Maintenance 0.0 0.0(0) 0.38 0.53

 Reconstruction 1.21 0.0(0) 1.31 1.16

Percent values are included in parenthesis and represent the percent of the total in the Rim Fire perimeter.

Upland Habitat: Although there may be a slightly more elevated risk of injury, mortality, or 

behavioral disturbance for individuals while in the upland habitat the risk is still considered to be low. 

Table 3.03-7 shows project activities are proposed to occur on only 12.41 percent of the total upland 

habitat under Alternative 1. The greatest amount of project activities will occur in the upland habitat 

associated with Birch and Mud Lakes, where 28 percent of the available upland overlaps with project 

activities proposed in Alternative1 as stated in Table 3.03-18. Because CRLF have a close affinity to 

water during the summer months (dry season) they are unlikely to be found in the upland habitat 

during this time. They are more likely to be found in, and make movements to and from, upland 

habitats from the first fall rain through April (Bulger et al. 2003; Fellers and Kleeman 2007; Tatarian 

2008). Because the majority of project activities will occur during the dry season and a limited 

87
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

operating period restricting mechanical operations within the upland habitat would be applied during 

the wet season, the risk of injury, mortality, or behavioral disturbance to CRLF in these habitats is 

negligible.

Burn Piles

Individuals that may have taken refuge in burn piles could be killed, injured, or disturbed if they are 

still present when piles are ignited. Management requirements would reduce the risk to individual 

CRLF by not permitting piles within the zone of most expected movements (i.e., a minimum of 50 

feet from perennial and intermittent streams and SAF and a minimum of 100 feet from CRLF 

breeding and perennial and intermittent non-breeding aquatic habitats). Tartarian (2008) found that 

longer duration upland habitat use by CRLF occurred in close proximity (less than 80 feet) to streams. 

Requiring ignition of burn piles on only one side would further reduce the risk to individuals by 

giving them a way to exit the pile. 

Road Treatments

Because the roads and their treatments are included in the existing road prism, an increased risk of 

injury, mortality, or behavioral disturbance to the CRLF is not expected to be greater than those 

occurring under normal uses and operations of these routes.

Water Drafting

The required use of drafting boxes with low entry velocity pumps would greatly reduce the risk of 

injuring or killing individual CRLF. 

Effects to Habitats

Increases in Sediment

Increases in sediment to an aquatic system could increase turbidity, reduce pool volume, fill 

interstitial spaces in substrates that can be used as refuge, and impact egg deposition sites making egg 

masses more susceptible to being washed downstream. Very large amounts of sediment could 

decrease the volume of preferred pool habitats which could reduce the habitat’s suitability by 

increasing the potential for drying out during late summer. For these reasons, the CRLF breeding and 

non-breeding aquatic habitats may experience a reduction in both habitat quality and quantity if the 

habitats experience an increase in sediment and subsequently adversely affect their ability to complete 

their life cycle. As stated in the Rim Watershed Report, increases in post-fire sediment production are 

so elevated that identifying any additional effects of salvage logging on sedimentation is minimal. 

Tractor skidding and road treatments have the greatest potential to result in sediment generating 

ground disturbance during logging operations. The combination of exclusion zones and the retention 

or augmentation of ground cover is intended to leave an adequate buffer for assimilating most 

sediment that may come from soil disturbance caused by log retrieval. In addition, BMPs and 

management requirements have been demonstrated to be effective at preventing sediment from 

reaching streams during timber harvest of live trees (USDA 2007; USDA 2008a; USDA 2009; USDA 

2010). In the context of existing CRLF aquatic habitat conditions, sediment related effects of the 

project are expected to range in magnitude and be of a quantity that will not be meaningfully 

compared to the sediments generated by the effects of the Rim Fire (Table 3.03-3 and Table 3.03-19). 

Increased sedimentation from road maintenance activities is expected to be negligible. Over a longer 

time period (5-10 years) these road treatments would likely reduce sedimentation by shortening 

hydrologically connected segments, reducing the risk of culvert failure, and increasing surface 

infiltration and surface cover. 

Breeding and Non-breeding Aquatic Habitat: Sediment levels are expected to increase post-fire 

regardless of the implementation of any proposed actions (Table 3.03-3 and Table 3.03-19). Postimplementation levels within suitable breeding habitats are predicted to result in a reduction, no 

88
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

measurable change, or a further increase in sediment depths as compared to post-fire (existing 

condition) values (Table 3.03-3 and Table 3.03-19). The maximum predicted change when compared 

to post-fire values is an increase of 0.15 inch (Table 3.03-19) which will not change the habitat 

suitability any more than the sediment generated by the Rim Fire. 

High quality CRLF non-breeding aquatic habitat includes areas that are moist year round and offer 

dense vegetation or other protection from predators. In moderate to high burn severity areas, the nonbreeding habitat suitability is generally low in quantity and quality, due to limited intermittent and 

perennial water and a lack of riparian cover to prevent predation. An increase in sediment depth may 

cause a further reduction in habitat suitability, but it would be expected to be minor and localized. 

Large Woody Debris 

In aquatic habitats downed logs can provide important habitat for aquatic organisms and can be an 

important component of overall stream morphology and functioning (Bisson et al. 1987; Sedell et al. 

1988) and may affect sediment distribution, pool formation, and the biological community 

composition. Of the roughly 250,000 acres burned during the Rim Fire, post-fire salvage logging is 

proposed to occur on less than 28,500 acres (11.4 percent of the landscape). The management 

requirements proposed as part of Alternative 1 would ensure adequate cover and future LWD

recruitment to both aquatic and upland habitats within salvage units. Furthermore, in most streams, 

localized deficiencies of LWD in harvest units should be balanced by upstream unharvested burned 

areas where woody debris recruitment is expected to increase significantly as fire killed trees fall into 

the channel. 

Breeding and Non-breeding Aquatic Habitat: No salvage, hazard tree abatement or road treatments 

are proposed within or adjacent to suitable breeding habitat and no losses of LWD are expected.

Table 3.03-7 shows the extent to which CRLF non-breeding aquatic habitat overlaps proposed project 

activities (2 percent).Any reductions in woody debris recruitment would be highly localized and 

would not have a measurable impact on habitat suitability. 

Upland Habitat: Ground disturbing activities in the upland habitat may affect burrows or other 

structures commonly used by amphibians for cover such as down trees (Ford et al. 2013). The 

riparian exclusion zones may help mitigate these risks.

Downed logs can be a preferred suitable refuge for CRLF (Tatarian 2008) and removal of trees that 

would have eventually fallen to the ground will result in a lesser quantity of downed logs than if no 

action were taken. Implementation of management requirements, abundant downed wood outside of 

units and future recruitment from low to moderate burn severity areas ensures future LWD across the 

landscape.

Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog

Effects to Individuals

Despite extensive surveys of water bodies and suitable habitats no SNYLF have been found within 

the Rim Fire perimeter making the risk of injury, mortality, or behavioral disturbance to individual 

SNYLF from the proposed actions low. Because occupancy cannot be absolutely ruled out, possible 

effects to individuals are considered. 

Tree Felling and Removal

Breeding and Non-breeding Aquatic Habitat: Proposed activities overlap only 6.25 miles of stream 

and 1.28 acres of pond habitat (Table 3.03-7). This equals 8.63 percent and 4.93 percent of the total 

available habitat in the project area. The potential risk is greatest at Little Kibbie and Big Kibbie 

Ponds, Bear Creek, Niagara Creek, Richards Creek, and White Fir Creek where greater than 50 

percent of each of habitat overlap with project activities (Table 3.03-18). SNYLF are highly aquatic 

and rarely found greater than 4 feet from water when available. The project management 

89
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

requirements should ensure the injury, mortality, or behavioral disturbance risk to individual SNYLF 

is low. Furthermore, surveys at Looney Creek, the only potentially suitable habitat in the analysis area 

not surveyed, would be completed before project implementation and an 82-foot no-cut buffer would 

be applied if SNYLF were detected at any site. Despite the high overlap in a few sites, the risk of 

injury or mortality to individuals while in breeding or non-breeding aquatic habitat is low. 

Despite the proposed management requirements, a frog, if present, could be disturbed by personnel or 

equipment in the vicinity of the aquatic habitats. Similar to the reasons described for the CRLF; 

however, no measurable effect to individual SNYLF would occur. 

Upland Habitat: Although a slightly more elevated risk of injury, mortality, or behavioral disturbance 

for individual SNYLF exists in the upland habitat, the risk is still considered to be low. Project 

activities would occur on 11.55 percent of the total upland habitat (Table 3.03-7). However, overland 

movements are rare. While SNYLF are rarely found greater than 4 feet from water, they will disperse 

between sites if located within close proximity to one another (generally less than 984 feet). Thus, 

SNYLF are most likely to be found in the upland habitat between Little Kibbie and Big Kibbie Ponds 

as they are only 410 feet from one another (all other habitats are greater than 3,280 feet apart). If 

dispersal were to occur between the two ponds during project implementation, individual SNYLF 

could be injured, killed, or disturbed. The management requirement prohibiting operations within 300 

feet of Little Kibbie Pond between March 1 and June 1 is designed to mitigate this risk. 

Burn Piles

SNYLF hiding in burn piles could be killed, injured, or disturbed if they are present when piles are 

ignited. Requiring burn piles to be located a minimum of 50 feet from perennial and intermittent 

streams and other SAF would successfully mitigate this risk. 

Road Treatments

Road reconstruction treatments (1.21 miles) are proposed in Alternative 1 within the SNYLF upland 

habitat buffers (i.e., 82 feet from stream banks and 984 feet from ponds). Because these roads already 

exist and are utilized, it is unlikely activities would create a greater risk to individual SNYLF than 

those already occurring under normal uses and maintenance of these routes. 

Water Drafting 

Same as CRLF. 

Effects to Habitats

SNYLF habitats have a higher risk of being directly impacted by project activities than CRLF

because of the greater overlap with both suitable breeding and non-breeding aquatic and upland 

habitats (Table 3.03-7 and Table 3.03-18). The following management requirements would 

successfully mitigate the potential for project activities to directly impact SNLYF habitats: (1) 

directional felling of trees within RCAs away from stream channels and other SAFs, (2) excluding 

ground based mechanical equipment within 15 feet of water bodies, (3) prohibiting skidding within 

50 feet of perennial and intermittent aquatic features, (4) increasing the ground based mechanical 

exclusion zone to 100 feet along portions of Bear Creek and Jawbone Creek that burned at high 

severity with slopes between 25 and 35 percent and lengths greater than 100 feet, and (5) the 

mechanical exclusion zone around Little Kibbie Pond described previously. A larger portion of the 

breeding and non-breeding habitats would be impacted by the proposed actions as compared to those 

of the CRLF, making them more susceptible to increases in sediment loads in aquatic habitats and 

potentially habitat degrading reductions in LWD. 

Increases in Sediment 

Breeding and Non-breeding Aquatic Habitat: As discussed for CRLF habitats, sediment levels in 

SNYLF aquatic habitats are expected to increase post-fire regardless of the implementation of 

90
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1. Sediment generated by the implementation of Alternative 1 would neither benefit or 

further degrade SNYLF aquatic habitat suitability because post-fire increases in sediment depth are 

anticipated to be high (Table 3.03-3 and Table 3.03-19) and the differences in the estimated sediment 

depths calculated for the implementation of Alternative 1 would vary marginally from post-fire 

estimates (Table 3.03-19),. 

Large Woody Debris 

Breeding and Non-breeding Aquatic Habitat: The importance of LWD to SNYLF is not well 

documented, but woody debris may provide cover from predators (Federal Register 2013a) and may 

promote formation of pools suitable for breeding. The proportion of stream and ponds with suitable 

breeding and non-breeding aquatic habitat within proposed treatment units is only 8.63 percent of the 

stream lengths and 4.93 percent of the pond area compared to the total amount available in the project 

area. A reduction in LWD recruitment would be limited to those areas in which project activities 

occur. As discussed in the CRLF LWD section (including the listed project management 

requirements), localized reductions of LWD would not alter recruitment to the degree where habitat 

suitability of SNYLF breeding and non-breeding aquatic habitats would be degraded. 

Upland Habitat: Habitat criteria for SNYLF described by the USFWS (Federal Register 2013b) state 

that the canopy overstory within the upland should be sufficiently thin and not generally exceeding 85 

percent to allow sunlight to reach the aquatic habitat and provide basking areas. In some areas the fire 

reduced canopy cover and provided this localized beneficial effect for the SNYLF. However, a 

reduction in canopy cover and LWD could lead to increased air and soil temperatures and hence a less 

suitable habitat because amphibians require cool, moist and stable microclimates to maintain their 

respiratory physiology. Furthermore, if SNYLF utilized down woody debris for refuge and moisture, 

a reduction of LWD could make SNYLF more susceptible to predation and desiccation. The potential 

for a reduction in LWD diminishing SNYLF upland habitat suitability is expected to be minor and not 

detrimentally affect their overall survivorship. 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog

Salvage and Roadside Hazard Tree Removal

There is no potential for direct effects to the FYLF in the following occupied locations: Basin, Drew, 

Grapevine, and Hunter Creeks, and North Fork Tuolumne and main Tuolumne Rivers. Proposed 

activity location relative to the potential habitat in the creek channel and Table 3.03-8 show no project 

related activity (hazard tree removal, salvage, or road treatments) is in close proximity to any of these 

six streams occupied by the frog. There is no potential for direct effect at the following streams 

providing suitable habitat for the FYLF: Adams, Alder, Bear Springs, Quilty and Russell Creeks, and 

Unnamed Clavey Tributary 2. No project activities would occur in close proximity to the streams 

which negates the potential for direct effect.

Based on the limited amount of habitat affected by project activities, there is a very low risk of direct 

effect to occupied sites because there is very little project activity within the 30-meter buffers (Table 

3.03-8). These occupied sites include Bull, Bull Meadow, Drew, Grapevine, and Moore Creeks, and 

the Clavey and North Fork Merced Rivers. The hazard tree areas and roads are at the upper 

headwaters of Bull, Drew, Grapevine, and Moore Creeks and the North Fork Merced River. Even 

though these streams were buffered as suitable habitat, there is a negligible chance of occupancy. 

Within Bull Meadow Creek watershed, salvage unit L206, a plantation from the 1987 fire, is a 

proposed deer forage unit. A review of the post-fire aerial imagery indicates low mortality of trees 

along the stream. A road on the east side of the stream would have hazard trees removed, but imagery 

indicates limited mortality between the stream and road. Only roadside hazard tree removal would 

occur along 1N01 at the bridge crossing of the Clavey River. This is outside of the merchantable 

conifer elevation and the hazard trees are likely to be oaks. If the oaks are cut down the steep bank, 

there is a very low chance that they could fall to the river over 100 feet away and directly affect an 

91
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

individual frog. Furthermore, this is considered to be an unlikely occurrence as the fallers would 

likely leave the tree close to the road for firewood. The river is far below the road and there is a 

negligible chance for physical disturbance unless the tree falls down to the river.

Table 3.03-8 Watershed area, buffers and road treatments in FYLF suitable habitat in Alternative 1

Watershed (5th 

level HUC) Stream

Percent 

FYLF

Watershed

Treated

FYLF Buffer Affected

(acres)

Road Treatments

(miles)

Hazard 

Tree Salvage Percent of total Reconstruct Maintain New Temp

Tuolumne River

Tuolumne River

Alder Cr. 10 5 0 4 0.8 2.5 0 0

Corral Cr. 58 2 81 35 14.8 5 0.5 0

Drew Cr. 12 12 0.4 11 0.5 4.5 0.1 1.1

Grapevine Cr. 18 29 0 11 0.7 17.4 0 0

Indian Cr. 2 1 0 less than 1 0 2.2 0 0

Jawbone Cr. 25 5 46 14 18.5 8.8 0.2 3.4

Middle Fork 

Tuolumne River

Middle Fork 

Tuolumne River 17 22 255 46 58.3 12.5 0 5.3

North Fork 

Tuolumne River

North Fork 

Tuolumne River 2 0 0 0 0.4 22.7 0 0

Basin Cr. 1 0 0 0 0.4 2.1 0 0

Hunter Cr. 9 0 0 0 0 19.9 0 0

South Fork 

Tuolumne River

South Fork 

Tuolumne River 38 30 140 24 76.6 26.8 1.6 2.7

Cherry Creek

Cherry Cr. 11 8 67 18 34.6 9.9 0 1.0

Eleanor Cr. 1 0 12 22 2.5 0 0 0

Granite Cr. 27 2 50 36 12.4 1.1 0 0.1

Clavey River

Clavey River

Reed Cr. 20 1 49 49 25.4 17.8 0.2 2.2

Adams Gulch 18 0 0 0 1.6 1.4 0 0

Bear Springs Cr. 18 9 0.1 20 10 0.7 0 0

Bull Meadow Cr. 36 5 1 8 3.9 0.7 0 0.8

Indian Springs Cr. 19 3 2 25 1.4 0.1 0 0

Quilty Cr. 5 0 0 0 0.1 1.1 0 0

Unnamed Trib 1 16 3 0 8 0 2.9 0 0

Unnamed Trib 2 24 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0

Unnamed Trib 3 69 0 26 46 11 0 0 0

Unnamed Trib 4 43 3 0 13 2 1.7 0 0

Unnamed Trib 5 43 7 8 37 2.2 2.7 0 0

Cottonwood Cr. 31 0 3 5 21.4 7.2 0 0

Russell Cr. 30 0 0 0 2.2 1 0 0

North Fork Merced 

River

North Fork Merced 

River 2 22 18 less than 0.1 11.6 11.8 0 0.3

Bull Cr. 2 5 0 less than 

0.1 0.5 5.5 0 0

Deer Lick Cr. 8 4 13 7 3.4 2.3 0 0.2

Moore Cr. 4 5 5 3 1.6 4.1 0 1

Scott Cr. 22 2 0 8 3.6 3.4 0 0

Direct effects would be a low risk at the following streams (occupancy unknown) because of the 

limited amount of activity within the buffer as shown in Table 3.03-8 or the hazard tree and salvage 

actions would occur along stream segments with very low habitat suitability. These streams include 

Cottonwood, Deer Lick, Eleanor, and Indian Creeks, and Clavey River Tributaries 1, 4, and 5. At 

Deer Lick Creek and Clavey River Tributaries 1 and 5, the roadside hazard tree and salvage units are 

at the upper headwaters of the streams and habitat suitability is very low if at all suitable. For Clavey 

River Tributary 4 and Indian Creek, aerial imagery shows very little mortality to conifers at the road 

92
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

crossing. Independently, the very low suitability habitat and low number of dead trees make the risk 

of a direct effect occurring very low.

A moderate risk could occur to individuals at the following locations: Cherry and Indian Springs 

Creeks. Table 3.03-8 shows 75 acres of salvage actions in the Cherry Creek watershed, but 52 acres 

alone are in Granite Creek which is discussed immediately below. The 23 acres of buffer treated is at 

the upper elevation limit established for the frog; therefore, the potential for occupancy is very low, 

especially in a relatively large stream like Cherry Creek. The level of activity in the buffer does pose 

a risk for injury, disturbance or mortality in these helicopter salvage units (O3, O6, O7 and P201), but 

the risk may be slightly lower because ground-based equipment would not operate in the units. 

Within Indian Springs watershed, a salvage unit runs along the north side of the creek at a distance of 

1,200 feet. This site has known occupancy by FYLF and low numbers of frogs disperse from the 

Clavey River breeding sites to this stream. Direct effects to individuals are plausible at Indian 

Springs. A management requirement mitigates some of the direct effects (injury and mortality) by 

having timber directionally felled away from the stream. Physical disturbance is probably the most 

likely effect to individuals and the disturbance could last up to three weeks at the 11-acre unit. Due to 

the almost complete tree mortality in this unit, it is likely that there would be only one salvage entry.

A high risk of direct effect to individual FYLF could occur for the following streams: Corral, 

Granite, Jawbone, Reed, Middle and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers. The level of risk is simply 

associated with the amount of activity within FYLF buffers (Table 3.03-8). Due to the high levels of 

activity close to streams, the risk of injury, mortality, and physical disturbance would increase. 

Although there is a management requirement to directionally fall trees away from the stream to limit 

injury/mortality, a considerable amount of machinery would operate in close proximity to the streams. 

The occupancy status of these six streams is unknown, but occupancy is assumed to occur in order to 

allow for disclosure of impact. If individuals are killed, a minor impact to population status could 

occur because all populations are assumed to be small. The number of reproducing individuals could 

be decreased for up to two years at the localized breeding site scale. The elevated risk of individual 

mortality would not be likely to result in a localized extinction of a population or subpopulation. The 

likely outcome of this extensive operation close to streams is increased physical disturbance 

associated with equipment and forest workers in close proximity to the streams. As with Indian 

Springs, the disturbance could last up to four weeks (likely 2 to 3). Repeated disturbance could affect 

basking or foraging and/or increased stress, with a low to moderate risk of temporarily reducing 

physiological fitness (body condition). 

The primary anticipated indirect effect is the increase of sediment delivery to the streams following 

roadside hazard abatement and salvage logging. Of the two activities, salvaging is assumed to have 

the greater potential effect because it would generate a larger skid trail network than the area 

immediately within the 200-foot hazard tree buffer along roads. Skid trails tend to yield greater 

quantities of sediment than undisturbed areas and yield increased sediment for a longer period of time 

(Robichaud et al. 2011). The longer duration of erosion from skid trails is due to the machinery 

created disturbance negatively affecting the recovery of ground cover, especially vegetation, on the 

trails (Robichaud et al. 2011). 

The extent of salvaging in a watershed was the basis for estimating the potential for increased 

sediment and is represented as proportion of watershed area treated in Table 3.03-8. Additional 

consideration was given to the amount of buffer treated. The closer the activity is to a stream, the 

shorter the distance for runoff to travel, and the greater the likelihood that sediment is delivered to the 

stream. The logging system proposed (tractor, skyline, helicopter) in an affected watershed was also 

considered because helicopter logging results in much less ground disturbance than ground-based 

logging. The lower levels of ground disturbance translate into lower erosion rates and less sediment 

routed to streams. A longer discussion of anticipated erosion effects from salvage logging is provided 

in the Soils and Watershed Chapters. The risk categories follow those used for direct effects and are 

93
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

low, moderate, and high. It should be noted that erosion and sediment modeling was completed for 

post-fire and post-project implementation for each alternative and this modeling showed very little 

difference in erosion rates or sediment yield. The modeling indicated broad scale decreases in erosion 

rates that were attributable to increased ground cover from salvage logging in high soil burn severity 

units (non-merchantable material is left behind).

For streams in the low category (less than 15 percent of watershed area affected), there would be 

negligible to very minor increases in fine sediments. These fine sediments would mainly affect slow 

water habitats found in low gradient reaches (less than 2 percent), along the margins of the stream, 

and in pools. In these watersheds, it may not be possible to differentiate between post-fire erosion and 

treatment related sediment. This type of habitat impact would not affect habitat suitability for any life 

stage or the ability of a FYLF population to persist. Streams in the low category include Alder, Basin, 

Cherry, Deer Lick, Eleanor, Hunter, Indian, Moore, and Quilty Creeks and the Clavey, Tuolumne, 

and North Fork Merced Rivers. 

In the moderate category (15-25 percent of watershed area affected), there would be minor increases 

in sediment from treated areas. For some reaches in the affected watersheds, it would be possible to 

differentiate the project related sediment from the post-fire erosion and the spatial extent of the effect 

on habitat would be localized (up to several hundred square feet below the deposition point). At the 

smaller reach scale (small streams within a watershed), there could be moderate levels of sediment 

affecting pool volume or reducing other deeper water habitats (less than 50 percent reduction in 

volume), but adequate depth should be maintained for individuals needing refuge habitat. Breeding 

habitat in larger streams could have detectable increases in sediment, but there should be limited 

impairment of the capability of the habitat to allow for eggmass to tadpole to metamorphosis 

development. The primary observable change in habitat at breeding sites would be a reduction in the 

spaces between larger stream substrates which would reduce the abundance and availability of escape 

habitat. Also, the increase in fine sediments could partially cover large substrates (large gravel to 

cobble sized) and limit the amount of foraging habitat on the substrates (tadpoles scrape or suck algae 

from the surface of rocks). There would be a discountable to minor effect on adult and sub-adult 

habitat in general aquatic habitat because the small amounts of sediment would not substantially 

reduce habitat suitability. Adult and sub-adults would still have ample deep water habitat to escape a 

perceived predation attempt. Streams in the moderate category include Adams, Bear Springs, Clavey 

River Tributaries 1 and 2, Drew, Grapevine, Indian Springs, and Scott Creek, and the Middle and 

North Fork Tuolumne Rivers. 

For the remaining streams (Bull Meadow, Clavey River Tributaries 3-5, Corral, Cottonwood, Granite, 

Jawbone, Reed, and Russell Creeks and the South Fork Tuolumne River) there would generally be 

minor sedimentation at the stream scale and moderate sedimentation of localized habitats. Moderate 

impact at the local scale would mean a less than 30 percent reduction in volume of deep water 

habitats, widespread streambed sedimentation (less than 1 inch deep), and temporary reduction of 

shallow water habitats. Small, low gradient streams would see the greatest level of impact, while 

higher gradient sections of larger streams would effectively transport this sediment. The effective 

transport of sediment from some stream reaches would insure the availability of patches of high 

suitability habitat.

For the moderate and high watershed response categories, the duration of increased project-related 

sediment would be one to two years, and it may be difficult to differentiate between the post-fire 

erosion and the treatment related sediment at a watershed scale in the second year. Any repeated 

entries to remove additional dead material would not be expected to generate detectable sediment 

because there would be a limited skid trail network and few equipment passes on the skid trails 

limiting the extent of compaction.

94
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Road Treatments

The proposed action would include several types of road management activities including 

maintenance and reconstruction. All action alternatives would propose the construction of new and 

temporary roads to access salvage units. These actions and activities are further detailed in the 

Transportation Chapter of this document. 

Table 3.03-8 shows the types and mileage of road system related actions proposed under this 

alternative. Several factors determine the extent to which the road actions could affect aquatic 

habitats, including, but not limited to, the degree of connectivity to a stream or drainage network, 

approach angle of the road near the stream, spacing of water diversion structures, level of outsloping 

of the road surface, erodibility of the road surface (soil type), and road surface type. Given the short 

timeframe allowed for the preparation of this document, extensive field review of the road-stream 

connectivity was not possible. As such, this analysis lacks site-specificity and instead relies on a 

generalized approach using the (1) amount of activity in close proximity to streams and (2) total 

number of miles of road treated in each watershed. A miles per acre calculation was considered for 

analysis, but this type of simple averaging was not considered to be an accurate indicator of potential 

effect because road density (and thus, treatment intensity) varied considerably in any given 

watershed. The FYLF buffer (30 meters) was used as an indicator of road activity close to streams 

which includes the road surface area most likely to deliver sediment directly to a stream. The 

exceptions to this rule were the new and temporary road construction actions. 

Road maintenance and reconstruction are similar treatments, but reconstruction typically includes a 

major reworking of the road surface and can include actions outside of the existing road prism. Both 

activities include the reworking of the road surface, typically with a road grader or other machine 

with a blade. This action loosens the compaction of the road surface and makes more fine sediment 

available to erosion via dust and rain runoff (Coe 2006, Stafford 2011). Stafford (2011) indicated a 

fairly high rate of connectivity between roads and the stream network; 11-30 percent of roads were 

connected hydrologically to a stream. Reconstruction and maintenance actions are primarily intended 

to facilitate vehicle use, but limiting hydrologic connectivity to streams is another important aspect of 

these treatments. Outsloping roads and installing effective water diversion structures can have long 

term benefits to aquatic systems by reducing the amount of sediment delivered from the road. So, 

there is a tradeoff for streams with road treatments with increased sediment delivery in the short term 

(1-2 years) and decreased delivery in the long term (greater than 2 years). Since the road treatments 

would occur prior to or during salvage operations in a unit, the sediment from the roads would be 

expected to combine with sediment generated from salvaging for up to two years. 

Relatively little to no road-related sediment would be expected in the following FYLF watersheds: 

Adams, Alder, Basin, Bull, Clavey Tributaries 1, 2, and 4, Deer Lick, Eleanor, Indian, Indian Springs, 

Moore, Quilty, Russell, and Scott Creeks, and the North Fork Merced and Tuolumne Rivers. 

Sediment from maintenance and reconstruction should have no detectable effect on any habitat 

required by the FYLF. Minor amounts of road treatment related sediment would be expected in Bear 

Springs, Bull Meadow, Clavey Tributary 3, Cottonwood, Granite, Grapevine, Hunter, and Jawbone 

Creeks. Effects would be primarily localized and noticeable downstream of road crossings, and, 

depending on stream size and gradient at the crossing, could affect and area of less than 10 square feet 

to 100 square feet. In the remaining streams (Cherry, Clavey Tributary 5, Drew, and Reed Creeks and 

Middle and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers), there would be more areas with localized effects, 

especially in smaller tributaries. In all the rivers (Clavey, Tuolumne, Middle, North and South Fork 

Tuolumne Rivers, and Cherry Creek), sediment from the roads may not be detectable after the first 

year following road improvement and is unlikely to impair any biological function at these large 

watershed scales.

Corral Creek and the South Fork Tuolumne River have the most new road construction. The segment 

of new road in the Corral Creek watershed would cross the creek in the uppermost portion of the 

95
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

watershed and would require the installation of a culvert. Sediment would be anticipated from this 

crossing and persist for two years as the fill compacts and vegetation grows on the bare ground. Also, 

excavating the channel to place the culvert would generate sediment. The sediment from the fill and 

channel disturbance would be detectable for about 100 feet downstream. This section of stream does 

not provide suitable habitat for the FYLF, and the overall gradient of the channel indicates a high 

potential for this sediment to be transported out of the system within two or three years. The new road 

construction in the South Fork watershed would occur in upper watershed of Rush Creek. The road 

does not appear to cross any perennial or intermittent streams and could have very limited impact on 

Rush Creek. Because this stream is above the elevation range of the species on the Stanislaus, it is 

unlikely that habitat for FYLF downstream in the South Fork would have a measurable impact on 

suitability.

Water Sources and Rock Quarries

Water sources used for the road management activities and logging have management requirements 

that would result in minimal adverse direct and indirect effects to the FYLF. Rock pits are not located 

in or in close proximity to FYLF habitat, so no direct or indirect effects to the FYLF are expected to 

occur. 

Fuels Treatments

Fuels treatments are proposed for the roadside and salvage units to reduce fuel loading created by 

non-merchantable tree material. This post-salvage material would be piled by hand or machine 

(bulldozer or grapple). Hand piling does not create any ground disturbance and erosion would not be 

expected in areas treated in this manner. Dozer piling has the potential for the greatest amount of 

ground disturbance and erosion. Since the extent of this activity would only occur in the salvage and 

hazard tree units, the categories of watershed concern relate directly to erosion related to dozer piling. 

Erosion from the machine treated units would be detectable primarily in the moderate and high 

response watersheds, with slight impairment of FYLF habitat in the moderate response watersheds 

and minor, localized impairment of habitat in the high response watersheds. 

The proposed treatments (salvage, roadside hazard, road improvement and construction) would have 

little impact on stream shading or the recovery of obligate riparian vegetation. The trees that would be 

removed are dead and no longer provide much shade to the stream surface. The actions to remove the 

dead trees would have little or no reduction in shading. The relative importance of shading to the frog 

is largely unknown, but as discussed earlier, a mix of shaded conditions is likely optimal for 

thermoregulation. The recovery of obligate woody riparian vegetation is unlikely to be significantly 

hindered by salvage and hazard tree removal because equipment would not be operating within the 

typically narrow riparian zone. The resprouting riparian vegetation may be damaged by falling trees, 

but further resprouting would limit the duration of this impact to less than a year. 

The removal of dead trees in riparian areas has the potential to reduce the availability of LWD that 

falls into the stream or riparian area. While the importance of LWD to FYLF is unstudied, the general 

role and function of LWD in creating habitat complexity in a stream may be important to the frog. 

Therefore, this habitat element could be affected (reduced) by logging. There are requirements for 

recruiting the largest trees in salvage units that would potentially mitigate the overall reduction in 

recruitment. However, this is considered to be a minimal amount of retention (5 trees per acre) and 

there would be a very long term (greater than 150 years and up to 300 years for very large trees) 

reduction in LWD recruitment rate in streamside salvage units. 

Western pond turtle

The risk of detrimental direct effects to the WPT is higher than for the FYLF because the turtle uses 

the uplands more extensively during different times of the year. As discussed earlier, the WPT can 

use upland habitats up to 400 meters away from an aquatic habitat and can occur in upland habitats 

96
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

for overwintering, nesting, and aestivation. In general, turtles remain close to water from early spring 

through early fall, but in habitats with seasonal water, they can move into upland habitat when the 

seasonal feature is dry. Table 3.03-9 provides a description of the amount of area treated by hazard 

tree and salvage logging activities for this alternative.

Table 3.03-9 WPT buffer affected in salvage and roadside hazard tree units in Alternative 1

Watershed 

(5th level HUC) Stream

WPT Buffer

(percent total buffer treated)

Salvage Units Hazard Tree Units

Tuolumne River

Drew Cr. 30 (3%) 89 (9%)

Jawbone Cr. 701 (22%) 102 (3%)

Homestead Pond 18 (20%) 0 (0%)

Three unnamed ponds 27 (10%) 4 (1%)

Middle Fork Tuolumne River

Middle Fork Tuolumne River 2077 (39%) 304 (6%)

Abernathy Meadow 66 (50%) 6 (5%)

Grandfather Pond 11 (13%) 2 2%)

Mud Lake 21 (18%) 0 (0%)

North Fork Tuolumne River

North Fork Tuolumne River 0 (0%) 411 (2%)

Basin Cr. 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Hunter Cr. 0 (0%) 407 (2%)

South Fork Tuolumne River South Fork Tuolumne River 1373 (21%) 534 (8%)

Cherry Creek

Cherry Cr. 424 (11%) 61 (2%)

Eleanor Cr. 97 (16%) 0.1 (less than 1%)

Big Kibbie Pond 86 (88%) 0 (0%)

Little Kibbie Pond 54 (60%) 2 (2%)

Clavey River Reed Cr. 443 (49%) 11 (1%)

Cottonwood Cr. 29 (5%) 24 (5%)

North Fork Merced River

North Fork Merced River 176 (1%) 491 (3%)

Bull Cr. 35 (less than 1%) 106 (1%)

Deer Lick Cr. 42 (2%) 109 (5%)

Moore Cr. 56 (2%) 60 (2%)

Salvage and Roadside Hazard Tree Removal

There is very low to no risk of direct effect to turtles in the following locations: Basin, Bull, Deer 

Lick, Hunter, Moore Creeks and the North Fork Merced and Tuolumne Rivers. In these watersheds, 

salvage and hazard tree treatment areas are located on headwater reaches where habitat suitability is 

very low or unsuitable. The WPT needs fairly big pools which these habitats lack.

There is a low risk of adverse direct effect to turtles in the following locations: Cherry, Cottonwood, 

Drew, Eleanor, and Reed Creeks, and the three unnamed ponds at Yosemite Lakes and Grandfather 

Pond. At Drew Creek, all of the salvage and roadside treatments are in the upper half of the watershed

where the stream only has water during the winter months. During the time when salvage activities 

would occur, this stream is dry and turtles would be expected to occur in the lower section of stream 

that retains perennial water. Cherry, Cottonwood, Eleanor, and Reed Creeks are at the upper elevation 

limit of the WPT in streams on the Forest, and potential for occupancy is low. These sites also retain 

perennial water and turtles would be expected to be streamside when salvage activities would occur. 

A review of the aerial imagery for Homestead Pond indicates a limited amount of dead timber to the 

north, west, and south of the pond and a limited amount of equipment operation would likely occur in 

these areas (greater than 70 percent of available habitat). There is a higher level of activity to the east 

of the pond, but the estimated volume of timber is relatively low (less than 15,000 board feet) which 

suggests a fairly low level of logging activity. The most likely type of direct effect to WPT in these 

watersheds when water is present would be physical disturbance and the duration would be relatively 

short (less than 4 weeks) at any given location. This limited amount of disturbance would not have an 

97
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

appreciable effect on physical well-being, and the highly mobile turtle can move up- or downstream 

to avoid the disturbance. 

For WPT habitat in and along Jawbone Creek and the Middle and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers, 

salvage operations present a moderate risk of direct effect to the WPT, mainly due to the amount of 

activity that would occur in the 300-meter buffer. At these locations, turtles may overwinter in the 

upland from October through April, but logging activity would be unlikely at this time of year due to 

machinery operational constraints associated with soil compaction risk. During June and July, the 

WPT could use the uplands for nesting, but the availability of nesting habitat is very limited and 

restricted to relatively open, herbaceous dominated slopes. These open areas lack salvageable trees 

and the risk of direct effect is self-mitigating. In the Middle and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers, a 

majority of the salvage activity would occur in headwater tributaries and along low order streams (1st

and 2nd order) with heavy pre-fire forest that typically provide low to very low suitable aquatic WPT 

habitat. The risk is decreased simply based on this low habitat suitability. However, for the mainstems 

of the rivers, salvage logging would occur close to the channel and the potential for physical 

disturbance is moderate. This disturbance could last up to four weeks at any given salvage unit, but 

long-term impacts to physical well-being are not expected. For all four locations, the potential for 

injury or mortality of individuals is low because of the year-long availability of water means the turtle 

would likely be streamside during operations. The risk increases to moderate in October if logging 

activities continue late into the year because the turtles move into the upland habitat as the weather 

gets colder. The level of potential impact at these locations would not be sufficient to affect the long 

term viability of any existing population. 

Abernathy Meadow, Mud Lake, and Grandfather, Big, and Little Kibbie Ponds have the highest 

potential for direct impact to individuals. At Abernathy Meadow, the turtles move into upland 

habitats during the summer when the seasonal pond goes dry. Previous radio telemetry tracking of 

individuals at this location confirms the turtles move into the upland and aestivate until the rainy 

season fills the pond. Because the turtles could be in the upland during salvage operations, there is a 

high risk of injury or mortality. The same conditions apply to Big and Little Kibbie Ponds, because 

these wetlands occasionally go dry (as they were during the Rim Fire) and the WPT would be 

expected to move into the uplands to aestivate. Because of this consideration, a management 

requirement was imposed for all action alternatives to prohibit the operation of equipment within a 

quarter-mile of the ponds and meadow if the features are lacking water. This management 

requirement helps to limit risk of injury and mortality. Also, equipment operation is prohibited within 

a quarter-mile from June through July would help to prevent disturbance to nesting turtles. 

Grandfather Pond and Mud Lake tend to retain perennial water and the turtles are expected to remain 

close to the aquatic habitat during the period when salvage operations would occur close to the ponds. 

Still, some individuals could make overland journeys to and from Birch Lake at Camp Mather or 

move into the uplands to aestivate. This would pose a risk of injury or mortality during salvage 

operations. The overall risk to any one individual is considered to be low, but there would be a 

moderate to high risk of physical disturbance during salvage operations. The consequence would be a 

short duration (less than 4 weeks) change in behavior where terrestrial basking would be reduced. 

This would have a minor impact on physiological fitness, but would not be enough to alter a function 

like reproductive or overwintering fitness. This means a female would produce eggs as in a typical 

year and the bodily energy reserves entering winter would be sufficient to get individuals through to 

spring. No long-term consequences to these populations would be expected.

The primary adverse indirect impact to individuals would be sedimentation of stream habitats. As 

with the FYLF, the degree of impact is related to the extent of activity, particularly activity in close 

proximity to the aquatic features. The same categorization used for the FYLF applies to the WPT

because the deep water features are important elements for both species. The description of impacts to 

deep water habitat described for the FYLF applies to the WPT and the reader is encouraged to read 

98
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

the FYLF description. Deep water habitats are important to all life stages of the WPT (except 

hatchlings) for escaping from disturbance (a perceived predation attempt), foraging, and thermal 

retreat. Sediment that reduces the volume of a deep water habitat by more than 50 percent is 

considered excessive and degrades habitat suitability from high to low. In larger streams and rivers 

(examples, Cherry Creek and Middle Fork Tuolumne River), the energy of the water during annual 

peak flows is enough to maintain extensive areas of high quality, deep water habitat. For hatchling 

turtles, excess sediment could fill backwater areas that provide high quality suitable habitat for this 

life stage. If this occurs, some hatchlings may not find sufficient food resources to keep the hatchling 

alive during the summer or following winter. This impact to habitat could last for 2-3 years, a low 

level impact to a population, because population growth could be decreased for several years. This 

should not affect the persistence of any population, however. 

A secondary indirect effect that could affect the WPT is that salvage operations would remove 

standing dead trees from around the aquatic feature. This impact could be beneficial and detrimental 

to the WPT. The detriment is that these trees provide good overwintering and aestivation habitat 

when they fall. Turtles will dig themselves under the logs, which provide protection from predators 

and a moister microclimate during aestivation. Salvage logging would reduce the short- and longterm recruitment of LWD and reduce habitat suitability from high to moderate or low. Salvage 

logging would also potentially provide a benefit to the WPT because the removal of the trees would 

provide open, sunny habitat conducive to nesting. Pre-fire areas with dense overstory reduced the 

quality and quantity of nesting habitat, but areas with high vegetation mortality now give the WPT 

ample nesting habitat. Salvaging the dead material would provide a more open ground surface which 

would allow nestlings to easily navigate to the water.

Another secondary indirect effect associated with salvage operations is the reduction of LWD in 

aquatic systems (as noted previously for the FYLF). The habitat associations between LWD and the 

WPT are clearer because LWD provides high quality basking habitat when accessible from the water. 

Jennings and Hayes (1994) indicate the amount of basking habitat improves over-all habitat quality; 

therefore, abundant LWD in a stream would enhance habitat quality. The rate of recruitment of LWD 

from salvaged areas would be greatly reduced in localized areas. However, recruitment from 

upstream areas that were burned and unsalvaged should maintain relatively high LWD recruitment 

rates, and a management requirement is in place to retain five pieces of LWD (the largest trees) per 

acre for riparian areas in salvage units. The retention of this minimum amount of LWD would be 

beneficial for streamside habitat. The expected reduction in LWD recruitment rate is expected to have 

a very long term effect (greater than 150 years) and is related to the time when mature forests are reestablished on the landscape. 

Road Treatments

Same as FYLF. 

Water Sources and Rock Quarries

Water sources used for the road management activities and logging have management requirements 

that would result in minimal adverse direct and indirect effects to the WPT. Rock pits are not located 

in WPT habitat, so no direct or indirect effects to the WPT would occur.

Fuels Reduction

The effects of fuels treatments on the WPT aquatic habitats would be the same as for the FYLF. As 

with the salvage logging, treatments occurring within the buffer established for the WPT would 

increase the risk of directly impacting individuals occurring in upland habitats. There is a very low 

risk of injury and mortality in units using hand piling to treat surface fuels. Physical disturbance is the 

most likely direct impact and there would little to no adverse impact to an individual’s well-being. 

Units with machine piling would increase the risk of direct impact to relatively high levels because 

99
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

the intensity of operations would likely be high, especially in areas with high levels of mortality in 

small diameter (non-merchantable) stands. Machine piling would likely occur only in one year and 

could occur one to five years following the salvage activities. As with the salvaging, low levels of 

mortality could affect population size for several years and until new individuals enter the population. 

Hardhead

As noted earlier, suitable habitat is restricted to the lower reaches of the North Fork Tuolumne and 

Clavey Rivers and the Tuolumne River to approximately Lumsden Bridge. Because there are very 

few harvest or roadside units in close proximity to these river sections, there would be no direct effect 

to hardhead. There is a hazard tree unit along Lumsden Road, but trees would not be felled into the 

Tuolumne, thereby eliminating the risk of direct effect to any individual. 

The indirect effect to hardhead is only related to sediment. Because a very small portion (less than 3 

percent) of the North Fork Tuolumne River watershed burned at moderate severity (no high severity 

soil burn conditions), there would be no observable change to habitat conditions in the lower river. 

The fine sediment generated in the Hunter Creek watershed would be assimilated by the mainstem of 

Hunter Creek and then the North Fork Tuolumne above the reach suitable for hardhead. Because the 

Tuolumne River does not provide suitable breeding habitat for the hardhead (due to regulated 

streamflow), there would be no indirect impact on spawning habitat suitability. There would be no 

detectable effect to deep water habitats used by sub-adult and adult fish because the annual peak and 

base flows in the river are enough to mobilize and redistribute this sediment. There could be localized 

accumulations of sediment near the mouths of tributary streams that had a high proportion of high and 

moderate severity fire, but the sediment from all watershed sources would not be sufficient to have 

much of an effect on pool and deep run habitats. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The primary pathways considered for cumulative effects to the CRLF and SNYLF are (1) the 

potential risk of directly impacting individuals or their habitats, (2) the risk of increased 

sedimentation in the habitats, and (3) the reduction of LWD in both aquatic and upland habitats. 

Salvage harvest on private lands and livestock grazing were the two types of cumulative effect 

stressors evaluated for the FYLF, WPT, and hardhead. These two types of actions are considered to 

have the most detectable influence on aquatic systems, especially in the post-fire environment. The 

impact of post-fire logging has been discussed earlier in this document and this activity has the 

highest potential to increase erosion and sedimentation rates in a watershed. Livestock grazing is also 

discussed because the impact of concentrated livestock use in riparian areas (made more sensitive by 

moderate and high soil burn severity conditions) may have localized impacts to streambanks and the 

reestablishment of riparian vegetation. 

Livestock grazing as a cumulative stressor will be discussed at a general level, because there is 

uncertainty regarding Forest Service administration of permits for allotments affected by the fire. 

Livestock may be excluded, partially or fully, from some allotments within the Rim Fire perimeter in 

2014. Assuming the Forest Service allows light levels of grazing in portions of the allotments in 

2014, livestock could impact sensitive streambanks through trampling. Streambanks are more 

sensitive post-fire than in unburned conditions because much of the vegetation has been burned and 

there is little root holding capacity to resist shearing by hooves. This is especially true in low gradient 

reaches (less than 2 percent) where alluvial (or depositional) banks dominate. In steeper gradient 

reaches, the streambanks tend to be more armored by larger diameter substrates (rocks like cobble 

and boulder) and resistant to bank shear. These localized areas of streambank disturbance may not 

have much of an effect at larger watershed scales, but they can influence sedimentation at locally 

important scales. If livestock are allowed to graze portions of the allotments, a small increase in 

sedimentation would be expected along low gradient reaches with no discernible increase along 

higher gradient sections. Table 3.03-12 shows the cumulative impact would be unnoticeable for 

100
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

watersheds with limited salvage activity. However, any impact in watersheds with high levels of 

salvage (greater than 50 percent of watershed or FYLF/WPT buffer, Table 3.03-12) could 

cumulatively contribute to extensive degradation of aquatic habitat. The duration of this combined 

reduction in habitat suitability would be two to three years. After this period, hillslope erosion rates 

would quickly decrease and habitat suitability would increase to moderate levels.

Another impact associated with livestock is the potential impaired recovery of riparian vegetation

because poorly managed livestock can severely affect the recovery of obligate woody and herbaceous 

riparian species. The rapidly regrowing riparian vegetation is always a good food source, but 

especially late in the season when other forage options may have decreased in palatability. The 

proximity of this forage to water, another critical resource need for livestock, suggests livestock may 

congregate in sensitive post-fire riparian areas. Salvage logging does not generally impair riparian 

recovery if adequate equipment exclusion zones are maintained, so there may be very little 

cumulative effect to riparian recovery.

California Red-legged Frog

Cumulative actions would overlap with 25.83 percent of suitable breeding habitat, 6.99 percent of 

available non-breeding habitat, and 8.31 percent of upland habitat. The cumulative actions include 

emergency fire salvage on private lands and the Rim HT project. Table 3.03-10 and Table 3.03-11 

show both of these activities have the potential to cause injury, mortality, or disturbance to individual 

CRLF as well as habitat destruction. Because project activities proposed in Alternative 1 only overlap 

suitable breeding habitat at Homestead Pond (Table 3.03-10 and Table 3.03-18) and no cumulative 

actions overlap Homestead Pond (Table 3.03-10), there will be no cumulative impact to individual 

CRLF found within a breeding habitat or the breeding habitats themselves. Table 3.03-11 shows the 

amount of cumulative disturbance within each watershed of the breeding habitats would be moderate 

to high. Additional sediment would likely be delivered to the breeding habitats. Because the level of 

sediment expected to be delivered to the stream as a result of the Rim Fire are so high, no discernible 

cumulative effects from additional sediment caused by the cumulative actions are expected to occur. 

The non-breeding stream habitat associated with four of the breeding habitat areas (Birch and Mud 

Lakes, Drew Creek, Harden Flat, and Hunter Creek) would have small increases in the percentage of 

disturbance as a result of the cumulative actions (Table 3.03-10) but the amount would be less than 5 

percent, 14 percent, 5 percent, and 6 percent, respectively. In these four areas the amount of activity 

proposed in Alternative 1 is low and cumulatively no substantial increase in the potential effects to 

the non-breeding habitat is expected. Because of the low likelihood of occupancy, disturbance to 

individuals from other projects would be unlikely and not cause a measurable effect to individual 

CRLF. Potential for the cumulative actions to contribute additional insignificant amounts of sediment 

to the non-breeding streams would not further reduce the habitat suitability for the CRLF. 

The CRLF upland habitats would have small increases in the percentage treated as a result of the

cumulative actions (Table 3.03-10). Due to the negligible level of direct and indirect effects, no 

discernible effect to CRLF is expected from cumulative actions in the upland habitat. 

Recruitment of LWD in CRLF upland habitats may be affected by cumulative salvage and hazard tree 

actions. Thirty-seven percent of the habitats affected by cumulative actions have proposed plans for 

salvage operations. The remaining 63 percent of the habitats affected would receive the hazard tree 

treatments proposed by the Rim HT project. This project proposes to only remove trees deemed 

hazardous to facilities (i.e., roads, structures, and developed sites). Therefore, potential sources of 

LWD would be retained at variable densities throughout the Rim HT project area. Despite the 

potential likelihood for a marked reduction in LWD in the habitats potentially affected by cumulative 

salvage operations, reductions of LWD within the Rim HT project area would be minor. 

Using the CWE modelling, the TOC in the Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne and Jawbone Creek 

watersheds would be exceeded. Birch Lake, Mud Lake, and Drew Creek are located in these 

101
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

watersheds, but they are not expected to be significantly impacted by the cumulative actions. No

actions occur within the area capable of causing an effect at Birch Lake and a management 

requirement listed in the Rim HT project prohibiting the removal of any trees with 300 feet of Mud 

Lake and requiring trees felled within this area to be left, would minimize the potential effects to that 

lake. Proposed cumulative actions occurring in the watershed containing Drew Creek (Jawbone 

Creek) would occur greater than 1 mile from Drew Creek so the habitat there would not likely be as 

adversely impacted as other habitats in the watershed. 

Table 3.03-10 CRLF and SNYLF habitat effects including Cumulative Effects

Habitat Percent of Habitat Affected

Alt 1 Alt 1 + CE Alt 3 Alt 3 + CE Alt 4 Alt 4 + CE

California red-legged frog

 Birch Lake / Mud Lake 0/0 NC/37 0/0 NC/37 0/0 NC/37

 Non-Breeding (Per and Int.) 30 35 29 34 29 34

 Upland 28 36 28 36 28 36

 Drew Creek 0 NC 0 NC 0 NC

 Miles of Non-Breeding (Per and Int.) 11 25 2 16 2 16

 Acres of Upland 10 19 7 17 7 17

 Harden Flat 0 NC 0 NC 0 NC

 Miles of Non-Breeding (Per and Int.) 6 11 6 11 6 11

 Acres of Upland 14 32 14 32 14 32

 Homestead Pond 100 NC 71 97 71 97

 Miles of Non-Breeding (Per and Int.) 0 5 0 5 0 5

 Acres of Upland 9 21 3 15 3 15

 Hunter Creek and Ponds 0/0 NC/25 0/0 NC/25 0/0 NC/25

 Miles of Non-Breeding (Per and Int.) 9 15 9 15 9 15

 Acres of Upland 10 16 10 16 10 16

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

 Bear Creek 98 100 98 100 2 5

 Acres of Upland 96 100 96 100 5 10

 Cherry Creek Tributary 6 NC 6 NC 6 NC

 Acres of Upland 6 NC 6 NC 6 NC

 Jawbone Creek 29 63 29 63 29 63

 Acres of Upland 30 60 30 60 30 60

 Little Reynolds Creek 24 51 24 51 24 51

 Acres of Upland 26 58 26 58 26 58

 Looney Creek 5 20 0 17 0 17

 Acres of Upland 5 41 0 35 0 35

 Lost Creek 15 32 15 32 15 32

 Acres of Upland 11 29 11 29 11 29

 Niagara Creek 74 77 74 77 74 77

 Acres of Upland 47 58 47 58 47 58

 Reynolds Creek Tributary 10 NC 10 NC 10 NC

 Acres of Upland 12 NC 12 NC 12 NC

 Richards Creek 51 NC 51 NC 51 NC

 Acres of Upland 37 NC 37 NC 37 NC

 White Fir Creek 58 NC 58 NC 58 NC

 Acres of Upland 39 NC 39 NC 39 NC

 Little and Big Kibbie Ponds 100 NC 100 NC 93 NC

 Acres of Upland 78 NC 75 NC 54 NC

102
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.03-11 CRLF and SNYLF breeding habitat watershed effects including Cumulative Effects

Habitat Percent of Watershed Affected

Alt 1 Alt 1 + CE Alt 3 Alt 3 + CE Alt 4 Alt 4 + CE

California red-legged frog

 Birch Lake and Mud Lake 55/0 89/63 55/0 89/63 55/0 89/63

 Drew Creek 15 35 14 34 14 34

 Harden Flat 24 67 24 67 24 67

 Homestead Pond 13 57 1 45 1 45

 Hunter Creek and Ponds 9 23 9 23 9 23

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

 Bear Creek 73 89 73 89 18 34

 Cherry Creek Tributary 8 NC 16 NC 16 NC

 Jawbone Creek 24 45 24 45 24 45

 Little Reynolds Creek 19 73 19 73 19 73

 Looney Creek 12 73 12 73 12 73

 Lost Creek 18 48 18 48 18 48

 Niagara Creek 39 42 37 40 19 23

 Reynolds Creek Tributary 40 49 42 50 15 23

 Richards Creek 33 NC 36 NC 36 NC

 White Fir Creek 50 NC 57 NC 57 NC

 Little and Big Kibbie Ponds 100/100 NC/NC 0/100 NC/NC 8/68 NC

NC=No Change meaning there are no cumulative actions that would affect that habitat

Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog

Cumulative actions would overlap with only 5.21 percent of suitable breeding and non-breeding 

habitat and 3.75 percent of upland habitat. The cumulative actions included in this overlap consist of 

emergency fire salvage on private lands, the Rim HT project, and the Reynolds Creek Ecological 

Restoration project (culvert and road work, green thinning, and meadow restoration). The SNYLF 

breeding and non-breeding habitats with the greatest overlap with these cumulative actions is 

Jawbone Creek where an additional 34 percent of the habitat overlaps with either the Rim HT project 

or private property emergency fire salvage acres. Because only trees deemed a hazard to public safety 

or infrastructure would be removed in the Rim HT project, and riparian buffers and other BMPs 

designed to protect aquatic features and limit erosion will be implemented, the contribution of this 

project to cumulative effects will be limited. Emergency fire salvage would occur along the most 

downstream portion of Jawbone Creek and may cause an increase in sedimentation in that area. No 

cumulative effects will occur in the upper 3.8 miles of Jawbone Creek located above the private 

emergency fire salvage. Bear Creek, Little Reynolds Creek, Looney Creek, Lost Creek, and Niagara 

Creek may also experience cumulative effects since the percentages of their habitat treated by 

cumulative actions range from 2percent (Bear Creek) to 27 percent (Little Reynolds Creek) (Table 

3.03-10). 

Similar to CRLF habitats, the level of sediment expected to be delivered to the streams as a result of 

proposed activities are almost unmeasurable in comparison to those expected from the effects of the 

Rim Fire (Table 3.03-3 and Table 3.03-19) and no discernable cumulative effects from additional 

sediment caused by the cumulative actions are expected to occur. 

Although most of the upland habitat would have increases ranging from 29 percent to 100 percent 

(Table 3.03-10) in habitat affected, the risk of injury, mortality, or disturbance of individual SNYLF 

is still low due to their limited use of this habitat. No cumulative actions are proposed in Cherry 

Creek Tributary, Reynolds Creek Tributary, Richard Creek, White Fir Creek or Little and Big Kibbie 

Ponds. 

Because greater than 56 percent of the habitat affected by cumulative actions would occur during 

proposed emergency fire salvage on private lands, a potential for LWD loss in these areas is high. 

103
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

Rim Recovery project management requirements would ensure some level of LWD adjacent to the 

habitats affected by these cumulative treatments so the cumulative losses of LWD are expected to be 

minor. 

As described in the CRLF section, the CWE modelling TOC would be exceeded in the Jawbone 

Creek watershed. The SNYLF breeding habitat located within this watershed (Jawbone Creek), 

however, is located above the portions of the watershed being treated with other projects and is 

unlikely to be adversely impacted by cumulative actions occurring elsewhere in the watershed. 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog

The following cumulative effects discussion is focused on salvage logging (hazard tree and salvaging) 

on public and private lands. Table 3.03-12 indicates 16 streams would not have cumulative effects 

attributable to salvage logging or hazard tree removal on public or private lands. Four streams 

(Grapevine, Hunter, and Indian Creeks and the North Fork Tuolumne River) would have small 

increases in percentage of buffer treated and percentage of watershed area treated, but the amount 

would be less than 20 percent and 25 percent, respectively. In these four streams the amount of 

activity in the FYLF buffers and watershed is considered to be relatively low, and there would be no 

substantial increase in potential for direct and indirect effect. The primary direct effect would be 

increased disturbance, but the extent of this effect would not have an observable impact to overall 

well-being of any individual. Also, a very slight, if discernible, increase in sediment delivery to these 

streams is expected, but the increase would be very small and would not further impair the suitability 

of habitat for the frog. 

The amount of cumulative disturbance within FYLF buffers at Bull Meadow, Drew and Cherry 

Creeks would be moderate and not exceed 35 percent of the total buffer in the watershed. At Drew 

Creek, most of the cumulative increase in disturbance would be in the upper watershed where habitat 

suitability for the FYLF is very low. There would be no increase in direct effect to the FYLF, but the 

increased activity in the watershed could deliver additional sediment to the stream. The increased 

buffer affected for Cherry Creek actually reflects the amount of activity in the Granite Creek 

subwatershed (discussed later). For Cherry Creek, there would be no discernible increase in direct 

effect to FYLF from cumulative salvage actions. 

Four streams, Cottonwood and Reed Creeks and the Middle and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers, would 

see moderate to large amounts of FYLF buffer or total watershed area treated. Cottonwood and Reed 

Creeks are at the upper elevation range of the FYLF on the forest, and the risk of direct effect may be 

mitigated by their location. The cumulative amount of watershed area treated in both of these 

watersheds is between 34 and 43 percent. This extent is considered to be enough to potentially 

increase sedimentation to the point where habitat suitability begins to be impaired. The suitable 

habitat in both streams is near the confluence with the Clavey and the “pour point” of all disturbances 

in the watershed. Impacts to habitat would include decreased depth in slow water habitats, extensive 

sedimentation along the margins of the streams, and reduced availability of hiding refuges. Habitat 

suitability would be reduced from moderate-high to low-moderate. The increased sediment would be 

expected to last up to three years. This amount and duration of sediment would not be expected to 

affect the persistence of a FYLF population. Using the CWE modeling from the Watershed Chapter, 

the Reed Creek watershed (6th level HUC) would exceed theTOC from 2014 through 2017, indicating 

watershed processes could become increasingly unstable during this period. Lesser, lingering 

watershed effects could continue for up to two years (through 2019) after receding below the TOC. 

104
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.03-12 Watershed area and buffers in FYLF and WPT suitable habitat in Alternative 1 

Watershed and

Stream

Percent FYLF

Buffer Affected

Percent Watershed

Treated

Percent WPT

Buffer Affected

Alt1 Alt 1+CE Alt 1 Alt 1+CE Alt 1 Alt 1+CE

Tuolumne River Watershed HUC 5

Alder Cr. 4 4 10 10 -- --

Corral Cr. 36 78 58 72 -- --

Drew Cr. 17 28 12 29 12 27

Grapevine Cr. 11 18 18 23 -- --

Indian Cr. 1 6 2 4 -- --

Jawbone Cr. 15 43 25 75 25 53

Homestead Pond -- -- -- -- 20 49

Middle Fork Tuolumne River Watershed HUC 5

Middle Fork Tuolumne River1 45 57 48 61 44 57

Abernathy Meadow -- -- -- -- 55 55

Grandfather Pond -- -- -- -- 16 35

Mud Lake -- -- -- -- 18 73

North Fork Tuolumne River HUC 5

North Fork Tuolumne River 0 2 1 6 2 6

Basin Cr. 0 0 1 5 0 less than 0.1

Hunter Cr. 6 14 9 23 8 19

South Fork Tuolumne River HUC 5

South Fork Tuolumne River2 10 34 36 46 30 39

Unnamed ponds near Yosemite 

Lakes -- -- -- -- 5 8

Cherry Creek HUC 5

Cherry Creek 18 34 13 35 13 29

Eleanor Cr. 22 22 1 1 16 16

Big Kibbie Pond -- -- -- -- 88 88

Little Kibbie Pond -- -- -- -- 63 63

Granite Cr. 36 78 27 85 -- --

Clavey River HUC 5

Reed Cr. 50 54 20 34 50 62

Adams Gulch 0 0 18 36 -- --

Bear Springs Cr. 20 31 18 78 -- --

Bull Meadow Cr. 8 21 36 47 -- --

Indian Springs Cr. 25 25 19 29 -- --

Quilty Cr. 0 0 5 73 -- --

Unnamed Tributary 1 8 8 16 16 -- --

Unnamed Tributary 2 0 0 24 24 -- --

Unnamed Tributary 3 46 50 69 78 -- --

Unnamed Tributary 4 13 13 43 43 -- --

Unnamed Tributary 5 37 37 43 45 -- --

Cottonwood Cr. 5 18 31 43 -- --

Russell Cr. 0 0 30 30 -- --

North Fork Merced River HUC 5

North Fork Merced River 2 2 10 10 4 4

Bull Cr. less than 0.1 less than 0.1 2 2 1 1

Deer Lick Cr. 7 7 8 8 7 7

Moore Cr. 3 3 4 6 6 7

Scott Cr. 4 4 22 22 -- --

1 Percentages calculated for the 6th level HUC Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne and not for the 5th level HUC 

2 Percentages calculated for the 6th level Lower South Fork Tuolumne River HUC

The amount of FYLF buffer treated would be relatively high in the Middle (57 percent) and South 

Fork (34 percent) Tuolumne River watersheds and the risk of direct effect to individuals would 

increase at a 5th level HUC watershed scale. The primary direct impact would be physical disturbance 

105
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

and the duration of activity in any given area would be four weeks. The cumulative amount of activity 

in the watersheds would be extensive, affecting between 46 and 61 percent of the total area in the 

lower 6th level HUC (excludes the area in the upper Middle and South Fork Tuolumne River 6th level 

HUC). The extent of activity in these watersheds suggests greater increases in sedimentation are 

possible and impacts to habitat would be more observable. Again, deep water habitats would be 

reduced in volume and sedimentation would impair a greater amount of the edgewater habitat. These 

are relatively large streams with high seasonal peak discharges; therefore, some high suitability deep 

water habitat should be maintained. The additional sediment along the margins of the rivers could 

affect tadpole habitat by filling the hiding spaces between larger rocks and limiting the availability of 

foraging habitat. These effects could lead to reduced survivorship from the tadpole stage due to 

increased predation or lower individual fitness (body condition) due to limited food resources. If 

adequate energy is not available from a tadpole’s body mass, it may not metamorphose or may not 

metamorphose in a timely manner as to allow the metamorph the opportunity to adequately forage 

prior to winter. These two consequences could reduce recruitment to populations, resulting in smaller 

population numbers over the next 3 to 5 years. Using the CWE modeling, the Middle Fork would 

exceed the TOC from 2014 to 2017, indicating watershed processes could become increasingly 

unstable during this period. Lesser, lingering watershed effects could continue for up to two years 

after receding below the TOC.

Cumulative actions in the watersheds of five streams would potentially have significant impacts on 

habitat suitability. These streams are Bear Springs, Clavey Tributary 3, Corral, Granite, and Jawbone 

Creeks. In these streams, 31 to 78 percent of the FYLF buffer and 72 to 85 percent of the watershed 

area would be affected by cumulative actions (Table 3.03-12). In these streams, there would be a high 

risk of direct impacts to individuals and high to very high risk of indirect effects to individuals, 

populations, and habitat. The amount of buffer treated in these watersheds means extensive 

equipment operation in close proximity to the streams. While the risk of mortality and injury should 

remain low due to the flight response of the frog, the potential for physical disturbance is high. 

Duration of disturbance should be limited to 4 weeks in most locations, but the extent of operations 

suggests more individuals may be subjected to disturbance. The stress of disturbance may combine 

with the expected reduction in habitat suitability (less deep water habitat in small streams) and impair 

individual well-being. The added stress could indirectly lead to increased mortality rates over the first 

winter, effectively lowering population size. 

Habitat suitability would also be significantly reduced from excess sediment and some small stream 

habitats may be unsuitable for the first year post-logging. Suitability would slowly improve over the 

next two to three years as the sediment is scoured and transported downstream. The sediment 

increases may make breeding and tadpole rearing habitats unsuitable in Corral and Jawbone Creeks 

for up to two years. A loss in reproduction in two or more years would decrease populations and 

potentially affect the long-term viability of some populations. The two most at-risk populations are in 

Corral and Jawbone Creeks because the Tuolumne River likely effectively prevents the travel of 

individuals between watersheds. Isolated populations have a greater risk of extirpation than wellconnected populations (Dunham et al. 2003). Therefore, if one of these isolated populations is 

extirpated, there is a very low likelihood that it would be recolonized within the next 20 to 50 years. 

For Bear Springs and Clavey Tributary 3, the potential for re-colonization would have a moderate to 

high likelihood because the FYLF is well distributed along the Clavey. It should be noted that surveys 

have not detected FYLF at any of these locations, but occupancy is assumed in these streams. 

In support of the indirect effects to these streams, the CWE modeling was used and indicated the 

Corral and Granite Creek watersheds would exceed the TOC from 2014 to 2018, indicating watershed 

processes could become increasingly unstable during this period. Lesser, lingering watershed effects 

could continue for two to three years after receding below the TOC (through 2021). CWE modeling 

was also completed for the Bear Springs and Jawbone Creek watersheds and the TOC would be 

106
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

exceeded for two years, and relatively high equivalent roaded area (ERA) impacts would continue for 

three additional years.

Western Pond Turtle

The discussion of cumulative effects to stream habitat for the FYLF applies to the WPT because they 

use similar habitats. The main difference is that the WPT is less likely to utilize the very small, 

intermittent streams where sedimentation effects would be the highest. The discussion of direct 

effects for the FYLF applies to the WPT because actions within the FYLF buffer reflect the amount 

of activity in close proximity to the streams. 

As with the FYLF, there would be very little to no cumulative effect to individuals or habitats for 

Basin, Bull, Deer Lick, Eleanor, Hunter, and Moore Creeks; the North Fork Merced and Tuolumne 

Rivers; and the unnamed ponds near Yosemite Lakes. This assessment of potential effect is based on 

the small (or no) change in amount of buffer affected in Alternative 1 and cumulative actions as 

shown in Table 3.03-12 and the location of the actions adding cumulatively to the alternative. 

Moderate detrimental cumulative impacts would be expected at Cherry and Drew Creeks and the 

South Fork Tuolumne River and the magnitude of indirect effect (sedimentation) would impact WPT

habitat in the following ways. Moderate sedimentation of deep water habitats would be expected in 

Drew Creek. If the 2005 Tuolumne Fire is used as a comparative example, high levels of sediment 

would fill small, shallow pools while the larger, deeper pools found in higher gradient areas would 

maintain most of their volume. Sediment “lenses” would be evident at the lower end of these larger 

pools, but the deepest part of the pool would be maintained for escape habitat. The shallow edge 

water required by hatchlings would be maintained in these larger pools, and the intermittent nature of 

the stream (in sections) would provide this necessary slow water habitat. The cumulative salvage 

actions would not occur in the reach occupied by the WPT and no cumulative impact to nesting or 

overwintering habitat would be expected. The South Fork Tuolumne River and Cherry Creek have 

sections with high gradient and pool abundance. The water energy in annual peak flows and high 

gradient sections should maintain more than 50 percent of pool habitat at high suitability levels. The 

remaining pool habitats would have moderate to high suitability for the WPT. 

Moderate to high levels of cumulative impact would be expected at the Middle Fork Tuolumne River, 

Jawbone Creek, and Reed Creek, similar to that described previously for FYLF. The high overall 

level of activity in WPT buffers (53 to 62 percent of the buffers affected) suggests a moderate to high 

likelihood that physical disturbance would occur during salvage activities. The risk is greatest during 

June and July when females move upland to nest. It is possible that females could abandon nesting in 

the year salvaging would occur, but a long-term impact to population levels is not expected if only 

one year of recruitment is missed. The risk of injury or mortality is considered to be low at these 

locations because they maintain water during the period of time when salvage operations would occur 

(April through October). The risk of injury or mortality becomes moderate in October when night 

temperatures approach freezing and turtles move into the uplands to overwinter. Equipment operation 

in the uplands following nesting has a very low chance of impacting nests because the nests are 

typically located in areas with sparse overhead vegetation. These are areas that would typically not be 

harvested, but patches of open areas could occur in areas with merchantable timber.

The discussion of sediment related impacts to WPT habitat in these three locations is similar to what 

is described for the FYLF. Most deep water habitats would see moderate impacts (reduced pool 

volume), while patches of high suitability habitat would be found in the largest pools and in areas 

with higher stream gradient.

High levels of cumulative disturbance would occur in the WPT buffer areas at Abernathy Meadow 

(55 percent of buffer affected), Mud Lake (73 percent), Homestead Pond (49 percent), and Big Kibbie 

(88 percent) and Little Kibbie (63 percent) Ponds (Table 3.03-12). The potential for adverse direct 

effects, mainly physical disturbance, to occur are high during the period when operations occur in 

107
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

these areas and should last for three weeks, but multiple entries into the buffer would be likely for 

hazard tree removal and salvage logging. This means two periods of disturbance would likely occur 

during the first year (2014 to 2015), but the intensity and duration of disturbance should not be 

enough to affect the long-term well-being of individuals. The risk of injury and mortality would also 

increase at these locations during the summer when the volume of the ponds decreases by greater than 

50 percent. The decreased pond volume could trigger an aestivation response and include the 

departure from the water to the upland habitats or movement between nearby aquatic habitats. If the 

timing of salvage operations coincides with this movement period, the risk of injury or mortality 

would increase to moderate levels. Any further loss of individuals from these four locations could 

effectively suppress population size for 15 years or more. The presence of mostly adult turtles at these 

locations suggests the recruitment rate of young turtles is very low. 

The extent of salvage logging around these four ponds would also reduce the recruitment of LWD 

and upland habitat suitability would be reduced. In this case, the temporal bounding for analyzing the 

cumulative effects of LWD recruitment would extend upwards of 150 years (or more), which is 

commensurate with the re-establishment of trees with a large diameter.

Minor behavioral changes caused by physical disturbance would be the primary effect to WPT at 

Grandfather Pond. The moderate level of cumulative action within the buffers at this site (35 percent) 

suggests a relatively short duration of activities for the 29 acres affected. There is a low potential for 

increased mortality or injury during late summer, as described above, as the pond size decreases. 

There would be a low to moderate reduction in habitat suitability in the treated area associated with 

the reduced LWD recruitment potential.

Hardhead

There should be very little cumulative effect on hardhead habitat in the North Fork Tuolumne, 

Clavey, and Tuolumne Rivers. Very little watershed area would be affected by cumulative actions 

and the sediment generated from those actions would not be readily detectable in suitable hardhead 

habitat. The Clavey and Tuolumne Rivers are so large and have such high capacity to transport and 

store fine sediment that the deep water habitats would be minimally impacted and deep water refuge 

would be maintained. The sediments that could accumulate in spawning habitats would not be likely 

to impair spawning success in the Clavey River. The Tuolumne River is unsuitable for breeding, but 

offers high suitability habitat for adults and sub-adults, especially in late summer. 

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

General Effects Common to All Species

No direct effect would be expected under Alternative 2. There would be no potential for mortality, 

injury, or physical disturbance of any of the three Forest Service Sensitive species created by salvage 

logging, abating the hazard of dead trees along forest roads, or restoring the road infrastructure. 

Because the Forest Service would take no action under this alternative, natural watershed recovery 

processes would occur. Over time, there would be a gradual reduction in the delivery of sediment to 

stream channels as fire-resilient plant species recolonize burned areas and the soil-repellent layers 

break up. Erosion rates for most of the burned area would approach pre-fire rates within 5 or 6 years, 

but some areas could have elevated rates for up to 10 years. Streamflows would continue to be higher 

than in the pre-fire condition and some of the mapped intermittent streams could support perennial 

flow or maintain perennial water in pool habitats for 20 years or more. With the increased streamflow 

and decreased erosion (and sediment delivery to streams) rates, the silt and sand deposited and stored 

in the stream channels would be largely scoured from the channels within 5-7 years and pre-fire 

streambed condition would be evident in 10 years. 

108
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

The recruitment of LWD to the stream would occur at high rates over the next 10-20 years and then 

slowly taper off as the rot-resistant trees (incense cedar and Douglas-fir) gradually fall. The LWD that 

lands on the floodplain and not in the channel would continue to be available for many decades. The 

LWD that falls into the streams should eventually benefit the stream by storing sediment generated by 

the fire and other events for long periods of time (greater than 20 years). Large debris dams store 

sediment and create pool habitats for many decades (Montgomery et al. 1996). The benefits of LWD 

will be most important in smaller streams (1st to 4rd order) and very important in lower gradient 

sections of streams (Ruediger and Ward 1996). Under this alternative, all sections of stream in the 

mixed conifer elevations have an unimpaired ability to receive large volumes of LWD. Lower 

elevation streams (less than 3,000 feet) will primarily recruit LWD from obligate riparian species and 

oak species.

One important consideration for Alternative 2 regarding the large volumes of LWD potentially 

recruited to stream channels, is that the LWD could mobilize during very high flows and threaten the 

road infrastructure. When LWD mobilizes down the channel and encounters a road crossing, the 

LWD can entrain (capture) other woody debris and sediment, creating a dam and preventing drainage 

of water and sediment through the culvert. Water could then cross the road surface, be diverted by the 

road, or cause the crossing to fail. In all three instances, large volumes of road surface and fill could 

be delivered to the stream channel, with the largest volumes of sediment coming from the failure of 

the crossing and erosion of the fill.

Stream shading would quickly increase in riparian areas affected by moderate and high vegetation 

severity fire. The obligate woody riparian species would regrow from stems and root crowns and 

increase in density via dispersal of seeds along the streams. Over the next 20 years, shading would 

increase to the point where cool and cold water temperatures would be maintained. 

Under Alternative 2, the road system would not receive any treatment to improve drivability and 

correct drainage problems. Roads can be a primary source of human-caused sediment in forested 

conditions because they modify drainage networks and accelerate erosional processes (Furniss, et al. 

1991). Past surveys of hydrologically connected road segments (HCS) on the forest have indicated 

considerable connectivity between road runoff and streams. In many cases, relatively uncomplicated 

techniques can be employed to reduce this road-stream connectivity, including outsloping the road 

surface, creating water diversion structures (rolling dips), and placing rock on dirt road surfaces. 

HCSs that deliver large volumes of sediment to streams appear to be relatively uncommon given the 

very large number of road miles on the forest, but the smaller scale HCS can cumulatively deliver 

large volumes of sediment. Regular road maintenance can be very effective at reducing sediment 

from this infrastructure. Alternative 2 would not generate revenue from merchantable timber to 

improve road function and many years could pass before those funds are made available to implement 

corrective actions. During this time, road conditions would gradually decline and increasing amounts 

of sediment could be delivered to streams in the project area.

Roadside hazard trees would be allowed to fall under this alternative limiting ready access to many 

parts of the fire. Forest Service personnel would not be as capable of conducting storm patrols of the 

fire area to detect road-related problems such as plugged culverts and gully erosion on the road 

surface. These potentially undetected problems could increase road crossing failures and extensive 

erosion of road surfaces, leading to excessive sediment delivery to many stream systems.

California Red-legged Frog

Under this alternative no direct or indirect effects would occur to individuals as a result of project 

activities. There is a very slight risk of individual being injured or killed by snags (dead trees) falling 

naturally and directly into aquatic habitats or in suitable upland habitat. Trees falling across 

roadways, near culverts, or into stream channels causing unwanted sedimentation or undesirable 

changes in channel morphology could slightly reduce habitat quality. Sedimentation risk may be 

109
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

higher in aquatic habitats surrounded by areas that sustained high vegetation burn severity where 

ground cover capable of reducing soil run-off is lacking. LWD recruitment rates would be very high 

in areas that sustained high vegetation burn severity fire. 

Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog

Same as CRLF. 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog

The main impacts to FYLF habitat would come from increased sediment delivery to streams, 

increased streamflow, and reduced stream shading. For the streams shown in Table 3.03-6 

categorized as “low watershed response”, very little change in habitat is expected, particularly at the 

location of breeding sites. Minor sedimentation will occur in the headwater tributaries affected by the 

fire, but that sediment will be dispersed downstream to the point where it will be undetectable at the 

breeding site. Some of the stream segments affected by fire provide suitable dispersal habitat for adult 

and sub-adult FYLF, but the volume of deep water habitats should be adequately maintained, and the 

reduction in stream shade should have little effect on frog. 

Streams categorized as “moderate watershed response” will see moderate to major adverse impact to 

the small order streams (1st-2nd order or headwaters) affected by fire. Deep water habitats may be 

extensively filled in dispersal habitats and there could be minor to moderate sedimentation in suitable 

breeding habitats. In some small tributaries affected by high severity fire, some deep water habitats 

may be unsuitable for individual frogs and they may have to move up- or downstream to suitable nonbreeding aquatic habitat. The increase in sediment at breeding sites will likely have a minor impact to 

the suitability of the breeding habitat and reproduction should still occur. However, increased 

sediment in shallow water habitats used by tadpoles may see a reduction in suitability as the spaces 

between larger substrates are filled. The lack of hiding refuge may increase predation for the breeding 

season following the fire, but habitat suitability should be restored in the third or fourth breeding 

season post-fire. Stream shading was substantially reduced at a watershed scale (greater than 50 

percent), though patches of shade remain. There could be slight increases in water temperatures, but 

these would be within the known tolerance range of the frog. 

For streams and watersheds in the high watershed response category, major impacts to habitat have 

occurred or will occur this precipitation year. Excess sediment is likely to fill many of the deep water 

habitats to the point where they do not provide adequate refuge for frogs. This situation may not hold 

true for high gradient sections of stream where the water’s energy has enough force to keep some 

deep pool habitat intact. There may be more individuals concentrated around the remaining pools, 

which would likely increase competition and territoriality between individuals. The increased 

interaction between individuals could increase stress levels and reduce physical well-being. In 

streams like Bull Meadow Creek, the sediment may be enough to inundate breeding habitat and 

preclude breeding in 2014. Streams in this category will also see extensive decreases in water depth in 

shallow water habitats, potentially enough to exclude extensive use of those habitats. 

The environmental outcomes for this alternative range from major habitat alterations in very small 

streams to no discernible impact in the larger rivers. The biggest impacts to habitat would be expected 

to occur in the five Clavey River tributaries and Alder, Bear Springs, Bull Meadow, Corral, Drew, 

Granite, Indian, Indian Springs, Jawbone, and Quilty Creeks. Moderate localized to minor overall 

alterations in habitat would be expected to occur in Adams, Cherry, Grapevine, Hunter, Reed, and 

Russell Creeks, and the Middle and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers. Minimal impacts to habitat would 

be expected to occur in Basin, Bull, Cottonwood, Deer Lick, Eleanor, Hunter, Moore, and Scott 

Creeks, and the North Fork Tuolumne and Merced Rivers. 

110
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Western Pond Turtle

Much of the discussion for the FYLF applies to the WPT for post-fire watershed response. There 

would be no risk of direct effect to individuals under this alternative. The post-fire erosion and 

sediment outcomes discussed for the FYLF apply to the WPT in that small streams with a high postfire watershed response would see major impacts to the deep water habitats preferred by the turtle. In 

larger streams, the period of annual peak streamflow would have sufficient energy to maintain high 

suitability deep water habitats created by scour. 

The primary difference for Alternative 2 relates to recruitment rate of LWD into suitable aquatic 

habitats. The recruitment rate would not be decreased due to salvage harvest and trees would be left 

to fall naturally. As noted previously, habitat suitability may be positively influenced by the increased 

abundance of basking sites (Jennings and Hayes 1994). More LWD would be recruited to all 

channels. The biggest increase in habitat suitability would likely occur in the larger streams and rivers 

like the Middle and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers. 

The discussion of LWD recruitment also needs to include seasonal and perennial ponds and lakes at 

Abernathy Meadow, Big and Little Kibbie Ponds, Grandfather Pond, and Mud Lake. No trees would 

be harvested adjacent to lower quality roads or from salvage units surrounding these aquatic features 

leaving trees available for WPT use as they fall. As noted previously, the turtle will burrow under 

these objects in the upland to protect themselves from predators and weather elements. The 

unimpaired rate of recruitment of LWD would improve habitat suitability in the uplands surrounding 

the aquatic features.

The environmental outcomes under this alternative would follow natural post-fire processes and WPT

populations would be maintained. 

Hardhead

No direct or detectable indirect effect to hardhead individuals, populations, or habitat would result 

from Alternative 2. At the scale of the lower Clavey, Tuolumne, and lower North Fork Tuolumne 

Rivers, the amount of post-fire sediment would not be enough to impair the suitability of the 

important habitat elements (deep pool, shallow edge water, and spawning habitats) in any of these 

locations. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

No direct effects would result from the implementation of this alternative. The indirect effects 

described above focus on sedimentation of aquatic habitats and LWD recruitment. Increased sediment 

would be expected from the road system if maintenance and restoration actions are not taken and 

LWD recruitment rates would remain very high in areas that sustained moderate and high vegetation 

severity fire conditions.

California Red-legged Frog

Using Table 3.03-10 and Table 3.03-11 the cumulative actions that would affect CRLF suitable 

habitats and their breeding watersheds can be extrapolated. No cumulative effects to individuals or 

their habitats would be expected to occur in the breeding habitats at Birch Lake, Drew Creek, Harden 

Flat Ponds 1 and 2, Homestead Pond, Hunter Creek, or Hunter Creek Ponds 2 – 5, because no federal 

or private actions would occur there (Table 3.03-10). Very little or no cumulative impact to 

individuals or their habitats would be expected to occur at Mud Lake or Hunter Creek Pond 1 because 

no other federal or private actions would occur there (Table 3.03-10). 

Cumulative actions would affect only a small proportion (less than 14%) of the non-breeding aquatic 

habitats associated with each CRLF breeding habitat (Birch and Mud Lake, Drew Creek, Harden Flat 

Ponds 1 and 2, Hunter Creek, and Hunter Creek Ponds 1 – 5) (Table 3.03-10). In these habitats there 

could be localized impacts to the habitats including destruction, increases in sedimentation, and loss 

111
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

of LWD recruitment, but the small cumulative percentage of habitat affected would not affect the 

overall habitat suitability in these habitats. 

Cumulative actions would affect only a small to moderate proportion (6% to 18%) of the upland 

habitat associated with each CRLF breeding habitats (Birch and Mud Lakes, Drew Creek, Harden 

Flat Ponds 1 and 2, Hunter Creek, and Hunter Creek Ponds 1 – 5) (Table 3.03-10). This amount of 

activity is considered to be so low there would be no increase in the potential for direct effects. The 

primary direct effects that could occur in the areas where treatments overlap with the upland habitat 

would include an increase in individual behavioral disturbance and a reduction in LWD. The extent of 

these effects, however, would not be expected to cause an impact to the overall well-being of any 

individual CRLF, and only a slight reduction in amount of cover opportunities for CLRF in the form 

of LWD in the areas affected. Habitat suitability would not be expected to be impacted by this level 

of disturbance. 

There would be no cumulative disturbances leading to increased sedimentation in the watersheds 

associated with the suitable breeding habitats at Birch Lake, Mud Lake, Harden Flat Pond 2, or 

Hunter Creek Ponds 3 – 5 (Table 3.03-11).The watersheds associated with the suitable breeding 

habitats at Drew Creek, Harden Flat Pond 1, Homestead Pond, and Hunter Creek would have small to 

moderate cumulative disturbance, at 20%, 43%, 44%, and 14%, respectively (Table 3.03-11). In the 

Drew Creek watershed this activity could cause additional sediment to be transported to the stream 

because a large majority of the vegetation in the watershed burned at moderate to high severity (i.e. 

73%, Table 3.03-2). As discussed earlier, sediment transport is more likely in areas where vegetation 

burned at moderate to high severities. In the Harden Flat Pond 1 watershed, there would be a low risk 

of increased sedimentation in the pond, because the area surrounding the pond is relatively flat and 

remained primarily unburned. Despite a moderate level of disturbance in the Homestead Pond 

watershed, no additional sedimentation would be expected at this site, because the amount of 

sediment generated by the cumulative action occurring there (i.e. Rim Fire HT project) would be so 

minimal there would be no cumulative impact. In the Hunter Creek Watershed, most of the 

cumulative actions associated with emergency fire salvage on private lands would occur outside of 

suitable habitat (i.e. at greater than 4,000 feet in elevation). The other cumulative actions in the 

watershed would occur as a result of the Rim Fire HT project. Although, these activities could cause 

increased sedimentation in the stream, because only 14% of the watershed would be affected, the 

amount of sedimentation generated would be expected to be low and would not result in a change in 

habitat suitability. 

The amount of cumulative disturbance within the watersheds associated with the suitable breeding 

habitats at Hunter Creek Ponds 1 and 2 would be high, at 81% and 68%, respectively (Table 3.03-11). 

Since the watersheds of these two ponds overlap, the risk of that additional sediment would be 

delivered to the ponds as a result of the emergency fire salvage planned to occur there is similar for 

both ponds. It is possible these ponds habitat suitability would be affected by increases in 

sedimentation caused by the emergency fire salvage because the design criteria for this salvage are 

unknown at this location. Protective measures to mitigate the risk of runoff from ground disturbance 

may not exist. Therefore, these habitats may be at risk. 

Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog

Using Table 3.03-10 and Table 3.03-11 the cumulative actions that would affect SNLYF suitable 

habitats and their breeding watersheds can be extrapolated. No cumulative impacts to individuals or 

their habitats would be expected to occur in the following aquatic habitats because no federal or 

private actions are planned to occur there: Cherry Creek Tributary, Reynolds Creek Tributary, 

Richards Creek, White Fir Creek, Little Kibbie Pond and Big Kibbie Pond (Table 3.03-10). Very little 

to no cumulative impacts would be expected to occur at Bear Creek and Niagara Creek because 

cumulative actions (i.e. emergency fire salvage), would affect only 2% and 3% of the habitats at these 

locations, respectively. This level of affect is considered to be so low, that the risk that individuals or 

112
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

the habitat would be impacted by the activity would be highly localized and not likely to affect the 

species persistence or overall habitat suitability of the site. A moderate level of cumulative impacts 

may occur to individuals and the habitats associated with Jawbone Creek, Little Reynolds Creek, 

Looney Creek, and Lost Creek, although cumulative disturbances would not exceed 34% in these 

habitats (Table 3.03-10). The primary direct effects that could occur in the areas where the cumulative 

action overlap the habitat would include an increased risk of injury, mortality, or behavior disturbance 

to individuals, or a reduction in LWD. The extent of these effects, however, would be highly 

localized, and would not be expected to cause an impact to the overall well-being of any individual 

SNLYF, and only a minor reduction in LWD recruitment to the streams. Habitats would likely remain 

intact, and not be measurably degraded by the levels of disturbance at these habitats. 

Cumulative actions would not affect the upland habitats associated with Cherry Creek Tributary, 

Reynolds Creek Tributary, Richards Creek, White Fir Creek, Little Kibbie Pond, or Big Kibbie Pond 

(Table 3.03-10). A small proportion of the upland habitat associated with Bear Creek would be 

impacted by cumulative actions, but the amount of activity is considered to be so low, individuals 

would not be expected to be impacted by these actions, and habitat suitability would remain 

unaffected. There would be a moderate level of cumulative disturbances within the upland habitats 

associated with Jawbone Creek, Little Reynolds Creek, Looney Creek, Lost Creek, and Niagara 

Creek, although the cumulative disturbances would not exceed 36% (Table 3.03-10). The primary 

direct effects that could occur in these habitats are the same as those described for the aquatic habitats 

above, but the overall risk to individuals and their habitats would increase proportionately with the 

amount of habitat affected. 

There would be no cumulative disturbances attributable to cumulative actions in the watersheds 

associated with the suitable breeding habitats at Cherry Creek Tributary, Richard Creek, White Fir 

Creek, Little Kibbie Pond, or Big Kibbie Pond (Table 3.03-11).The amount of cumulative disturbance 

within the watersheds associated with the suitable breeding habitats at Bear Creek, Niagara Creek, 

and Reynolds Creek Tributary would be small, 16%, 3%, and 9%, respectively (Table 3.03-11). 

However, the total cumulative disturbances in these watersheds are considered to be so minor, that 

there would be no substantial increase in the potential for indirect effects (i.e. sedimentation). 

The amount of cumulative disturbance within the watersheds associated with the suitable breeding 

habitats at Jawbone Creek, Little Reynolds Creek, Looney Creek, and Lost Creek would be moderate 

at 21%, 54%, 25%, and 30%, respectively (Table 3.03-11). Habitat suitability at Jawbone Creek is 

expected to be reduced to low-unsuitable for up to two years as a result of the predicted post-fire 

increases in sedimentation. The cumulative actions occurring in this watershed could contribute to 

additional sedimentation and cause a longer duration of reduced suitability for breeding and rearing. 

The habitat suitability would not be measurably affected by cumulative impacts in Little Reynolds 

Creek, Looney Creek, or Lost Creek; because the estimated increases in sediment from post-fire 

runoff are expected to be so minor they would not cause a change in habitat suitability in comparison 

to pre-fire conditions for any life stage of the SNYLF. 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog

Using Table 3.03-12, the cumulative actions within each watershed can be derived for other actions 

on public and private lands. Very little or no cumulative effects would be expected in the following 

watersheds because there would be no other federal or private actions: Adams, Alder, Basin, Bull, 

Deer Lick, Eleanor, Indian Springs, Moore, and Russell Creeks, Clavey Tributaries 1, 2, 4, and 5, and 

the North Fork Merced River. Increased sedimentation from other salvage operations would not occur 

and LWD recruitment potential would coincide with the existing condition. 

Minor to no discernible cumulative effect would be expected from the following watersheds because 

the other private or federal actions would only affect a very small percentage (less than 15 percent) of 

the FYLF buffer in the watershed or total watershed area: Bull Meadow, Cottonwood, Grapevine, 

113
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

Hunter, Indian, Indian Springs, and Reed Creeks, Clavey Tributary 3, and the Middle, North, and 

South Fork Tuolumne Rivers. In these streams, there would be localized increases in sedimentation, 

but the small cumulative percentage of FYLF buffer and watershed affected would not be sufficient to 

impair any biological function in the streams. FYLF habitat suitability would remain in the moderate 

suitability category until post-fire sediment is flushed from the systems (1-2 years) and relatively 

unimpaired habitat suitability would recover after 2 years. 

There would be minor to moderate localized effects to aquatic habitats in the following locations: 

Bear Springs, Cherry, Corral, Drew, Jawbone, and Quilty Creeks. At these sites, the percentage of 

FYLF buffer affected ranges from 0 to 42 percent and the percentage of watershed area affected 

ranges from 14 to 60 percent. Relatively minor changes would be expected in Cherry and Drew 

Creeks, but the remaining streams could have moderate reductions in habitat suitability, compared to 

a pre-fire condition, in extensive areas of the watershed. The increases in sedimentation could affect 

breeding and rearing success in Jawbone and Corral Creeks for up to two years. Adult and sub-adult 

habitats should not be significantly compromised by sediment because high energy pools and sections 

of steep stream gradient should maintain good pool depth for refuge habitat. Bear Springs and Quilty 

Creeks likely serve as dispersal habitats for frogs breeding in the Clavey River. In these streams, slow 

water habitats, especially in low gradient headwater streams, could have low suitability for up to two 

years, but larger stream sections with higher gradient should maintain moderate to high suitability, 

deep water habitats.

Suitable habitats in the Clavey and Tuolumne River would not be measurably affected by cumulative 

impacts. These river systems are so large that the increases in sediment from all sources, including 

post-fire runoff, would not be sufficient to cause a reduction in suitability of habitat for any life stage 

or impair any biological function associated with the frog (e.g., algal growth (tadpole food) during the 

summer baseflow period). 

Western Pond Turtle

The following locations would not have cumulative effects because there would be no risk of direct 

effect, a very low risk indirect effect (discountable effect on individuals and habitat), and no other 

federal or private action: Basin, Big Creek, Bull, Deer Lick, Eleanor, Moore, and the North Fork 

Merced and Tuolumne Rivers, Big Kibbie Pond, Little Kibbie Pond, and the three unnamed ponds 

near Yosemite Lakes Campground. 

Very minor to no discernible effect to individuals would occur at the following locations: Cherry, 

Drew, and Hunter Creeks, and the Middle and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers. Other federal or private 

actions would affect up to 16 percent of the WPT buffer in these streams which would correlate to a 

low risk of direct impact, primarily physical disturbance. Localized areas of increased sedimentation 

would be apparent, but deep pool habitats would retain moderate to high suitability for the turtle. 

Shallow water habitats used by hatchlings should see minor reductions in suitability, but the habitat 

should meet the growth and development needs of the turtle. 

Moderate levels of cumulative effect would be apparent at the following locations: Jawbone Creek, 

Grandfather and Homestead Ponds, Mud Lake, and Abernathy Meadow. For Jawbone Creek, the 

most apparent indirect impact would be increased sedimentation because 50 percent of the watershed

would be treated and 27 percent of the buffer would be treated. Deep water habitats would have 

minor to moderate reductions in volume, but the gradient and stream flow increases should maintain 

high quality pool habitat along most of the stream. The risk of direct effect is relatively low because 

the majority of the WPT buffer affected is in small tributary streams that provide low suitability 

habitat for the turtle. As for the ponds and meadow, between 20 and 55 percent of the buffer area 

would be treated by other private and federal actions. Mud Lake would be affected the most with over 

half of the buffer treated. At this location, the risk of physical disturbance is moderate and the risk of 

injury or mortality is relatively low. Operations would likely occur over a three to four week period 

114
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

and could occur when turtles are moving into the upland if the lake volume is reduced by 50 percent 

or more or if salvage activities occur into October when the turtles move into the upland. The 

potential recruitment of LWD would be reduced on the 63 acres treated, resulting in a habitat 

suitability reduction from just above moderate to just below moderate. For Homestead Pond, 

Grandfather Pond and Abernathy Meadow, more than 68 percent of the upland habitat would be 

unaffected by any action. There would be a low risk of physical disturbance because operations 

would only last a week or two at each location (16 to 42 treatment acres). Habitat suitability relative 

to LWD recruitment would be maintained in most of the upland area around each habitat.

Hardhead

There would be no cumulative effects to hardhead and habitat suitability would be maintained at high 

levels for all streams providing suitable habitat.

Alternative 3 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

California Red-legged Frog

The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3 are similar to those described in Alternative 1. 

Differences only exist in the quantity of breeding, non-breeding and upland habitats affected and the 

relative risk project activities may have on them. Those differences and how they may affect the 

relative risk to individual CRLF and their habitats are discussed further.

Effects to Individuals

Tree Felling and Removal

Breeding and Non-breeding Aquatic Habitat: Similar to Alternative 1, no proposed activities in 

Alternative 3 would overlap with suitable breeding streams. The proposed actions in Alternative 3 

would overlap with 5.67 percent less of Homestead Pond (the only breeding pond directly affected) 

than the actions proposed in Alternative 1 (0.12 acres versus 0.17 acres, Table 3.03-7 and Table 3.03-

18). Although the overall area affected is less, the risk of injury, mortality, or behavioral disturbance 

posed by treatments may be slightly higher because the 30 foot no cut and no equipment buffer 

included in Alternative 1 is not proposed in Alternative 3. In this alternative, the management 

requirement associated with Homestead pond requires trees be felled away from the pond. Although 

less prohibitive, directional felling in conjunction with other management requirements would 

successfully reduce the risk of injury or mortality to individuals to levels comparable to that in 

Alternative 1. Because, however, activities would be permitted to occur in closer proximity to the 

pond, behavioral disturbances are more likely in Alternative 3. Although, a disturbance would still 

only occur over 1 to 3 days and would not cause a long lasting, measurable effect. 

Alternative 3 treatments overlap perennial and intermittent non-breeding stream habitat 14.65 percent 

less than Alternative 1 (5.80 miles versus 6.65 miles, Table 3.03-7 and Table 3.03-18). The reduction 

in overlap occurs in the streams associated with Drew Creek and also in those areas associated with 

Birch and Mud Lake (Table 3.03-18). The risk of injury, mortality, or disturbance to individual CRLF 

in these habitats would be reduced in magnitude. 

Upland Habitat: Alternative 3 would overlap 8.61 percent less with CRLF upland habitat than 

Alternative 1 (Table 3.03-7 and Table 3.03-18). This reduction occurs within the upland habitats 

associated with Homestead Pond, Drew Creek and Birch and Mud Lake (Table 3.03-18). The risk of 

injury, mortality, or behavioral disturbance in these habitats would be measurably lower than in 

Alternative 1. 

Burn Piles

Same as Alternative 1. 

115
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

Road Treatments

Although 46.63 miles of road treatments are proposed within the CRLF upland buffer, only 1.02 

miles are outside the existing road prism. The risk of injury, mortality, or disturbance is not expected 

to exceed that occurring under normal operations of these routes. The additional 1.02 miles of 

temporary road proposed in Alternative 3 is within the Birch and Mud Lake upland habitat and would 

be decommissioned after use. Because there are no suitable non-breeding streams in the vicinity of 

this temporary road, the risk of causing injury, mortality, or disturbance to CRLF is low. 

Water Drafting

Same as Alternative 1. 

Application of Registered Borate Compound

Same as Alternative 1. 

Effects to Habitats

The amount of breeding, non-breeding, and upland habitat potentially impacted by proposed project 

activities in Alternative 3 is lower than in Alternative 1. Although the number of road treatment 

intersections with streams and the length of roads proposed to receive treatment are higher than 

Alternative 1, the majority of the road treatments would occur on roads already in the existing road 

prism. Although the actions proposed under Alternative 3 pose the same general risks and potential 

effects to CRLF habitats as those in Alternative 1, the overall magnitude of effect is less because 

project activities in Alternative 3 overlap with a smaller proportion of suitable CRLF habitats. 

Increases in Sediment 

Breeding and Non-breeding Aquatic Habitat: Alternative 3 would produce less sediment than 

Alternative 1 (Table 3.03-3), but would not impact sediment depths in breeding habitats at a level 

capable of altering the habitat suitability (positively or negatively) compared to the sediment 

generated by the effects of the Rim Fire. 

The risk of increased sedimentation in CRLF non-breeding habitats is the same as Alternative 1. 

Large Woody Debris 

Breeding and Non-breeding Aquatic Habitat: The proportion of perennial and intermittent CRLF 

non-breeding aquatic habitat directly overlapping proposed project activities in Alternative 3 is small 

(1.71 percent). A management requirement for Alternative 3 retains 5 standing dead trees per acre 

within RCAs adjacent to and within 100 feet of all perennial channels to provide for future 

recruitment of LWD to the stream. This management requirement in conjunction with the other 

management requirements common to each alternative would ensure reductions in LWD recruitment 

would be highly localized. Therefore, the loss of LWD would not have a measurable impact on 

habitat suitability or be measurably different than Alternative 1. 

Upland Habitat: The relative risk to CRLF upland habitats is 8.61 percent less than in Alternative 1, 

but the effects would be the same as those described in Alternative 1. The greatest reductions in the 

risk to habitat would occur within the upland habitats associated with Homestead Pond (-196 percent) 

and Drew Creek (-35 percent). 

Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog

Effects to Individuals

Tree Felling and Removal 

Breeding and Non-breeding Aquatic Habitat: The actions proposed in Alternative 3 would 

overlap 1.96 percent less SNYLF breeding and non-breeding habitat than those proposed in 

Alternative 1 (Table 3.03-7 and Table 3.03-18). Units in Looney Creek have been dropped under 

116
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 3, eliminating the risk of injury, mortality, or behavioral disturbance. All other effects 

described under Alternative 1 apply. 

Upland Habitat: The proposed actions overlap 1.34 percent less SNYLF habitat than those in 

Alternative 1 and the reduction occurs all within Looney Creek, eliminating the risk to frogs in the 

Looney Creek upland habitat. All other effects described under Alternative 1 apply.

Burn Piles

Same as Alternative 1. 

Road Treatments

A total of 1.69 miles of road treatments are proposed within the SNLYF upland habitat in Alternative 

3 (0.48 miles more than in Alternative 1); however, activities would occur within the existing road 

prism and would not create a greater risk to individual SNYLF than those under normal operations 

and only a minor increase in risk compared to Alternative 1. 

Water Drafting

Same as Alternative 1. 

Application of Registered Borate Compound 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Effects to Habitats

In general the direct effects of Alternative 3 would be the same as those in Alternative 1. The only 

difference exists at Looney Creek where no project activities are proposed in Alternative 3. The risk 

that proposed activities would cause an increase in sediment depth or a loss of LWD differs slightly 

from those described in Alternative 1 due to differences in management requirements.

Increases in Sediment 

Breeding and Non-breeding Aquatic Habitat: The implementation of Alternative 3 would 

contribute to less sediment than Alterative 1 in every SNYLF habitat (Table 3.03-3 and Table 3.03-

19). Excluding Bear Creek, the average difference between the predicted sediment depths after the 

implementation of Alternatives 1 and 3 is a reduction of 1.0 inch. However, at Bear Creek, Niagara 

Creek and Reynolds Creek, the differences may be great enough (-14.26, -3.58, and -3.17 inches 

respectively, Table 3.03-18) to indicate a potential beneficial effect of implementing Alternative 3. 

Additional management requirements in Alternative 3, including proposed acres of drop and lop to 

provide ground cover to mitigate the potential for erosion, are the likely drivers of the greater 

reduction in sediment in these three habitats. These mitigations would not occur under Alternative 1. 

At all other sites, Alternative 3 would not change the habitat suitability compared to Alternative 1 or 

the post-fire conditions. 

Large Woody Debris 

Breeding and Non-breeding Aquatic Habitat: The proportion of suitable SNYLF aquatic breeding 

habitat directly overlapping the proposed project activities in Alternative 3 is only 1.96 percent less 

than Alternative 1. The effects of implementing Alternative 3 would be similar to those described for 

Alternative 1. Despite the difference in management requirements between Alternatives 1 and 3 

regarding the retention of LWD, the impact on habitat suitability would not differ from that described 

for Alternative 1. 

Upland Habitat: Same as Alternative 1. 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog

The potential for direct and indirect effects for Alternative 3 are largely the same as those in 

Alternative 1. Table 3.03-13 indicates the extent to which salvage and roadside hazard abatement 

117
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

would affect the amount of buffer and overall area of each watershed. Table 3.03-13 also shows the 

number of miles of road treatment by activity type for Alternative 3. Comparing Table 3.03-13 to 

Table 3.03-8, there are no differences between salvage treatments (hazard tree and salvage units) 

between Alternatives 1 and 3. These watersheds include North Fork Merced and Tuolumne Rivers 

and Basin, Clavey Tributaries 1-3 and 5, Deer Lick, Grapevine, Hunter, Indian, Indian Springs, 

Quilty, Moore, Russell, and Scott Creeks. Direct and indirect effects described in Alternative 1 

directly apply to these watersheds for Alternative 3.

There are very minor differences (less than 10 percent and mainly decreases) in either amount of 

salvage treatment in buffer areas or percentage of watershed area in the following watersheds: 

Adams, Bear Springs, Bull, Cherry, Clavey River Tributary 4, Cottonwood, Drew, Eleanor, Granite, 

and Reed Creeks, and the Middle and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers. The small differences between 

the amounts of area treated by salvage activities would not be discernible between Alternatives 1 and 

3. The sediment modeling reflects little or no change in sediment delivery for these watersheds.

The following watersheds would see increases in activity from Alternative 1 to Alternative 3: Alder, 

Corral, and Jawbone Creeks. In Alder Creek, the amount of treatment in FYLF buffer areas increases 

from 0 (Alternative 1) to 34 acres and the percentage of watershed treated increases from 10 

(Alternative 1) to 45 percent. This alternative includes unit L204, a forage unit in critical winter deer

range, where dead trees would be removed as biomass. A review of the aerial imagery indicates 

widely scattered small, dead pines. The amount of disturbance created by equipment in this unit 

would be limited greatly (spatially) and there should be no discernible changes in sediment delivery 

to suitable habitat located downstream of the treatment unit. 

A similar situation exists in Corral Creek where the amount of treatment in FYLF buffers increases 

from 81 (Alternative 1) to 106 acres (Alternative 3) and the percentage of watershed treated increases 

from 58 percent to 78 percent, between Alternatives 1 and 3, respectively, in critical winter deer

range. The increased amount of disturbance created by additional equipment operation would increase 

the amount of sediment delivered to Corral Creek, especially in the lower third of the watershed. The 

additional sediment would slightly diminish suitability of FYLF aquatic habitat in the first year 

following treatment, but the steep gradient would likely transport the sediment out and to the 

Tuolumne River in the subsequent year. 

The percentage of FYLF buffer affected by salvage logging in Jawbone Creek would increase from 

13 percent in Alternative 1 to 24 percent in Alternative 3, but the total watershed area treated would 

decrease from 25 percent (Alternative 1) to 15 percent under Alternative 3. The increased activity in 

FYLF buffers would occur in the lower fourth of the watershed, and there would be a slight increase 

in sediment delivered to Jawbone Creek from the additional treatment units. This increase would 

slightly decrease aquatic habitat suitability for the FYLF because deep water refuge habitats would be 

reduced. The duration of effect would remain the same between alternatives because the steep 

gradient of the creek in this part of the watershed would effectively transport out the sediment. 

For the Tuolumne and Clavey Rivers, there would be no discernible difference in impact to aquatic 

and riparian habitats between Alternatives 1 and 3 because the amount of sediment predicted for both 

alternatives is very similar (at this large watershed scale) and there would be very little or no activity 

in close proximity to the rivers. High suitability habitat would be maintained in these rivers and no 

biological impairment would occur. 

118
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.03-13 Watershed area, buffers and road treatments in FYLF suitable habitat in Alternative 3

Watershed

(5th level HUC) Stream

Percent FYLF

Watershed Area 

Treated

FYLF Buffer Affected

(acres)

Road Treatments

(miles)

Hazard 

Tree Salvage Percent of total Reconstruct Maintain New Temp

Tuolumne River

Tuolumne River

Alder Cr. 45 0 34 30 3.2 0.2 0 0

Corral Cr. 78 0 106 46 18.9 0 0 2.5

Drew Cr. 12 12 0.4 11 1.9 3.6 0 0.6

Grapevine Cr. 18 29 0 11 0.7 17.4 0 0

Indian Cr. 2 1 0 less than 1 0 2.2 0 0

Jawbone Cr. 27 5 81 25 18.6 7.3 0 5.3

Middle Fork 

Tuolumne River

Middle Fork 

Tuolumne River

17 22 255 46 57.2 12.5 0 11.9

North Fork 

Tuolumne River

North Fork 

Tuolumne River

2 0 0 0 0.4 22.7 0 0

Basin Cr. 1 0 0 0 0.4 2.1 0 0

Hunter Cr. 9 0 0 0 0 19.9 0 0

South Fork 

Tuolumne River

South Fork 

Tuolumne River

38 29 144 24 75.5 27.3 0 4

Cherry Creek

Cherry Cr. 13 6 36 9 29.3 9.9 0 1.6

Eleanor Cr. 1 0 12 22 2.5 0 0 0.5

Granite Cr. 21 0.2 36 25 12.4 1.1 0 0.1

Clavey River

Clavey River

Reed Cr. 20 1 49 49 18.2 24.7 0 2.1

Adams Gulch 15 0 0 0 1.2 1.8 0 0

Bear Springs Cr. 18 9 0.1 20 10 0.7 0 0

Bull Meadow Cr. 36 0 36 50 4.0 0.4 0 0.8

Indian Springs Cr. 19 3 2 25 1.4 0.1 0 0

Quilty Cr. 5 0 0 0 0.1 1.1 0 0

Unnamed Trib 1 16 3 0 8 0 2.9 0 0

Unnamed Trib 2 24 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0

Unnamed Trib 3 69 0 26 46 0.8 10.3 0 0

Unnamed Trib 4 48 2 1 13 3 0.7 0 0

Unnamed Trib5 43 7 8 37 2.2 2.7 0 0

Cottonwood Cr. 31 0 3 5 19.1 8.8 0 0.1

Russell Cr. 30 0 0 0 0.9 2.3 0 0

North Fork Merced 

River

North Fork Merced 

River

2 22 18 less than 

0.1

12.3 11.2 0 0.2

Bull Cr. 2 5 0 less than 

0.1

3.95 2 0 0.5

Deer Lick Cr. 8 4 13 7 3.4 2.3 0 0.2

Moore Cr. 4 5 5 3 2 3.8 0 1

Scott Cr. 22 2 0 8 3.6 3.4 0 0

Western Pond Turtle

For 23 of the 25 aquatic features identified in Table 3.03-14, there is either no difference or very 

small differences (less than 2 percent) in the amount and type of treatment within WPT buffers. As 

such, the descriptions of environmental consequences provided for the WPT under Alternative 1

apply to Alternative 3. The two aquatic features where treatment amounts within the buffer are 

different are Abernathy Meadow and Mud Lake. At Abernathy Meadow, the percentage of buffer 

surrounding the meadow affected by salvage operations decreased from 66 acres (50 percent of total 

buffer area) to 26 acres (20 percent of total buffer area). The decrease in logging activity in the buffer 

would result in a lower potential for direct impacts to individuals, especially when the seasonal pond 

is losing volume and the turtles move into the upland for the summer to aestivate. The decreased 

logging around the meadow under this alternative would mean more trees would be available to fall 

119
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

and provide cover for turtles in 40 additional acres (when compared to Alternative 1). The additional 

amount of LWD would improve the overall upland habitat suitability, from moderate to high, in 

Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 1.

At Mud Lake, a similar situation would occur because the amount of buffer area treated would 

decrease by 9 acres (from 21 to 12 acres). This means only 10 percent of the buffer area would be 

treated. The direct and indirect effects discussed for Abernathy Meadow apply to Mud Lake.

Table 3.03-14 WPT buffer affected by salvage and roadside hazard tree units in Alternative 3

Watershed

(5th level HUC) Stream

WPT Buffer

(acres and percent of buffer treated)

Salvage Units Hazard Tree Units

Tuolumne River

Drew Cr. 27 (3 percent) 89 (9 percent)

Jawbone Cr. 701 (22 percent) 102 (3 percent)

Homestead Pond 15 (16 percent) 0 (0 percent)

Three unnamed ponds 27 (10 percent) 4 (1 percent)

Middle Fork Tuolumne River

Middle Fork Tuolumne River 2113 (39 percent) 307 (6 percent)

Abernathy Meadow 26 (20 percent) 6 (5 percent)

Grandfather Pond 7 (9 percent) 2 (2 percent)

Mud Lake 12 (10 percent) 0 (0 percent)

North Fork Tuolumne River

North Fork Tuolumne River 0 (0 percent) 411 (2 percent)

Basin Cr. 0 (0 percent) 0 (0 percent)

Hunter Cr. 0 (0 percent) 407 (2 percent)

South Fork Tuolumne River South Fork Tuolumne River 1441 (22 percent) 537 (8 percent)

Cherry Creek

Cherry Cr. 365 (10 percent) 59 (2 percent)

Eleanor Cr. 97 (16 percent) 0.1 (less than 1 percent)

Big Kibbie Pond 86 (88 percent) 0 (0 percent)

Little Kibbie Pond 52 (60 percent) 2 (2 percent)

Clavey River Reed Cr. 438 (48 percent) 12 (1 percent)

Cottonwood Cr. 29 (5 percent) 24 (5 percent)

North Fork Merced River

North Fork Merced River 176 (1 percent) 491 (3 percent)

Bull Cr. 25 (less than 1 percent) 109 (1 percent)

Deer Lick Cr. 42 (2 percent) 109 (5 percent)

Moore Cr. 56 (2 percent) 60 (2 percent)

Hardhead

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

California Red-legged Frog

Same as Alternative 1. 

Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog

No SNYLF habitat will have an increase in activity and only one watershed (Reynolds Creek 

Tributary) would have an increase in activity leading to cumulative disturbance greater than that in 

Alternative 1 (Table 3.03-10 and Table 3.03-11). This disturbance however, is directly related to an 

increase in the acres of hazard tree treatment under Alternative 3 and not from cumulative actions. 

Furthermore, this treatment would only affect an additional 1 percent of the watershed and the 

impacts would not measurably affect habitat suitability. All other habitats would either have no 

change or a slight decrease in the amount of cumulative disturbance (Table 3.03-10 and Table 3.03-

11), so the cumulative effects would be very similar to Alternative 1. 

120
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog

Comparing Tables 3.03-6 (cumulative effects for Alternative 1) and 3.03-9 (cumulative effects for 

Alternative 3), only four watersheds (Alder, Bull Meadow, Corral, and Jawbone Creeks) would have 

an increase in activities. The remaining watersheds would have no change or very little decrease in 

the amount of buffer or watershed area treated and the cumulative effects discussions under 

Alternative 1 are the same or very similar for this alternative. 

The four streams with increases in buffer and watershed area treated have cumulative total increases 

directly related to the amount of increased activity proposed under Alternative 3 and not from 

additional sources. That is, no cumulative effects increase is associated with private or other public 

activities. The environmental outcome discussed for Alder Creek would be the same for cumulative 

impacts in terms of risk to individuals and habitats. Jawbone and Bull Meadow Creeks would likely 

see high cumulative levels of physical disturbance to individuals because extensive areas of the buffer 

would be treated by salvage activities. The total amount of watershed area affected would also lead to 

extensive modification of aquatic habitats (channel filling from sedimentation) in the first two or 

three years following treatment. This extent of aquatic habitat modification would potentially impact 

breeding and tadpole development for the first two years following treatments. As a result, lower 

population numbers would be expected for five to seven years. Reproduction and recruitment rate in 

these streams would return to “normal” levels within four years of treatment and high habitat 

suitability would return.

Essentially all of the buffer and watershed area of Corral Creek would be impacted by some type of 

salvage logging. The watershed response would be uncertain and it is possible that aquatic habitat in 

most of Corral Creek would be unsuitable for the FYLF due to excessive sedimentation. Based on 

field experience during physical habitat surveys prior to the Rim Fire, there are some high gradient 

sections that, when combined with the anticipated increase in stream flow, should maintain small 

patches of moderate suitability deep water habitat. This may provide enough of a refuge for the frog 

to persist until additional habitat becomes available in the next two or three years. Breeding would 

likely not occur under these conditions for up to two years, resulting in decreased recruitment and 

population size for over ten years. From two to four years from present, preferred tadpole habitat 

could be considerably compromised because the anticipated amount of sediment would likely fill the 

spaces between the larger streambed substrates and reduce foraging and escape habitats. Low 

suitability foraging and escape habitats could lead to poor rates of survivorship and increased 

predation. The cumulative effects modeling for this watershed and alternative indicate the TOC 

would be exceeded for the next six years suggesting the channel and streambanks could be highly 

unstable for up to a decade. It should be noted that the erosion and sediment modeling completed for 

the project indicated a reduction in sediment delivery compared to the post-fire (no action) conditions 

and those expected from implementing Alternative 1. 

Western Pond Turtle

Comparing Table 3.03-12 (cumulative effects for Alternative 1) and Table 3.03-15 (cumulative 

effects for Alternative 3) indicates most values in Alternative 3 for percentage of buffer affected were 

the same or slightly (less than 5 percent) increased or decreased from those in Alternative 1. Given 

the limited amount of change (or lack of change) between the values, the extent of impact and risk to 

individuals is very similar between alternatives and the cumulative effects discussion for Alternative 

1 applies to this alternative. 

Hardhead

Same as Alternative 1. 

121
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

Table 3.03-15 Watershed area and FYLF and WPT buffers affected by salvage in Alternative 3

Watershed (5th level HUC) 

and Stream

Percent of FYLF

Buffer Affected

Percent of Watershed

Area Treated

Percent of WPT

Buffer Affected

Alt 3 Alt 3+CE Alt 3 Alt 3+CE Alt 3 Alt 3+CE

Tuolumne River

Alder Cr. 30 30 45 45 -- --

Corral Cr. 46 88 78 93 -- --

Drew Cr. 17 28 12 29 11 27

Grapevine Cr. 11 18 18 23 -- --

Indian Cr. 1 6 2 4 -- --

Jawbone Cr. 25 54 15 68 25 53

Homestead Pond -- -- -- -- 16 46

Middle Fork Tuolumne River 

Middle Fork Tuolumne River1 45 57 48 61 45 57

Abernathy Meadow -- -- -- -- 24 56

Grandfather Pond -- -- -- -- 11 30

Mud Lake -- -- -- -- 10 65

North Fork Tuolumne River

North Fork Tuolumne River 0 2 1 6 2 6

Basin Cr. 0 0 1 5 0 less than 0.1

Hunter Cr. 6 14 9 23 8 19

South Fork Tuolumne River

South Fork Tuolumne River2 10 34 36 46 31 40

Unnamed ponds near Yosemite Lakes -- -- -- -- 5 8

Cherry Creek

Cherry Cr. 10 26 13 34 29 45

Eleanor Cr. 22 22 1 1 16 16

Big Kibbie Pond -- -- -- -- 88 88

Little Kibbie Pond -- -- -- -- 63 63

Granite Cr. 25 67 21 78 -- --

Clavey River

Reed Cr. 50 54 20 34 50 61

Adams Gulch 0 0 15 32 -- --

Bear Springs Cr. 20 31 18 78 -- --

Bull Meadow Cr. 50 59 65 77 -- --

Indian Springs Cr. 25 25 19 29 -- --

Quilty Cr. 0 0 5 73 -- --

Unnamed Trib 1 8 8 16 16 -- --

Unnamed Trib 2 0 0 24 24 -- --

Unnamed Trib 3 46 50 69 78 -- --

Unnamed Trib 4 13 13 43 48 -- --

Unnamed Trib 5 37 37 43 45 -- --

Cottonwood Cr. 5 18 31 43 -- --

Russell Cr. 0 0 30 30 -- --

North Fork Merced River

North Fork Merced River 2 2 3 4 4 4

Bull Cr. less than 0.1 less than 0.1 2 2 1 1

Deer Lick Cr. 7 7 8 8 7 7

Moore Cr. 3 3 4 6 6 7

Scott Cr. 4 4 22 22 -- --

1 Percentages calculated for the 6th level HUC Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne and not for the 5th level HUC 2 Percentages calculated for the 6th level Lower South Fork Tuolumne River HUC

122
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 4

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

As with Alternative 3, there would be very little difference implementing Alternative 4 when 

compared to Alternative 1 for the three sensitive aquatic species (FYLF, WPT, and Hardhead). 

Further, for the watersheds that differed between Alternatives 1 and 3, there are no substantial 

differences in amount of watershed treated between Alternatives 3 and 4. That is, the salvage and 

road treatments are very similar in Alternatives 3 and 4. For 30 of the 34 watersheds listed in Table 

3.03-16, there are no differences in actions proposed under Alternative 3 and 4. The following 

watersheds have differences between Alternative 3 and 4: Cherry and Eleanor Creeks and the South 

Fork Tuolumne River. 

California Red-legged Frog

Same as Alternative 3. 

Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog

Effects to Individuals

Tree Felling and Removal 

Breeding and Non-breeding Aquatic Habitat: The proposed actions in Alternative 4 would 

overlap 16.57 percent and 8.11 percent less SNYLF breeding and non-breeding stream and pond 

habitat respectively, than the actions proposed in Alternative 1 and 14.37 percent and 8.11 percent 

less than Alternative 3 (Table 3.03-7 and Table 3.03-18). Risk of injury, mortality, or behavioral 

disturbance to SNYLF at Looney Creek, or along the areas of Bear Creek and Little and Big Kibbie 

Ponds, would not occur in Alternative 4. All other areas have the same potential effects as those 

described under Alternatives 1 and 3. 

Upland Habitat: The proposed actions in Alternative 4 would overlap 25.91 percent less SNYLF 

upland habitat than Alternative 1 and 24.24 percent less than Alternative 3 (Table 3.03-7 and Table 

3.03-18). The risk to SNYLF in upland habitats would be the same as those described under 

Alternative 1 and Alternative 3, but the overall risk to individual SNYLF is reduced. 

Burn Piles

Same as Alternatives 1 and 3. 

Road Treatments

Same as Alternative 3. 

Water Drafting

Same as Alternatives 1 and 3. 

Application of Registered Borate Compound

Same as Alternatives 1 and 3. 

Effects to Habitats

In general the risk of actions proposed in Alternative 4 would be lower than those proposed in either 

Alternative 1 or Alternative 3 because as mentioned previously, the amount of SNYLF habitat with 

the potential to be directly impacted by the actions of Alternative 4 would be lower than that in the 

other two action alternatives (Table 3.03-7 and Table 3.03-18). The risk that actions proposed in 

Alternative 4 would cause an increase in sediment depth in SNYLF aquatic habitats and a loss of 

LWD, however, differ slightly from those described in Alternatives 1 and 3 at Bear Creek, Little and 

Big Kibbie Ponds, Niagara Creek, and Reynolds Creek Tributary. Those differences are discussed 

below. 

123
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

Increases in Sediment 

Breeding and Non-breeding Aquatic Habitat: For most SNYLF aquatic habitats, the changes in 

sediment loads are the same as those expected in Alternative 3 (Table 3.03-19) which are either less 

than or the same as those expected to occur from the effects of the Rim Fire. While sediment levels 

would be reduced at Bear Creek, Niagara Creek, and Reynolds Creek, in comparison to post-fire 

effects, because less salvage and hazard tree treatments are proposed in Alternative 4 in comparison 

to Alternative 3in the areas near and adjacent to these habitats, erosion modelling indicated that 

increases in sediment would be greater (Table 3.03-3 and Table 3.03-19). Modelling assumes that 

project activities and management requirements will add ground cover capable of mitigating erosion 

on the landscape. Thus, the lack of project activities and their associated management requirements in 

Alternative 4, result in an elevated risk of sedimentation in Bear Creek, Niagara Creek and Reynolds 

Creek in comparison to Alternative 3. Nonetheless, in comparison to the existing condition, the 

differences are expected to be so minor that any effects will be unmeasurable. 

Large Woody Debris 

Breeding and Non-breeding Aquatic Habitat: The actions proposed in Alternative 4 would 

contribute to a lesser risk of a measurable loss of LWD in the suitable habitats at Bear Creek and 

Little and Big Kibbie Ponds compared to both Alternatives 1 and 3, and just as in Alternative 3, 

project activities would cause no loss of LWD in the Looney Creek breeding or upland habitat 

because no project activities will occur there in Alternative 4. All of the other suitable habitats would 

have the same risk of effect as that described in Alternative 1 because there is no difference between 

the actions proposed in Alternative 4 and those proposed in Alternative 1 in these habitats (Table 

3.03-18).

Upland Habitat: The proposed actions would overlap 25.91 percent less SNYLF habitat than those 

in Alternative 1 and 24.24 percent less than Alternative 3 (Table 3.03-7 and Table 3.03-18). The 

reduction in overlap exists because none of the acres of salvage units or hazard tree abatement under 

Alternative 1 within the Looney Creek, Bear Creek, and Little Kibbie Pond habitat exist under 

Alternative 4. The risk to upland habitats would be the same for areas where project activities still 

overlap as those described under Alternatives 1 and 3. However, the proposed actions in Alternative 4 

would reduce the overall risk of impacting SNYLF upland habitat due to fewer disturbances. 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog

Similar to Alternative 1 acreage, salvage activities would treat 54 acres of buffer in Cherry Creek. 

The environmental outcome based on this amount of buffer treated would be very similar to the 

outcome stated for Alternative 1; however, the total amount of watershed area treated in this 

alternative would be 594 acres less than what would be treated in Alternative 1 (3,302 acres in 

Alternative 1 versus 2,708 acres in Alternative 4). There may be a tradeoff in terms of sediment 

delivery to Cherry Creek between more acres treated in the FYLF buffer and fewer acres treated in 

total for the watershed, meaning slightly more sediment may come from the additional buffer areas 

and less from the non-buffer watershed acres. The sediment modeling indicated a 4 percent overall 

decrease in sediment delivery to the creek between Alternative 4 and Alternative 1. A change this 

small means there may be no detectable difference between the two alternatives and the 

categorization of Cherry Creek under Alternative 1 applies to this alternative. 

Eleanor Creek would have no change to the amount of FYLF buffer affected by salvage operations, 

but there would be an 83 acre decrease in total watershed area affected by salvaging. This is a 15 

percent reduction in acres treated compared to Alternative 1. The reduced amount of salvage activity 

would mean a slight reduction in sediment delivery to Eleanor Creek, but the magnitude of effect 

would be very small and may not be discernible from Alternative 1. The sediment modeling indicated 

a slight decrease in sediment delivery for this watershed between this alternative and Alternative 1, a 

difference of 482 tons (13,982 tons in Alternative 1 versus 13,496 tons in Alternative 4) or 3 percent. 

124
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

For the South Fork Tuolumne River, the percentage of buffer treated in all action alternatives is the 

same, but the amount of watershed area treated decreases by 132 acres between Alternative 1 and 

Alternative 4. This difference in area treated would not have a detectable difference than that of 

Alternative 1. The discussion for Alternative 1, therefore, applies to this alternative.

Table 3.03-16 Buffer and watershed area affected in FYLF suitable habitat in Alternative 4

Watershed 

(5th level HUC) Stream

Percent 

FYLF

Watershed

Treated

FYLF Buffer Affected

(acres)

Road Treatments

(miles)

Hazard 

tree Salvage Percent of total Reconstruct Maintain New Temp

Tuolumne River Tuolumne River

Alder Cr. 45 0 34 30 3.2 0.2 0 0

Corral Cr. 78 0 106 46 19.6 0.2 0 1.7

Drew Cr. 12 12 0.4 11 1.9 3.6 0 0.6

Grapevine Cr. 18 29 0 11 0.7 17.4 0 0

Indian Cr. 2 1 0 less than 1 0 2.2 0 0

Jawbone Cr. 27 5 81 25 18.6 7.3 0 5.3

Middle Fork 

Tuolumne River

Middle Fork 

Tuolumne River

17 22 255 46 57.2 12.5 0 11.9

North Fork 

Tuolumne River

North Fork 

Tuolumne River

2 0 0 0 0.4 22.7 0 0

Basin Cr. 1 0 0 0 0.4 2.1 0 0

Hunter Cr. 9 0 0 0 0 19.9 0 0

South Fork 

Tuolumne River

South Fork 

Tuolumne River

38 29 144 24 75.8 27 0 4

Cherry Creek Cherry Cr. 13 6 36 9 30.8 8.8 0 1.8

Eleanor Cr. 1 0 12 22 2.5 0 0 0.5

Granite Cr. 21 0.2 36 25 12.4 1.1 0 0.1

Clavey River Clavey River

Reed Cr. 20 1 49 49 22.4 20.6 0 3.7

Adams Gulch 15 0 0 0 1.2 1.8 0 0

Bear Springs Cr. 18 9 0.1 20 10 0.7 0 0

Bull Meadow Cr. 36 0 36 50 4.0 0.4 0 0.8

Indian Springs Cr. 19 3 2 25 1.4 0.1 0 0

Quilty Cr. 5 0 0 0 0.1 1.1 0 0

Unnamed Trib 1 16 3 0 8 0 2.9 0 0

Unnamed Trib 2 24 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0

Unnamed Trib3 69 0 26 46 0.8 10.3 0 0

Unnamed Trib 4 48 2 1 13 3 0.7 0 0

Unnamed Trib 5 43 7 8 37 2.2 2.7 0 0

Cottonwood Cr. 31 0 3 5 19.1 8.8 0 0.1

Russell Cr. 30 0 0 0 0.9 2.3 0 0

North Fork Merced 

River

North Fork Merced 

River

2 22 18 less than 

0.1

12.3 11.2 0 0.2

Bull Cr. 2 5 0 less than 

0.1

3.95 2 0 0.5

Deer Lick Cr. 8 4 13 7 3.4 2.3 0 0.2

Moore Cr. 4 5 5 3 2 3.8 0 1

Scott Cr. 22 2 0 8 3.6 3.4 0 0

Western Pond Turtle

For the WPT, all timber removal activities (hazard tree and salvage) proposed in Alternative 4 are the 

same as those proposed in Alternative 3; therefore, the effects analysis for Alternative 3 applies to this 

alternative. There are two exceptions to this statement and they involve Big and Little Kibbie Ponds 

(Table 3.03-17). Under Alternative 4, the total amount of combined salvage activity would affect 63 

acres of the WPT buffer at Big Kibbie Pond and 29 acres of buffer area at Little Kibbie Pond. This is 

125 
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

compared to the 86 and 54 acres proposed for treatment under Alternatives 1 and 3. The amount of 

activity in WPT buffers under Alternative 4 would lessen the potential for direct and indirect effects 

to individuals and upland habitat suitability. The lower amount of activity around these two ponds 

would decrease the total amount of time equipment and personnel spend in upland habitats which 

should decrease the potential for direct effect to any given individual. This would reduce the potential 

for injury, mortality, or physical disturbance. 

From an indirect effect perspective, the primary difference between Alternative 4 when compared 

with Alternatives 1 and 3 would be an increase in LWD in upland habitats. Full recruitment potential 

would occur for all trees in the 25 or so acres that would not be treated. These unaffected acres would 

have the highest habitat suitability for the capability of the site when compared to the other action 

alternatives. The LWD is used by turtles as refuge habitat. There would be no detectable difference in 

sediment delivery to either feature when compared to Alternative 1 because the hillslopes next to 

these two ponds have very low gradient (less than 10 percent). Low gradient hillslopes are typically 

capable of retaining sediment and not transporting it downslope. 

The differences in road treatment actions are discussed under FYLF and apply to the WPT at the 

watershed scale. The discussion of effects to FYLF habitat applies to the WPT because there is high 

habitat association between the two species and because the road-stream interaction occurs in a 

predictable way regardless of the species involved.

Table 3.03-17 WPT buffer affected by salvage and roadside hazard tree units in Alternative 4

Watershed

(5th level HUC) Stream

WPT Buffer

(acres and percent of buffer treated)

Salvage Units Hazard Tree Units

Tuolumne River

Tuolumne River

Drew Cr. 27 (3%) 89 (9%)

Jawbone Cr. 701 (22%) 102 (3%)

Homestead Pond 15 (16%) 0 (0%)

Three unnamed ponds 27 (10%) 4 (1%)

Middle Fork Tuolumne River

Middle Fork Tuolumne River 2,113 (39%) 307 (6%)

Abernathy Meadow 26 (20%) 6 (5%)

Grandfather Pond 7 (9%) 2 (2%)

Mud Lake 12 (10%) 0 (0%)

North Fork Tuolumne River

North Fork Tuolumne River 0 (0%) 411 (2%)

Basin Cr. 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Hunter Cr. 0 (0%) 407 (2%)

South Fork Tuolumne River South Fork Tuolumne River 1,441 (22%) 537 (8%)

Cherry Creek

Cherry Cr. 365 (10%) 59 (2%)

Eleanor Cr. 97 (16%) 0.1 (less than 1%)

Big Kibbie Pond 63 (64%) 19 (19%)

Little Kibbie Pond 29 (34%) 19 (19%)

Clavey River

Clavey River

Reed Cr. 438 (48%) 12 (1%)

Cottonwood Cr. 29 (5%) 24 (5%)

North Fork Merced River

North Fork Merced River 176 (1%) 491 (3%)

Bull Cr. 25 (less than 1%) 109 (1%)

Deer Lick Cr. 42 (2%) 109 (5%)

Moore Cr. 56 (2%) 60 (2%)

Hardhead

Same as Alternatives 1 and 3. 

126
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

California Red-legged Frog

Same as Alternatives 1 and 3. 

Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog

The cumulative effects described under Alternative 3 are the same as Alternative 4 except at Bear 

Creek, Niagara Creek, and Reynolds Creek Tributary where the amount of habitat cumulatively 

affected is decreased because fewer acres are proposed in Alternative 4. 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog

The cumulative actions proposed under Alternative 4 are the same as Alternative 3 except for Cherry 

and Eleanor Creeks. For these two exceptions, the amount of buffer affected increased to about the 

levels in Alternative 1. The cumulative effects discussion for these two streams can be found under 

Alternative 1.

Western Pond Turtle

The types and extent of activities described in Alternative 3 are unchanged for Alternative 4 for all 

but two locations: Big and Little Kibbie Ponds. For the remaining locations, the cumulative effects 

analysis for Alternative 1 applies to the WPT in Alternative 4. At Big Kibbie Pond, there would be a 

reduction in cumulative percentage of buffer area affected from 88 percent in Alternatives 1 and 3 to 

64 percent under Alternative 4. At Little Kibbie Pond, there would be a reduction in cumulative 

percentage of buffer area affected from 63 percent in Alternatives 1 and 3 to 29 percent under 

Alternative 4. These reductions are related to the differences in actions proposed in the alternatives 

rather than from cumulative sources. There would be no other actions around the ponds other than 

those described for Alternative 4. Cumulatively, though, there would be a lower risk of direct impact 

to individuals in aquatic or upland habitats with the largest reduction occurring at Little Kibbie Pond. 

LWD supply and recruitment as a habitat element would be higher under this alternative and the 

habitat suitability would be high given the current capability. 

Hardhead

Same as Alternative 1. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

California Red-legged Frog

The implementation of Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk to individual CRLF and their habitats 

although the risk is low. Breeding habitat overlaps with project activities at only 1 site (Homestead 

Pond) and overlap with non-breeding habitat is also relatively low (Table 3.03-7 and Table 3.03-18). 

Upland habitats have the greatest proportion of overlap with project activities (Table 3.03-7 and Table 

3.03-18). In general the risk to CRLF and their habitats is lower under Alternatives 3 and 4 because 

there is less overlap with project activities. 

Possible direct effects to individuals include injury, mortality, or behavioral disturbance. The direct 

effects to aquatic habitats are minimized by management requirements prohibiting operations within 

and adjacent to aquatic features. The upland habitat would be at a greater risk of direct effects from 

microclimate alterations affecting temperature and moisture levels required by the CRLF and a loss of 

LWD and other structures commonly used by CRLF as refuge. A limited operating period in 

conjunction with other management requirements should mitigate these risks. 

A potential increase of sediment depth in breeding and non-breeding habitat is the most likely effect 

to CRLF habitats, but the effects under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 are likely to be negligible in 

127
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

comparison to the increases in sediment from the effects of the Rim Fire (Table 3.03-3 and Table 

3.03-19). 

Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog

Similar to the CRLF, the implementation of Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk to individual SNYLF

and their habitats although the risk is low, and little difference exists between the action alternatives. 

For the majority of SNYLF suitable habitat the Alternatives are the same (Table 3.03-11). Looney 

Creek would have the least risk under Alternatives 3 and 4 while Bear Creek, Little Kibbie Pond, and 

Big Kibbie Pond would have the least risk under Alternative 4 (Table 3.03-18). 

Table 3.03-18 Comparison of CRLF and SNYLF suitable habitat at risk of direct effects

Habitat Alternative 11 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

California red-legged frog

 Birch and Mud Lakes2 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

 Miles of Non-Breeding (Per and Int.) 2.22(29.96) 0(0) 2.12(28.61) 2.12(28.61)

 Acres of Upland 801.49(27.66) 0(0) 800.53(27.63) 800.53(27.63)

 Drew Creek3 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

 Miles of Non-Breeding (Per and Int.) 0.97(10.99) 0(0) 0.21(2.37) 0.21(2.37)

 Acres of Upland 352.06(9.77) 0(0) 260.20(7.22) 260.20(7.22)

 Harden Flat2 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

 Miles of Non-Breeding (Per and Int.) 0.36(5.71) 0(0) 0.36(5.71) 0.36(5.71)

 Acres of Upland 207.32(13.58) 0(0) 207.84(13.62) 207.84(13.62)

 Homestead Pond2 0.17(100) 0(0) 0.12(70.59) 0.12(70.59)

 Miles of Non-Breeding (Per and Int.) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

 Acres of Upland 181.60(8.86) 0(0) 61.42(3.00) 61.42(3.00)

 Hunter Creek and Ponds4 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

 Miles of Non-Breeding (Per and Int.) 3.10(8.83) 0(0) 3.10(8.83) 3.10(8.83)

 Acres of Upland 1,137.05(9.87) 0(0) 1,137.05(9.87) 1,137.05(9.87)

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

 Bear Creek3 0.77(97.08) 0(0) 0.77(97.08) 0.01(1.59)

 Acres of Upland 15.55(95.67) 0(0) 15.55(95.67) 0.79(4.83)

 Cherry Creek Tributary3 0.08(5.65) 0(0) 0.08(5.65) 0.08(5.65)

 Acres of Upland 1.56(5.59) 0(0) 1.56(5.59) 1.56(5.59)

 Jawbone Creek3 1.30(28.73) 0(0) 1.30(28.73) 1.30(28.73)

 Acres of Upland 27.04(29.85) 0(0) 27.04(29.85) 27.04(29.85)

 Little Reynolds Creek 0.88(24.41) 0(0) 0.88(24.41) 0.88(24.41)

 Acres of Upland 18.46(25.58) 0(0) 18.46(25.58) 18.46(25.58)

 Looney Creek3 0.12(4.63) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

 Acres of Upland 2.73(5.34) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

 Lost Creek3 0.28(14.99) 0(0) 0.28(14.99) 0.28(14.99)

 Acres of Upland 4.09(10.90) 0(0) 4.09(10.90) 4.09(10.90)

 Niagara Creek3 1.07(73,95) 0(0) 1.07(73,95) 1.07(73,95)

 Acres of Upland 20.17(47.44) 0(0) 20.17(47.44) 20.17(47.44)

 Reynolds Creek Tributary3 0.08(10.01) 0(0) 0.08(10.01) 0.08(10.01)

 Acres of Upland 2.10(12.24) 0(0) 2.10(12.24) 2.10(12.24)

 Richards Creek3 0.59(50.69) 0(0) 0.59(50.69) 0.59(50.69)

 Acres of Upland 8.75(37.18) 0(0) 8.75(37.18) 8.75(37.18)

 White Fir Creek3 1.09(58.35) 0(0) 1.09(58.35) 1.09(58.35)

 Acres of Upland 14.48(38.82) 0(0) 14.48(38.82) 14.48(38.82)

 Little and Big Kibbie Ponds2 1.28(100) 0(0) 1.28(100) 0.74(93.00)

 Acres of Upland 133.97(77.70) 0(0) 133.97(77.70) 65.57(54.36)

1 Percent values are included in parenthesis represent the percent of each individual habitat affected. 2 Non-parenthetical values = acres 3 Non-parenthetical values = miles 4 Non-parenthetical values represent the acres and miles. 

128
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Possible direct effects to individuals include injury, mortality, or behavioral disturbance. Direct 

effects to aquatic habitats are not expected to occur because management requirements prohibit 

operations within and adjacent to aquatic features. The upland habitat would be at greater risk of 

direct effects in comparison to the breeding and non-breeding aquatic habitats, although in 

comparison to CRLF, the upland habitat of SNYLF are less important to their overall survival 

because of their close affinity to water and the lack of habitats in close enough proximity to one 

another to elicit overland movements. 

A potential increase of sediment depth in breeding and non-breeding habitat is the most likely effect 

SNYLF habitats may experience, but the effects of implementing the actions proposed under 

Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 are negligible to minor in comparison to the increases in sediment from the 

effects of the Rim Fire (Table 3.03-3 and Table 3.03-19).

Table 3.03-19 Post-fire and post-implementation sediment depths in breeding habitats

Habitat Post-Fire1

(Alternative 2) Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

California red-legged frog

Birch Lake 0.24 0.05 -0.02 -0.02

Mud Lake 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Drew Creek 27.75 0.02 -0.81 -0.81

Harden Flat Pond 1 4.96 0.07 -0.20 -0.20

Harden Flat Pond 2 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05

Homestead Pond 3.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hunter Creek 16.65 -0.02 -0.33 -0.33

Hunter Creek Pond 1 3.08 -0.02 0.00 0.00

Hunter Creek Pond 2 10.39 0.15 0.01 0.01

Hunter Creek Pond 3 1.64 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hunter Creek Pond 4 6.22 0.01 -0.06 -0.06

Hunter Creek Pond 5 13.65 0.12 -0.06 -0.06

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

Bear Creek 40.18 -4.22 -14.26 -3.29

Cherry Creek Tributary 21.45 -0.07 -1.65 -1.65

Jawbone Creek 18.54 -0.46 -1.90 -1.90

Little Reynolds Creek 2.11 0.06 -0.05 -0.05

Looney Creek 2.59 0.01 -0.02 -0.02

Lost Creek 1.50 0.12 -0.10 -0.10

Niagara Creek 17.03 -0.49 -3.58 -0.86

Reynolds Creek Tributary 13.61 -0.63 -3.17 -0.23

Richards Creek 18.46 0.52 -0.13 -0.13

White Fir Creek 5.75 0.09 -1.14 -1.14

Little Kibbie Pond 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00

Big Kibbie Pond 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00

1 Post-fire values listed are the worst-case scenario (100 percent transport and 100 percent storage) 

as shown in Table 3.03-2, all other values listed are the change in inches from post-fire. 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog

Very little difference exists between the action alternatives for most of the aquatic features assessed 

for the FYLF. There appears to be a direct correlation between the amount of salvage related activity 

on private and public lands and the prevalence of moderate and high vegetation severity fire. This 

correlation means that more severely burned watersheds have higher levels of salvage activity in 

addition to higher levels of post-fire watershed response. The environmental outcomes in the high 

burn severity and salvage activity watersheds are similar in that there would be more activity in the 

upland buffer areas for the species and a greater risk of greatly increased sedimentation of aquatic 

habitats. These excess sediment-related effects would disproportionately decrease habitat suitability 

129
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

in smaller streams because they may not be as effective at mobilizing and transporting the sediment. 

In some cases, unsuitable habitat could occur at small spatial scales within a watershed, but, in most 

cases, patches of moderate to high suitability habitat would persist. Within five to seven years, the 

sediment transport-storage balance should be regained in most streams and more “normal” watershed 

processes would resume. Reproduction and recruitment may be adversely affected in some aquatic 

habitats and population size would be expected to decrease for up to ten years in the most severely 

burned and logged watersheds. In general, the recruitment of LWD should only be affected to a minor 

degree because most streams would have extensive areas of unsalvaged forest adjacent to the water. 

However, some streams, like Corral, Jawbone, and Granite Creeks, could have a significant reduction 

in recruitment rates of LWD and these effects could persist for 150 years or more.

Western Pond Turtle

Same as FYLF. 

Hardhead

No differences exist between effects to hardhead or their habitats. High suitability habitat for all 

lifestages would be maintained in the lower North Fork Tuolumne and Clavey Rivers and habitat for 

adult and sub-adult lifestages would not be measurably affected by any or all actions.

130
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

3.04 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction

The Forest Service is directed to identify, evaluate, treat, protect, and manage cultural resources by 

several laws. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) 

provides comprehensive direction to federal agencies regarding historic preservation. Executive Order 

11593, entitled Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, also includes direction 

about the identification and consideration of cultural resources in federal land management decisions. 

The NHPA extends the policy in the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-467) to 

include resources that are of State and local significance, expands the NRHP, and establishes the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and State Historic Preservation Officers. NHPA Section 

106 directs all federal agencies to take into account effects of their undertakings (actions, financial 

support, and authorizations) on properties included in or eligible for the National Register. The 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) regulations (36 CFR 800) implements NHPA 

Section 106. NHPA Section 110 sets inventory, nomination, protection, and preservation 

responsibilities for Federally-owned cultural resources. 

Section 106 of the NHPA and the ACHPs implementing regulations, Protection of Historic 

Properties (36 CFR Part 800), require that federal agencies take into account the effect of their 

undertakings on cultural resources, and that agencies provide the ACHP with an opportunity to 

comment on those undertakings. Programmatic agreements (36 CFR 800.14(b)) provide alternative 

procedures for complying with 36 CFR 800. 

The Stanislaus National Forest developed a specialized agreement: “Programmatic Agreement 

Among the United States Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, The California State Historic 

Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Regarding the Compliance 

with the National Historic Preservation Act for Proposed Actions Pertaining to the Rim Fire Recovery

and the Adverse Effects to Historic Properties caused by the Rim Fire Emergency, Tuolumne County, 

California (Rim PA).” This agreement defines the Area of Potential Effects (APE) (36 CFR 

800.4(a)(1)) and includes a strategy outlining the requirements for cultural resource inventory, 

evaluation of cultural resources, and effect determinations; it also includes protection and resource 

management measures that may be used where effects may occur. Additionally, this agreement 

provides unique and necessary opportunities to remove both commercial value timber and hazard 

trees from within site boundaries utilizing a variety of harvest methods including one-end suspension 

and rubber tired machinery. Removal of these trees benefits the long term recovery and preservation 

of cultural resource sites by reducing future fuel build-up and fire weakened trees that could fall and 

impact already fragile resources.

The Forest Plan Compliance (project record) document identifies the Forest Plan S&Gs that 

specifically apply to this project and related information about compliance with the Forest Plan.

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Cultural Resources

 Removal of salvage timber and hazard trees adjacent to Maintenance Level 2 roads through 

mechanical, cable and helicopter harvest methods will have no adverse effect to cultural 

resources. 

 New road construction, reconstruction, maintenance and construction of temporary roads will not 

affect the integrity of cultural resource sites within the project boundary. 

 Removal of hazard trees and commercial value logs from within site boundaries can have a 

beneficial effect on cultural resources. Harvest of these trees would lessen the potential for 

131
Chapter 3.04 Stanislaus

Cultural Resources National Forest

damage to already fragile bedrock mortar outcrops and historic earthworks such as ditches, roads 

trails and railroad grades.

 Use of existing breaches within linear sites such as historic railroad grades, trails, roads and 

ditches will cause no adverse effect to cultural resources.

 Use of existing water and rock quarry sources and development of new sources are not 

anticipated to affect cultural resources.

 According to the Rim PA, all archaeological and historical sites identified within the APE for all 

alternatives are considered cultural resources for the purposes of this undertaking, unless they 

already have been determined not eligible in consultation with the SHPO or through other agreed 

on procedures (36 CFR 60.4; 36 CFR 800). 

 Activities outlined within the EIS, when combined with the past, present and foreseeable future 

actions are not expected to cumulatively lead to increased impacts to cultural resources.

Data Sources

 Site specific cultural resource inventories conducted between 1986 to present (which meet current 

archaeological survey standards) were utilized. The primary objectives of these surveys were to 

identify cultural resources in the APE that may be affected by the undertaking and collect 

information on their current condition. 

 Existing information from cultural resource records, historic archives, maps, and GIS spatial 

layers were also used.

Cultural Resources Indicators

Indicators of direct and indirect effects include: 

 Exposure of surface and subsurface artifacts through the removal of commercial value timber, 

hazard trees, and temporary and new road construction. 

 The degree to which the integrity of historic property values are diminished.

Cultural Resources Methodology by Action

The 2013 Rim Fire on the Stanislaus National Forest, while destructive, also provided the rare 

opportunity to have an unimpeded view of the forest floor. Utilizing previous archaeological 

inventories from past projects that meet current survey standards (1986 to present) nearly 53 percent 

of the proposed treatment areas were eliminated from further inventory. A strategy was developed to 

intensively survey (15- to 30-meter interval spacing) the remaining treatment areas. The strategy is 

consistent with the Rim PA. 

Affected Environment

Cultural resources are archaeological, cultural, and historical legacies from our past that are more 

than 50 years old. Cultural resource information, combined with environmental data, can illuminate 

past relationships between people and the land. Cultural-ecological relationships, the result of both 

natural processes and 10,000 years of human interaction in the central Sierra Nevada, are key topics 

in this region’s anthropological, archaeological, and historical research. 

The Stanislaus National Forest currently contains 4,538 recorded prehistoric and historic 

archaeological sites (cultural resources). The vast majority of these (2,708) represent prehistoric 

Native Americans and ethnographic Miwok and Washoe land use. These include seasonal villages, 

temporary camps, toolstone quarries, and bedrock mortar milling locations. Today, the Miwok still 

actively use the Forest for gathering traditional food and medicine plants, hunting, and conducting 

ceremonies.

The project area contains 1,501 recorded sites representing historic land use of the Forest. These 

include emigrant trails, historic cabins, roads, bridges, lumber or mining complexes and camps, 

132
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

ditches, homesteads, grazing camps, arbor glyphs (tree carvings), railroad grades, trestles, mining 

shafts and adits, and Forest Service administrative buildings and compounds. All of the historic sites 

found in the Forest date from 1846 to the present. 

Since people today favor many of the areas preferred by Native people, 329 sites have both a 

prehistoric and historic component. 

Existing Conditions

This project encompasses the Forest’s largest Section 106 compliance project in relation to a 

catastrophic wildfire event. The scale of the undertaking requires that an extensive field survey be 

conducted to identify cultural resources within the APE that may be affected by the various projects 

proposed under the post fire recovery undertaking. 

The Rim Recovery project identifies 30,402 acres for salvage with an additional 15,253 acres of 

Maintenance Level 2 roads for hazard tree removal. These 45,655 acres constitute the Rim Recovery

project APE. A pre-field review determined that 26,425 acres of the APE had been previously 

surveyed for cultural resources through various other projects. An additional 7,921 acres were 

eliminated due to slopes greater than 40 percent. The result of these surveys identified 1,901 

prehistoric and historic properties within the project boundary of which 756 are located within or 

adjacent to treatment units and adjacent to Maintenance Level 2 roads likely to be affected by this 

project. 

Of these 756 properties, 244 are prehistoric sites related to food processing (bedrock milling 

features), stone tool processing (lithic scatters) and temporary living areas (rock shelters). These sites 

are associated to land use by the native inhabitants of the region, known as the Central Sierra Miwok. 

The 756 properties include 401 historic sites related to railroad logging (camps, grades and associated 

features), mining (mines, hydraulic mining areas, water conveyance ditches), water development 

(dams and water conveyance ditches), grazing (structures and fence lines) and homesteading 

(structure remains). Also, 44 sites are multi-component (both prehistoric and historic) sites. The 

remaining sites are noted but not recorded through previous undertakings and will be documented 

prior to implementation. 

The remaining 12,685 acres are identified by Heritage Resource Specialists as needing archaeological 

survey in order to ensure the protection and preservation of cultural resources. This survey will be 

completed prior to project implementation as stipulated in the Rim PA.

CONTEMPORARY NATIVE AMERICAN USE

From the onset of the Rim Fire incident, the Forest Archaeologist consulted with the Tuolumne MeWuk Tribal Council regarding protection of traditional collection areas and sites significant to the 

Miwok people. Native peoples continue to utilize the area for traditional gathering and will continue 

to do so. 

HISTORIC USE

Historic records, maps and oral accounts encompassing the project boundary indicate intensive land 

use since the Gold Rush era (1849) especially in the areas of mining, water development, railroad 

logging, and ranching. Numerous mines were located along the Eastern Belt, a zone of auriferous 

quartz veins in black slate or grandodiorite which ran parallel and east of the Mother Lode. Gold was 

also extracted from the Tertiary alluvial gravels with the development of hydraulic mining through 

1884. In order to supply the mines and associated communities of Big Oak Flat and Second Garotte 

with sufficient water, a system of ditches and flumes was built by the Golden Rock Water Company 

in the late 1850s to distribute water from the Middle and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers. Remnants of 

the Golden Rock Ditch system and other lesser known systems run through many parts of the Rim

133
Chapter 3.04 Stanislaus

Cultural Resources National Forest

Fire burn area. One of the Golden Rock’s major engineering feats, the Inverted Syphon and the Big 

Gap Flume, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

During the first three decades of the last century, four major railroad logging systems were built into 

the Tuolumne and Merced River drainage basins: West Side Lumber Company (1899); Yosemite / 

Sugar Pine Lumber Company (1907); Hetch Hetchy Railroad (established 1917) and the associated 

railroad logging operation; and California Peach and Fig Growers (1917), extending from Hetch 

Hetchy Junction (5 miles southwest of Chinese Camp) to Hetch Hetchy Valley. The Rim Fire affected 

portions of all four railroad logging systems to various degrees. Associated features affected by the 

event include railroad grades, trestles, inclines, cut and fill structures, logging camps, donkey sets and 

associated equipment. 

Presently, 14 grazing allotments are either wholly or partially affected by the Rim Fire. Historic 

records, maps and oral accounts encompassing the allotment boundaries indicate intensive livestock 

grazing occurred from the 1850s to the early 1920s. Some of the existing trail system is likely 

connected to moving livestock to summer pasturage. Associated features affected by the fire include 

fences, wooden troughs and collapsed wooden structures (range cabins).

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Potential direct effects include displacement and/or obliteration of surface and subsurface deposits 

from mechanical harvest and road treatments. Activities conducted during this project have the 

potential to uncover previously unknown cultural resources where deposits are largely subsurface. 

Pursuant to the Rim PA, all sites will be delineated with coded flagging and/or other effective 

marking (i.e., “flag and avoid) for protection prior to project implementation. Where opportunities are 

identified and approved by the Forest Archaeologist, the Forest will implement Stipulation III (G)(b) 

of the Rim PA in order to harvest commercial value timber and hazard trees from within site 

boundaries utilizing a variety of harvest methods including one-end suspension, a feller-buncher and 

rubber tired machinery. Removal of these trees will benefit the long term recovery and preservation 

of cultural resource sites by reducing future fuel build-up and fire weakened trees that could fall and 

impact already fragile resources. These alternative methods are low risk, and pose only minimal 

temporary impact in the form of light surface scrapes to cultural resources. In all cases Forest heritage 

resource specialists will be present to authorize and direct access within site boundaries. Also, sites 

may be avoided through project redesign. 

Additionally, Alternative 1 is not anticipated to have any effects on cultural values, particularly plant 

species important to California Indian Basketweavers or other Native American gatherers. 

A potential indirect effect resulting from the Rim Fire incident is the exposure of an infinite number 

of historic and prehistoric properties to potential human vandalism and to looting for financial and 

personal gain. However, harvest of timber, removal of hazard trees and treatment of fuels from within 

and around site boundaries will benefit cultural resources by limiting or eliminating the appearance of 

“timber/vegetation islands” indicating the location of a cultural site. Post-project monitoring of sites 

is a requirement to determine the effectiveness of treatments and lessen the potential for unanticipated 

effects.

Due to implementation of management requirements and monitoring, no effects to historic and 

prehistoric properties are anticipated under Alternative 1. 

134
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

All projects listed in Cumulative Effects Analysis (Appendix B) have been or will be subject to 

NHPA Section 106 compliance and potential effects to cultural resources would be identified at that 

time following stipulations in the Rim PA.

Alternative 1, when combined with the past, present and foreseeable future actions and events are not 

expected to cumulatively lead to increased impacts to cultural resources. 

Alternative 1 would lessen the effects of future wildfire on these sites, protect fragile resources and 

return the ecological setting or appearance to the time of the Native American presence, thus 

preserving those values that would make these sites significant and allow for future studies.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

The no action alternative would present a low risk to cultural resources. There would be no new or 

increased ground-disturbing activities in the areas of known cultural resource sites, and therefore no 

direct effects would occur with Alternative 2. 

Indirect effects to the cultural resources may occur through inaction. The existing threat of fireweakened trees falling naturally, and potentially damaging already fragile cultural resources, would 

continue unabated in the areas of cultural resources. The actions presented in Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 

would serve to better control the placement of felled salvage and hazard trees to avoid cultural 

resources, and therefore reduce the potential for ground disturbance to cultural sites. The lack of 

action can adversely affect cultural resources through natural mortality where fire-weakened trees 

may uproot within archaeological sites creating increased ground disturbance and damaging already 

fragile resources. Additionally, the reduced ground cover resulting from the lack of timber treatments 

may result in increased site visibility and subsequent site looting and vandalism. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Alternative 2, when combined with the past, present and foreseeable future actions, is expected to 

cumulatively lead to a potentially moderate increase of impacts to cultural resources. As stated above, 

Alternative 2 may have an indirect effect to cultural resources where lack of treatments within and 

around cultural resource sites may increase the potential for ground disturbance and damage to site 

features.

Alternative 3

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

The potential effects in Alternative 3 are similar to Alternative 1. Additionally, watershed treatments, 

including removal of conifers that are encroaching in meadows, not only improve water tables but 

restore the ecological setting and appearance to the time of the Native American presence. This 

alternative is not anticipated to have any effects on cultural values, particularly plant species 

important to California Indian Basketweavers or other Native American gatherers. 

Due to implementation of management requirements and monitoring, no effects to historic and 

prehistoric properties are anticipated under Alternative 3. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 3. 

135
Chapter 3.04 Stanislaus

Cultural Resources National Forest

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 3.

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

For all action alternatives, commercial timber harvest, hazard tree removal along lower quality roads, 

new construction, reconstruction, and construction of temporary roads would have no direct effect, 

minimal indirect effects and no cumulative effects to cultural resources. Anticipated effects for 

Alternatives 3 and 4 are the same as Alternative 1. There are no anticipated direct effects and 

moderate indirect and cumulative effects to cultural resources under Alternative 2 (No Action), as no 

project activity would occur. 

136
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

3.05 FIRE AND FUELS

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction

Forest Service Handbook includes: All available methods for mitigation of danger tree hazards 

should be considered and applied as appropriate to local situations. These methods include but are 

not limited to commercial timber sales, land stewardship contracts, funds for burned area emergency 

rehabilitation, sales of firewood for personal use, and expenditure of appropriated funds (USDA FSH 

7709.59 sec 41.7, 2e). 

The Forest Plan Compliance (project record) document identifies the Forest Plan S&Gs that 

specifically apply to this project and related information about compliance with the Forest Plan. In 

addition, the Forest Plan Direction includes broad scale goals for fire and fuels that apply to this 

project: 

 Provide a cost-effective fire management program to protect Forest resources, life and property 

from the effects of wildfire. Maintain natural and activity fuels at levels commensurate with 

minimizing resource losses from wildfire (p. 5). 

 Treat fuels in a manner that significantly reduces wildland fire intensity and rate of spread, 

thereby contributing to more effective fire suppression and fewer acres burned (p. 13) 

 Treat hazardous fuels in a cost-efficient manner to maximize program effectiveness (p. 13).

 Strategically place treatment areas across landscapes to interrupt potential fire spread, removing 

sufficient material in treatment areas to cause a fire to burn at lower intensities and slower rates of 

spread compared to untreated areas, and considering cost-efficiency in designing treatments to 

maximize the number of acres that can be treated under a limited budget (p. 14). 

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Fire and Fuels

 Vegetation Condition and Post-Fire Recovery will be similar to past fires in this area.

 Historical Weather represents future conditions in these locations. 

Data Sources

 LANDFIRE Data Access Tool

 Forest GIS Shapefiles showing information within the Rim Fire

Fire and Fuels Indicators

 Vegetation burn severity 

 Fuel model 

 Historical percentile weather (90 percent) 

Fuels profiles were gathered and analyzed using representative 1/50th acre plots throughout the project 

area. The data was used with the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) to compare current fuel loading 

to projected future conditions. In some portions of the project area where FVS projections exhibited a 

high standard of deviation, additional plots were sampled to produce a more representative fuels 

profile. 

Fire and Fuels Methodology by Action

The Rim Recovery project treatment units are defined as the units where timber salvage harvest and 

fuels reduction treatments would occur as described by alternative under chapter 2 of the DEIS. The 

direct and indirect effects analysis area is the Rim Fire perimeter, not including Yosemite National 

137
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus

Fire and Fuels National Forest

Park. The analysis area is located in predominately Mediterranean California Mesic mixed conifer 

forest ranging in elevation from 2,800 feet to 7,100 feet. 

The analysis area is based on: 1) acres burned in a distinct geographic area and administrative setting;

2) impacts to forest vegetation from the wildfire and subsequent effects of timber salvage harvest are 

limited to the burned area; and 3) forest vegetation occurring within the treatment areas, as well as the 

vegetation outside the treatment areas but within the fire, representing the furthest measurable extent 

that effects on forest vegetation and fuels would occur as a result of implementing any of the 

proposed alternatives. Ecologically, the dynamics between vegetation and fire and fuels are inherently 

linked; fire has a profound effect on vegetation establishment and development and conversely, 

vegetation treatments (and the absence thereof) have a profound effect on fuels accumulations and 

fire behavior. The analysis area considers this relationship on the landscape level by including the 

entire fire perimeter and allows for a congruent analysis of forest vegetation, fuels, and fire at the 

stand and landscape levels. 

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analyses are based on a temporal scale. Existing 

conditions represent past projects, including timber harvesting, wildfires, watershed improvements, 

and other activities (Appendix B). For the purpose of the vegetation, fire, and fuels analysis, the 

temporal bounds include a 20-year horizon for future effects because modeling indicates that within 

20 years, fuels profiles change dramatically after fire and extend beyond the fire return intervals for 

the project area.

The effects on Fire Behavior and Fire Suppression capability for each alternative will be analyzed. 

Fire behavior will be demonstrated using Flame Length and Fireline Intensity. 

Fuel loadings represented by fuel models will be described for the Rim Fire area. Fuel conditions 

resulting from the alternatives will have associated effects on fire behavior including potential fire 

intensity. The effect that a fire may have on resources depends on fire intensity and the conditions of 

the environment, including vegetation in which it burns. 

The cumulative effects analysis area boundary for fuels is the 257,314 acre Rim Fire perimeter. 

Analysis for this project is done on an individual treatment unit basis; however, when treatments are 

concentrated in an area there are additive effects. Treated areas in this project along with past and 

reasonably foreseeable treatments in the vicinity of the project area will be analyzed.

Predicted fire behavior is estimated using the predicted length of flame measured in feet and the 

predicted fireline intensity measured in British Thermal Units (BTU) per foot per second at the head 

of the fire. Increased flame lengths can increase the likelihood of torching events and crown fires. 

Flame length is influenced in part by fuel type, fuel arrangement, fuel moisture, and weather 

conditions. Fuel type, flame length, and fireline intensity influence production rates, or how fast 

firelines can be constructed by different suppression resources, including hand crews and mechanical 

equipment. Flame lengths over 4 feet or fireline intensities over 100 BTU/FT/sec. may present serious 

control problems—they are too dangerous to be directly contained by hand crews (Schlobohm and 

Brain 2002; Andrews and Rothermel 1982). Flame lengths over 8 feet or fireline intensities over 500 

BTU/FT/sec. are generally not controllable by ground-based equipment or aerial retardant and present 

serious control problems including torching, crowning, and spotting. 

Flame length and fireline intensity directly affects suppression tactics. Table 3.05-1 outlines how 

flame lengths and fireline intensities influence fire suppression actions (Andrews et al., 2011). 

138
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.05-1 Relationship of Surface Fire Flame Length and Fireline Intensity to Suppression Interpretations

Flame length Fireline intensity Interpretation ft m Btu/ft./s kJ/m/s

< 4 < 1.2 < 100 <350 Fires can generally be attacked at the head or flanks by persons 

using hand tools. Hand line should hold the fire.

4 – 8 1.2 – 2.4 100 – 500 350 – 1700 Fires are too intense for direct attack on the head by persons 

using hand tools. Hand line cannot be relied on to hold the fire.

Equipment such as dozers, pumpers, and retardant aircraft can 

be effective.

8 – 11 2.4 – 3.4 500 – 1000 1700 – 3500 Fires may present serious control problems—torching out, 

crowning, and spotting. Control efforts at the fire head will 

probably be ineffective

> 11 > 3.4 > 1000 > 3500 Crowning, spotting, and major fire runs are probable. Control 

efforts at head of fire are ineffective.

Predicting the potential behavior and effects of wildland fire is an essential task in fire management. 

Mathematical surface fire behavior and fire effects models and prediction systems are driven in part 

by fuelbed inputs such as load, bulk density, fuel particle size, heat content, and moisture of 

extinction. To facilitate use in models and systems, fuelbed inputs have been formulated into fuel 

models (Scott and Burgan 2005). Table 3.05-2 displays a list of fuel models that are or can be 

expected to be in the project area over the next 20 years.

Table 3.05-2 Fuel Models

Fuel

Model Description Predicted Flame Length (feet)

Fireline Intensity

(BTU/FT/second)

NB9 Bare Ground 0 0

GR1 Short Grass Low Load 0-3 45

GR2 Short Grass Moderate Load 1-8 300

GS2 Grass and Shrub 4-8 500

SH1 Low Load Shrub 0-1 125

SH2 Moderate Load Shrub 1-4 400

SH5 High Load Shrub 12-25 3700

TL1 Recently Burned 0-1 5

TL2 Low Load Broadleaf Litter 0-1 7

TL4 Small Down Log 1-4 25

TL5 High Load Conifer Litter 1-4 50

TL7 Large Down Logs 1-4 50

TL8 Timber Litter 1-4 150

SB4 Blowdown with brush and small tree intermixed 12-25 3000

FlamMap (Finney 2006.) is designed to examine the spatial variability in fire behavior assuming that 

fuel moisture, wind speed and wind direction are held constant in time thereby allowing for more 

direct comparison of fuel treatment effects. FlamMap’s features allow the user to easily characterize 

fuel hazard and potential fire behavior, as well as analyze fire movement and fuel treatment 

interactions. The fuel models that are used in this analysis are from publication RMRS- GTR-153. 

Fuel models used are estimates of what the fuel loading and fire behavior are currently and what is 

predicted in the future. The results of the calculations and estimates are intended to show trends and 

potential effects and are not statistically accurate.

Fire behavior modeling uses input variables to calculate fire behavior. The three primary variables are 

fuels, topography and weather. Because fuels are the primary variable that management activity can 

influence it will be the variable for this analysis. Field inventories were conducted to measure 

attributes of existing vegetation in the project area. Treatment units within the project area were 

139
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus

Fire and Fuels National Forest

inventoried using on-site photo interpretation, and the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS). These 

treatment units are representative of the project area and the areas to be treated in all action 

alternatives. Data was collected on live and dead trees. This data was used in the following analysis, 

data tables, graphs, and charts and are incorporated by reference. The FlamMap modeling system was 

used to estimate average fire behavior for each alternative. Flame length and fireline intensities were

used to measure the effects of all alternatives.

Field inventory data from the treatment units was stratified by site class to best represent the range in 

average conditions between higher and lower sites and were used as input to the FVS and the Fire and 

Fuels Extension (FFE) (Dixon 2002; Rebain 2010). FVS-FFE is a well-established tree and stand 

growth model that is supported and maintained by the Forest Service. A specifically calibrated 

variant of FVS is available for the Western Sierra Nevada. Stand development over time is modeled 

using existing stand conditions, as provided by post-fire field inventories. Salvage harvest and 

reforestation actions are modeled to provide estimates of future fuels, snags, and stand development 

based on realistic and predictable inputs. The model was used to quantify existing conditions and to 

predict the effect of alternative treatments on forest development. Model results are used to highlight 

relative differences, not absolute conditions. No future activities, fires, or natural regeneration events 

are included in growth simulations due to the variable and unpredictable nature of such events. 

Table 3.05-3 Weather Parameters High Conditions (90th Percentile Weather)

Parameter Value

1 hour fuel moisture 4 percent

10 hour fuel moisture 5 percent

100 hour fuel moisture 7 percent

1000 hour fuel moisture 9 percent

Herbaceous fuel moisture 30 percent

Woody fuel moisture 70 percent

20’ wind speed 10 miles per hour

For modeling purposes fire weather adjective defined as High (90th percentile weather) was used to 

predict fire behavior in project area. Table 3.05-3 displays the 90th percentile values taking from the 

Fire Family Plus (Main 1990) program using the Mount Elizabeth Remote Automated Weather 

Station during the period of April 1, 1970 to October 31, 2013. 

Affected Environment

Existing Conditions

In many places in the western United States, organic matter is produced at a higher rate than it can be 

cycled by decay. The accumulation of this woody material may increase the likelihood of severe 

stand replacing wildfires. Fuels buildups continue and become more continuous in distribution. As a 

consequence, subsequent occurrence of high-severity fires result in generally greater changes in plant 

compositions and structure than would occur if the communities had been subjected to more frequent 

low-intensity fires (DeBano 1998). Uncharacteristically high fuel levels create the potential for fires 

that are uncharacteristically intense (Franklin and Agee 2003). Fire risk is elevated in areas of human 

development, high-recreational use and along major roads. There is a need to reduce fuel loadings to 

meet desired levels and reduce adverse impacts from future wildfires.

PRE-FIRE CONDITIONS

As with many areas in the Sierra Nevada, the landscape has been heavily influenced over the last 150 

years by past management activities and natural occurrences that include mining, grazing, harvesting, 

140
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

fire exclusion, large high-severity fires, and more recent drought-related mortality during the late 

1980’s and early 1990’s. At the stand level, the combination of past management activities, fire 

exclusion, and extensive drought related mortality had created relatively homogeneous areas typified 

by small trees existing at high densities (Oliver 1996). 

These high stand densities and high fuel loads created by overstocked stands with high accumulations 

of ladder fuels and canopy fuels. The combination of these factors increases the potential for standreplacing high-severity fire events which were unfortunately realized when the Rim Fire burned 

across the landscape. 

POST FIRE CONDITIONS

The Rim Fire burned with a range of severities. Within the 257,314 acre project area: 12,120 acres 

were not burned, 50,609 acres were low severity, 87,966acres were mixed severity, and 106,618 acres 

were high severity. Trees killed by the Rim Fire pose a hazard to forest workers and the public 

visiting and traveling in these areas. As snags age and deteriorate, they become less stable and 

increase the risk to forest users. Once this material is on the ground, it contributes to higher fuel loads 

and fire intensity is likely to increase. Because of the higher fire intensity and increased risk of hazard 

trees, suppression strategies will be limited.

In the high severity portions of the fire (106,618 acres) there are no surface fuels other than 

occasional patches of shrub, duff, and litter that remain. The standing material consists mainly of 

scorched trees. The patches of litter that remain will burn, but there is no continuity for fire spread. 

Ladder fuels and standing trees were either completely consumed or resulted in only boles. These 

severely burned areas will not currently support a new large fire or crown fire.

In the remainder of the burned areas (150,695 acres) the fire created a mosaic, leaving trees with 

brown needles and surviving trees as well as surface fuels ranging from completely consumed to prefire levels. Fires in this area of the project will burn with mixed fire severity. A mixed-severity fire 

exhibits a wide range of effects on the dominant vegetation from little effect on soil heating or 

overstory vegetation to complete canopy mortality or extensive soil heating.

A fire regime is a generalized description of fire’s role within an ecosystem- characterized by fire 

frequency, predictability, seasonality, intensity, duration, and scale (Barrett 2010). Figure 3.05-1 

displays these five fire regimes:

I. 0 to35 year frequency and low (surface fires most common) to mixed severity (less than 75 

percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); 

II. 0 to 35 year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75 percent of the 

dominant overstory vegetation replaced); 

III. 35 to 100+ year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75 percent of the dominant overstory 

vegetation replaced);

IV. 35 to 100+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75 percent of 

the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); and, 

V. 200 plus year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity.

141
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus

Fire and Fuels National Forest

Figure 3.05-1 Fire Regime Map

142
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

The majority of the Rim Fire is classified as Fire Regime I. Fires in this regime are generally 

nonlethal to the dominant vegetation and do not substantially change the structure of the dominant 

vegetation. About 80 percent or more of the above ground dominant vegetation survives fires (Brown 

and Smith 2000). Areas within the fire perimeter categorized as Fire Regime I exhibited fire severity 

that was uncharacteristically high on 77,141 acres (48 percent). Actual acres burned at high fire 

severity within the project area are 61,335 acres (49 percent). Table 3.05-4 compares the expected fire 

severity with the actual fire severity by Fire Regime within the project area. Figure 1.02-5 shows the 

Rim Fire Vegetation Burn Severity.

Table 3.05-4 Comparison of Expected Fire Severity and Actual Fire Severity by Fire Regime

Fire Regime Fire Frequency Fire Severity Expected 

Severity Acres

Actual Fire Severity

Low Mixed High

I 0-35 years Low to Mixed 125,046 20,588 43,123 61,335 (49

percent)

II 0-35 years High 14,641 1,573 5,095 7,972

III 35-100+ years Mixed 31,079 10,709 11,482 8,888 (54

percent)

IV 35-100+ years High 3,095 436 1,337 1,322

V 200+ Year High 197 82 83 32

No burn N/A N/A 2,710 2,710

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

It is recognized that Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) is an essential component of ecosystems within 

the Rim Fire area, providing wildlife habitat, soil protection, and other important functions. CWD and 

snags, maintained at required levels, would meet resource needs. An excess of CWD in the project 

area could result in a fire with intensity similar to that as seen during the Rim Fire of 2013. A fire of 

this magnitude could result in damage to homes and property, as well as resource damage from the 

fire and suppression actions associated to contain this type of fire. In addition, fire suppression 

actions could be hindered by the fire behavior associated with a high loading of CWD (Brown 2003) 

by slowing fireline production rates and limiting suppression resources to indirect attack with heavy 

equipment (Andrews et al. 2011). The reduction of CWD through salvage harvest and treatment of 

non-merchantable fire-killed material encompasses 28,326 acres and 341 miles (16,315 acres) of 

hazard trees along strategic roads. 

Treatments under Alternative 1 would significantly reduce fire intensities and fire effects within the 

treated units. Suppression forces could enter these areas and take appropriate actions as needed to 

manage fires to achieve the desired condition. The reduction in snags would result in reduced spotting 

that is associated with snags when they burn. 

Salvage harvest would reduce the larger merchantable material greater than 16 inches in diameter 

from the site. Yarding of unmerchantable-size material or biomass removal (from 4 inches to 16 

inches in diameter), or jackpot burning (JPB) would treat the high density of the unmerchantable 

material. Piling or jackpot burning would treat the smaller diameter material and material not 

included in the previous treatment. After treatments the CWD is estimated at 10 tons per acre; these 

areas could be directly attacked with suppression resources increasing the chance of containing 

wildfires in the project area while maintaining resource needs (Brown 2003). Fire-killed trees have 

lost most of their moisture making them brittle and more susceptible to breakage (Lowell et al. 2010). 

143
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus

Fire and Fuels National Forest

During the felling and removal process it is anticipated that there would be higher than normal 

breakage typically associated with green timber felling. CWD left on site, that is smaller than the 

handpile specifications and does not exceed 10 tons per acre would meet resource needs. This 

compacted material would have minimal effect on fire behavior. 

Proposed units would alter the spread and effect of fire in the project area. Units were strategically 

placed to affect fire movement on the landscape and provide advantageous areas for fire suppression

actions. As managers continue to move the forest toward the desired condition, fire would be able to 

resume its natural role in developing and sustaining these ecosystems. Continued management 

practices can and will alter the effects of wildland fire (Agee and Skinner 2005). 

Fuel treatments in the salvage harvested stands would result in fuel characteristics reflective of 

Condition Class 1, where prescribed fire could be used for maintenance and the likelihood of damage 

to succeeding stands would be reduced. 

Completed project activities would reduce CWD, lowering fire behavior and fire effects within the 

treated units. The fuel model in treated units would be represented by TU1 Low Load Dry Climate 

Timber-Shrub-Grass. The area outside treated units would burn the same as Alternative 2. Placement 

of the treated units would reduce overall fire size within the project area by reducing fireline 

intensities and fire effects providing opportunity for suppression forces to take appropriate actions 

(Finney 2001). Altering the movement and effects of fire through the project area would result in 

more natural and mosaic burn patterns. 

Fuels on the forest floor would consist of small diameter material and scattered larger logs. Snags and 

large logs may be present in the units to meet resource needs and Forest Plan Direction. These 

guidelines were developed with consideration for fire and its role in developing and sustaining these 

ecosystems. Duff and litter layers are currently not present at a level that would affect fire behavior 

and retaining the small diameter material on site would help accelerate the development of these 

layers. Out-year fire behavior is expected to be dominated by young shrubs, small trees, and 

hardwoods reoccupying the site. 

As the vegetation matures, fuel loadings would increase. Continued maintenance designed to achieve 

the desired condition would maintain fuels profiles that allow fire to resume its ecological role and 

meet Stanislaus Forest Plan Direction.

Aerial hazards (snags) within the treated areas, excluding those left for resource needs, would be 

felled. Suppression forces would not be hindered by the high density of snags or high levels of CWD 

in the units which would allow immediate and appropriate action to be taken. Suppression actions 

would not be restricted by fire behavior; thus, direct suppression actions would be possible within 

treated stands. 

The effect on fire suppression forces beyond year 20 would depend on the continued maintenance of 

the stands. Stands that are maintained and managed to achieve the desired condition would not 

adversely impact future suppression. Table 3.05-5 displays the projected fire behavior and production 

rates for Alternative 1 within treatment units using the FlamMap 5.0 modeling program. 

Road construction and reconstruction would not affect fire and fuels other than allowing firefighters 

slightly better access than the current existing condition. Hauling logs and rock quarry blasting would 

have a minor effect on fire and fuels effects due to the project’s management requirements.

In comparison to No Action over time, Alternative 1 would result in relatively lower surface fuel

loads and potential flame lengths. Fuel loadings and potential flame lengths would be lowest in 

ground-based salvage harvest units where the treatment of submerchantable material (via biomass

harvesting and removal or site preparation) would occur. While there is still potential for mortality in 

treated areas, it would remain lower than that of Alternative 2 for wildfires occurring under 90th 

144
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

percentile weather conditions. Potential future fires are expected to kill natural regeneration, planted 

conifers, brush, and residual larger trees. 

Table 3.05-5 Predicted average flame lengths, fireline intensity and firefighter production rates under the 

Alternative 1 within treatment units (FlamMap 5.0).

Alternative 1 Flame 

Length

Fireline 

Intensity Suppression Interpretation

1 Year PostActivity ≤2 ≤100

Fires can generally be attacked at the head or flanks by persons 

using hand tools. Hand line should hold the fire. Year 5 ≤4 ≤100

Year 10 ≤4 ≤100

Year 20 ≤4 ≤100

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects for Alternative 1 include safer access to the area due to the Rim HT project and 

hazard tree removal along Maintenance Level 2 roads in this project. In addition, fuels treatments 

would improve the safety for all users. Firefighter safety would be improved with the removal of the 

overhead snags as they pose one of the greatest hazards to firefighters. The treatment of CWD and 

smaller fire-killed vegetation would result in a reduction in fire effects thereby increasing safety 

during a wildfire event. Reduced fire effects would allow suppression forces to take appropriate 

action. Fire spread on public lands would be altered reducing the chance of fire spreading between the 

public and private lands interface.

Future wildfires within the project area will be affected on a landscape level by the combination of 

treatments implemented on privately owned Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) land, the Rim HT project

and the adjacent Forest Service (Rim Recovery project treatment units) lands. Fuels treatments are 

strategically placed and would provide a break in the fuel profiles crossing the project area. This 

fuelbreak combined with existing fuelbreaks and private land would further break up fuel continuities 

in the area, creating more opportunities for future suppression actions.

The treatment units running along the west side of the SPI boundary would create lower fire effects 

by reducing CWD allowing suppression resources to suppress fires coming into or leaving the 

private-public land interface. With the removal of fire-killed trees on both the private and public 

lands, future fuel loading conditions will be reduced and will result in a fire that would burn under 

more historical conditions. Any residual fuels left on SPI lands would be burned. This would further 

reduce fuel loading to 10 to 15 tons per acre. On NFS lands, residual fuels would be reduced to 10 to 

20 tons per acre. As a result, the treated areas would burn as surface fires with low flame lengths and 

fireline intensities. These lower-intensity fires could be suppressed using direct attack with handtools. 

Treatments are expected to be effective for the next 15 to 20 years 

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Under Alternative 2, no actions would be implemented to address the objectives and desired 

conditions identified in the Purpose and Need (Chapter 1.03). Existing stand conditions would persist 

and develop unaltered by active management. Standing snags would persist and the site would be 

rapidly colonized by grasses, forbs, and shrubs within three to five years. It is a reasonable 

expectation that non-salvaged stands would develop comparable to that of similar non-salvaged 

stands in local fires that burned in the recent past including the Big Meadow Fire (2009), North 

Mountain Fire (2008), Early Fire (2004), Stanislaus Complex Fire (1987), and the Ackerson Fire 

(1996). On those stands, grasses such as cheat grass (Bromus tectorum) and shrubs such as Ceanothus 

(C. cordulatus, C. velutinus) and Manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula) species occupied the site while 

145
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus

Fire and Fuels National Forest

standing snags dominate the overstory of the high severity burn areas. Shrub fuels would be 

established within 10 years similar to shrub regeneration observed in past fires like the 2009 Knight 

Fire (Figure 3.05-2). 

Figure 3.05-2 2009 Knight Fire, photo taken in 2013

Hundreds of dead trees and very few live trees per acre characterize the forest structure. Snag fall 

rates are highest the first ten years within the smaller diameter classes, while larger snags persist for

relatively longer time periods, which is generally documented in existing scientific literature (Cluck 

and Smith 2007). Nearly all snags would be expected to fall by 20 years post-fire contributing to 

greater fuel loads. The limbs and boles from these fallen trees would accumulate as surface fuels. 

This fuel is expected to increase each decade as trees fall over. Within 10 years, surface fuels are 

projected to be 78 tons per acre. Within 30 years, surface fuels are projected to average 98 tons per 

acre due to dead trees falling over. In the event of a wildfire this would create serious control 

problems, high suppression costs, and high volumes of smoke emissions. 

Additional snag recruitment would be expected through delayed mortality in the few live trees per 

acre. Those live trees injured during the fire may be more susceptible to biotic and abiotic agents that 

hasten delayed conifer mortality due to reduced tree vigor (Wagener 1961; Hood 2007). 

Both grass-forb cover and shrub cover present formidable competition for water and light with tree 

seedlings. This competing vegetation would likely result in decreased survival of tree seedlings and 

would inhibit growth for years if not decades. Consequently, the site would likely be occupied by 

brush intermixed with grass and forbs. Over time, ladder and crown fuels would develop where 

natural regeneration was established via seed from surviving mature conifers.

Large areas of untreated burned areas would exist. Brush species and standing snags would dominate 

these areas, and, over time, these snags would fall resulting in a brush field with high fuel loads 

arranged in a jackstraw pattern.

Table 3.05-6 displays predicted flame lengths and fireline intensities. Under Alternative 2, flame 

lengths exceed 4 feet after five years and are projected to exceed 10 feet within 20 years. Fireline 

Intensities would exceed 500 BTU/FT/sec after five years and are projected to exceed 1,000 

146
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

BTU/FT/sec after ten years. These increased flame lengths and intensities are a direct result of fire 

burning in dead and down logs, branches, and shrubs. Fires burning in stands under 90th percentile 

weather conditions in Alternative 2 are expected to result in serious control problems. Fires may be 

too intense for direct attack on the head by persons using hand tools. Handline may not be relied on to 

hold the fire. Fires may present serious control problems torching out, crowning, and spotting, and 

control efforts at the fire head will probably be ineffective. Under Alternative 2, the general trend in 

high flame lengths (>10 feet) and corresponding high fireline intensities are expected to continue at 

least 20 years into the future.

Table 3.05-6 Flame lengths and fireline intensities under Alternative 2

Alternative 2

Flame 

Length 

(feet)

Fireline 

Intensity

(BTU/FT/sec)

Fireline Interpretation

Existing 

Condition

≤2 100 Fires can generally be attacked at the head or flanks by persons using 

hand tools. Handline should hold the fire. 

Year 5 ≤4 500-1,000 Fires are too intense for direct attack on the head by persons using 

hand tools. Hand line cannot be relied on to hold the fire. Equipment 

such as dozers, pumpers, and retardant aircraft can be effective. 

Year 10 10 >1,000 Fires may present serious control problems torching out, crowning, 

and spotting. Control efforts at the fire head will probably be 

ineffective. 

Year 20 13 >1,000 Crowning, spotting, and major fire runs are probable. Control efforts at 

head of fire are ineffective.

Consequently, accessibility would limit future forest management activities due to the high cost and 

safety concerns. Without treatments, survival and growth of natural regeneration that does become 

established would likely be reduced due to competing vegetation. These sites would be dominated by 

brush very similar to those effects seen on public lands in the Big Meadow Fire (2009) and observed 

in the North Mountain (2008), Early (2004), Stanislaus Complex (1987), and Ackerson (1996) fires. 

This could effectively function as a vegetation type conversion from forest cover to brush cover for 

nearly a century based on observations from areas left to naturally regenerate in the Wright Creek 

Fire (1949). Over sixty years later, these areas support natural establishment of white fire, incense 

cedar, ponderosa pine, and sugar pine; however, the area is dominated by brush species and the tree 

cover is not sufficient to qualify as forest cover. 

The No Action Alternative would lead to higher fuel loads from branches and boles of dead and down 

trees. Over the long term (10+ years), not implementing treatments would result in increased surface 

fuels. Increased surface fuels would result in increased flame lengths and higher fireline intensities 

leading to increased firefighter and public risk, and higher costs. Historically fires in the project area 

were low intensity with less than 25 percent of the stand being killed by fire. Fire effects under the No 

Action Alternative would result in higher stand loss as seen in the Rim Fire, with over 50 percent of 

the stand killed. It is expected that some fires, both human and lightning caused, would continue to 

escape initial attack under more severe weather conditions over the next 20 to 30 years. These fires

are expected to kill natural regeneration and residual larger trees. Overall, the No Action Alternative 

would not reduce potential future surface fuels or predicted fire effects.

Alternative 2 combined with the high fuel loading left in Yosemite National Park would mean that 

wildfires would cross boundaries with little chance of containing fires under 90th percentile weather 

conditions. Wildfires would burn until weather conditions changed to allow effective suppression 

actions to take place, similar to what was observed in the Rim Fire. 

147
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus

Fire and Fuels National Forest

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Under Alternative 2, the Rim HT project would remove hazard trees along main roads. The maximum 

extent of these activities would be limited to 150 to 200 feet of either side of main roads. This would 

provide for safe travel along forest roads; however, due to the scale and scope of the project, large 

areas of untreated burned areas with brush and standing snags would exist. The access to these areas 

would be inhibited by hazard trees and downed logs along and on Maintenance Level 2 roads. 

Limited access to areas within the analysis area would slow firefighter access for direct attack. 

When the effects of the Alternative 2 is combined with the effects of implementing the foreseeable 

private and Forest activities (Appendix B), this alternative would not create strategic fire management 

points or aid in future fuels management, suppression and beneficial fire planning objectives. The 

cumulative effects of No Action would be an increase in fire behavior over time and negative fire 

effects on the landscape.

Alternative 3 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 3 would reduce CWD through salvage harvest and treatment of 

non-merchantable fire-killed material. Alternative 3 would encompass 30,399 acres and 315 miles 

(15,253acres) of Strategic Fire Management Features (SFMF). Treatments would lower fire 

intensities and provide advantageous areas for fire suppression actions.

Salvage harvest would reduce the larger diameter merchantable material greater than 16 inches from 

the site; biomass removal (from 4 inches to 16 inches in diameter) and jackpot burning (JPB) would 

treat the high density of the un-merchantable material. Piling and jackpot burning would treat the 

smaller diameter material and material not included in the previous treatment. After treatments the 

CWD is estimated to be between 10 to 20 tons per acre outside SPLAT units and 10 tons per acre 

inside SPLAT and SFMF units; these areas can be directly attacked with suppression resources 

increasing the chance of containing wildfires in the project area while maintaining resource needs 

(Brown et al. 2003). CWD that is below the handpile specifications and does not exceed 10-20 tons 

an acre would be left on site. This compacted material would have minimal effect on fire (Table 3.05-

5). 

Over time, Alternative 3 would result in relatively lower surface fuel loads, potential flame lengths, 

and potential mortality. Fuel loadings and potential flame lengths would be lowest in ground-based 

salvage harvest units where the treatment of submerchantable material (via biomass harvesting and 

removal or site preparation) would occur. While there is still potential for mortality in treated areas, it 

would remain lower than that of Alternative 2 for wildfires occurring under 90th percentile weather 

conditions. Potential future fires are expected to kill natural regeneration, planted conifers, brush, and 

residual larger trees.

Fuels treatments are strategically placed and would provide a break in the fuel profiles crossing the 

project area. This fuelbreak combined with existing fuelbreaks, SPLATS, and SFMF would further 

break up fuel continuities in the area, creating more opportunities for future suppression actions and 

safer ingress and egress routes. In addition, the strategic placement would increase fire suppression 

safety, reduce potential resource damage, and potentially lower suppression costs.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

148
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 4

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Alternative 4 would reduce CWD through salvage harvest and treatment of non-merchantable firekilled material. Alternative 4 would encompass 27,826 acres and 325 miles (15,692 acres) of SFMF. 

Treatments would lower fire intensities and provide advantageous similar to Alternative 3 and would 

reduce the CWD to be between 10 to 20 tons/acre, but on 494 fewer acres than Alternative 1 and 

2,571 acres less than Alternative 3. Effects on treated acres would be similar to Alternative.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 3. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

Alternative 2 would result in increasingly hazardous travel as snags would decay and fall. Fire 

behavior would exceed firefighter capabilities within a few years and suppression efforts would have 

to use indirect tactics. Future fires would be expected to burn with high intensities, impacting 

resources and killing most vegetation. Therefore, Forest guidelines and direction for fire management 

would not be met after 5 years under Alternative 2. With implementation of alternatives 1, 3, or 4, fire 

intensities would be reduced and safety improved so that firefighters could enter the area and take 

appropriate action (Table 3.05-7). The three action alternatives would, therefore, meet Forest Plan 

direction for fire management.

Table 3.05-7 Fire behavior by alternative over the next 20 years

Alternative 

Post Activity 5 years 10 years 20 years

Flame

Length

Fireline

Intensity

Flame

Length

Fireline

Intensity

Flame

Length

Fireline

Intensity

Flame

Length

Fireline

Intensity

Alternative 1 1 100 2 100 4 100 4 100

Alternative 2 2 100 4 500 10 ≥1,000 13 ≥1,000

Alternative 3 1 100 2 100 4 100 4 100

Alternative 4 1 100 2 100 4 100 4 100

Alternative 1 reduces CWD down to 10 tons per acre, which correlates to a reduction in fire effects. 

Alternative 1, because of the lower CWD, further increases the opportunities for suppression 

resources to contain fires spreading between the private and public interface. Compared to 

Alternatives 3 and 4 the fire effects are negligible as all three action alternatives can be contained by 

handline. 

Under Alternative 2, surface fuels are projected to average 78 tons per acre within 10 years and 98 

tons per acre within 30 years.

Alternative 3 reduces CWD to between 10 to 20 tons per acre outside SPLAT units and 10 tons per 

acre inside SPLAT and SFMF units. Alternative 3 also treats 2,077 more acres but 16 less miles (308 

acres) than Alternative 1. Inside SPLAT and SFMF units the fire effects would be the same as 

Alternative 1, while fire effects would be slightly higher outside SPLAT units. Handlines could still 

contain fires.

Alternative 4 reduces coarse woody debris to 10 to 20 tons per acre outside SPLAT units and 10 tons 

per acre inside SPLAT and SFMF units. Alternative 4 treats 494 less acres and 11 less miles (158 

acres) than Alternative 1. Alternative 4 treats 2,571 acres less, but 5 miles (150 acres) more than 

Alternative 3. Inside SPLAT and SFMF units the fire effects would be the same as Alternative 1, 

while fire effects would be slightly higher outside SPLAT units. Handlines could still contain fires.

149
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus

Fire and Fuels National Forest

150
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

3.06 INVASIVE SPECIES

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction

The following direction guides management of invasive plants on NFS lands: 

 Executive Order 13112 Invasive Species 64 FR 6183 (Clinton 1999) 

 Forest Service Manual 2900 (USDA 2011) 

 Pacific Southwest Region Noxious Weed Management Strategy (USDA 2000) 

 Noxious Weed Management S&Gs (USDA 2010a, p.52) 

The Forest Plan Compliance (project record) document identifies the Forest Plan S&Gs that 

specifically apply to this project and related information about compliance with the Forest Plan.

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Invasive Species

 Existing plant survey data covers less than 5 percent of the total project area, meaning that it is 

highly likely that undetected weed infestations exist within the project area. 

 New and expanding infestations will result from habitat alterations caused by the fire (e.g. 

decreased canopy cover, increased nitrogen and water availability) and fire suppression activities.

 If an invasive weed infestation was determined to be within 15 feet of a road it was analyzed as a 

road maintenance, reconstruction or creation (whether temporary or permanent) impact. All other 

infestations within treatment units were analyzed as an impact from the proposed activities (e.g. 

skidding, heavy equipment piling, burning, long-lining, etc.). 

 The risk of creating new or expanding invasive populations throughout the project area depends 

on a variety of factors (these factors are listed in the Summary of Effects Analysis across All 

Alternatives section). 

 Without specific prevention and control measures, invasive non-native plants (weeds) will 

continue to spread along and within project areas and into adjacent areas.

 Weeds are likely to persist long-term once they are established in meadows. 

Data Sources

 GIS layers of the following data: invasive plant infestations, units, roads, quarry sites, water 

sources and fire history. Information recorded in the GIS shapefiles was provided by the Mi-Wok 

and Groveland District botanists. All invasive plant data was collected from 2006 to 2011. 

 Information on species status, distribution, and ecology was derived from general literature 

reviews, Forest Service documents, the Forest Service Fire Effects Information System, 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, various field books, floras, and personal 

communications. Site surveys, in conjunction with literature and input from the District botanists 

were used to determine the potential occurrence of each species, and/or its habitat, as well as its 

priority for eradication/control.

Invasive Species Indicators

The primary indicator was acres within ground disturbing project locations (e.g. units, skid trails, road 

construction/ maintenance, quarry sites) that contain infestations of invasive plant species.

InvasiveSpecies Methodology by Action

This analysis evaluates the factors influencing invasive plant introduction and spread by considering 

the risks of, and vulnerability to, invasive plant establishment. 

151
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus

Invasive Species National Forest

Affected Environment

Existing Conditions

Twenty-six species of non-native and invasive plants are present or adjacent to (within 5 miles) the 

project area (Table 3.06-1). 

Table 3.06-1 Invasive Species within Rim Fire perimeter and each alternative

Invasive Name In Rim Fire

(acres)

Alternative 1

(acres)

Alternative 3

(acres)

Alternative 4

(acres) Project Priority1

Barbed Goatgrass 2.77 1.32 1.32 1.32 High

Bachelor Button 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moderate

Blackberry, cut-leaf 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 Low

Blackberry, Himalayan 2.32 0.74 0.74 0.74 Low

Black mustard 

/Shortpod mustard

0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moderate

Blessed Milkthistle 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 Moderate

Bull thistle 35.31 13.52 13.52 13.56 High - dense infestations

Low - scattered plants

Canada thistle 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 High

Cheatgrass 2.06 0.7 0.7 0.7 Low

Dyers Woad 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 High

Field bindweed 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moderate

French broom .001 0.01 0.01 0.01 Moderate

Hedgeparsley 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Low

Italian thistle 9.27 6.52 6.88 6.38 High

Klamathweed 0.84 0.20 0.22 0.22 Low

Medusahead Grass 112.20 80.97 81.32 81.32 High

Perennial Sweetpea 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moderate

Puncturevine 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 High

Scotch Broom 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moderate

Johnsongrass 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moderate

Spanish Broom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moderate

Spotted Knapweed 0.72 0.26 0.26 0.26 High

Tocalote 76.38 21.03 20.36 20.36 High

Tumble mustard No data No data No data No data Moderate

Woolly mullein 1.01 0.18 0.18 0.18 Moderate - dense infestations 

Low - scattered plants

Yellow star-thistle 112.43 18.1 17.4 17.4 High

Totals 314.83 143.64 143.00 142.54

1 Project priority determined by the invasive characteristics, habitat degradation potential, state rating, prevalence 

across the fire area, and control factors of the plant. In addition, the risk of potential seed and reproductive part spread 

from project activities was also considered in assigning priority.

Ten species, including barbed goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis), Italian thistle (Carduus 

pycnocephalus), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), yellowstar thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), spotted 

knapweed (Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), bull thistle (Cirsium 

vulgare), dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria), medusahead grass (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) and 

puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris) are considered high risk species from project activities. Eleven 

other species, including, bachelor buttons (Centaurea cyanus), field bindweed (Convolvulous 

arvensis), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), French broom (Genista monospessulana), shortpod 

mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), perennial sweatpea (Lathyrus latifolius), milkthistle (Silybum 

marianum), tumblemustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), Spanish 

broom (Spartium junceum) and wooly mullein (Verbascum thapsus), are considered a moderate risk. 

The remaining five species are considered low risk. For a complete discussion of characteristics 

152
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

specific to each species, their known locations in the project, habitat impacts and recommended 

management tools (Noxious Weed Risk Assessment, project record). 

Past actions involving ground disturbing activities such as timber removal, fuel reduction, road and 

trail creation/maintenance, grazing, unauthorized OHV use and other dispersed recreation have 

impacted invasive plant infestations across the project area. The invasive species known to occur 

within the project area before the Rim Fire were introduced and spread primarily through transport on

vehicles, in straw and hay, on earthmoving and mowing/weed-eating equipment, and on animals and 

in their manure associated with these activities. Weed seeds also spread quickly down streams and 

upwind along lakes and reservoirs. Livestock grazing also contributed to weed spread, due to 

transportation on their fur, decreased native grass and forb cover from preferential grazing of unpalatability of many invasives, trampling, and other soil disturbances (Olson, 1999). Since the fire, it 

is highly likely that these existing infestations created by the disturbances listed above were spread by 

suppression and BAER efforts. 

Given the current data it appears that Medusahead grass, tocalote, yellow starthistle bull thistle and 

Italian thistle are by far the most common species within the project area (Table 3.06-1). To a lesser 

extent, several other invasive weed species occur, primarily along roads. It should be noted however, 

that it is highly likely that many of the lower priority invasives are mapped at a fraction of their actual 

occurrence acreage given their commonality. Indeed, given that less than 5 percent of the project area 

has been surveyed for invasives, it is highly likely that actual acreage is exponentially higher than 

shown in Table 3.06-1. 

The risk of creating new or expanding populations throughout the project area depends on a variety of 

factors: 

 Species-specific dispersal traits of weeds: Weed species with seeds dispersed by wind (Italian 

thistle), by tumbleweed (shortpod mustard), water (tamarisk), or animals (Medusahead grass) can 

potentially spread weed propagules miles from their original sources. Most seeds are not moved 

far from the parent plant, but a small proportion of seeds can be found large distances away. Even 

propagules with low innate dispersal abilities, such as stem fragments of giant reed or castor bean 

seeds which fall close to the plant, can be carried far after initial dispersal by streams or surface 

runoff. However, species without wind, water, or animal-mediated dispersal are less likely to 

disperse propagules far from the original source. 

 Habitat disturbed: While many weed species are generalists that can potentially colonize a 

fairly wide range of vegetation types, it is true that some habitats, particularly those with ample 

nutrients and soil moisture or those that have been recently disturbed, are more susceptible to 

invasion. Additionally, the suite of weed species one would expect to colonize a site is dependent 

to some degree on the habitat where the disturbance occurred.

 Regional patterns in weed occurrence and propagule pressure: The project occurs across a 

transitional area with regards to microclimate, elevation, and vegetation communities. The most 

commonly observed weeds differed within these areas, possibly due to species-specific habitat 

preferences.

 Type of ground disturbance. The type of disturbance creates conditions favoring release and 

establishment of different weed species. For example, tree removal is expected to favor the 

establishment of weed species that do best in full sun, such as yellow starthistle; burning is 

expected to favor the establishment of fire-adapted weed species such as French broom; and soil

disturbance is expected to favor the establishment of early-colonizing weed species, such as 

mustards or tocalote, that respond favorably to disturbed, denuded soils. 

These factors were used to consider the risks associated with the establishment of new weed 

infestations due to project activities. In addition to these four factors, the results of the Noxious Weed 

Risk Assessment (project record) were focused on risks associated with 1) the release of pre-existing 

153
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus

Invasive Species National Forest

but currently dormant weed seed banks at disturbed sites, 2) the rapid build-up of transient weed seed 

banks at disturbed sites, and/or 3) the creation of conditions favoring weed establishment at disturbed 

sites. 

Environmental Consequences

Project-related activities under all action alternatives, could contribute to an increase in invasive 

plants in three major ways: (1) the creation of conditions that favor establishment of invasive plant 

(weed) species, such as soil disturbance, removal of native vegetation, or the breakup of cryptogamic 

crusts5

, (2) spread of new and pre-existing weed infestations into newly disturbed areas via project 

tools, equipment, and personnel; and 3) the subsequent release of pre-existing weed seedbanks from 

dormancy or the quick build-up of new weed seedbanks on disturbed soils. 

Table 3.06-2 displays invasive plant acreages for the specific treatments in each alternative, indicating 

that the highest invasive infestation acreages are found within the salvage units and roadside hazard

tree removal areas. This is not surprising given that these project areas cover the largest overall 

acreages and would therefore, be the most likely to harbor weed infestations. Road treatments 

(maintenance, reconstruction and new construction) also have higher invasive infestation acreages. 

Roads and roadsides consistently experience ground disturbance, creating areas of increased sunlight, 

decreased native competition and increased water runoff, attributes which create an ideal environment 

for weed colonization. 

Table 3.06-2 Invasive Plant Locations by specific treatments in each alternative

Treatments Invasive Plant Locations (acres)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Salvage Units 42.0 0.0 71.5 70.5

Road Treatments 24.0 0.0 18.0 18.0

Roadside Hazard Tree 77.5 0.0 53.0 53.0

Quarry 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5

Totals 144.0 0.0 143.0 142.0

The results of the Noxious Weed Risk Assessment (project record) focused on risks associated with 

1) the release of pre-existing but currently dormant weed seed banks at disturbed sites, 2) the rapid 

build-up of transient weed seed banks at disturbed sites, and/or 3) the creation of conditions favoring 

weed establishment at disturbed sites. The risks are labeled “high, moderate and low,” and are defined 

as follows:

 High: Chances of weed species infesting new areas range between 76 to 100 percent. 

 Moderate: Chances of weed species infesting new areas range between 31 to 75 percent.

 Low: Chances of weed species infesting new areas range between 1 to 30 percent.

Each action alternative is expected in general to be high risk (a 76 to 100 percent chance) for the 

potential to establish new populations of invasive species, specifically those listed as high and 

moderate priority in Table 3.06-1. This high risk ranking was chosen after careful consideration of the 

four factors listed in the Affected Environment section (i.e. weed species dispersal traits, habitat 

disturbed, regional patterns in weed occurrence and types of disturbance), and the three avenues for 

weed proliferation: 1) release of seedbanks, 2) build-up of weed seed, and 3) the creation of weedfavorable conditions. For each of action alternative, the ranking was determined to be in the high 

category. Some individual project sites may have a less-high risk, but given that less than 5 percent of 

the project has been surveyed, the more conservative ranking was chosen. Those areas that are outside 

of the historic fire burn return interval (i.e., burning more or less frequently) are expected to have an 

5 Crypotogamic crusts are biological soil crust composed of living cyanobacteria, green algae, brown algae, fungi, lichens, and/or mosses.

154

 
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

even higher risk (yet still within the high risk category) of experiencing vegetation type conversion in 

the project areas.

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Disturbance by heavy equipment can have long-term effects to soils and favor weed establishment if 

unmitigated. Heavy equipment can compact soils, reducing water infiltration and accelerating 

erosion. It can also displace soils and sheer off vegetative roots. If these effects are severe, a loss of 

soil productivity may occur. Numerous passes by equipment over vegetation often causes plant 

mortality or severe injury, exposing the soil organic layer and making it more susceptible to erosion. 

Loss of vegetative cover and the soil organic layer reduces the ability of the soil to hold moisture. 

Many weed species are more capable of utilizing less productive soils with less soil moisture. In 

addition, some weeds produce secondary chemical compounds that inhibit native plant germination 

and growth. These compounds also affect nutrient cycling rates by inhibiting soil microbial fauna 

activity (Sheley et al. 1999). 

Maintenance, reconstruction and the creation of roads can also spread invasives. Grading disturbs soil

and competing native vegetation in addition to dispersing weed seeds and plant parts. Cleaning 

ditches, grading, installing overside drains and road construction moves soil and creates ideal weed 

seedbeds. Seeds from equipment can be deposited in stream crossings and washed downstream. This 

movement of weed seed/parts can happen at any time of the year since the seeds and parts are present 

in the soil at infested sites at all times. Stockpiles of crushed aggregate can also be infested with 

weeds. Weeds are dispersed when that aggregate is moved to a new location. This translocation of 

weed seed is of particular concern when dispersal vectors (streamside, areas of high human use, fire 

staging and action areas, roads, etc.) are nearby. 

Even those project sites in remote areas may be expected to contain an existing weed seedbank. 

Seedbanks are known to regularly contain a different suite of species than is represented by the 

standing vegetation due to succession, low reproduction rates of some perennials (by seed), and other 

factors (Thompson 2000). In most cases it is rare to find species in the seedbank that are not 

represented to any degree in the above-ground vegetation; the exception being seeds from invasive, 

aggressive, disturbance-adapted, and early colonizing weeds (Thompson 2000). For example, large 

cheatgrass seedbanks are commonly found throughout western North America, often regardless of 

such factors as remoteness of the site, grazing, or fire history. Within intact native communities these 

seeds are typically held in the above-ground vegetation or in crevices on cryptogamic crusts. 

Germination is therefore prevented until disturbance allows the cheatgrass seeds to come into contact 

with broken soil surfaces (Boudell et al. 2002). 

Following establishment, new populations of weeds are often extremely difficult to eliminate, and 

even if controlled or eradicated, it may take several years or decades to re-establish native soil

structure and biota. If allowed to expand, dense infestations can occur that not only displace native 

plants and animals, but also threaten natural ecosystems by fragmenting sensitive plant and animal 

habitat (Scott and Pratini 1995). For example, when equipment disturbance activities introduce or 

release weeds, the vegetative pattern is changed, often providing more flammable fuels into the 

system. As the weeds spread and increase in volume, an increase in ladder fuels occurs. Weeds such 

as Scotch broom, Medusahead/barbed goatgrass grass, yellow starthistle and others, change the 

arrangement of vegetation, the amount of soil moisture at specific times of the year, the amount of 

fuel available to burn, and how fire behaves (Keeley et al. 2011). These changes in fire behavior often 

mean that areas that would not ordinarily burn frequently or at high intensity are now doing so 

(DiTomaso and Healy 2007). This is especially a concern in dry lava cap areas where weed species 

compete with sensitive plants.

155
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus

Invasive Species National Forest

Under Alternative 1, management requirements will help reduce the risk of spreading weeds from 

known dense infestations and high priority invasive infestations; however, lowering the risk ranking 

from high to moderate is not warranted since pre-project surveys to detect unknown weed infestations 

are not required. Because only 5 percent of the project area was previously surveyed, it is highly 

likely that a large proportion of the existing weed infestations remain undetected, preventing the 

mitigation of this risk.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Factors which are not planned and are difficult to control (e.g., wildfire, dispersed recreation use, 

climate change) will likely have the greatest cumulative impact to native plant communities from the 

expansion of invasive plants for Alternatives 1, 3 and 4. Fully implementing any of these alternatives 

will add to this cumulative effect. For the purpose of this analysis, cumulative effects of past activities 

or natural events are represented within the existing conditions.

Appendix B provides a list and description of present and reasonably foreseeable projects, including 

private lands within the Rim Fire perimeter. All of these activities will contribute to effects on 

invasive plant proliferation. Within the project area, hazardous fuels reduction and hazard tree 

removal are anticipated to occur within the next few years on approximately 16,107 acres of NFS, 

816 acres on NPS and 18,407 acres on private lands (Appendix B). These projects are the primary 

activity that will alter forest vegetation and impact invasive plants; most of the weed risk assessments 

for these projects show the risk to be moderate if management requirements are followed. Recreation 

management, road and trail work and decommissioning of unauthorized routes account for 

approximately 96 miles of additional ground disturbing activities (anticipated to occur in the 

foreseeable future). Livestock grazing within the project area (13 allotments) may also proliferate 

weeds. All of these activities (in addition to other recreation activities such as dispersed camping) 

were ranked as low to moderate risk. 

These present and future projects are cumulative in nature in that some of them overlap spatially with 

the project areas, but all of them impact the ability of the Forest Service to feasibly and adequately 

manage invasive plant proliferation. With all the different projects occurring across the forest (BAER 

treatments, hazard tree removal, fuel treatments, etc.), several of which are thousands of acres in size, 

in addition to the large size of the Rim Fire itself, it becomes very difficult to physically get to all the 

affected areas, let alone perform time consuming hand removal of invasives in an adequate manner. 

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Under Alternative 2, areas which currently have invasive plants will continue to support these 

species, providing seed sources for dispersal into adjacent areas. Current re-growing vegetation types 

will be maintained. This alternative will eliminate the likelihood of directly and indirectly spreading 

weeds from salvage, hazard tree removal and road construction activities. The No Action Alternative 

will potentially negatively affect invasive plant proliferation if fuel reduction activities are not 

completed. It is possible the next wildfire event will have high vegetation and high soil burn intensity 

and severity because of the amount of untreated fuels (dead trees). As discussed above, these more 

intense or severe fires may promote weed proliferation where native vegetation recovery is slower, 

releasing invasive species from greater competition. However, when comparing the potential effects 

of the different project activities, it does appear that impacts associated with the action alternatives 

are of greater scope and magnitude than the impacts of no action. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

All the activities and factors listed in Appendix B may cumulatively affect the proliferation of 

invasive plant species. Factors that are not planned and difficult to control (e.g., wildfire, dispersed 

156
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

recreation use, climate change) will likely pose the greatest risk of proliferating invasive plants. 

Alternative 2 will not add to these cumulative impacts.

Alternative 3 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1, except additional management requirements will help to reduce the risk of 

establishing new populations of (high and moderate priority) invasive species from a high to a 

moderate ranking (31 to 75 percent chance of new infestation). However, those requirements will 

more than likely not reduce the high risk ranking for the spread of common invasives, which are 

typically some of the biggest contributors to vegetation type conversion and habitat degradation 

because they are avoided or removed under Alternative 3. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 3. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

All action alternatives have roughly the same affected environment and acreage of invasive plant 

species across similar treatments (Table 3.06-1 and Table 3.06-2). The direct, indirect and cumulative 

effects are also expected to be very similar. In terms of the risk of spreading invasive species, the 

main difference between the alternatives lays in the details of the management requirements. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 have a lower risk of invasive weed spread and proliferation than Alternative 1. 

While the difference between Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 for invasive plant impacts is very slight, 

Alternative 4 has a lower acreage of known weed infestations, salvage removal units and road work 

(especially new construction and reconstruction). Alternative 4 also has the highest amount of project 

acreage that is within the historic fire return interval, potentially making it slightly less susceptible to 

weed invasion. 

157
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus

Invasive Species National Forest

158
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

3.07 RANGE

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction

Legislative authorities for administration of the National Forest System range program are shown in 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2201 and objectives, policies, and responsibilities are in the FSM 2202 

through 2204 and FSM 2230 through FSM 2238. The Forest Plan Compliance (project record) 

document identifies the Forest Plan S&Gs that specifically apply to this project and related 

information about compliance with the Forest Plan. 

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Range

 The authorization for livestock grazing and the administration of allotments will not change with 

any of the alternatives. 

 The proposed activities and the amount of rangeland infrastructure in treatment areas reflects the 

relative degree of impact each alternative will have on permitted grazing in the project area.

 Monitoring will occur during project implementation to inform livestock managers about the 

effects on grazing use and rangeland resource conditions.

DataSources

The following information was used to describe existing condition and analyze effects on rangeland 

resources.

 Post-fire field visits 

 Local professional knowledge 

 Project Treatment Information

 Vegetation and Soil Burn Severity, Soil Erosion Hazard Rating 

 California Wildlife Habitat Relationships data

 Allotment and unit/pasture boundaries 

 Land ownership data

 Capable Rangeland 

 Rangeland infrastructure data

 Transportation data

Range Indicators

The following indicators were used to assess the effects of each alternative on rangeland resources.

 Proposed treatment area in each allotment (percent of allotment proposed for treatments)

 Proposed treatment area in capable rangelands within each allotment

 Road treatments (hazard tree removal and reconstruction/maintenance)

 Amount of range infrastructure encompassed by proposed treatments 

Range Methodology by Action

Quantitative and qualitative comparisons of the anticipated impacts of each alternative on rangeland 

resources and the expected potential for moving existing conditions toward Forest Plan desired 

conditions were used for determining the effects on rangeland resources.

Affected Environment

Existing Conditions

The following information applies to grazing allotments affected by the Rim Fire. 

159
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

Fire Extent and Burn Severity of Grazing Allotments

The Rim Fire effected thirteen grazing allotments. Some allotments were relatively less impacted due 

either to the proportion of the allotment burned and/or fire severity in the burned areas. Capable 

rangeland describes areas of land that can sustain domestic grazing and generally represent the 

portions of the landscape assumed to be most commonly used by cattle (USDA 2004). Capable 

rangeland was used to compare the relative effects of the fire on the allotments. Table 3.07-1 provides 

a summary of vegetation burn severity, soil burn severity, and erosion hazard rating for the affected 

allotments. 

Table 3.07-1 Allotment burn severity and erosion hazard data

Allotment

Vegetation Burn 

Severity

Mod and High (%)

Capable Range Soil 

Erosion

Hazard

High (%)

Vegetation Burn Severity 

Mod and High (%)

Soil Burn 

Severity High (%)

Jawbone-Rosasco 64 72 61 15.1

Hunter Creek 54 52 49 3.5

Duckwall 14 6 8 2.2

Middle Fork, Meyer-Ferretti, 

Gravel Range, Curtin 65 68 56 18.1

Bonds, Bower Cave, Bull 

Creek, Little Crane 20 2 2 1.4

Westside, Lower Hull, Upper 

Hull 17 5 3 1.5

Grazing Management

Allotment Administration 

Forest Plan Direction provides standards and guidelines designed to provide for resource conservation 

and sustainable use of rangelands. Range monitoring is conducted as needed to ensure that the 

grazing management strategies meet objectives for desired conditions. Administration of grazing 

allotments involves travel on roads by Forest Service staff and permittees. Post-fire administration of 

grazing allotments will require more frequent travel to and from key areas and range infrastructure. 

Dead trees pose a threat to human safety and make access more difficult for grazing permittees and 

Forest staff. 

Rangeland Infrastructure

Rangeland infrastructure includes fences, water developments (troughs), cattleguards, gates and 

corrals designed to control livestock movements (timing, duration, and intensity of grazing). The Rim 

Fire and fire suppression activities damaged this rangeland infrastructure. Allotment management is 

difficult or impractical without this functioning critical infrastructure. Over time, standing dead and 

unhealthy trees will fall on range fences, as noted following the 1996 Ackerson Fire. Some 

improvements, particularly fences, are in need of repair. Dead trees adjacent to fences and troughs 

pose a safety risk for Forest staff and permittees responsible for repairing and maintaining 

improvements. Over time, dead trees are likely to fall and damage range infrastructure after it is 

repaired. Numerous water developments and cattleguards are not functioning because they were 

either damaged during the fire or have been affected by post-fire sediment and debris accumulation.

Livestock Movements 

Livestock move through the allotments throughout the grazing season to find available forage and 

water. Dead or dying trees may reduce forage production to some extent due to shading and space 

availability. In many burned areas dead standing trees are abundant and have begun to fall. Fallen 

dead trees have the potential to “jackstraw” inhibiting livestock movements and reducing forage 

160
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

availability. Defective trees may also pose some risk to livestock, as cattle may be injured or killed by 

falling trees or by an excess of unburned fuel and debris. The presence of an abundance of dead 

timber also impedes the ability of permittees to herd livestock and achieve proper distribution. 

The allotments are open range allotments. Livestock frequently travel across and along roads. When 

vehicles approach, the cattle generally move off of roads and out of the way of the oncoming vehicle. 

Fire killed trees along roadsides are expected to fall down hampering the ability of livestock to move 

off of roads when vehicles approach. To some extent, fallen dead trees along roadsides have the 

potential to cause an increase in vehicle-cattle interactions and/or collisions.

Rangeland Vegetation

Vegetation Types

Deerbrush (Ceanothus integerrimus) is the predominant local forage species used by livestock in the 

mid-elevation range of 3,500 to 6,000 feet. Riparian areas and meadows, which occur as patches 

within the forest mosaic, are also preferred by livestock due to the availability of water, shade and 

high quality forage. Livestock also feed in forested areas and forest openings where sufficient

understory forage exists. Livestock may graze incidentally in any area of an allotment while moving 

between primary grazing areas.

California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) vegetation types (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988) 

and fire severity (Miller and Thode 2007) are used to describe the existing potential for landscape 

diversity. Pre-fire vegetation was examined using the CWHR vegetation types. Vegetation types were 

grouped into one of five broad categories of rangeland ecosystems. Table 3.07-2 displays pre-fire 

composition of rangeland vegetation types derived from CWHR data. 

Table 3.07-2 General rangeland vegetation types and burn severity

Vegetation Type Fire Area Vegetation Burn Severity

acres % Mod High M+H

Annual Grasslands 7,928 5.2 22.4 48.3 70.7

Hardwood Forests 18,737 12.3 17.0 51.3 68.3

Chaparral 22,465 14.8 15.1 65.1 80.2

Conifer Forests 101,073 66.4 13.8 37.0 50.8

Riparian 2,004 1.3 16.7 49.2 65.9

Vegetation Condition 

Current vegetation conditions are the combined result of pre-fire conditions and fire effects on the 

landscape. Table 3.07-2 shows vegetation burn severity for five broad rangeland vegetation types. 

Some vegetation types inherently burn more severely (chaparral), but species that dominate these 

plant communities are well adapted to recover from fire. Unburned areas and areas that burned at low 

severity are in a condition similar to that before the fire. Areas that burned at high severity are most 

likely to be in poor condition, with significantly reduced plant vigor and ground cover immediately 

following the fire. Because burned areas will naturally recover following fire, vegetation condition 

will improve over time, even in severely burned areas.

Forest and rangeland ecosystems recover naturally following fire, but each vegetation type responds 

differently to fire. Recovery sequence and timing varies based on environmental factors such as 

climate, soils and land management activities. Recognizing differences in vegetation types, 

identifying the stages of recovery and being responsive with changes in management are crucial to 

facilitating recovery of the burned landscape. Fire can cause a large scale vegetation type conversion 

to predominantly non-forest vegetation types, with many areas often dominated by brush within a few 

years following fire. The increase in transitory range helps to reduce overall utilization, due to the 

post-fire flush of palatable and nutritious forage. 

161
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

Environmental Consequences

Direct effects on rangeland resources are directly caused by project implementation. Indirect effects 

on rangeland resources are in response to the direct effects of treatments or, as with Alternative 2 (No 

Action), a lack of treatment. Project management requirements are designed to mitigate the direct and 

indirect effects of the project on rangeland resources.

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Table 3.07-3 provides a summary of the Alternative 1 treatment areas within allotments, capable 

range, roadside hazard trees, and fences. 

Table 3.07-3 Alternative 1 treatments in affected grazing allotments

Allotment

Alternative 1 Treatment Areas

Acres Allotment

(%)

Capable 

Range (%)

Roadside Hazard 

Tree (miles)

Fences 

(%)

Jawbone-Rosasco 14,189 28 33 71.3 25

Hunter Creek 3,482 12 28 67.1 16

Duckwall 941 5 9 15.0 41

Middle Fork, Meyer-Ferretti, Gravel Range, Curtin 17,260 33 20 121.7 22

Bonds, Bower Cave, Bull Creek, Little Crane 1,487 3 2 24.5 50

Westside, Lower Hull, Upper Hull 5,087 9 5 56.4 90

Grazing Management

Allotment Administration 

Alternative 1 improves safety and access conditions for allotment administration and grazing 

management. Alternative 1 removes hazard trees along a total of 356 miles of roads and improves 

(reconstruction and maintenance) 508 miles of roads inside allotment boundaries. Alternative 1 also 

removes hazards away from roadsides in salvage units, which improves safety conditions for grazing 

permittees and forest staff when working away from roads. Access within the allotments will be 

improved from existing conditions, facilitating allotment administration activities such as herding and 

monitoring. Project activities involving roads could affect livestock operations if temporary road 

closures are needed, although alternative access may be available for permittees. Non-use as a result 

of project activities is not expected to be necessary; however, if non-use is necessary, this change will

result in inconvenience or economic loss to the permit holders. 

Rangeland Infrastructure 

Alternative 1 poses some risk that harvest activities will damage range infrastructure. The potential 

for damage to range improvements is mitigated by management requirements and timber sale 

administration. Timber sale contracts will require project activities to avoid damaging functioning 

range fences and to repair damage to fences that occur during implementation. Long-term 

maintenance needs will decrease to some extent, and the functioning condition of range infrastructure 

increases under Alternative 1 because dead trees will be removed along 13.8 fence miles within 

grazing allotments. Removing snags adjacent to range infrastructure will improve safety conditions 

for persons responsible for infrastructure maintenance and have a positive effect on grazing 

management. The cattleguards on roads proposed for reconstruction and maintenance will be 

maintained which will also improve grazing management on affected allotments. 

Livestock Movements 

Alternative 1 treats 4,193 acres within capable rangelands. Long-term availability of forage may be 

increased by salvage logging since removing dead or dying trees can increase sunlight. Livestock 

162
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

distribution could potentially change or expand if treatments reduce dead and downed woody material 

and if transitory range is created around these areas. An increase in transitory range could improve 

livestock distribution and use patterns. This alternative reduces the short and long-term potential for 

fallen dead trees which minimizes “jackstraw” and increases livestock movement and forage 

availability. Removal of roadside hazard trees will reduce the potential for vehicle-cattle interactions 

and livestock injury or death. Alternative 1 facilitates herding and increases livestock movements and 

distribution. 

Rangeland Vegetation

Vegetation Types

Through natural recovery, ecosystems will tend to revert back to plant communities similar to what 

was seen with the pre-fire state, though there may be shifts in the proportions of vegetation types, 

floristic composition, and elevation range. The proposed activities may result in short term changes in 

species composition, but is not likely to result in long-term measurable changes to the proportions and 

distribution of vegetation types on a landscape scale. 

Vegetation Condition 

Alternative 1 has a beneficial effect on vegetation condition. Proposed activities will directly increase 

short-term forage availability, which results in a reduction of overall forage utilization. This 

alternative will indirectly improve long-term vegetation condition because fuel treatments reduce the 

potential for future catastrophic fires. Project activities may increase the likelihood of weed invasion 

and spread, a serious threat to rangelands; however, management requirements minimize the potential 

for weed invasion. Monitoring of grazing standards and guidelines will continue as described in the 

permit, Allotment Management Plan (AMP), and Annual Operating Instructions (AOI). Monitoring 

and adaptive management will ensure that vegetation condition meets standards and guidelines 

outlined in management direction. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Alternative 1 when combined with the effects of other projects (Appendix B) may cause short-term 

negative cumulative effects on range due to the potential for soil compaction, ecological disturbance,

and weed invasions. Long-term cumulative effects to range from those projects will be beneficial or 

neutral because they improve accessibility, curtail resource damage, or improve the ecological health 

of forest and rangelands. Monitoring will occur as needed to ensure that the combined effects of other 

projects and ongoing activities (Appendix B) meet Forest objectives for desired conditions. Since 

Alternative 1 implements the Forest Plan and includes management requirements that mitigate 

potential effects to acceptable levels, no adverse long-term cumulative effects are expected. 

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Grazing Management

Allotment Administration

Alternative 2 will not improve conditions for allotment administration and grazing management. The 

presence of hazard trees poses risks to the safety of rangeland managers and negatively affects 

accessibility for allotment administration. Access within the allotments will not be improved from 

existing conditions. Maintenance (clearing of fallen trees) of travel routes may become cumbersome 

in areas where roadside hazard trees are prevalent. Allotment administration activities such as herding 

and monitoring will be more challenging and time consuming, but will still occur.

163
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

Rangeland Infrastructure 

Alternative 2 poses no risk of direct damage to range infrastructure by salvage operations; however, 

dead and unhealthy trees will not be removed and will fall on range fences over time, as noted 

following the 1996 Ackerson Fire. Allotment management will become much more difficult if critical 

range infrastructure is not functioning. Maintenance needs will be more significant under this 

alternative than for the action alternatives. Dead trees pose a safety risk for forest staff and permittees 

responsible for repairing and maintaining infrastructure. The long-term functioning condition of range 

infrastructure will be degraded as a result of this alternative. 

Livestock Movements

Alternative 2 will not reduce the potential for “jackstraw”, which can inhibit livestock movements 

and reduce forage availability. Alternative 2 will not improve livestock distribution and movements. 

This alternative does not reduce the risk of livestock death or injury by falling trees or by an excess of 

unburned fuel and debris. Permittee ability to herd and distribute livestock throughout key areas and 

capable range will not be improved under this alternative, which may increase the potential for 

localized overgrazing. This alternative may also increase the potential for vehicle-cattle interactions.

Rangeland Vegetation

Vegetation Types

Alternative 2 has no effects on rangeland vegetation types because no project activities will occur. 

The lack of project activities will not likely have measurable effects on post-fire recovery and 

vegetation dynamics. The landscape will recover naturally as early stages of forest succession take 

place immediately following the fire, favoring rapid revegetation of grasses, forbs, and sprouting 

woody plants. Forest succession in the burned area will continue over time. 

Vegetation Condition 

Alternative 2 may indirectly negatively affect vegetation condition. Because this alternative may 

increase the potential for localized overgrazing, it may also cause negative impacts on vegetation 

condition in some areas. Additionally, a lack of fuel treatments increases the potential for future 

catastrophic fire. Monitoring and adaptive management will be used to ensure that vegetation 

condition meets Forest standards and guidelines. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Alternative 2 when combined with the effects of other projects (Appendix B) may pose some risk to 

rangeland health due to the potential for soil compaction, ecological disturbance and weed invasions. 

Long-term cumulative effects to range from those projects will be beneficial or neutral because they 

improve accessibility, curtail resource damage, or improve the ecological health of forest and 

rangelands. Other projects may to some extent alleviate the risk of high severity future fires; however, 

fuel loadings will be higher and the chances for a larger, hotter and more resource damaging fire will

increase due to no salvage logging under Alternative 2. Combined with the increased potential for 

localized overgrazing, lack of road treatments, wildlife and watershed treatments, the cumulative 

effects of Alternative 2 are not likely to contribute to desired conditions for rangeland resources and 

would result in long-term negative cumulative effects to rangeland resources.

Alternative 3

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Table 3.07-4 provides a summary of the Alternative 3 treatment areas within allotments, capable 

range, roadside hazard trees, and fences.

164
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.07-4 Alternative 3 treatments in affected grazing allotments

Allotment

Alternative 3 Treatment Areas

Acres Allotment

(%)

Capable 

Range (%)

Roadside Hazard 

Tree (miles)

Fences 

(%)

Jawbone-Rosasco 16,569 32 46 62.3 37

Hunter Creek 3,439 11 28 66.8 16

Duckwall 940 5 9 13.8 41

Middle Fork, Meyer-Ferretti, Gravel Range, Curtin 16,813 32 21 122.4 18

Bonds, Bower Cave, Bull Creek, Little Crane 1,488 3 2 24.9 50

Westside, Lower Hull, Upper Hull 4,471 8 5 54.3 9

Grazing Management

Allotment Administration 

Alternative 3 has similar effects on allotment administration and grazing management as Alternative 

1. Alternative 3 removes hazard trees along 345 miles of roads and improves (reconstruction and 

maintenance) 503 miles of roads inside allotment boundaries. Alternative 3 improves safety 

conditions and access for grazing permittees and forest staff, facilitating allotment administration 

activities. 

Rangeland Infrastructure 

Alternative 3 has beneficial effects to rangeland infrastructure, similar to Alternative 1. Dead trees 

will be removed along 12.9 fence miles within grazing allotments and several cattleguards will be 

maintained, thereby improving grazing management on affected allotments.

Livestock Movements

Alternative 3 proposes treatments on 4,887 acres of capable rangelands, almost 700 more acres than 

Alternative 1. The effects of this alternative are similar to Alternative 1. 

Rangeland Vegetation

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Table 3.07-5 provides a summary of the Alternative 4 treatment areas within allotments, capable 

range, roadside hazard trees, and fences.

Table 3.07-5 Alternative 4 treatments in affected grazing allotments

Allotment

Alternative 4 Treatment Areas

Acres Allotment

(%)

Capable 

Range (%)

Roadside Hazard 

Tree (miles)

Fences 

(%)

Jawbone-Rosasco 15,487 30 46 65.2 37

Hunter Creek 3,439 11 28 66.8 16

Duckwall 941 5 9 13.8 17

Middle Fork, Meyer-Ferretti, Gravel Range, Curtin 16,710 32 21 123.3 4

Bonds, Bower Cave, Bull Creek, Little Crane 1,184 2 2 24.9 50

Westside, Lower Hull, Upper Hull 3,946 7 5 55.3 9

165
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

Grazing Management

Allotment Administration 

Alternative 4, similar to Alternatives 1 and 3 improves conditions for safety and access for allotment 

administration and grazing management. Alternative 4 removes hazard trees 349 miles of roads and 

improves (reconstruction and maintenance) 503 miles of roads inside allotment boundaries. 

Rangeland Infrastructure

Alternative 4 poses some risk that harvest activities will damage range infrastructure, but this is 

mitigated by management requirements and timber sale administration. Dead trees will be removed 

along 8 fence miles within grazing allotments. Cattleguard maintenance will also improve grazing 

management on affected allotments. The effects are similar to Alternatives 1 and 3.

Livestock Movements

The effects of Alternative 4 on livestock movements are similar to Alternatives 1 and 3, except that it 

treats 4,850 acres in capable rangelands, almost 700 more acres than Alternative 1 and only slightly 

less than Alternative 3. 

Rangeland Vegetation

Vegetation Types

Same as Alternative 1. 

Vegetation Condition 

The effects of Alternative 4 on rangeland vegetation condition are similar to Alternatives 1 and 3, 

except that it treats less area. Alternative 4 will have a beneficial effect on vegetation condition. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

The effects of each alternative are compared against the relative area proposed for treatment within 

grazing allotments, the amount of capable range in treatment areas, length of fence segments 

encompassed by treatments, and travel routes treated for hazard tree removal and road improvements. 

Table 3.07-6 displays a summary of this information for all alternatives.

Table 3.07-6 Allotment area and length of fences treated by each alternative

Treatment Areas Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Grazing Allotment (acres) 42,445 0 43,720 41,718

Capable Range (acres) 4,193 0 4,887 4,850

Fence (miles) 13.8 0 12.9 7.8

Roadside Hazard Tree (miles) 356 0 345 350

Road Improvements (miles) 508 0 503 503

All action alternatives propose a similar amount of roadside hazard tree removal and road 

improvement activities, and so will provide similar positive effects to allotment administration and 

livestock movements. Alternative 1 encompasses the most fence segments, and is the most desirable 

alternative for range infrastructure. Alternative 2 will not provide any improvements and would result 

in long-term negative cumulative effects. Alternative 3 provides the most benefits to rangeland 

resources. Alternatives 3 and 4 treat the largest amount of capable rangeland, and so have the 

potential to create the most improvements in forage availability and livestock distribution. 

Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 provide the most benefits for allotment administration (safety and travel). 

166
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

3.08 RECREATION

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction

The Forest Plan Compliance (project record) document identifies the Forest Plan S&Gs that 

specifically apply to this project and related information about compliance with the Forest Plan. In 

addition, the Forest Plan includes a specific goal applicable to recreation and the Rim Recovery 

project: 

 Forest Goal for Recreation: Provide a wide range of recreation opportunities directed at various 

experience levels to meet current and projected demand, including campgrounds, hiking trails, 

picnic areas, off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails, etc. (USDA 2010a, p. 6). 

Effects Analysis Methodology

The geographic extent of this analysis is the Rim Recovery project area and includes the Cherry 

Valley recreation area. This unit of spatial analysis is used for determining direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects. A short-term timeframe of three years allows the activities associated with this 

project to be mostly completed. A long-term temporal bound of 10 years allows completed activities 

associated with this project to be established. 

Assumptions Specific to Recreation

 The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM data) report accurately expresses recreation. 

 Action alternatives will not cause long-term changes to recreation opportunities. 

 Dust associated with the removal of logs from the Forest will be abated. 

 Though the most updated dispersed camping and route data were used for this analysis, 

conditions change on the ground. 

Data Sources

 Stanislaus GIS Library

 NVUM data (USDA 2008b) 

Recreation Indicators

 Developed Recreation Opportunities

 Dispersed Recreation Opportunities

Recreation Methodology by Action

Use the recreation indicators to identify and compare the effects of the alternatives on developed 

recreation and dispersed recreation. 

Affected Environment

Existing Conditions

Rim Fire Closure

Numerous recreation resources in the Rim Fire area have been damaged. Maintenance and 

rehabilitation is ongoing. Falling trees, rock falls, and debris flows will create an increased workload 

over the long-term to maintain these resources to Forest Service standards. Regulatory, information, 

directional, and interpretive signs have been damaged during the fire. Because roads and other 

developed facilities within the project area are faced with hazard trees that pose a threat to human 

health and safety, there is a need to remove those hazards to provide a safe environment for 

administration and public use of those facilities.

167
Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus

Recreation National Forest

On November 18, 2013, after determining that conditions within the burn area present unsafe 

conditions for public travel, Forest Supervisor Susan Skalski issued a temporary Forest Order (STF 

2014-01) that prohibited public use within the burn area until November 18, 2014. A total of 7 

campgrounds, 5 semi-developed dispersed camping/concentrated use areas, 6 day use areas, 11 nonmotorized trails, 5 OHV riding areas, 4 developed recreation sites under special use permits, and 475 

inventoried dispersed campsites are located within the closure. Additionally, numerous 

outfitter/guides have special use permits (rafting, hiking, bicycling, fishing, etc.).

Recreation Visitor Use

Before the Rim Fire, Forest recreation use within the project area included OHV use, passenger car 

driving, rafting, boating, hunting, swimming, mining, wood cutting, camping (dispersed and 

developed), hiking, cycling (mountain and road), fishing, backpacking, horseback riding, and winter 

sports. These opportunities will once again be available after the hazard trees are abated and the area 

is re-opened for public access. Obviously, the fire has modified some of the experiences these 

activities provide in those locations where the severity changed the existing forest condition. 

The Stanislaus National Forest ranks in the top five National Forests in California for overall annual 

recreation use (USDA 2008b). The Forest receives more visitation than any other National Forest on 

the Sierra Nevada western slope. The Recreation Facility Analysis (RFA) projected an increase in 

overall recreation use of 43 percent over the next 20 years (USDA 2007b). This is dramatically higher 

than the average forest nationally, but typical of adjacent Forests in the central Sierra. The expected 

increase in visitor use will create challenges as demand for all types of activities approach capacity. 

Visitor use estimates for the Forest are based on the NVUM survey conducted from October 1, 2006 

through September 30, 2007 (USDA 2008b), prior to the Rim Fire. Recreation use on the Stanislaus 

National Forest for this period was estimated at 1,817,200 National Forest visits and 2,100,300 site 

visits. The survey assessed existing recreation demand on the forest by asking visitors what they did 

during their visit. This assessment resulted in two categories of visitor use: all activities in which 

they participated in and the main activity (the primary purpose for their visit to the Forest). The 

survey highlighted the fact that the two uses may or may not be related. For example, 75 percent of 

the forest visitors reported participating in the viewing of natural features, but only 42 percent 

reported this as their main activity. The top five recreation activities visitors participated in were 

viewing scenery, hiking/walking, general relaxation, viewing wildlife, and picnicking. Each visitor 

also picked one of these activities as their primary activity for their current recreation visit to the 

forest. Table 3.08-1 identifies the primary activities as viewing scenery, downhill skiing, relaxing, 

OHV use (including motorized trails) and fishing (USDA 2008b). 

Most visitors to the Forest participate in a variety of activities. Many activities, such as viewing 

natural features, can be either motorized or non-motorized. The overwhelming majority of forest 

visitors arrive in a motorized vehicle; the exception being immediately adjacent residents who hike or 

bicycle. This means that motorized and non-motorized activities are often combined as part of the 

total recreation experience.

Based on the 2012 NVUM data, an estimated 76,500 individual recreation site visits have been “lost” 

because of the fire and closure orders. An individual recreation site is defined as a single user visiting 

a single site. Because several users visit more than one individual recreation site on their visit, total 

individual visits to the National Forest “lost” due to the fire and closure orders is estimated to be 

53,000. These figures are only valid under the assumption that none of the visits had a temporal or 

spatial substitute on the forest. That is, none of the visits either occurred at some other place on the 

forest or at some other time on the forest. If any such spatial or temporal substitution occurred, then 

these figures overstate the losses.

168
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.08-1 National Visitor Use Monitoring Classified Activities

Activity1 Participation

(percent) Rank Main Activity (percent) Rank

Developed Camping 16.2 9 3.5 8

Primitive Camping 5.7 15 0.4 18

Backpacking 2.2 20 0.3 19

Resort Use 6.6 14 0.9 15

Picnicking 20.5 5 2.3 10

Viewing Natural Features 75.3 1 42.0 1

Visiting Historic Sites 2.5 18 0 -

Nature Center Activities 1.3 25 0 -

Nature Study 1.9 21 0 -

Relaxing 35.2 3 8.2 3

Fishing 18.7 8 8.0 5

Hunting 9.0 12 7.7 7

OHV Use 10.4 11 8.1 4

Driving for Pleasure 19.9 6 1.9 11

Snowmobiling 1.8 22 1.5 12

Motorized Water Activities 2.3 19 0.1 20

Other Motorized Activity 0.1 26 0.1 21

Hiking / Walking 36.2 2 7.7 6

Horseback Riding 1.8 23 0.9 14

Bicycling 3.2 17 0.6 17

Non-motorized Water 7.9 13 3.5 9

Downhill Skiing 11.4 10 10.9 2

Cross-country Skiing 1.8 24 1.1 13

Other Non-motorized 18.7 7 3.2 9

Gathering Forest Products 4.1 16 0 -

Viewing Wildlife 32.0 4 0.7 16

1 Information based on 2007 monitoring and January 2009 update

Table 3.08-2 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes within the Rim Recovery project area

ROS General Direction Standards and Guidelines

SemiPrimitive 

NonMotorized

NMFPA

Manage the area so that on-site 

controls are minimized and 

restrictions are subtle. Provide a 

range of semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation opportunities 

and experiences.

Meet the ROS objective of Semi-primitive Non-motorized.

Interaction between visitors is low but there is evidence of other 

users. Motorized use is normally prohibited, except for: 4N80Y, 

5N02R (NMFPA). Resource improvements will normally be 

limited to minimum, unobtrusive facilities.

Roaded 

Natural

Manage the area so there is only 

moderate evidence of the sights 

and sounds of man. Provide a 

range of roaded natural recreation

opportunities and experiences.

Meet the ROS objective of Roaded Natural. Interaction between 

users is usually low to moderate with evidence of other users 

prevalent. Resource modification practices are evident. 

Conventional motorized use is provided for in construction 

standards And facilities designs. A full range of other resource 

activities is permitted to the extent that the general practice 

description is met.

NMFPA=Non-motorized Forest Plan Amendment (USDA 2010a, p. 2)

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

ROS identifies possible mixes or combinations of activities, settings, and probable experience 

opportunities are arranged along a spectrum, or continuum (USDA 1986). The Forest Plan integrates 

ROS into the management prescriptions and associated standards and guidelines. Table 3.08-2 

169
Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus

Recreation National Forest

displays the ROS classes that exist within the project area: Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized and 

Roaded Natural6

. 

Recreation Access

Traditionally, high volumes of traffic occur during peak seasons on Forest Service Maintenance Level 

3, 4, and 5 roads that are subject to the Federal Highway Safety Act. These higher maintenance level 

roads provide access to most developed recreation and some dispersed sites. Currently, most access to 

developed sites is closed. The Rim HT project is expected to remove the hazard trees, opening many 

of these roads to public use. Logging trucks and related timber removal equipment will be operating 

along main corridors seven days a week. Evergreen Road on the Groveland Ranger District, however, 

will have no harvest operations implemented during weekends from Memorial Day and to Labor Day 

to allow safe public access. Evergreen Road is a main artery that provides access to several popular 

recreation areas: 

 Dimond O Campground (Forest Service);

 Middle Fork Day-Use (Forest Service);

 Carlon Day-Use and Trailhead (Forest Service), which provides trail access to Carlon Falls in 

Yosemite National Park; 

 Peach Growers Recreation Residence Tract, which encompasses 20 Forest Service Special Use 

cabins, roads and water infrastructure; 

 Evergreen Lodge (Privately owned Historic Yosemite Lodge); and, 

 Camp Mather (City and County of San Francisco family camp). 

Some access routes show resource damage due to rain on slopes with no ground cover or vegetation. 

Lumsden Road (1N10) with numerous debris slides since the Rim Fire accesses dispersed areas and 

developed sites including the Merals Pool put-in for whitewater boating. 

Developed Recreation Opportunities

Developed recreation sites provide infrastructure which typically include running water, structures, 

vault toilets, signage, barrier posts, interior roads, campfire rings, grills and picnic tables. Developed 

campgrounds within the affected area are Dimond O, Lost Claim, Lumsden Bridge, Lumsden, South 

Fork, Sweetwater, and Cherry Valley. Upper and Lower Carlon, Middle Fork, and Rainbow Pool Day 

Use Areas, Rim of the World Vista, Cherry Creek and Merals Pool Boat Launches are also found 

within the Rim Fire perimeter. Developed recreation sites under special use permit within the Rim 

Fire perimeter include Berkeley-Tuolumne Camp, Peach Growers Recreational Residence Tract, and 

San Jose Camp. Berkeley-Tuolumne Camp was completely destroyed in the Rim Fire and may be 

rebuilt. San Jose Camp received some fire damage, and a vault toilet was burned at the South Fork 

Campground. Camp Tawonga is a privately owned camp that is accessed by Cherry Lake Road or 

Evergreen Road and Forest Route 1S02. 

Dispersed Recreation Opportunities

Dispersed recreation opportunities include non-motorized system trails and motorized recreation 

opportunities. The project area provides a variety of dispersed recreation opportunities that include 

475 inventoried dispersed campsites. Developed-dispersed camping and concentrated use areas within 

the Rim Fire perimeter include Camp Clavey, Cherry Borrow, Cherry Valley, Joe Walt Run, and 

Spinning Wheel. Many dispersed sites are accessed by Forest Service Maintenance Level 2 roads 

proposed for hazard tree removal in this project. 

Non-motorized system trails include Andresen Mine, Carlon Falls, Hamby, Golden Stairs, 

Humbug/Duluke, Indian Creek, Kibbie Ridge/Huckleberry, North Mountain, Preston Falls, Tuolumne 

6 Not all ROS classes are present with the Rim Recovery project area (Table 3.08-2). The full range of ROS classes include: 1) Primitive; 

2) Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized; 3) Semi-Primitive Motorized; 4) Roaded Natural; 5) Rural; and, 6) Urban. 

170

 
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

River Canyon, West Side Trail, and Lake Eleanor. Some trails access various points of interest along 

the Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River corridor and serve as important emergency access points for 

river users. Wilderness trailheads within the project area provide access to trails in Yosemite and 

Emigrant Wildernesses. 

Motorized recreation opportunities typically provide a variety of settings and a diversity of OHV 

trails varying in length, degree of difficulty, and access to other recreation opportunities. Motorized 

Recreation Areas include Jawbone Pass, Pilot Ridge, Tuolumne Rim, Two-mile/Middle 

Clavey/Reynolds Creek, and West Side Rail Tour. 

A Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) team began assessing the Rim Fire area for post-fire 

emergencies on September 9, 2013. BAER is a rapid assessment of burned watersheds to identify 

imminent post-wildfire threats to human life and safety, property and critical natural or cultural 

resources on NFS lands and takes immediate actions to implement emergency stabilization measures 

before the first major storms. The Forest invested $4,600,000 in BAER treatments including the 

following areas. 

 Roads: out-sloped road surface, maintained and constructed drainage features (e.g., rolling dips, 

cleaned and replaced culverts), replaced guardrails and reflectors, installed and closed gates to 

close burned area to public use according to closure (STF 2014-01), fell hazard trees at 

intersections, cleared trees that fell across roads, replaced traffic control barriers, installed signs 

(e.g., warning, regulatory, and hazard signs), and continued storm patrolling. 

 Trails: maintained and installed drainage dips, removed burned wooden retaining features and 

replaced with rock or rerouted trail, fell hazard trees at trailheads, cleared trees that fell across 

trails, replaced traffic control barriers on motorized trails, installed warning and hazard signs, 

closed public access to trails through winter, and continued storm patrolling. 

 Facilities: sealed burned vault toilets, removed and replaced burned traffic barriers, installed 

warning and hazard signs, fell hazard trees, closed public access to trails through winter, and 

continued storm patrolling. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Alternative 1 will improve administrative, visitor, and traffic safety and provide overall net benefits 

for recreation resources. Salvage of fire-killed trees within the project area would remove dead trees 

from the project area; thereby, recovering commercial value and reducing excessive fuel loads. 

Recreation resources may need to be temporarily closed during hazard tree removal efforts, which 

will displace users and may affect scenic quality. 

A limited amount of noise from chainsaws, skidders, loaders, logging trucks and personnel associated 

with the abatement and removal of hazard trees is expected during project implementation. Hazard 

tree operations can treat from 0.5 to several miles of road per day, assuring limited impacts, which 

would not exceed more than a few days in any one location. Noise disturbances to users of facilities 

within this project are inevitable, but would be very limited in duration and amount.

Developed Recreation Opportunities

Lumsden Bridge, Lumsden Campground and South Fork Campground would not be affected from the 

proposed activities. Sweetwater, Lost Claim, and Dimond O Campgrounds and Peach Growers 

Recreation Residence Tract are immediately adjacent to proposed tractor logging units and would

experience temporary negative effects from noise, dust, and increased traffic associated with the 

cutting and removal of trees. Loading for hazard tree operations along Highway 120, where 

Sweetwater and Lost Claim Campgrounds are located, will be avoided during the weekends (3:00 pm 

171
Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus

Recreation National Forest

Friday through Sunday). Because logging operations would not occur along or adjacent to Evergreen 

Road on weekends during the peak summer season (from July 3 through July 5, during Memorial Day 

and Labor Day weekends, and during the special event on Evergreen Road), negative effects are 

lessened for Dimond O Campground and Peach Growers Recreation Residence Tract, along with the 

private properties of Camp Mather and Evergreen Lodge. The reduced logging operations and hauling 

during peak travel time for visitors to the forest should reduce the potential for accidents related to 

industrial vehicles in use in the project area.

Activities are planned on NFS land adjacent to privately owned Camp Tawonga (Table 3.08-3). The 

camp will experience temporary negative effects from noise, dust, and increased traffic associated 

with the cutting and removal of trees. It should take 30 days or less to log and haul the dead timber on 

tractor units within 1 mile of the camp. In addition, appropriate safety procedures related to traffic 

management requirements will be included in all Timber Sale contracts. This may be accomplished 

by placing warning or closure signs in locations that ensure maximum visibility for forest visitors.

Table 3.08-3 Tractor Units within 1 Mile of Camp Tawonga

Units Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

tractor units 13 0 14 14

acres 1,321 0 1,263 1,263

Cherry Valley Campground is adjacent to proposed treatment units (helicopter and tractor) as well as 

hazard tree removal activities occurring along the roads accessing this area. Due to heavy logging 

traffic on travel routes that access Cherry Lake Road, Cherry Valley campground will be closed for at 

least the 2014 season. Under the Forest Order discussed earlier in this section (STF 2014-02), the 

Forest is currently closed until hazard trees along roads are abated either under the Rim HT project or 

this EIS. Closure of Cherry Valley Campground will have a temporary negative financial effect to the 

campground concessionaire and temporary negative effects to forest visitors who prefer camping in

Cherry Valley. 

Dispersed Recreation Opportunities

Considering the volume of dispersed recreation on the Stanislaus National Forest and the size and 

scale of the Rim Recovery project, many dispersed areas would be impacted by either through project 

activities directly (e.g., landings placed on top of dispersed camping sites) or indirectly through log 

hauling and continued closed access routes to the sites. However, these sites are currently closed 

under Forest Order STF 2014-02. The positive effects of this alternative are to provide safe dispersed 

recreation areas and safe access. As access routes are cleared of hazard trees the Forest would open to 

public use including the 99 miles of motorized and non-motorized trails currently closed due to 

hazard trees. Finally, although gravel will be used on some roads that currently have a native surface;

these roads are expected to return back to their native state at the conclusion of the logging period due 

to the significant wear and tear imposed by the industrial traffic.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Appendix B identifies other actions within the Rim Fire area including ecological restoration, soil 

improvement, transportation and motorized trail improvement projects. Those projects will add to the 

overall health of the forest and enhance recreation opportunities within the Rim Fire area. Cumulative 

effects would include the temporary negative effects of noise, dust and increased traffic on the 

recreation experiences of Forest users; however, the Rim HT project and the Rim Recovery provide 

safe access and safe travel to developed recreation sites and dispersed recreation areas. 

Hazard tree and other projects are expected to occur in the foreseeable future. Some proposed 

activities may temporarily limit access for recreation opportunities, displacing recreation use to other 

172
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

areas in the vicinity during project implementation. Since all projects on NFS lands are designed to 

meet Forest Plan direction for recreation and ROS, Alternative 1 will not result in cumulative, longterm effects on recreation.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Under Alternative 2, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project 

area. No hazard tree removal or road maintenance would be implemented to accomplish project goals, 

and thousands of currently hazardous trees would be left to fall on their own as a result of the forces 

of wind, snow and gravity. These trees will not be removed, will contribute to accumulation woody 

debris, and may pose a risk for more intense wildfire behavior. Hazard trees and other trees 

previously felled during fire suppression or BAER activities would not be removed from areas 

adjacent to Level 2 roads, motorized or non-motorized trails, dispersed campsites, and other 

recreational activities. 

Developed Recreation Opportunities

In a 2004 study of more than 200 BAER reports, many direct and indirect impacts and potential risks 

to recreation due to resource damage caused by fire were identified following fires on National 

Forests across the nation (Chavez 2004). Table 3.08-4 lists some potential impacts and risks to 

developed recreation sites. Some impacts, such as falling snags, will be long-term issues resulting 

from the Rim Fire.

Table 3.08-4 Alternative 2: Potential Impacts and Risks to Developed Recreation

Developed Recreation Impacts Direct Risks

Closure, blocked, or restricted access X X

Drinking water source damage X X

Falling snags/hazard trees X

Facilities and improvements damaged X

Tree stands severely damaged X

Plugged culverts X X

Degraded water quality for recreation purposes X

Dispersed Recreation Opportunities

Continued closure of portions of the burn area will limit access to dispersed recreation opportunities 

and displace users. Alternative 2 indirectly will contribute to the proliferation of unplanned, 

unauthorized, non-sustainable roads, trails and areas created by unauthorized cross-country travel. 

Impacts include compacted soil, soil and vegetation loss, and habitat disturbance. Table 3.08-5 lists 

some potential impacts and potential risks to dispersed recreation areas (Chavez 2004). Many of these 

will be long-term impacts resulting from Alternative 2. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

A total of 475 inventoried dispersed campsites exist within the project area. Continued closure of 

portions of the burn area under Alternative 2 will displace users to other available areas within the 

Rim Fire. Displaced users may impact sensitive meadows and riparian areas. Intense heat from 

campfires can damage vegetation and soil. Repeated use of a dispersed campsite can result in soil 

compaction, soil and vegetation loss, habitat disturbance, and heritage resource degradation. As such, 

Alternative 2 will contribute towards adverse cumulative effects on recreation and possibly other 

resources in the Rim Fire perimeter.

173
Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus

Recreation National Forest

Table 3.08-5 Alternative 2: Potential Impacts and Risks to Dispersed Recreation

Dispersed Recreation Impacts Direct Risks

Closure, blocked, or restricted access X X

Drinking water source damage X X

Falling snags/hazard trees X

Flooding, water erosion X

Landslides and debris flows X

Loss of soil productivity X

Noxious weed infestation X

Tree stands severely damaged X

Unstable hillsides X

Falling rock X

Increased unauthorized motorized use X

Plugged culverts X X

Sign, guardrail and cattleguard damage X X

Stranding people X

Stump burnout X

Unstable trail conditions X

Degraded water quality for recreation purposes X

Vandalism/theft of cultural resource sites X

Alternative 3

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

Although the proposed acreages and treatments change across the alternatives, the effects of 

Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 are the same. These include temporary negative effects of noise, dust and 

increased traffic on the recreation experiences of Forest users; however, the positive effect of

improved forest health will benefit recreation. Alternative 2 will have long-term negative indirect and 

cumulative effects to developed and dispersed recreation opportunities due to limited or no access. 

174
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

3.09 SENSITIVE PLANTS

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction

No federally listed plants occur on the Stanislaus National Forest. Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670) 

and the Forest Plan provide direction for management of sensitive plants. 

It is the Secretary of Agriculture's direction to “...manage ‘habitats for all existing native and desired 

nonnative plants, ... in order to maintain at least viable populations of such species’” and "avoid 

actions 'which may cause a species to become threatened or endangered'" (FSM 2670.12). Further, it 

is a Forest Service objective to "maintain viable populations of all native ... plant species in habitats 

distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands" (FSM 2670.22). 

Forest Service policy set out in FSM 2670.32 is to "avoid or minimize impacts to [Sensitive] species 

whose viability has been identified as a concern." Where it is determined that impacts cannot be 

avoided, "the line officer with project approval authority, [may make] the decision to allow or 

disallow impact, but the decision must not result in loss of species viability or create significant trends 

toward federal listing." Sensitive Plants are defined as “those plant ... species identified by a regional 

forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: a) significant current or 

predicted downward trends in population numbers or density and b) significant current or predicted 

downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution” (FSM 

2670.5). 

Forest Plan direction for Sensitive Plants is to "provide for protection and habitat needs of sensitive 

plants, so that Forest activities will not jeopardize their continued existence." Forest Plan S&Gs

advise to "modify planned projects to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to sensitive plants" (USDA 

2010a, p. 60). The Forest Plan Compliance (project record) document identifies the Forest Plan S&Gs 

that specifically apply to this project and related information about compliance with the Forest Plan. 

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Sensitive Plants

 Unknown occurrences of Sensitive Plants exist within the project area and treatment units. 

 Surveys conducted during the spring and summer 2014 will locate and document additional 

occurrences; management requirements would be applied to the newly discovered populations. 

Data Sources

 Rare plant occurrences, survey locations and habitats (GIS). 

 RareFind 3 Database from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (CNDDB 2014). 

 Soil Survey, Stanislaus National Forest Area, California (USDA 1981). 

 Tuolumne County Lithography. 

 2009 GIS Ortho Photo layers. 

 Google Earth satellite aerial photos. 

 Specimen herbarium records (CCH 2014). 

 The paper-based Groveland Ranger District surveys completed atlas.

Sensitive Plant Indicators

 Sensitive Plant occurrences.

 Suitable habitat for sensitive plants and the condition of those habitats.

 Number of sensitive plants impacted by the project, the intensity of the impacts and the duration 

of the impacts.

175
Chapter 3.09 Stanislaus

Sensitive Plants National Forest

Sensitive Plants Methodology by Action

A list of all federally listed Threatened, Endangered or Proposed plant species which might occur in 

the Stanislaus National Forest was acquired from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2014). 

A prefield review was conducted to determine which sensitive plant species might occur or are known 

to occur within the project area (project record). Habitat attributes such as geology and soil types, 

elevation range, aspect and presence of closed canopy and forest openings were used to determine 

availability of suitable habitat for each species. 

The effects of the Rim Recovery project were analyzed using data from sensitive plant inventories, 

local observations of effects to the various plant species, anecdotal information for specific species 

documented in Regional Sensitive List revision forms and, where available, published research papers 

or research papers acquired prior to publication. 

The project area will serve as the geographic bounds for effects analysis of sensitive plants. The 

project area is an appropriate size to assess the effects of the proposed activities because all potential 

disturbances and effects to sensitive plants would occur within this boundary. Any predictable effects 

to vegetation would remain within this area. For sensitive plants, the project area also serves as the 

area of analysis for cumulative effects because effects of other past, present, and foreseeable activities 

would interact with effects of the proposed project only within the project area. 

The time frame considered for future effects is 10 to 20 years after implementation. By the end of this 

time period, the predicted effects to sensitive plant occurrences and habitats would be in progress and 

observable.

Affected Environment

As described in the Sensitive Plant BE (project record) and Botany Report (project record), rarity in 

plants can be the result of a number of things. Loss of habitat is a key factor for some species. 

Reproductive isolation through loss of populations is another factor. In many cases, the scarcity of the 

habitat in which the species evolved is the limiting factor which makes the species rare. Many of the

sensitive plants considered in the Rim Recovery project are limited to specialized or scarce habitats 

such as cliffs, vernal pools, fens (spring-fed seep or meadow areas containing 16 inches or more of 

peat), or “lava caps” (prehistoric volcanic ash mud flows also known as lahars and composed of 

andesitic tuff).

Sensitive Plant surveys have been conducted within the project area for the past 24 years. However, 

changes to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List, increased understanding of species range, the 

lack of floristic surveys in the past and the lack of any type of survey within some proposed treatment 

areas indicate the need to survey the proposed project for sensitive species. Within the Rim Recovery 

project, there are few treatment units which have been surveyed for all sensitive species based on the 

unit’s habitat attributes and the current Sensitive Plant List.

The following Sensitive Plant species are known to occur within the project area: Allium 

yosemitense, Balsamorhiza macrolepis, Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium minganense, 

Botrychium pedunculosum, Clarkia australis, Clarkia biloba ssp. australis, Cypripedium montanum, 

Eriophyllum nubigenum, Erythronium taylori, Erythronium tuolumnense, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. 

hutchisonii, Lomatium stebbinsii, Mielichhoferia elongata, Mimulus filicaulis, Mimulus pulchellus, 

and Peltigera gowardii.

In addition, suitable habitat within the appropriate geographic and elevational ranges exists within the 

project area for the following species: Allium tribracteatum, Arctostaphylos nissenana, Botrychium 

ascendens, Botrychium lineare, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium montanum, Botrychium pinnatum, 

Bruchia bolanderi, Cinna bolanderi, Dendrocollybia racemosa, Eriastrum tracyi, Eriogonum 

luteolum var. saltuarium, Eriophyllum congdonii, Fissidens aphelotaxifolius, Helodium blandowii, 

176
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Horkelia parryi, Hulsea brevifolia, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii, Meesia uliginosa, Mielichhoferia 

shevockii and Tauschia howellii. 

The following plant profiles are for species which might be impacted by project activities. 

Allium tribracteatum (three-bracted onion) is a perennial herb which grows in “lava cap” soils. Lava 

caps are volcanically derived formations formed by ancient ash mud flows. The occurrence sites are 

usually open with no overstory. Allium tribracteatum usually grows on the thin soils near the tops of 

ridges where there is little competition. Thirty-three known occurrences of Allium tribracteatum exist 

in the Stanislaus National Forest. Most are in the Mi-Wok Ranger District, none within the Rim Fire 

perimeter; however there is unsurveyed suitable habitat.

Clarkia australis (Small's southern clarkia) is an annual herb which grows in openings in ponderosa 

pine and mixed-conifer stands often in association with bear clover. Clarkia australis prefers sites 

with little or no competition from aggressive weedy species. When not associated with bear clover, 

the species is usually observed growing in bare mineral soil or with a very light layer of leaf litter. 

Clarkia australis has a very narrow range in Tuolumne and northern Mariposa Counties. The Rim 

Fire burned through a large portion of the known occurrences of this species. 

Clarkia biloba ssp. australis is an annual herb which usually grows under light shade in oak 

woodland, chaparral and conifer forests. Like Clarkia australis, it prefers to grow where there is little 

competition from weedy species. 

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii (Hutchison’s bitterroot) and Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii

(Kellogg’s bitterroot) are recently described perennial herbs which grow on rocky ridges in shallow 

soils over bedrock or relatively flat open areas with widely spaced trees in partial to full sun. Soils are 

typically either sandy granitic or erosive volcanic soils. Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii is known 

from 56 occurrences in five National Forests in California. This species occurs in Siskiyou, Butte, 

Plumas, Sierra and Tuolumne Counties. There are 17 known occurrences in the Stanislaus National 

Forest, two inside the Rim Fire, one within a treatment unit. Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii is known 

from 25 occurrences and is found from Humboldt County in the coast Range and from Plumas, 

Nevada, Sierra, El Dorado, Placer, Calaveras, Mariposa and Madera Counties in the Sierra Nevada. 

There is one occurrence of Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii in the Stanislaus National Forest in the 

Calaveras Ranger District, well outside the Rim Fire area. There is suitable habitat which has not 

been surveyed for these species in Rim Fire Recovery units.

Lomatium stebbinsii (Stebbins’ lomatium) is a perennial herb which grows in shallow soils on ridge 

tops and slopes of lava caps. This species is limited to Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties. There are 

about 90 occurrences in the Stanislaus National Forest, three in Calaveras Big Trees State Park and 

five on private property. The majority of the occurrences are found in the watersheds of the South 

Fork Stanislaus and North Fork Tuolumne Rivers on either side of Highway 108. Eight occurrences 

are found within the Rim Fire, made up of 34 colonies. Four colonies occur in three salvage units. 

There are five colonies in four roadside hazard tree units.

Mimulus filicaulis (the slender-stemmed or Hetch-Hetchy monkey flower) and Mimulus pulchellus

(the pansy monkey flower) are annual herbs which occur in seasonally damp soils, seeps, springs, 

meadows and drainages in openings in forests or chaparral. Mimulus pulchellus is often found 

growing in “lava cap” soils. Mimulus filicaulis has a very narrow range from the Tuolumne River 

south to Mariposa County. Most of the occurrences are centered on the area east of Cherry Lake Road 

and north of Highway 120 and west of the boundary with Yosemite National Park. The range of 

Mimulus pulchellus is Calaveras, Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties. Both Mimulus filicaulis and 

Mimulus pulchellus prefer to grow in areas with little competition. Both tolerate low levels of soil

disturbance, such as caused by gophers after the plants have gone to seed. 

177
Chapter 3.09 Stanislaus

Sensitive Plants National Forest

Peltigera gowardii (Goward’s waterfan) is a lichen which grows submerged or within spray zones of 

perennial streams. The streams are shallow and often fed by cold water springs. The water is very 

clear and peak flows are not of the intensity that would lead to scouring. The range of this species is 

from southern Alaska to Fresno County in California. There are 19 occurrences in the Stanislaus 

National Forest. Six occurrences are within the Rim Fire burned area. There is unsurveyed suitable 

habitat within the burned area. 

In addition to Sensitive Plants, the Botany Report (project record) analyzed Forest Watchlist and 

Botanical Interest species. Forest Watchlist species include those which are locally rare (as opposed 

to declining throughout their range), are of public concern, occur as disjunct populations, are newly 

described taxa, or lack sufficient information on population size, threats, trend, or distribution. 

Botanical interest species are those which are protected or enhanced for the purpose of conserving 

botanical richness or diversity within the National Forest. These are typically species which are 

uncommon in the Forest but not necessarily uncommon at a regional or global scale. They are 

sometimes species at the extent of their geographic ranges, disjunct from areas where they are 

common, or are limited by habitats which are uncommon in the Forest but more numerous elsewhere. 

Existing Conditions

The geology of the project area, as it relates to sensitive plant habitat, is quite varied. Bedrock and 

soil parent material are composed of granite, especially on the eastern half of the project, 

metasedimentary rock primarily on the western half of the project, or volcanically derived andesitic 

tuff (Mehrten Formation) which is isolated on some of the ridge tops and surrounding slopes. Soils in 

the project area are diverse, running the full range from deep sandy or loamy granitics to rocky clays 

of metasedimentary origin. The andesitic tuff breccia tends to be shallow, coarse and fast draining. 

This variety of soils and parent material allows for the establishment of rare plants, many of which 

have affinities for very specific types of soils or parent material. Lava caps were disturbed by the Rim 

Fire and some were also impacted during suppression activities. Before the fire, some of the lava caps 

were impacted by off-trail OHV driving causing localized disturbance. 

Before the Rim Fire, plant communities within the project boundaries included Westside Ponderosa 

Pine Forest, Sierran Mixed Conifer Forest, several different chaparral communities such as Montane 

Manzanita Chaparral and Northern Mixed Chaparral, Montane Meadow, White Alder Riparian 

Forest, Aspen Riparian Forest, Blue Oak Woodland, and other oak woodland communities (Holland 

1986). Among these were mixed conifer stands which had not burned in wildfires in more than 100 

years and provided excellent habitat for occurrences of Cypripedium montanum, and small, low 

gradient perennial streams which provided excellent habitat for Peltigera gowardii. These high 

functioning ecosystems were relatively free of noxious weeds. Many of them burned with a moderate 

to high intensity in the Rim Fire where the conifer overstory was completely killed. 

Wildfire has been an important component driving plant community composition within the analysis 

area during the past 100 years. Dating back as far as 1908, 124 wildfires occurred within the Rim Fire 

boundary (USDA 2010d). Some of the past fires overlapped with each other, burning some areas 

three, four or even five times prior to the Rim Fire. Other drivers of the pre-Rim Fire mix of plant 

communities include past logging, reforestation activities, cattle grazing and effective fire 

suppression. 

Many of the Westside Ponderosa Pine Forest areas were conifer plantations 10 to 40 years of age. 

Some of the plantations were isolated and the result of old clear-cut timber harvests. However, most 

of the plantations were planted as part of the recovery from the1973 Granite Fire, the 1987 Stanislaus 

Complex fires and the 1996 Ackerson Complex or Rogge Complex fires. The Wrights Creek 

plantations dated from the 1950s and the Sawmill plantations dated from the 1960s and were also the 

result of post-fire recovery. The past wildfires and subsequent salvage logging and reforestation 

activities created thousands of acres of disturbed habitat. These plantations were in various phases of 

178
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

growth and many had been thinned in the past fifteen years. Due to their mostly early seral nature, the 

understories had low native plant diversity and were primarily composed of disturbance followers 

such as non-native annual grasses and native shrubs like deer brush (Ceanothus integerrimus), 

manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.), bear clover (Chamaebatia foliolosa) and Sierra gooseberry (Ribes 

roezlii). 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Sensitive Plant occurrences will be flagged and avoided prior to implementation. Sensitive plants may 

occur within roadside hazard tree removal areas where trees will be felled. Management requirements 

will minimize the amount of effects to these occurrences by ensuring the smallest possible portion is

impacted with the tree falling and removal or fuel abatement. No occurrences are expected to be 

eliminated as a result of these situations. 

With avoidance of most sensitive plant occurrences, only Clarkia australis, Clarkia biloba ssp. 

australis, Mimulus filicaulis and Mimulus pulchellus would possibly be directly affected by the 

proposed activities. In some of these occurrences, manual fuel reduction would be allowed during the 

dry non-growing period when the species are present as seed, not living plants. Because they are 

annual plants, timing this work for the dry, non-growing period is critical for ensuring that the activity 

does not cause loss of entire occurrences. These occurrences would be less vulnerable to loss as seed 

than as living plants. Mastication and legacy skid trail subsoiling to alleviate compaction would also 

be allowed within occurrences of Clarkia australis during the dry, non-growing period. 

Effects to Clarkia australis are reduced by not allowing equipment to track through occurrences 

smaller than 0.25 acre and to minimize tracking through occurrences larger than 0.25 acre. Rather 

than impacting growing plants, activities in Clarkia australis occurrences would be restricted to the 

dry, non-growing period, when they would have less impact by allowing annual seed set and 

conserving seed in the soil. These mitigations greatly reduce the risk that occurrences of Clarkia 

australis would be eliminated. The benefit of conducting mastication within occurrences of Clarkia 

australis is reduction of fuels from the small dead trees which would eventually fall or the dead brush 

which would contribute to fuel loading and thereby lowering the risk of losing occurrences during the 

next wildfire. Additionally, mastication might help prevent or reduce the establishment of dense brush 

which might otherwise dramatically reduce the quality of the habitat for the Clarkia which prefers to 

grow in forest openings with little or no competition from other plants. The benefit of subsoiling 

legacy skid trails in Clarkia australis occurrences is the enhancement of habitat.

Conducting manual fuel reduction within occurrences of Clarkia australis, Clarkia biloba ssp. 

australis, Mimulus filicaulis or Mimulus pulchellus poses a low to moderate risk of damage or death 

of some of the seeds even when implemented during the dry, non-growing period. The risk would 

come from trampling by workers. The amount of seed damaged or lost is expected to be minimal. 

Indirect adverse effects to the two occurrences of Lomatium stebbinsii on the western edge of Unit 

A01B may occur. Mastication is proposed for this unit. The Lomatium occurrences would be flagged 

and equipment would avoid tracking or masticating within the occurrences. However, there is a risk 

that debris from the mastication activity could be thrown by the equipment into the occurrences, 

building up organic matter. This species grows in a habitat with very little soil surface organic matter. 

A buildup of woody debris could block sunlight to the plants or cause drift soil to accumulate and act 

as an anchor point for weedy species such as cheat grass (Bromus tectorum) which tend to be highly 

competitive. Additionally, the woody debris and accumulation of weedy species could concentrate 

heat at the soil surface during a fire in a habitat which normally has little or no burnable matter 

179
Chapter 3.09 Stanislaus

Sensitive Plants National Forest

present where this perennial species grows. Excessive heating of the soil surface during a wildfire

could cause loss of Lomatium plants which grow from a tuber in the shallow soils. 

The Sensitive aquatic lichen Peltigera gowardii may be affected. It is expected that activities which 

change these habitat characteristics – increase sedimentation, scour or sun exposure – would likely 

lead to a reduction or loss of individuals, and depending on the degree of impact, perhaps loss of the 

occurrence. Sedimentation or scouring could damage the thin, gelatinous thallus of Peltigera 

gowardii by abrading it, leading to death of the organisms (USDA 2010c). Sedimentation could also 

cover the organisms, blocking their ability to photosynthesize (USDA 2010c). 

There are six Peltigera gowardii occurrences within the project area. Three of these areas, Corral 

Creek, an unnamed tributary to Skunk Creek and an unnamed tributary to the Clavey River, are in a 

portion of the project area which burned at moderate to high severity. The risk of erosion and 

sedimentation affecting the Peltigera gowardii sites in these streams is high as a result of the fire 

effects. The soil and watershed BMPs would prevent direct impacts to the species, and would reduce 

the amount of activity-created sediment in these occurrences, but might not fully alleviate additional 

scouring effects due to loss of soil cover combined with the logging activities. 

Mastication and logging activities adjacent to “lava cap” habitats could unintentionally create 

motorized access to these fragile open habitats which can be home to sensitive species such as Allium 

tribracteatum, Lomatium stebbinsii, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii 

and Mimulus pulchellus. Impacts from unauthorized off road use can cause substantial damage to 

these habitats by compacting soil, causing erosion, killing plants, and introducing weedy species.

Some of the quarries, from which crushed rock or boulders would be obtained for use on road surface 

stabilization or closures, contain the invasive plant cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). While this species 

is fairly common in disturbed places in the lower elevations of the Forest, it is not particularly 

common on the lava cap habitats. There is a possibility that cheatgrass seed could be carried to some 

of the lava caps with the crushed rock and boulders for road work, thereby introducing the weeds to 

rare plant habitat. The lava caps are particularly vulnerable to weed infestation. With the added 

disturbance of road work on some lava caps, currently suitable rare plant habitat could be degraded 

with the introduction of the very competitive cheatgrass, adversely effecting Allium tribracteatum, 

Lomatium stebbinsii, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii and Mimulus 

pulchellus. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Forest Service projects recently planned within the Rim Fire Recovery (Appendix B) incorporate 

management requirements which reduced the risk of loss of occurrences. The combined effects of the 

proposed activities in Alternative 1 with past, present or foreseeable future actions are not expected to 

result in adverse cumulative effects to sensitive plants, mainly due to flagging and avoiding known 

sites. Individuals of certain sensitive plant occurrences may be adversely affected by proposed project 

activities. However, these impacts are not expected to be so great in intensity or duration that any of 

these occurrences would be eliminated, even when combined with other Forest activities. 

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Alternative 2 has no direct effects to Sensitive Plants. Indirect effects might occur in the form of dead 

trees falling into occurrences. The dead trees could directly kill rare plants when they fall. The 

downed trees could block germinating seeds, cause ground level shading for sun-loving plants, and 

create a high fuel accumulation which would burn at a high intensity, thereby killing plants which 

survive the falling trees.

180
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative effects for Alternative 2 are the same as the indirect effects of Alternative 2. The 

cumulative effect of Alternative 2 is not expected to reduce the amount of dead material effecting 

plant germination and growth or reduce the fuel accumulation and risk of high intensity impacts 

during future fires. With no soil and watershed enhancement activities reducing or preventing 

sedimentation of Peltigera gowardii occurrences, three occurrences are at a high risk of loss to 

sedimentation in this alternative.

Alternative 3

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1, except that additional management requirements would prevent some of the 

impacts identified in Alternative 1:

 No impacts from mastication debris landing in Lomatium stebbinsii occurrences in Unit A01B.

 Project created access to lava cap habitats would be blocked.

 Lower risk of project-created sediment causing habitat degradation or mortality to Peltigera 

gowardii. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 3. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

For all alternatives, the Rim Recovery project will not impact Allium tribracteatum, Allium 

yosemitense, Arctostaphylos nissenana, Eriastrum tracyi, Helodium blandowii, Meesia uliginosa, 

Mielichhoferia elongata, and Mielichhoferia shevockii because activities are not proposed in their 

habitats and they would remain unaffected with no action. 

Because their occurrences would be protected from disturbances, all action alternatives will not 

impact any sensitive plant species, except Clarkia australis, Clarkia biloba ssp. australis, Mimulus 

filicaulis, and Mimulus pulchellus. 

For Clarkia australis, Clarkia biloba ssp. australis, Mimulus filicaulis, and Mimulus pulchellus, all 

action alternatives of the Rim Fire Recovery project may affect individuals, but are not likely to 

result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of species viability because portions of their 

occurrences would likely receive adverse effects.

The No Action Alternative will have no impacts on 11 species as shown in Table 3.09-1. Falling dead 

trees would likely impact individuals of the remaining 26 Sensitive Plant species as dead trees fall 

and accumulate as fuel, creating a higher risk of mortality in a future fire event. The No Action 

Alternative may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or 

loss of species viability for the other 26 species as shown in Table 3.09-1. 

181
Chapter 3.09 Stanislaus

Sensitive Plants National Forest

Table 3.09-1 provides a summary of the effects to each species by alternative.

Table 3.09-1 Sensitive Plants Summary of Effects

Sensitive Plant Species Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Allium tribracteatum No impact No impact No impact No impact

Allium yosemitense No impact No impact No impact No impact

Arctostaphylos nissenana No impact No impact No impact No impact

Balsamorhiza macrolepis No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Botrychium ascendens No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Botrychium crenulatum No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Botrychium lineare No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Botrychium lunaria No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Botrychium minganense No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Botrychium montanum No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Botrychium pedunculosum No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Botrychium pinnatum No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Bruchia bolanderi No impact Moderate impact No impact No impact

Cinna bolanderi No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Clarkia australis Mixed1 Greatest Impact Mixed1 Mixed1

Clarkia biloba ssp. australis Mixed1 Greatest Impact Mixed1 Mixed1

Cypripedium montanum No impact Moderate impact No impact No impact

Dendrocollybia racemosa No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Eriastrum tracyi No impact No impact No impact No impact

Eriogonum luteolum var. saltuarium No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Eriophyllum congdonii No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Eriophyllum nubigenum No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Erythronium taylori No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Erythronium tuolumnense No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Fissidens aphelotaxifolius No impact Moderate impact No impact No impact

Helodium blandowii No impact No impact No impact No impact

Horkelia parryi No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Hulsea brevifolia No impact Moderate impact No impact No impact

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii Some impact No impact No impact No impact

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii Some impact No impact No impact No impact

Lomatium stebbinsii Some impact No impact No impact No impact

Meesia uliginosa No impact No impact No impact No impact

Mielichhoferia elongata No impact No impact No impact No impact

Mielichhoferia shevockii No impact No impact No impact No impact

Mimulus filicaulis No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Mimulus pulchellus No impact Some impact No impact No impact

Peltigera gowardii Some impact Moderate impact No impact No impact

Tauschia howellii No impact Some impact No impact No impact

1 Mixed=positive and negative impacts

182
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

3.10 SOCIETY,CULTURE AND ECONOMY

This section presents information regarding the social and economic effects the recovery efforts may 

have in the surrounding area. Included in the review of possible socio-economic impacts is an 

assessment of environmental justice concerns that could impact specific subgroups within the larger 

community. 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction

Multiple statutes, regulations and executive orders identify the general requirement for the application 

of economic and social evaluation in support of Forest Service planning and decision making. These 

include, but are not limited to, the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 215: 16 USC 

528-531), National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852; 42 USC 4321, 4331-4335, 4341-

4347), and the Planning Act of 1974. In addition, the following guidance also applies. 

Executive Order 12898 issued in 1994 orders federal agencies to identify and address any adverse 

human health and environmental effects of agency programs that disproportionately impact minority 

and low-income populations. The Order also directs agencies to consider patterns of subsistence 

hunting and fishing when an agency action may affect fish or wildlife. 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides for nondiscrimination in voting, public accommodations, 

public facilities, public education, federally assisted programs, and equal employment opportunity. 

Title VI of the Act, Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d 

through 2000d-6) prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. 

The Forest Plan Compliance (project record) document identifies the Forest Plan S&Gs that 

specifically apply to this project and related information about compliance with the Forest Plan.

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Society, Culture and Economy

The majority of the Rim Fire burned within Tuolumne County, but the southern portion of the fire 

also burned into Mariposa County. The primary socioeconomic impacts would occur within a 

geographic region of impact defined by these two counties. Some secondary impacts would be felt in 

other counties as noted in the analysis below.

The Environmental Justice analysis will report what effects might occur to minority and low-income 

populations. Of particular concern is whether job or income discrimination might occur to these 

groups in the area during, or resulting from, the proposed project. 

Data Sources

 Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce 

 California Department of Finance 

 California Employment Development Department 

 Minnesota IMPLAN Group

 United States Census Bureau

 University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources

Society, Culture and Economy Indicators

Indicators used in the analysis of economic effects include jobs and incomes generated in the twocounty region of impact. Non-market values, such as the value of recreation experiences and 

ecological services, by their nature are difficult to quantify. Direction provided in 40 CFR 1502.23 

and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, (7/6/04) and 22.35 (01/14/05) provides for the use of 

183
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest

qualitative analysis to evaluate the effects of these non-market values. The non-market aspects of 

each proposed activity will be described in other resource sections and specialist reports. Key 

indicators include: 

 Employment and income information at the county level;

 Jobs supported by Rim Recovery project activities; 

 Local population trends and community demographic statistics; and,

 Recreation patterns within the region of impact. 

Society, Culture and Economy Methodology by Action

Actions, or the lack thereof, would have an effect on the society, culture and economy of Tuolumne 

and Mariposa Counties. Although not all of the socio-economic effects can be quantified, the 

methodology will be to at least describe the mechanisms through which effects may be felt and to 

characterize their relative magnitude and direction (i.e., beneficial or adverse). Actions through which 

socio-economic effects may be generated include:

 Commercial Salvage: Activities required to reduce fuel loads through timber salvage and 

biomass removal and to process it into lumber, electrical energy, and other forest products with 

commercial value.

 Wildlife/Fuels Biomass Removal: Activities directed by the Forest Service to gather and 

remove additional biomass for the benefit of wildlife and further fuel reduction. 

 Post-Contract Forest Service Activities: Additional treatment of units after the commercial 

salvage operations are complete that use tractors to pile and burn excess fuels, drop and lop 

activities, and mastication of biomass in watershed areas.

 Restoration of Access for Recreation: Reopening the burn area for public access and 

recreational activities.

 Grazing Allotments: Reopening and clearing biomass from portions of the burn area subject to 

grazing permits.

COMMERCIAL SALVAGE

The Rim Recovery project and the speed with which it is proposed to be implemented are designed to 

take advantage of the diminishing economic value that is embodied in the standing dead trees in the 

burn area. The commercial value of the trees is highest now, and, although diminished by 20 percent 

or so, will still be valuable during the coming 2014 harvest season. During the following year’s 

harvest season sufficient value should still remain to salvage dead trees in the burn area, but after 

about two years it will not be economically feasible for private industry to conduct the operations 

commercially because the dead timber will have deteriorated so badly (Bowyer et al. 2007). So long 

as salvage timber sales can be organized fast enough, and the dead trees salvaged within two years, a 

major economic benefit would be gained in all the action alternatives in that a meaningful portion of 

the public cost of Rim Recovery project can be offset by the proceeds of the sales to private industry.

The most important economic effect within the two-county region of impact would be the support for 

jobs resulting from a chain of industrial activities. Direct support for jobs would come from: 

 Improving roads to provide access for logging crews and equipment to the treatment units; 

 Logging of dead trees through such means as tractor, skyline, and helicopter operations;

 Collection, chipping and hauling of biomass that can be done profitably for commercial purposes; 

 Hauling of saw logs and biomass chips to sawmills and energy plants; and,

 Processing the raw materials into commercial commodities such as milled lumber and electrical 

power. 

The methodology for estimating direct job support builds on work conducted by the University of 

California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, which has tracked and analyzed the forest 

products industry over the years in California. An analysis by William McKillop, professor emeritus 

184
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

of Forest Economics at the University of California, Berkeley, found that the entire chain of activities 

described above directly generates the equivalent of 6.4 annual jobs per million board feet (MMBF) 

of timber harvest. By applying this job generation factor to the estimated MMBF in each action 

alternative, an estimate may be made for the total jobs directly supported over the 2-year time period 

involved. 

Additional jobs would be indirectly supported in the region of economic impact as a result of the 

activities described above. Economic models based on input-output analysis are used to generate 

“multipliers” which estimate the “indirect” and “induced” economic effects associated with “direct” 

impacts. For example, if the driver of a logging truck is the direct job supported, an indirect job would 

be held by the mechanic in Tuolumne County that services the truck. Part of an induced job is 

supported in the local grocery store where both of the previous employees shop after work. In the 

methodology used for alternatives analysis, multipliers are derived from the IMPLAN system, 

developed and vended by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. (MIG). Multipliers are lower for small 

economic areas than they are for the state as a whole, and the relevant multipliers for the direct 

industries affected average 1.5, indicating that for every job directly generated by the commercial 

salvage operations, another half a job would be supported in Tuolumne or Mariposa Counties through 

indirect or induced mechanisms. 

WILDLIFE/FUELSBIOMASSREMOVAL

In some of the treatment units, some biomass would not routinely be gathered and hauled by 

commercial contractors because it cannot be done profitably, but which is still desirable to have 

removed for aiding wildlife and further reducing fuel loads. Biomass treatments would entail the 

mechanical removal of unmerchantable trees for use as firewood, shavings logs, pulpwood, chipped 

for biomass fuel for electric cogeneration plants, or decked and left on site for public firewood 

cutting. This additional treatment would be directed by the Forest Service, and whether it is 

conducted by the woods contractor doing the logging for additional compensation or by a different 

contractor, it would generate a bit more employment. This additional treatment could cost the Forest 

Service from $500 per acre to over $2,000 per acre. 

The economic impact methodology will assume a typical budget will be $1,250 per acre, but will 

apply this budget to only half the wildlife/fuels biomass acreage to be treated in each action 

alternative, which assumes half of the effort will be covered by commercial operations. The 

methodology will then assume that half of the budget ultimately goes to support employment, which 

is typical of most industries. The other half of gross revenue typically goes to costs of equipment, 

fuel, supplies, insurance, and other operating costs. Jobs are likely to be seasonal, but one annual 

direct job will be assumed to be supported in the local economy for every $40,000 of income. An 

additional 0.5 jobs will be supported through indirect and induced multiplier mechanisms due to the 

direct job. Support for these jobs would likely be spread over a period of 2 years, but it could be 

longer. The biomass treatments would likely be conducted at the same time as the thinning 

treatments, but depending on availability of equipment and operators, this activity may occur as a 

second entry after the timber is removed. 

POST-CONTRACT FOREST SERVICE ACTIVITIES

After the activities that are routinely included in the commercial harvesting process are completed, 

the Forest Service would still need to treat the majority of the acreage in the units further. The three 

treatments that will be estimated for the action alternatives are:

 Tractor piling of downed wood and biomass; 

 Drop and lop for watershed enhancement; and, 

 Mastication for watershed enhancement. 

185
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest

An average budget estimate for any of these treatments is $500 per acre. The economic impact 

methodology will apply this budget to the acreage to be treated in each action alternative, and will 

assume that half of the budget ultimately goes to support employment, as opposed to costs of 

equipment, fuel, supplies, insurance, and other operating costs. Jobs are likely to be seasonal, but one 

annual direct job will be assumed to be supported for every $40,000 of income. An additional 0.5 jobs 

would be supported through indirect and induced multiplier mechanisms due to the direct job. 

Support for these jobs would likely be spread over a period of 2 to 3 years, after the salvage 

harvesting is complete.

RESTORATION OF ACCESS FOR RECREATION AND RESOURCES

Recreation, and especially the tourism that is associated with it in Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties, 

has an economic impact. While the economic impacts cannot be quantified with any credible 

precision in terms of jobs or incomes, the direction of impacts will be described when analyzing each 

alternative. Recreation in the National Forests, and in the Rim Fire burn area specifically, has been an 

important part of the society and culture of Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties. Access to forest 

resources has also been a part of the society and culture for some specific communities: examples 

include native plants and other resources for American Indians, and firewood for residents who rely 

on wood burning to heat their homes. The methodology will be to describe the impacts that continued 

closure or restoration of public access would have on the social and cultural experience of living in 

the region.

GRAZING ALLOTMENTS

The methodology will not estimate any quantitative impacts associated with grazing, because the 

existing allotments will continue to operate in very similar ways under all alternatives, including the 

No Action Alternative. Social and cultural effects, however, will be noted. 

Thirteen grazing allotments either wholly or partially within the cumulative analysis area, currently 

affecting 7 ranching families in Tuolumne County. Historically, ranching has been an important part 

of the culture and society of Tuolumne County, and has contributed to the economic health of the 

community. Although the existing grazing allotments will continue under all alternatives, some 

alternatives would ease access for range animals and their managers more than others.

Affected Environment

For socio-economic analysis, the primary environment impacted by the Rim Recovery project actions 

is defined by the two counties that contained the fire: Tuolumne and Mariposa. The resident 

populations have lived in a culture that has a long history of forest products industries, ranching and 

grazing, and other resource-based economic activities, such as mining. Residents also value the 

recreational opportunities provided by the National Forest System lands close to home. 

The affected environment counties also have a long history of serving a tourism industry that has 

Yosemite National Park as the largest attraction in the vicinity. The industry also relies on 

recreational opportunities in the National Forests, including many within the Rim Fire burn area. The 

area has also included a special type of tourism associated with a collection of summer camps and 

private resorts that were impacted by the Rim Fire.

Existing Conditions

POPULATION

Table 3.10-1 shows rapid growth in the affected environment during the 1970s and 1980s. The 

population of Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties grew much faster than the state as a whole during 

those decades. The relative growth rate slowed during the 1990s, however, and since 2000 the 

counties have grown much slower than the state. 

186
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.10-2 shows growth is expected to occur at a slower rate than the state average in coming 

decades as well. Today Tuolumne is by far the larger of the two counties, and coupled with the 

location of the majority of the Rim Fire area, the majority of the primary socio-economic impacts 

would be felt in Tuolumne County.

Table 3.10-1 Historical Population by County 1970 – 2010

County/Region 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Mariposa 6,015 11,108 14,302 17,130 18,251

Tuolumne 22,169 33,928 48,456 54,504 55,368

Total 2-Co. Region 28,184 45,036 62,758 71,634 73,619

10-Year Growth 60% 39% 14% 3%

California 19,953,134 23,667,902 29,760,021 33,873,086 37,253,956

10-Year Growth 19% 26% 14% 10%

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census

Table 3.10-2 Projected Population by County 2000 – 2050

County 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Mariposa 17,150 19,108 21,743 23,981 26,169 28,091

Tuolumne 54,863 58,721 64,161 67,510 70,325 73,291

Total 2-Co. Region 72,013 77,829 85,904 91,491 96,494 101,382

10-Year Growth 8% 10% 7% 5% 5%

California 34,105,437 39,135,676 44,135,923 49,240,891 54,226,115 59,507,876

10-Year Growth 15% 13% 12% 10% 10%

Source: California State Department of Finance

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS

Some demographic data for the affected environment describe the context for evaluating 

environmental justice concerns. Executive order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” signed February 11, 1994 by 

President Clinton states (Section 1-101), “each Federal agency shall 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, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations in the United States.”

Table 3.10-3 Ethnic Minority Populations in the Region of Impact

Ethnic Identity Tuolumne

County

Mariposa

County California

White alone, percent, 2012 (a) 91.1% 90.6% 73.7%

Black or African American alone, percent, 2012 (a) 2.2% 1.0% 6.6%

American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, 2012 (a) 2.2% 3.2% 1.7%

Asian alone, percent, 2012 (a) 1.2% 1.3% 13.9%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, 2012 (a) 0.2% 0.2% 0.5%

Two or More Races, percent, 2012 3.2% 3.7% 3.6%

Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2012 (b) 11.1% 9.5% 38.2%

White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2012 81.7% 82.5% 39.4%

(a) Includes persons reporting only one race.

(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories.

Source: US Census Bureau

For environmental justice analysis, Table 3.10-3 presents the ethnic distribution of the two-county 

population that defines the region of socioeconomic impact. The ethnic distribution of the California 

187
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest

state population is also presented for comparison purposes. Tuolumne and Mariposa counties have 

very similar ethnic profiles, and both contain distinctly fewer minorities than the state as a whole, 

with the one exception that Native Americans are more heavily represented locally than statewide.

Environmental justice concerns can also focus on low-income populations. Similarly, age 

discrimination can be an issue for the Civil Rights Act. Table 3.10-4 presents the Key age and income 

characteristics. The two-county region has fewer families with young children than the state average, 

and has dramatically more people of retirement age than the state average. Incomes by all measures 

are lower in Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties than for similar measures statewide. In spite of that, 

proportionately fewer people are living below the poverty line in the two-county region than those 

statewide.

Table 3.10-4 Age, Income and Poverty Characteristics in the Region of Impact

Key Age and Income Characteristics Tuolumne

County

Mariposa

County California

Population, 2012 estimate 54,008 17,905 37,999,878

Persons under 5 years, percent, 2012 4.0% 4.4% 6.7%

Persons under 18 years, percent, 2012 16.9% 17.3% 24.3%

Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2012 22.0% 23.0% 12.1%

Per capita money income in past 12 months (2012 dollars), 2008-2012 $26,043 $27,670 $29,551

Median household income, 2008-2012 $48,169 $52,584 $61,400

Persons below poverty level, percent, 2008-2012 13.1% 14.7% 15.3%

Source: US Census Bureau

INDUSTRIAL PROFILE OF THE REGIONAL ECONOMY

Table 3.10-5 (Tuolumne County) and Table 3.10-6 (Mariposa County) present the historical 

perspective, and the most recent available profile, of the structure of the regional economy. The 

industry sector for “Mining and Logging” is much larger in Tuolumne County, and almost nonexistent in Mariposa County. The dramatic decline in employment in the Mining and Logging sector 

from 1990 through 2010 can also be seen in Tuolumne. In recent years, however, it appears the 

industry has stabilized. Employment in sawmills is included in the “Manufacturing” sector of the 

economy. 

Table 3.10-5 Tuolumne County Industry Employment and Labor Force by Annual Average

Industry Title 1990 2000 2010 2012 2013

Civilian Labor Force 19,880 22,890 25,800 25,920 24,550

 Civilian Employment 18,540 21,540 22,240 22,900 22,160

 Civilian Unemployment 1,340 1,350 3,570 3,020 2,400

Civilian Unemployment Rate 6.7% 5.9% 13.8% 11.6% 9.8%

Total, All Industries 14,190 15,950 15,840 16,280 16,220

 Total Farm 90 180 60 50 50

 Total Nonfarm 14,100 15,760 15,780 16,230 16,170

 Total Private 10,200 11,230 10,470 11,010 10,980

 Goods Producing 2,320 2,250 1,340 1,470 1,460

 Mining and Logging 400 200 130 120 120

 Construction 1,080 920 540 530 500

 Manufacturing 850 1,130 680 820 850

 Durable Goods 730 890 490 660 680

 Nondurable Goods 110 240 190 170 170

 Service Providing 11,780 13,510 14,440 14,760 14,710

 Private Service Providing 7,870 8,970 9,120 9,540 9,520

 Trade, Transportation and Utilities 2,380 2,840 2,330 2,490 2,500

188
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Industry Title 1990 2000 2010 2012 2013

 Wholesale Trade 190 150 190 130 140

 Retail Trade 2,020 2,490 1,970 2,150 2,150

 Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 170 200 180 210 210

 Information 200 230 240 210 210

 Financial Activities 790 550 520 510 550

 Professional and Business Services 880 890 930 930 930

 Educational and Health Services 1,120 1,700 2,680 2,930 2,760

 Leisure and Hospitality 1,960 2,130 2,040 1,990 2,110

 Other Services 550 630 380 480 480

 Government 3,910 4,540 5,310 5,220 5,190

 Federal Government 560 370 440 470 480

 State and Local Government 3,350 4,170 4,870 4,750 4,710

 State Government 1,160 1,110 1,260 1,130 1,080

 Local Government 2,190 3,060 3,610 3,620 3,630

Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division

The relative health of the regional economy can also be inferred from comparisons with the state 

average for unemployment rate. Using the same data sources and methods as shown in Table 3.10-5 

and Table 3.10-6, the State of California had an unemployment rate of 8.9 percent last year in 2013. 

With unemployment rates of 9.8 and 9.2 percent respectively, somewhat more distress exists in the 

economies of both counties in 2013. 

Table 3.10-6 Mariposa County Industry Employment and Labor Force by Annual Average

Industry Title 1990 2000 2010 2012 2013

Civilian Labor Force 6,780 7,980 9,610 9,450 9,260

 Civilian Employment 6,390 7,490 8,470 8,410 8,400

 Civilian Unemployment 380 490 1,140 1,040 860

Civilian Unemployment Rate 5.7% 6.2% 11.9% 11.0% 9.2%

Total, All Industries 4,780 4,890 5,330 5,240 5,410

 Total Farm 30 10 20 10 10

 Total Nonfarm 4,750 4,880 5,310 5,230 5,400

 Total Private 3,320 3,150 3,120 3,160 3,430

 Goods Producing 430 300 240 250 260

 Private Service Providing 2,900 2,850 2,880 2,910 3,180

 Mining and Logging 10 20 10 20 20

 Construction 250 160 110 110 140

 Manufacturing 160 120 120 120 110

 Service Providing 4,330 4,580 5,070 4,980 5,140

 Trade, Transportation and Utilities 370 340 330 330 340

 Wholesale Trade 20 10 10 10 20

 Retail Trade 340 320 270 270 270

 Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 10 10 50 40 40

 Professional and Business Services 100 250 170 160 140

 Educational and Health Services 220 150 150 180 320

 Leisure and Hospitality 1,920 1,930 2,130 2,040 2,160

 Private Service Providing - Residual 290 180 120 210 230

 Government 1,430 1,730 2,190 2,070 1,960

 Federal Government 570 620 850 810 730

 State and Local Government 860 1,110 1,340 1,260 1,230

 State Government 150 170 180 160 160

 Local Government 710 940 1,160 1,090 1,070

Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division

189
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest

FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY IN THE REGION OF IMPACT

California’s timber harvest peaked in 1955 at 6 billion board feet. The trend in total industry volume 

statewide has been down ever since, although it was still almost 5 billion board feet in the late 1980s, 

25 years ago. The number of sawmills in the state was over 100 at that time, but has declined 

dramatically to between 30 and 40 today. This has reduced the number of mills, within practical haul 

range of the Rim Fire burn area, that are available today to process salvaged logs. On the other hand, 

the reduction in milling capacity in California has not declined as rapidly as the number of mills, 

because it has been the smaller, less efficient mills that have ceased operations. Even so, the 

bottleneck in the industrial process for turning standing trees into lumber remains due to the 

combined capacities of the sawmills within reach. Other steps in the industrial process are more 

scalable and flexible. For example, more logging and trucking contractors can be brought into the 

region from further away if needed. 

Two sawmills in Tuolumne County are within the region of impact: 

1. The Sierra Pacific Industries Standard Mill just east of Sonora, and

2. The smaller Sierra Pacific Industries mill near Chinese Camp.

Two other sawmills are potentially able to haul logs from the Rim Fire to their facilities 

economically:

3. The Sierra Pacific Industries mill in Lincoln, Placer County, 104 miles north of Sonora, and 

4. The Sierra Forest Products mill in Terra Bella, Tulare County, 188 miles south of Sonora.

In addition two other mills in Tuolumne County are within the region of impact that can process 

smaller trees and/or byproducts:

5. The Sierra Pacific Industries Bark Plant in Keystone, and 

6. The American Wood Fibers plant (formerly California Wood Shavings) just south of Jamestown 

off Highway 108. 

During the process of cutting, loading, and hauling merchantable salvaged logs out of the forest, 

biomass, composed of branches and tops of trees that are too small to be of use for milled lumber, is 

generated. After the saw logs are salvaged, many units will still contain a dangerously high 

concentration of fuels remaining in small dead standing trees and other biomass. In both cases, these 

sources of biomass can be collected into piles at the landings along access roads into the forest. 

Options at that point can be to reduce the fuel load by burning the piles in place, or hauling the 

biomass to a plant that can burn the material to generate electrical power. The latter option generally 

involves chipping or grinding the biomass on site, and hauling the material as chips to an energy 

plant. Under some economic conditions where the price of power is high enough, and the costs of 

collection, chipping, and hauling are low enough, the entire process can be self-funding as a 

profitable business. Under other circumstances, at least a portion of the costs of reducing fuel loads in 

the forest can be recovered by hauling the biomass and selling it for generating power. Although 

harder to quantify, there are also clearly ecosystem value benefits to be gained by burning biomass in 

power plants that can contain a majority of the particulates and greenhouse gases, rather than burning 

the material in open piles.

The biomass power generation industry is newer than the lumber industry, and at this time has a 

significant infrastructure of existing plants within 90 to 120 miles of the Rim Fire burn area. In 

approximate order of proximity, the larger sized facilities in terms of megawatt capacities (MW) 

include: 

1. Pacific Ultrapower Chinese Station, Jamestown, 22 MW

2. SPI Sonora Standard Biomass Power, Sonora, 8 MW 

3. Buena Vista Biomass Power, Ione, 18.5 MW 

190
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

4. DTE Stockton, Stockton, 25 MW 

5. Greenleaf Tracy Biomass Plant, Tracy, 19.4 MW

Other power facilities that are further away, but under some circumstances might be able to take some 

Rim Fire biomass include: 

6. Woodland Biomass Power Ltd., Woodland, 25 MW 

7. Rio Bravo, Fresno, 25 MW 

8. Rio Bravo, Rocklin, 25 MW 

9. SPI Lincoln, Lincoln, 18 MW 

10. Sierra Power Corp., Terra Bella, 9.5 MW

The revenue ultimately available to biomass energy generators is limited by the market for electrical 

power, and is generally set in advance by fixed price energy contracts. This means there are limits to 

the costs that can be borne profitably to cut, collect, chip, and haul the biomass material. For 

treatment units that have a very high value of trees that can be used for sawlogs, it is possible for the 

Forest Service to require the removal of biomass at the same time as the salvage logging because the 

value of the trees can subsidize the costs of collecting and hauling biomass. At the other end of the 

spectrum, there will be units where biomass cannot be removed profitably and the Forest Service will 

have to use service contracts to have the material taken out of the forest. Selling the material to an 

energy plant can then recover some, but not all, of the costs. There are other business models between 

a timber salvage sale and a service contract as well, which will accomplish the same physical 

outcomes. 

While there are a number of options for power generating plants as end users of biomass, there are 

other potential bottlenecks in the industry infrastructure currently in place. Some of the chipping 

equipment currently available in Tuolumne and Mariposa counties is old, and may need to be 

replaced to handle the volumes of biomass that could come out of the Rim Fire burn area in coming 

years. Similarly, recent California Air Resources Board rules regarding diesel truck emissions may 

render some of the existing chip hauling trucks obsolete, also reducing the capacity of the available 

fleet.

RECREATION/TOURISM INDUSTRY IN THE REGION OF IMPACT

The portion of the Stanislaus National Forest affected by the Rim Fire, has a long history of 

recreational use. One of the social and cultural attractions for living in Tuolumne and Mariposa 

Counties has been the presence of recreational opportunities on the National Forest close to home. 

The Rim Fire area has also historically been used extensively by non-locals. One of the reasons for 

this is that Highway 120, passing through the burn area, is one of the major gateways to Yosemite 

National Park, which has generated recreation related tourism and economic impacts in multiple 

ways. Some people have spent a portion of their money in the area as they passed through to their 

primary destination in Yosemite. Others were not able to secure overnight accommodations in the 

park, and instead stayed in other accommodations within the burn area, such as camping on the 

National Forest, and made day trips into Yosemite. Yet others found that Tuolumne river rafting or 

other recreational offerings in the burn area were sufficiently attractive to warrant extending their 

visit to Yosemite by one or more days in the Stanislaus. The Stanislaus has also been the primary 

destination for many non-locals who were motivated by the recreational activities to be had there, 

without visiting Yosemite at all during the same trip. 

Examples of the activities historically available within the Rim Fire burn area that have drawn both 

locals and non-locals, in roughly descending order of participation in each activity, include: 

 Viewing natural features 

 Hiking / walking

 Viewing wildlife

191
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest

 Picnicking

 Driving for pleasure 

 Fishing

 Developed camping 

 Motorized trail activity

 OHV use

 Hunting 

 River rafting (non-motorized water sports)

 Resort use 

 Primitive camping

The burn area is currently closed to the public, and the recreational opportunities that have 

traditionally drawn thousands of people per year to Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties are not 

available. Developed campgrounds, dispersed camping sites, and other overnight accommodations in 

the burn area are currently not available, which reduces the capacity of the Highway 120 gateway 

region to house overnight guests. Given that the typical recreation party spends an average of $261 

per day, according to the most recent data available from the National Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM) Program (USDA 2102), the region of impact has suffered a loss of tourism spending over 

traditional amounts.

The Rim Fire also affected a variety of summer camps, private resorts, and other recreational facilities 

operated by other public agencies, private non-profit groups, and private for-profit entities including:

 City of Berkeley Tuolumne Camp, 

 San Francisco’s Camp Mather,

 The City of San Jose’s camp, 

 Camp Tawonga, 

 Evergreen Lodge, and 

 Other facilities.

In the case of the Berkeley Tuolumne Camp, the entire facility was destroyed by the Rim Fire and is 

currently not available. In other cases, damage to facilities or their access may or may not be repaired 

and cleared in time for the coming summer use season. To the extent the combined capacity of these 

facilities has been diminished, there has been a proportionate decrease in the size of the visitorserving economy in Tuolumne County. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

The action proposed under Alternative 1 would remove hazard trees from lower level roads 

sufficiently to reopen the burn area for dispersed recreation. If the actions proposed in the Rim Fire 

Hazard Tree Environmental Assessment are implemented, developed campgrounds and developed 

trailheads on class 3, 4, and 5 level roads will already have been opened. Biomass and other fuels 

would be removed from treated areas in order to create conditions to foster a healthier forest in the 

future, and to enhance wildlife movement and habitat. Some of the public cost of the action could be 

offset by the sale of salvage timber to private industry. Social, cultural, and economic impacts would 

be generated.

Social and Cultural Impacts

Compared with the current situation where the majority of the burn area is closed to the public, 

Alternative 1 would restore some of the access, recreation, and other uses of the area that have been 

part of the life and culture of Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties. Access for American Indians to 

192
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

gather native plants and other forest resources would be enhanced, and the ability of local residents to 

gather firewood would be restored. The ranching lifestyle for families, that have grazing allotments 

within the burn area, would be enhanced somewhat by clearing out some of the impediments to 

movement of their range stock, and making access to their allotment areas easier. Residents of the 

region who own businesses or work in the tourism industry would see some restoration of lifestyles 

that have been diminished by the reduced volumes of visitors. Specific communities of interest that 

participated in the various summer camps and resorts would find some of their previous activities 

returning.

Compared with Alternative 2 (No Action), the social and cultural character of Tuolumne and 

Mariposa Counties that has been appreciated historically would return much faster. 

Economic Impacts

Without taking action (i.e., Alternative 2), the current situation of closure would continue for as much 

as 10 years, or until the hazard trees fall on their own. Compared with the No Action scenario, 

Alternative 1 would have many noticeable economic impacts.

Support for direct jobs in the region of impact would be created by the activities required to improve 

roads, bring in logging crews and equipment, load and chip logs and biomass, haul materials out of 

the burn area, and process the raw materials into merchantable lumber, electrical power, and other 

forest products. If the entire 661 million board feet (MMBF) contemplated by the Forest Service 

under Alternative 1 can be sold and harvested, then 4,230 annual jobs could be supported in the two 

county area over a period of two to three years (at 6.4 direct jobs / MMBF). With a surge of activity 

as large as the Rim Fire salvage, some entirely new jobs would likely be created in the region through 

new hiring, and additional contracting. On the other hand, the majority of the jobs estimated above 

are in positions that are already filled in the region. For example, many of the people employed at the 

Standard Mill near Sonora would have the same jobs that they had before, but the source of their 

income would shift from processing green trees to Rim Fire salvage trees for a couple years (leaving 

more green trees to support future economic activity). Support of employment in the logging, 

biomass, and wood products industries would be seen as a beneficial economic impact in the region.

Compared with the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1 would be beneficial for the public sector in 

that a portion of the public costs of recovery can be recaptured from the proceeds of the salvage 

timber sale to private industry.

Some of the Forest Service’s expenditures can then go to additional contractors to provide further 

treatment of some units to clear out biomass for wildlife enhancement and to remove more fuel from 

the Forest. These activities would also generate support for more direct jobs. Alternative 1 estimates 

7,626 acres would have biomass removal for these purposes, generating support for 60 direct jobs 

over a period of years. Over a similar time period, another 151 direct jobs would be supported by 

post-contract treatments applied to an estimated 24,143 acres (at a typical cost of $500 / acre, as 

described above in the methodology section). 

Total direct job support from all three categories of activities would be 4,439 annual jobs over a 

period of several years. For example, this could represent 1,500 to 2,000 jobs each in 2014 and 2015 

as the bulk of the salvage work is taking place, and tailing off to a few hundred jobs per year in the 

following few years. Associated with direct employment, another 2,220 annual jobs would be 

supported over the same time period through indirect and induced multiplier effects in Tuolumne and 

Mariposa Counties (at a multiplier of 1.5). 

Total support for jobs in the region of impact would be 6,659 annual jobs over the next five years or 

so with the bulk of the economic support coming in the next two years. Given that Tuolumne and 

Mariposa Counties have higher unemployment rates than the average for the State of California, the 

impact on jobs would be seen as beneficial to the economy. Given that the civilian labor force in the 

193
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest

two-county region of impact is 34,000, the Rim Fire related job support would be between 5 and 10 

percent of all employment, which most likely would be seen as a significant beneficial economic 

impact by the Tuolumne and Mariposa County communities.

Reopening of the burn area to the public would also occur faster in Alternative 1 than it would in the 

No Action Alternative. This would allow more overnight camping visitors to be accommodated in 

dispersed locations throughout the area. Reopening recreation areas within the burn area would also 

give visitors more reasons to stay in the region of impact, or to extend their stays. Restoring some of 

the volume of tourism that was lost due to the Rim Fire would allow businesses in Tuolumne and 

Mariposa Counties to capture more tourism spending. While not as conducive to quantification as the 

forest products industries, the expansion of recreation and tourism would also support more 

employment, thereby expanding the beneficial economic impacts associated with Alternative 1. 

Reopening of the burn area for firewood gathering would also be seen as economically beneficial by 

low-income residents who rely on wood burning to supplement the heating of their homes. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Past actions in the region of impact, and throughout California, have led to a reduction in the number 

of sawmills available to process logs into lumber. The mills that remain today tend to be the larger 

and more efficient ones. Even so, the capacity of the existing private industry infrastructure to mill 

lumber is below historical highs. As described in the Affected Environment section above, there are 

other potential capacity constraints in the existing industrial infrastructure as well, such as the number 

of chippers, the number of trucks, and the number of mills and bioenergy plants within an economical 

haul range.

The Rim Fire burned over a quarter million acres including private forest lands and forest inside 

Yosemite National Park. Present actions contributing to cumulative effects include the emergency 

salvage logging of over 18,000 acres of private timber land, and over 28 miles of roadside hazard tree 

removal in Yosemite (over 800 acres). In addition, three National Forest timber sales in progress on 

over 2,000 acres when the fire broke out, must be honored with replacement timber resources. 

Foreseeable future actions include the proposal to salvage hazard trees on over 10,000 acres within 

the National Forest portion of the Rim Fire burn area. Decisions have also been recorded to harvest 

4,000 acres of green trees to reduce fuel loads and protect from future fires. Planning has also been 

done to improve over 90 miles of roads and trails in the National Forest. 

All of these contribute demand on private industry infrastructure available to conduct road work, log 

forests, haul raw materials, and produce lumber, energy and other forest products. There are several 

cumulative economic effects that would likely be produced by this situation: 

 In the short term, capacity is limited. Given the surge in raw materials available from salvage 

logging, downward pressure would be placed on the prices for raw materials. This can be seen as 

a beneficial economic impact by buyers, such as sawmills and power plants, and an adverse 

economic impact by sellers, such as the Forest Service.

 Given the limited ability to expand capacity in the short term over the next two years, it is 

possible that the Forest Service would not be able to sell as much salvage timber as they are 

planning for. Although the overall impact of Alternative 1 would be beneficial to the local 

economy, sale of less than 100 percent of the timber would partially represent a lost opportunity 

from not being able to realize the full benefit. 

 In the short term, capacities can be expanded for some portions of the industrial processes. 

Existing woods contractors can hire more workers. Additional operators and their crews can be 

brought in temporarily from more distant locations. Existing mills can operate a few more hours 

or days per week. Raw materials can be hauled further distances to other processing plants. Some 

of these adaptations would expand incomes in counties beyond the region of impact, but virtually 

194
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

all of them would also expand direct economic activity and its ripple effects locally as well. This 

would be seen as a beneficial economic impact on Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties. 

 In the long run, implementing Alternative 1 in conjunction with other present and foreseeable 

actions would serve as a stimulus to expand the capacity of the industry infrastructure through 

capital investment. Buying new trucks, equipment, and processing capacity would be seen as a 

beneficial impact on the local economy. For significant capital investment to take place, however, 

the perception would have to be that there is some assurance that new equipment will be needed 

for its usable life, and not for just a one-time surge lasting a couple years.

Combined with the foreseeable future actions proposed in the Rim Fire Hazard Trees project, 

Alternative 1 would further expand the capacity of the tourism industry based along Highway 120, 

and incomes and jobs in visitor serving businesses in Tuolumne County would increase as a result. 

Because the Highway 120 corridor also serves as one of the major gateways to Yosemite National 

Park, Alternative 1 could also expand visitation to Yosemite somewhat, for example by allowing 

people to stay overnight in dispersed campsites in the Rim Fire area and become day visitors to 

Yosemite Valley. From a cumulative perspective, this could have a magnified impact on direct 

tourism employment gains in Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties, as well as additional beneficial 

indirect economic impacts through multiplier mechanisms. 

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Under Alternative 2, hazard tree removal would not occur and the area would remain closed for 

dispersed recreation. Biomass and other fuels would not be removed. No income from the sale of 

salvage timber to private industry would be available to offset the public costs of protecting wildlife 

and the forest environment from future catastrophic fires. Social, cultural, and economic conditions 

would remain much as they are today.

Social and Cultural Impacts

Alternative 2 would perpetuate the current situation where the majority of the burn area is closed to 

the public for the foreseeable future. After hazard trees fall through natural processes, in a decade or 

so, parts of the burn area might again be opened to the public. Historically, access, recreation, and 

other uses of the area have been an important part of the life and culture of Tuolumne and Mariposa 

Counties, and the fire and subsequent closure are perceived as having had an adverse impact already. 

Residents of the region who own businesses or work in the tourism industry have experienced some 

diminishment of their incomes and lifestyles due to the reduced volumes of visitors from elsewhere. 

Alternative 2 would do nothing to remedy these adverse social and cultural impacts.

Economic Impacts

Without taking action (i.e., Alternative 2), no salvage timber sale would take place and the 

government would not realize any proceeds from such a sale. Private woods contractors and sawmill 

operators are currently busy processing salvage timber from private lands. Forest products industry 

employment would continue at current levels for the near term in the two-county region of impact. 

Compared with the current situation, no noticeable economic impacts, beneficial or adverse, would be 

created.

On the other hand, the perception in the tourism industry is already that it has been adversely 

impacted by the fire and subsequent closure. To the extent that incomes and support for jobs has been 

diminished, those lower employment levels would continue. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Present actions contributing to cumulative effects include the emergency salvage logging of over 

18,000 acres of private timber land and over 28 miles of roadside hazard tree removal in Yosemite 

195
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest

(over 800 acres). In addition, three National Forest timber sales in progress on over 2,000 acres when 

the fire broke out, must be honored with replacement timber resources. Foreseeable future actions 

include harvesting 4,000 acres of green trees to reduce fuel loads and protect the environment from 

future fires, and improving over 90 miles of roads and trails in the National Forest.

All of these contribute demand on private industry infrastructure available to conduct road work, log 

forests, haul raw materials, and produce lumber, energy and other forest products. Without material 

from the Rim Fire area, these sources would run out sooner leading the industry to switch back to 

green tree harvesting sooner. Rim Fire actions would not add to cumulative economic effects under 

Alternative 2. 

Under Alternative 2, the current visitor accommodating capacity of the Highway 120 corridor would 

remain below what it was before the Rim Fire. This could have a cumulative effect of keeping 

Yosemite visitation levels lower than they would have been with the visitor serving infrastructure in 

place.

Alternative 3

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

The action proposed under Alternative 3 would be essentially the same as under Alternative 1, but 

would cover slightly more acreage and produce slightly less salvage timber for sale. As with 

Alternative 1, it would remove hazard trees from lower level roads sufficiently to reopen the burn 

area for dispersed recreation. Biomass and other fuels would be removed from treated areas in order 

to create conditions to foster a healthier forest in the future, and to enhance wildlife movement and 

habitat. Some of the public cost of the action could be offset by the sale of salvage timber to private 

industry. Social, cultural, and economic impacts would be generated.

Social and Cultural Impacts

Compared with the current situation where the majority of the burn area is closed to the public, 

Alternative 3 would restore some of the access, recreation, and other uses of the area that have been 

part of the life and culture of Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties. Access for American Indians to 

gather native plants and other forest resources would be enhanced, and the ability of local residents to 

gather firewood would be restored. The ranching lifestyle for families that have grazing allotments 

within the burn area would be enhanced somewhat by clearing out some of the impediments to 

movement of their range stock, and making access to their allotment areas easier. Residents of the 

region who own businesses or work in the tourism industry would see some restoration of lifestyles 

that have been diminished by the reduced volumes of visitors. Specific communities of interest that 

participated in the various summer camps and resorts would find some of their previous activities 

returning.

Compared with Alternative 2 (No Action), the social and cultural character of Tuolumne and 

Mariposa Counties that has been appreciated historically would return much faster. 

Economic Impacts

Without taking action (i.e., Alternative 2), the current situation of closure would continue for as much 

as 10 years, or until the hazard trees fall on their own. Compared with the No Action scenario, 

Alternative 3 would have many noticeable economic impacts.

Support for direct jobs in the region of impact would be created by the activities required to improve 

roads, bring in logging crews and equipment, load and chip logs and biomass, haul materials out of 

the burn area, and process the raw materials into merchantable lumber, electrical power, and other 

forest products. If the entire 623 million board feet (MMBF) contemplated by the Forest Service 

under Alternative 3 can be sold and harvested, then 3,987 annual jobs could be supported in the two 

county area over a period of two to three years (at 6.4 direct jobs / MMBF). With a surge of activity 

196
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

as large as the Rim Fire salvage, some entirely new jobs would likely be created in the region through 

new hiring, and additional contracting. On the other hand, the majority of the jobs estimated above 

are in positions that are already filled in the region. For example, many of the people employed at the 

Standard Mill near Sonora would have the same jobs that they had before, but the source of their 

income would shift from processing green trees to Rim Fire salvage trees for a couple years (leaving 

more green trees to support future economic activity). Support of employment in the logging, 

biomass, and wood products industries would be seen as a beneficial economic impact in the region. 

Compared with the No Action Alternative, Alternative 3 would be beneficial for the public sector in 

that a portion of the public costs of recovery can be recaptured from the proceeds of the salvage 

timber sale to private industry.

Some of the Forest Service’s expenditures can then go to additional contractors to provide further 

treatment of some units to clear out biomass for wildlife enhancement and to remove more fuel from 

the forest. These activities would also generate support for more direct jobs. Alternative 3 estimates 

8,379 acres would have biomass removal for these purposes, generating support for 65 direct jobs 

over a period of years. Over a similar time period, another 160 direct jobs would be supported by 

post-contract treatments applied to an estimated 25,573 acres (at a typical cost of $500 / acre, as 

described above in the methodology section). 

Total direct job support from all three categories of activities would be 4,212 annual jobs over a 

period of several years. For example, this could represent 1,500 to 2,000 jobs each in 2014 and 2015 

as the bulk of the salvage work is taking place, and tailing off to a few hundred jobs per year in the 

following few years. Associated with direct employment, another 2,106 annual jobs would be 

supported over the same time period through indirect and induced multiplier effects in Tuolumne and 

Mariposa Counties (at a multiplier of 1.5). 

Total support for jobs in the region of impact would be 6,318 annual jobs over the next five years or 

so with the bulk of the economic support coming in the next two years. Given that Tuolumne and 

Mariposa Counties have higher unemployment rates than the average for the State of California, the 

impact on job support would be seen as beneficial to the economy. Given that the civilian labor force 

in the two-county region of impact is 34,000, the Rim Fire related job support would be between 5 

and 10 percent of all employment, which most likely would be seen as a significant beneficial 

economic impact by the Tuolumne and Mariposa County communities. 

Reopening of the burn area to the public would also occur faster in Alternative 3 than it would in the 

No Action Alternative. This would allow more overnight camping visitors to be accommodated in 

dispersed locations throughout the area. Reopening recreation areas within the burn area would also 

give visitors more reasons to stay in the region of impact, or to extend their stays. Restoring some of 

the volume of tourism that was lost due to the Rim Fire would allow businesses in Tuolumne and 

Mariposa Counties to capture more tourism spending. While not as conducive to quantification as the 

forest products industries, the expansion of recreation and tourism would also support more 

employment, thereby expanding the beneficial economic impacts associated with Alternative 3. 

Reopening of the burn area for firewood gathering would also be seen as economically beneficial by 

low-income residents who rely on wood burning to supplement the heating of their homes. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

The action proposed under Alternative 4 would be essentially the same as under Alternative 1, but 

would cover slightly less acreage and produce 18 percent less salvage timber for sale. As with 

197
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest

Alternative 1, it would remove hazard trees along lower level roads sufficiently to reopen the burn 

area for dispersed recreation. Biomass and other fuels would be removed from treated areas in order 

to create conditions to foster a healthier forest in the future, and to enhance wildlife movement and 

habitat. Some of the public cost of the action could be offset by the sale of salvage timber to private 

industry. Social, cultural, and economic impacts would be generated.

Social and Cultural Impacts

Compared with the current situation where the majority of the burn area is closed to the public, 

Alternative 4 would restore some of the access, recreation, and other uses of the area that have been 

part of the life and culture of Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties. Access for American Indians to 

gather native plants and other forest resources would be enhanced, and the ability of local residents to 

gather firewood would be restored. The ranching lifestyle for families that have grazing allotments 

within the burn area would be enhanced somewhat by clearing out some of the impediments to 

movement of their range stock, and making access to their allotment areas easier. Residents of the 

region who own businesses or work in the tourism industry would see some restoration of lifestyles 

that have been diminished by the reduced volumes of visitors. Specific communities of interest that 

participated in the various summer camps and resorts would find some of their previous activities 

returning.

Compared with Alternative 2 (No Action), the social and cultural character of Tuolumne and 

Mariposa Counties that has been appreciated historically would return much faster. 

Economic Impacts

Without taking action (i.e., Alternative 2), the current situation of closure would continue for as much 

as 10 years, or until the hazard trees fall on their own. Compared with the No Action scenario, 

Alternative 4 would have many noticeable economic impacts.

Support for direct jobs in the region of impact would be created by the activities required to improve 

roads, bring in logging crews and equipment, load and chip logs and biomass, haul materials out of 

the burn area, and process the raw materials into merchantable lumber, electrical power, and other 

forest products. If the entire 541 million board feet (MMBF) contemplated by the Forest Service 

under Alternative 4 can be sold and harvested, then 3,465 annual jobs could be supported in the two 

county area over a period of two to three years (at 6.4 direct jobs / MMBF). With a surge of activity 

as large as the Rim Fire salvage, some entirely new jobs would likely be created in the region through 

new hiring, and additional contracting. On the other hand, the majority of the jobs estimated above 

are in positions that are already filled in the region. For example, many of the people employed at the 

Standard Mill near Sonora would have the same jobs that they had before, but the source of their 

income would shift from processing green trees to Rim Fire salvage trees for a couple years (leaving 

more green trees to support future economic activity). Support of employment in the logging, 

biomass, and wood products industries would be seen as a beneficial economic impact in the region. 

Compared with the No Action Alternative, Alternative 4 would be beneficial for the public sector in 

that a portion of the public costs of recovery can be recaptured from the proceeds of the salvage 

timber sale to private industry.

Some of the Forest Service’s expenditures can then go to additional contractors to provide further 

treatment of some units to clear out biomass for wildlife enhancement and to remove more fuel from 

the forest. These activities would also generate support for more direct jobs. Alternative 4 estimates 

7,975 acres would have biomass removal for these purposes, generating support for 62 direct jobs 

over a period of years. Over a similar time period, another 146 direct jobs would be supported by 

post-contract treatments applied to an estimated 23,427 acres (at a typical cost of $500 / acre, as 

described above in the methodology section). 

198
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Total direct job support from all three categories of activities would be 3,674 annual jobs over a 

period of several years. For example, this could represent 1,500 to 2,000 jobs each in 2014 and 2015 

as the bulk of the salvage work is taking place, and tailing off to a few hundred jobs per year in the 

following few years. Associated with direct employment, another 1,837 annual jobs would be 

supported over the same time period through indirect and induced multiplier effects in Tuolumne and 

Mariposa Counties (at a multiplier of 1.5). 

Total support for jobs in the region of impact would be 5,511 annual jobs over the next five years or 

so with the bulk of the economic support coming in the next two years. Given that Tuolumne and 

Mariposa Counties have higher unemployment rates than the average for the State of California, the 

impact on job support would be seen as beneficial to the economy. Given that the civilian labor force 

in the two-county region of impact is 34,000, the Rim Fire related job support would be between 5 

and 10 percent of all employment, which most likely would be seen as a significant beneficial 

economic impact by the Tuolumne and Mariposa County communities. 

Reopening of the burn area to the public would also occur faster in Alternative 4 than it would in the 

No Action Alternative. This would allow more overnight camping visitors to be accommodated in 

dispersed locations throughout the area. Reopening recreation areas within the burn area would also 

give visitors more reasons to stay in the region of impact, or to extend their stays. Restoring some of 

the volume of tourism that was lost due to the Rim Fire would allow businesses in Tuolumne and 

Mariposa Counties to capture more tourism spending. While not as conducive to quantification as the 

forest products industries, the expansion of recreation and tourism would also support more 

employment, thereby expanding the beneficial economic impacts associated with Alternative 4. 

Reopening of the burn area for firewood gathering would also be seen as economically beneficial by 

low-income residents who rely on wood burning to supplement the heating of their homes. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

As was described in the methodology section and for each individual alternative above, a set of key 

measures of the actions proposed under each alternative were used to calculate economic impacts on 

job support. Table 3.10-7 presents the key measures for all alternatives, including:

 Estimated Salvage Timber (in MBF);

 Additional Treatment for Wildlife/Fuels/Biomass (in acres); and,

 Post-Contract Treatment (in acres).

Table 3.10-7 Key Measures Used as Inputs to Calculate Economic Impacts

Key Measures of Economic

Activities to be Undertaken

Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Fuel Reduction Economics

Total Acreage in Units Treated 28,326 0 30,399 27,826

Est. Salvage Timber (MBF) 660,781 0 622,899 541,399

Additional Treatments

Wildlife/Fuels/Biomass Acres 7,626 0 8,379 7,975

Post-Contract FS Activities

Fuels Tractor Pile Acres 20,606 0 22,036 20,320

Watershed Drop and Lop Acres 2,228 0 2,228 1,798

Watershed Mastication Acres 1,309 0 1,309 1,309

Total Post-Contract Acres 24,143 0 25,573 23,427

Source: Rim Recovery project

199
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest

Table 3.10-8 presents the numbers of jobs supported by these activities for each alternative. The No 

Action Alternative contributes no job support to Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties, but each of the 

action alternatives support between 5,500 and 6,700 jobs. Again, these are annual jobs and would be 

spread over multiple years, with the largest portions occurring in the first two years during the bulk of 

the salvage harvesting, and could amount to 1,500 to 2,000 jobs supported in each of those two years. 

To the extent that capacity constraints in the forest products industry limits the amount of timber that 

can be salvaged and processed within the usable life of the damaged trees, the higher job numbers in 

Alternatives 1 and 3 might not be completely achieved. In such a capacity constrained scenario, the 

differences between the action alternatives could be reduced. In all cases, the most dramatic 

difference in social, cultural, and economic impacts is between the No Action alternative and any of 

the action alternatives.

Table 3.10-8 Annual Jobs Supported by Each Alternative

Economic Activities and Effects 

on Employment Generation

Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Fuel Reduction Economics

Direct Jobs Supported 1 4,229 0 3,987 3,465 

Additional Treatments/Biomass

Direct Jobs Supported 2 60 0 65 62

Post-Contract FS Activities

Direct Jobs Supported 3 151 0 160 146

Total Direct Job Support 4,439 0 4,212 3,674

Multiplier "Ripple" Effects

Indirect and Induced Job Support 4 2,220 0 2,106 1,837 

Total Jobs Supported (Multiple Years) 6,659 0 6,318 5,511

1 at 6.4 direct annual jobs / MMBF harvested.

2 at $1,250/acre cost, 50% in addition to sawlog harvesting activities, 50% to labor at $40,000/job supported.

3 at $500/acre treated, 50% to labor costs, and $40,000/ annual job supported.

4 using an IMPLAN multiplier of 1.5 for Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties combined.

Source: Land Economics Consultants analysis

Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice (EJ) is an executive order (EO 12898) which requires, in brief, that each 

Federal Agency shall 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, policies and activities on minority populations and low income populations. 

USDA Civil Rights policy requires each agency to analyze the civil rights impact(s) of policies, 

actions, or decisions that will affect federally conducted and federally assisted programs and 

activities. A civil rights impact analysis (CRIA) facilitates the identification of the effects of 

eligibility criteria, methods of administration, or other agency-imposed requirements that may 

adversely and disproportionately impact employees or program beneficiaries based on their 

membership in a protected group. Protected groups include multiples of similarly situated persons 

who may be distinguished by their common race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetics, 

political beliefs, or receipt of income from any public assistance program. 

Actions including temporary closure of the Rim Fire area to the public and its eventual reopening, and 

actions that are applied consistently to everyone are not discriminatory. Economically beneficial 

support for additional employment, generated by action alternatives, is not specific to any ethnic 

group or income segment of the population. No evidence suggests that considered actions (in their 

entirety) have disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. 

200
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

3.11 SOILS

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 as amended and the Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974) require the maintenance of productivity and protection 

of the land and, where appropriate, the improvement of the quality of soil and water resources. 

NFMA specifies that substantial and permanent impairment of productivity must be avoided. 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2550 (USDA 2010) establishes the management framework for 

sustaining soil quality and hydrologic function while providing goods and services outlined in the 

Forest Plan. Primary objectives of this framework are to inform managers of the effects of land 

management activities on soil quality and to determine if adjustments to activities and practices are 

necessary to sustain and restore soil quality. Soil quality analysis and monitoring processes are used 

to determine if soil quality conditions and objectives have been achieved.

Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) FSM 2500 Chapter 2550 Supplement (USDA 2012a) 

establishes soil functions (support for plant growth (productivity) function, soil hydrologic function, 

and filtering and buffering function) that the Region uses to assess soil conditions. The analysis 

standards are used for areas dedicated to growing vegetation. They are not applied to lands with other 

dedicated uses, such as system roads and trails or developed campgrounds.

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.22, Chapter 10 (Water Quality Management Handbook) 

(USDA 2011) improves and replaces the BMPs presented in Water Quality Management for NFS 

lands in California. The Forest Service water quality protection program relies on implementation of 

prescribed BMPs. These BMPs are procedures and techniques that are incorporated in project actions 

and determined by the State of California to be the most effective, practicable means of preventing or 

reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water 

quality goals. Improvements to Forest Service BMPs, as presented in the 2011 Handbook 

amendment, include more detailed descriptions of individual BMPs (section 12), a requirement that 

site-specific BMPs be included in timber sale contracts (section 13), and direction that legacy sites 

(sites disturbed by previous land use that is causing or has potential to cause adverse effects to water 

quality) within timber project boundaries will be restored or improved. Additionally, the 2011 

Handbook amendment establishes an expanded water quality management monitoring program 

(section 16). Chapter 2 includes detailed BMPs developed by watershed specialists.

National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest 

System Lands (USDA 2012b) apply to the proposed activities and are included in Chapter 2. 

The Forest Plan Compliance (project record) document identifies the Forest Plan S&Gs that 

specifically apply to this project and related information about compliance with the Forest Plan.

Effects Analysis Methodology

The scope of the analysis for direct and indirect effects to the soil resource is limited to the proposed 

treatment units and connected actions situated outside of those units. Table 3.11-1 lists activities 

expected to affect the soil resources.

The current soil conditions reflect the cumulative effects of past activities, regardless of when they 

took place. If multiple activities have occurred in a given treatment unit over the past 50 years, it is 

not necessary to separate the effects of older treatments from more recent ones and therefore not 

practical to set a time constraint on those effects. The future timeframe for the soils analysis must 

extend until the resource has recovered from the impact of the proposed activities. The persistence of 

201
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Soils National Forest

soil effects into the future can vary widely. For example, soil cover may recover within one to three 

years following a treatment. Soil compaction effects, however, may last for decades (Poff 1996).

Table 3.11-1 Activities expected to affect soil resources with each action alternative

Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Tractor Harvesting (acres) 24,127 26,252 24,176

Skyline Harvesting (acres) 1,253 1,096 1,066

Helicopter Harvesting (acres) 2,930 3,035 2,568

Tractor/Skyline (acres) 16 16 16

Roadside Hazard Tree Removal (acres) 16,315 15,253 15,692

Watershed Treatment, mastication (acres) 0 1,215 1,215

Watershed Treatment, mastication pre-activity (acres) 0 93 93

Watershed Treatment, drop and lop (acres) 0 2,228 1,798

Total (acres) 44,641 49,188 46,624

Temporary Roads, new (miles) 3.9 9.5 8.4

Temporary Roads, existing (miles) 9.3 22.7 22.1

Temporary Roads, revert to existing (miles) 8.4 3.3 3.3

Total (miles) 21.6 35.5 33.8

Assumptions Specific to Soils

 Effective application of Best Management Practices for the action alternatives: In a burned soil 

environment, the natural filtering ability of the soil is greatly reduced and accelerated hillslope 

flow and erosion is expected. With the application of BMPs included in the project management 

requirements this will be greatly reduced (Watershed Report). 

 Modeling parameters: Because of the size of the fire, it is assumed that the parameter 

development used in erosion modeling and EHR analysis reflects site specific parameters. Based 

on the resolution of the tools used, this assumption holds for most of the parameters. However, 

the parameters based on topography add uncertainty to the models used in this analysis. For this 

reason, the erosion analysis in this report should only be used as a comparative tool rather than an 

absolute value prediction. Site monitoring during activities will verify EHR assumptions for 

specific areas. Assumptions for modeling of erosion and EHR analysis and include: 

- All slopes are uniform. Generally, slopes are more complex than any modeling can account 

for. Linear mid slopes and variable bottom and top slopes based on the gradient of the slopes 

were generalized based on the slope gradient. Also soil cover values are assumed to be 

uniform over a modeled hillslope. 

- The timing, intensity, quantity, and distribution of precipitation are significant factors in 

erosion and sedimentation and can be highly variable based on the type of precipitation event, 

topography and elevation. This analysis assumes a uniform climate over the fire area based 

on a weather station situated at 4,600 feet near the most intensely burned portion of the fire 

around Corral Creek. 

- Hazard tree removal was modeled for each alternative. However, it is difficult to assign 

parameters to the intensity of this activity since the frequency and distribution of hazard trees 

is highly variable along roadways. Thus, even though this activity is likely to be less intense 

than it is in salvage logging units, it is conservatively assumed to be the same for this 

analysis. 

- Pre-fire soil cover values were based on field surveys and remotely sensed data analysis and 

generalized over the fire area. It is not possible to know what the post-fire implementation 

will be. For assigning post-implementation cover values, soil cover was increased in high fire 

intensity areas due to the expected activity fuels that would be left behind after treatment.

Cover values were decreased in low to moderate fire intensity areas. Although activity fuels 

in the moderate and low fire intensity areas would also increase, machine piling and 

202
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

prescribed fire proposed to achieve fuels objectives will likely decrease soil cover compared 

with pre-salvage values.

- In Alternatives 3 and 4, management requirements prescribe a cover value of 50 percent or 

greater in the areas identified as sensitive for soils and hydrology, termed Watershed 

Sensitive Areas (WSAs). The Water Erosion Prediction Program (WEPP) and EHR are 

modeled with a minimum of 50 percent cover in those alternatives. However, some of the 

areas may not have enough standing material to achieve 50 percent. For fuel objectives to be 

met, ground fuels cannot exceed 20 tons per acre. Depending on the average diameter of the 

downed material, it may not be possible to achieve 50 percent soil cover and less than 20 tons

per acre. In Alternative 1, increases in soil cover are anticipated to be slight due to activity 

fuels; however, cover is not expected to approach 50 percent.

 About 4,300 acres of aerial mulch treatments were applied as part of the BAER implementation at 

a rate of up to 1.5 tons per acre and 100 percent soil cover. Most of these treatments were applied 

to areas designated in Alternatives 3 and 4 as WSAs and will require effort to maintain 50 percent 

cover during implementation of salvage activities. For the analysis, the conservative assumption 

was made that no mulch would remain at the time of implementation or after. This will not likely 

be the case, but decomposition and incorporation of the mulch into the soil could occur and will 

depend on soil moisture and intensity of equipment use. 

Data Sources

 Soil spatial data and soil property tables acquired from the Natural Resources Conservation 

Services (USDA 2008) and derived from the Stanislaus National Forest Soil Survey.

 Soil interpretations provided by the Region 5 Soil Interpretation Guide (USDA 1999). 

 The Soil Burn Severity (Figure 1.04-3) and information regarding post-fire soil conditions 

provided by Rust et al. (2012). 

 Vegetation Burn Severity Map (Figure 1.04-2) produced by the Remote Sensing Application 

Center based in Salt Lake City, Utah. 

 LiDAR high resolution digital elevation model acquired and processed by the Forest Service 

Remote Sensing Lab based in McClellan, California. 

 Multi-Spectral Imagery high resolution satellite data acquired and processed by the Forest Service 

Remote Sensing Lab based in McClellan, California.

 All map base layers, 10 meter Digital Elevation Model, and Vegetation GIS information. 

Soils Indicators

For this soils analysis, Forest Service staff developed soil quality functions and indicators that are 

appropriate for the proposed activities, site conditions, and soil characteristics of the project area. Soil 

quality functions support plant growth (soil productivity) and soil hydrologic function. Soil filtering 

and buffering is the function of immobilizing, degrading, or detoxifying chemical compounds or 

excess nutrients. Because no proposed activity will affect the soil filtering or buffering capacity of the 

soil, they are not analyzed in detail for this project. 

Soil quality indicators have been developed to support analysis of these functions. While qualitative 

estimates of the effects of management activities on soils are generally considered sufficient to meet 

project analysis objectives, quantitative field survey results and remotely sensed information were 

used to describe the existing condition and to support the analysis of effects of management activities.

Soil indicators analyzed in this project support the soil quality functions of soil productivity and soil 

hydrologic function. Soil hydrologic function is measured by Erosion Hazard Rating which also is an 

indicator for soil productivity. For this analysis, all indicators are addressed in soil productivity. 

203
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Soils National Forest

SOIL PRODUCTIVITY

Soil productivity is the inherent capacity of a soil to support appropriate site-specific biological 

resource management objectives, which include the growth of specified plants, plant communities, or 

a sequence of plant communities to support multiple land uses (USDA 2010b). The soil stores water 

and nutrients, and provides favorable habitat for soil organisms which cycle nutrients. Chemical, 

physical, and biological soil processes sustain plant growth which provide forage, fiber, wildlife 

habitat, and cover for watershed protection (USDA 2012a). Important measures of soil productivity 

include: soil cover, soil porosity and surface organic matter.

Indicator 1: Soil Stability and Effective Soil Cover

An adequate level of soil cover is needed to maintain soil stability and prevent accelerated erosion. 

Effective soil cover consists of low-growing vegetation (grasses, forbs and prostrate shrubs), plant 

and tree litter (fine organic matter), surface rock fragments, and may also include applied mulches 

(straw or chips). Effective soil cover is the most important soil property in maintaining soil stability 

and reducing erosion. Surface cover mitigates erosion primarily by intercepting and reducing the 

detachment energy of raindrops, improving soil porosity, preventing soil sealing, and increasing 

surface roughness (Larsen et al. 2009). 

Ground cover protects soil from rain splash erosion, slows surface runoff, and filters runoff. The 

percent of bare soil is an important factor in controlling sediment production following timber salvage 

(Chase 2006). The presence of even a thin litter layer can substantially reduce soil erosion (Peterson 

2009). Soil cover is the dominant control on post-fire sediment yields and generally does not begin 

providing protection to soil stability until a level of 50 percent is reached (Larsen et al. 2009). Figure 

3.11-1 from Pannkuk and Robichaud (2003) illustrates the coverage of 50 percent ponderosa pine 

needles. 

Figure 3.11-1 Fifty Percent Soil Cover from Ponderosa Pine Needles

Desired conditions for soils as stated in FSH 2550 are: “an adequate level of soil cover is maintained

to prevent accelerated erosion and erosion prevention measures are effectively implemented 

following soil disturbing activities.” Generally on slopes less than 35 percent, a minimum of 50 

percent soil cover in a well distributed pattern is needed to maintain soil stability. Greater amounts of 

soil cover are generally needed for steeper slopes and in riparian zones.

Effective soil cover was estimated in field surveys and was used to correlate existing and potential 

soil cover with high resolution satellite imagery. The EHR (USDA 1990) system and the WEPP 

(Elliot 2010) were used to identify areas where accelerated erosion is likely to occur and to estimate 

the effects of management activities on erosion. 

Metrics for Indicator 1 are erosion rates as modeled by WEPP, erosion hazard as measured by EHR, 

and Effective Soil Cover. Table 3.11-6 provides a summary by indicators for the existing condition 

and post-implementation values for each alternative. A soil will be considered stable if EHR ratings 

204
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

are moderate or below, and soil cover values are greater than 50 percent. Although threshold values 

for erosion rates are not established in Management Direction, this analysis uses the assumption that a 

soil is stable if erosion rates do not exceed rates of formation. The T-factor rating is an interpretation 

of acceptable soil loss tons per acre per year) which is related to the soil rate of formation. This 

interpretation is provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS). Values for the 

soils within the fire area range from 1 to 5 tons per acre per year with 1 ton per acre equivalent to the 

thickness of 2 sheets of paper.

Indicator 2: Surface Organic Matter 

The concept of surface organic matter is related to effective soil cover, but includes the quality of the 

material. The amount of organic material on top of the mineral soil is maintained at levels to sustain 

soil microorganisms and provide for nutrient cycling. The size, amount, and distribution of organic 

matter maintained on the mineral soil on a long-term basis is consistent with the amounts that occur 

given the local ecological type, climate, and normal fire return interval for the area. Surface organic 

matter is characterized by its level of decomposition; Oi is fresh material with no decomposition, Oe

is organic material with intermediate decomposition, and Oa is highly decomposed organic material 

with the original structure (needles and leaves) no longer discernible. The importance of the surface 

organic matter is comprehensively reviewed by Neary et al. (2005). Generally surface organic matter 

is important for moisture retention, nutrient cycling and storage, soil stability, infiltration, thermal 

cover, soil fauna and flora habitat, and gas exchange. Effective cover analyzed as Indicator 1 can be 

any material that provides for soil stability and does not factor in the quality of the cover to soil 

function. For example, although the organic layers are consumed by fire, needle cast additions can 

improve effective cover while taking years to incorporate into the soil as organic matter 

Greater amounts of soil cover are generally needed for steeper slopes and in riparian zones (USDA, 

2012a). Field crews collected data on the quantity and quality of soil cover and logs on the ground. 

Although the quantity and quality of surface organic material is unknown prior to the fire, field 

observations related to the Vegetation Burn Severity Map (Figure 1.04-2) allows for a good 

correlation of existing and potential cover as related to the canopy change caused by the fire. To 

estimate surface organic material, it is assumed that the amount of heat in both the moderate and high

soil burn severity areas incinerate enough surface organic material to affect the soil productivity of

these areas.

Indicator 3: Soil Organic Matter

Soil organic matter, also known as soil humus, is the highly decomposed organic material that is 

incorporated into the mineral portions of the soil. Soil organic matter is important for holding soil 

water, cycling nutrients, and reducing soil strength. The amount of organic matter within the mineral 

soil, indicated by the color and thickness of the upper soil horizon, is within the normal range of 

characteristics for the site, and is distributed normally across the area. The upper soil horizon is not 

displaced or eroded to the degree or extent that soil productivity is decreased for the desired 

vegetation.

Impacts to soil organic matter generally come from both excessive soil heating and soil displacement 

from mechanical disturbances. Soil heating volatizes both the complex organic compounds and plant 

nutrients. Changes in the soil organic matter can affect soil nutrient cycling, water holding capacity 

and aggregate stability.

Metrics for soil organic matter (SOM) is the extent of soil depleted either by volatilization from fire 

or displaced by project activities. Soil burn severity ratings of high were used to determine where 

SOM was volatized during the fire. High soil burn severity usually indicates penetration of heat into 

the soil and the consumption of fine roots and soil organic matter. This indicator was not directly 

measured by field crews, but was evaluated by the soil assessment team during BAER operations to 

develop the soil burn severity map. An analysis of existing and potential skid trail locations was used 

205
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Soils National Forest

to identify areas where mechanical displacement of the SOM was likely. To estimate the amount of 

existing disturbance within units, the Forest Service Remote Sensing Lab in McClellan, CA is 

conducting advanced analysis on the LiDAR data set. As of this DEIS, that work is not complete and 

this indicator is discussed qualitatively.

For the purpose of this analysis, detrimental soil displacement is defined as occurring when either 2 

inches or 1⁄2 the total thickness (whichever is less) of the humus-enriched topsoil (A horizon) is 

removed from an area of 3 square feet or larger. 

Indicator 4: Soil Porosity 

Soil porosity is the volume of pores in a soil that can be occupied by air, gas, or water and varies 

depending on the size and distribution of the particles and their arrangement with respect to each 

other. The two primary mechanisms for reducing soil porosity are compaction and soil sealing. The 

use of heavy forestry equipment and frequent stand entries increases bulk density and decreases the 

porosity of soils, which increases the potential for detrimental compaction (Powers et al 1998). Soil 

sealing is the process after a fire where fine soil particles fill the soil pores and reduce the flow of 

water through the voids. 

The degree and extent of susceptibility to compaction is primarily influenced by soil texture, soil 

moisture, coarse fragments, depth of surface organic matter, ground pressure weight of the 

equipment, and whether the load is applied in a static or dynamic fashion. Soil compaction and 

increased soil strength can cause slowed plant growth, impeded root development, poor water 

infiltration, restricted percolation, increased overland flow during high precipitation events, and can 

cause plant nutrients to be relatively immobile or inaccessible (Poff, 1996). Recent research suggests 

that the effect of severe compaction on biomass productivity is highly dependent upon soil texture 

(Powers et al 2005). Within the Rim Recovery project area, soil textures of loam and clay loam

produce widespread severe compaction ratings (Table 3.11-2). 

The extent of detrimental soil compaction should not be of a size or pattern that will result in a 

significant change in production potential and should not result in common occurrences of overland 

flow and erosion within treated units (indicating that the infiltration and permeability capacity of the 

soil has been exceeded for the local climate).

Soil sealing and water repellency (hydrophobicity) resulting from a fire also affects area soil

hydrologic function. As summarized by Larsen et al. 2009, soil seals are a thin layer of dense soil at 

the mineral soil surface. Metrics for soil porosity is the amount of ground that was impacted by 

logging equipment and high soil burn severity with the assumption that primary and secondary skid 

trails will be decompacted with subsoilers or ripping shanks. Compaction was identified by field 

crews using an evaluation of soil structure, particularly platey structure. Field observations were then 

used to correlate disturbances identified using the same methodology by the Remote Sensing Lab to 

identify displacement. Soil sealing, evaluated using soil burn severity, is likely to occur where ratings 

are high. The amount of existing disturbance within units is estimated using the LiDAR data set; 

however, this indicator is discussed qualitatively.

Soils Methodology by Action

SOIL DESCRIPTION AND INTERPRETATION

Soils information for this analysis was derived from the Stanislaus National Forest Soil Survey and 

obtained from the NRCS Web Soil Survey (WSS). The WSS provided both spatial and soil property 

information which was used for both field survey and analysis. Specific interpretations and soil data 

properties from the WSS were analyzed from the NRCS Soil Data Viewer (SDV) which is a GIS 

extension that helps the user analyze soils in a digital environment. Properties derived from the SDV 

include soil texture, depth, rock fragments, soil taxonomy, soil composition within a unit, and 

acceptable soil loss. The Soils Report (project record) includes a soil map. 

206
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

SOIL EROSION HAZARD RATING

The Region 5 Soil EHR System (USDA 1990) was used to rate the risk of soil erosion for all soils in 

the project area post-fire, post-implementation with the incorporation of watershed treatments. This 

system uses various physical soil properties along with climate and site-specific conditions to rate 

sheet and rill erosion soil hazards.

EROSION MODELING

The disturbed WEPP batch program (Elliot 2010) was used to model predicted sedimentation 

resulting from the Rim Fire, salvage activities, and watershed treatments. Disturbed WEPP estimates 

erosion on an annual basis in contrast to the WEPP module ERMiT (Erosion Risk Management Tool)

which predicts erosion for individual storm events used during BAER assessment. WEPP is a 

physically based erosion model which incorporates topography, soils, climate, vegetation and 

management activities. Because of the size and complexity of the fire, modeled erosion outputs 

should not be used as absolute values. The purpose of using modeled values is to illustrate relative 

risk from existing conditions and management activities and to evaluate the relative change in 

sedimentation associated with proposed activities. 

SITE OBSERVATIONS

The goals of field observations were to identify soil properties useful in confirming the accuracy of 

the soil survey, to identify existing soil conditions, to understand soil response to proposed activities 

management and to correlate the site conditions to remotely sensed data. Ninety seven plots were 

recorded. Site observation methods were developed for rapid assessment by field crews. Plot selection 

was stratified based on burn severity, soil type, topography, and visual satellite imagery expression. 

Soil cover is the most important soil characteristic estimate following a wildfire and any subsequent 

activities post fire. Observations were made to qualify the existing condition and to help watershed 

personnel correlate multi-spectral imagery with site characteristics. 

REMOTELY SENSED DATA ANALYSIS

Analysis for this project utilized several remotely sensed sources of information to identify areas of 

both soil and vegetation burn severity, tree mortality, disturbances, and potential and existing cover. 

Unit-by-unit ocular analysis was completed using sensed data sets. 

WATERSHED SENSITIVE AREAS (WSAS) 

Watershed staff examined each unit and identified Watershed Sensitive Areas (WSAs). WSAs are 

portions of the watershed that are at high risk of soil erosion and sedimentation due to the combined 

effects of the Rim Fire and potential recovery activities. Criteria for evaluating the existence of WSAs 

included: proposed recovery activities, burn severity, percent slope and slope shape, slope length, 

existing and potential soil cover, proximity to intermittent and perennial drainages, and proximity to 

high runoff response soils. 

Affected Environment

Existing Conditions

Soils within the project area are primarily derived from metamorphic rock in the lower elevations and 

granitic rock at mid and higher elevations. A soil map (Soils Report, Appendix A) and Table 3.11-2 

display the proportion of general soil groups per alternative and the corresponding soil properties 

used in the analysis. Field work during the BAER assessment and for this project verified the existing 

soil survey information, investigated current soil conditions and effects of the fire, and management 

capabilities. The dominant soils within the analysis area are mostly loams, sandy loams, and loamy 

sands with gravelly to extremely gravelly texture modifiers, indicating high natural infiltration rates

and high rock content in many areas. These soils range from shallow to deep, reflecting a wide range 

207
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Soils National Forest

of soil productivity and soil hydrologic groups. Specific dominant soils include the Holland, 

Josephine, Wintoner and Fiddletown. Rock outcrop is also common, even dominant, in several map 

units. Although rock outcrop does not produce sediment, it commonly produces runoff which 

accelerates erosion on soils downslope; a condition considered in the identification of WSAs.

Table 3.11-2 Soil families and associated properties used in analysis

Family

Max Extent

of Activities

(% total acres)

Soil Properties used in Analysis

TFactorSurface

Texture

Subsurface

Texture

Soil Depth 

(inches)

Compaction 

Hazard

Dystric Lithic 

Xerochrepts

2.1 1 Cobbly loam Cobbly loam 20-40 Moderate

Dystric 

Xerochrepts

0.28 1 Cobbly loam Coarse sandy 

loam

20-40 Moderate

Dystric 

Xerorthents

0.6 1 Coarse sandy loam Coarse sandy 

loam

20-40 Slight

Entic 

Cyrumbrepts

0.06 3 Coarse sandy loam Coarse sandy 

loam

20-60 Moderate

Fiddletown 7.5 2 Gravelly to Bouldery 

sandy loam

Gravelly sandy 

loam

20-60 Slight

Gerle 5.4 4 Gravelly sandy loam Sandy loam 40-60+ Slight

Half Dome 0.17 3 Very Bouldery sandy 

loam

Cobbly sandy 

loam

40-60+ Slight 

Holland 35.6 4 Loam Clay loam 40-80+ Severe

Humic 

Dystroxerepts

0.1

Josephine 27.8 4 Gravelly loam Clay loam 20-60+ Severe

Lithic 

Xerumbrepts

3.7 1 Loamy sand Sandy loam 0-20 Slight

McCarthy 4.1 3 Gravelly sandy loam Sandy loam 20-60 Slight

Pinole 0.5 4 Gravelly loam Clay loam 60-80+ Severe

Rock Outcrop 0.8 1 Unweathered bedrock NA 0-10 Slight

Typic 

Dystroxerepts

0.4

Ultic 

Haploxeralfs

1.7 1 Sandy loam Loam Severe

Wintoner 9.1 4 Gravelly loam Clay loam 40-60+ Severe

Xerolls 0.1 5 Loam Loam 40-60+ Severe

The majority of soils (about 75 percent) within the proposed action have a severe compaction rating 

(high probability to be compacted by activities when moist). These tend to be the most productive 

soils in the project area, particularly the Holland and Josephine soils. Both compaction ratings and 

productivity are strongly correlated with soil texture. During surveys, field crews noted severe 

compaction rating on nearly all sampled legacy skid trails confirming compaction potential in the 

project area. Fire history (Table 3.11-3) and past mechanical activities (3.14 Watershed) are the 

greatest influence on the existing soil condition. 

Fire Disturbance

Although many activities occurred and affected the analysis area (3.14 Watershed) the existing soil

condition is most dominated by recent fire history. Table 3.11-3 displays the six largest fires 

occurring within the Rim Fire perimeter (Figure 1.02-5). Fire can have both beneficial and negative 

effects on the soil resources. Fires that burn with low severity can maintain soil cover, mineralize 

important nutrients from plant matter stored on the soil surface, reduce fuel loads leading to possible 

future high burn severity, and stimulate herbaceous vegetation helping to facilitate nutrient cycling. 

208
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Moderate to high severity fires can cause a loss of soil hydrologic function by sealing pores and 

degrading soil structure, it can cause a loss of soil productivity by processes of erosion, mass-wasting, 

and nutrient volatization, and it can allow exotic plants to establish which can affect soil productivity. 

Similar to soil cover, the Rim Fire resulted in a deficiency of surface organic matter. It is estimated 

that 60 percent of the area has surface organic material coverage of less than 50 percent. 

Table 3.11-3 Soil Burn Severity for selected fires in relation to the Rim Fire

Fire Name Year Size

(NFS acres)

Soil Burn Severity (%)

High Mod Low/Unburned

Rim 2013 154,530 7 37 56

Stanislaus Complex 1987 147,100 36 20 44

Rogge1 1996 19,400 0 41 59

Granite 1973 17,100 55 30 15

Ackerson2 1996 11,300 19 14 67

Pilot 1999 4,000 46 25 29

1 No high soil burn severity due to low fuel loading over much of the area because of new 

tree plantations after the Stanislaus Complex fire.

2 This 59,000 acre fire burned mostly in Yosemite National Park.

Although the Rim Fire was the largest fire in Sierra Nevada recorded history, the Soil Burn Severity 

(SBS) was relatively low. The Granite, Ackerson, and Stanislaus Complex fires and post-fire fuel

reduction activities removed significant build-up of surface fuels so the heat intensity and residence 

time was not favorable to high SBS. Table 3.11-4 indicates that the SBS as a proportion of the action 

alternatives is much higher than the fire as a whole simply because very little tree mortality occurred 

in the unburned and low SBS portion of the fire. There is very little difference in proportion of burn 

severity between alternatives.

Table 3.11-4 Soil Burn Severity of the maximum extent of activity

Burn

Severity

Maximum Extent

of Activities

acres percent

Unburned 3,409 7.2

Low 15,038 31.8

Moderate 23,012 48.6

High 5,858 12.4

Total 47,317 100.0

SBS measures the direct effect of fires on soils. Whereas fire intensity measures the changes to the 

vegetation community, SBS indicates both changes to the above ground material, providing both 

existing and future soil cover, and the effects to the soil properties caused by heat penetration below 

ground. SBS categories are summarized as follows (Parsons et al. 2010): 

 Low: Surface organic layers are not completely consumed and are still recognizable. Soil 

structure and roots are unchanged, and vegetation will appear green.

 Moderate: Up to 80 percent of the pre-fire ground cover may be consumed. Fine roots may be 

scorched but not consumed. Soil structure is not changed and there is usually potential for some 

immediate cover recruitment.

 High: All, or nearly all, of the pre-fire cover and organic matter has been consumed. Soil 

structure may be completely obliterated or strongly impaired. Fine surface roots have been 

consumed and coarse roots extending from stump holes may be consumed. There is little to no 

chance for short-term cover recruitment; cover will not return until vegetation regeneration occurs 

and snags begin to fall. 

209
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Soils National Forest

Figure 1.04-3 show the SBS for the entire fire area. The Vegetation Burn Severity Map (Figure 1.04-

2) shows greater vegetation effects than soil effects primarily because this was a fast moving, winddriven fire with little time for soil heat penetration. The Rim Fire BAER Soil Report (Rust et al. 

2013) details the effects of the fire on soils.

Mechanical Disturbance

Mechanical equipment used in forest management activities compresses the soil by reducing pore 

size. This reduction in the pore space and the resulting increase in bulk density reduces the water 

holding capacity and gas exchange of soils. Compaction also increases the strength of soils restricting 

the ability of roots to penetrate the soil matrix. Post-fire field surveys revealed the most severe

compaction in the Josephine and Holland soils on benched skid trails and legacy temporary roads and 

on displaced surface loam soils exposing the greater clay subsoil. In most units, the extensive 

skidding network resulted from past timber sales. Most skid trails sampled revealed high levels of 

compaction with little recovery. Within these skid trail prisms, soil cover generally is similar to the 

surrounding areas. Vegetation growing on these skid trails is either very stunted or non-existent 

reflecting a reduction of soil porosity and displacement of the soil organic material. Table 3.11-5 

displays a summary of existing conditions within the maximum extent of activities, which includes all 

alternatives. The existing conditions include the effects from past fire and mechanical disturbance.

Table 3.11-5 Summary of existing condition of indicators

Indicator Total Percent # Indicator Metric

1 Soil Stability, Erosion Average Erosion Rate (tons/acre)1 3.11

1 Soil Stability, Erosion Hazard Rating Greater than Moderate Rating (acres) 10,725 23

1 Soil Cover Area with less than 50 percent cover (acres) 25,322 60

2 Surface Organic Material Area with less than 50 percent cover (acres) 28,870 61

3 Soil Organic Matter2

4 Soil Porosity2

1 Erosion rates for unburned areas tend to be 0.5 tons/acre or less.

2 Currently being evaluated. 

Environmental Consequences

All mechanical harvest operations will adhere to S&Gs set forth in the timber sale administration 

handbook (FSH 2409.15) and the BMPs as delineated in the Region 5 Amendment to the Forest 

Service Water Quality Management Handbook (USDA 2011a) and the National Best Management 

Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands (USDA 2012). Timber 

sale contracts contain many standard provisions that help ensure protection of soil and water 

resources. These include provisions for an erosion control plan, road maintenance, skid trail spacing, 

and restrictions for wet weather operation. 

The analysis of effects is limited to the proposed activities that are expected to change the values of 

the indicators as compared to the existing condition. Although many unknowns exist both in existing 

conditions and the intensity of the activities on a site specific area, conservative estimates were made 

which will likely overestimate the effects of the activities. By comparing the effects to threshold 

values, this analysis informs the decision maker of the relative risk each alternative has to the 

threshold values established in management direction. Road construction and rock quarry work will

permanently remove those areas from soil productivity. Management direction is to analyze for 

impacts to soils for areas of soil function. Due to implementation of BMPs those activities are 

expected to result in effects that are limited in extent to those specific locations and are therefore not 

expected to significantly impact soil productivity in the project area. Activities analyzed include 

210
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

tractor logging, skyline logging, helicopter logging, road work, prescribed fire, watershed treatments, 

hazard tree removal along roads and Best Management Practices. 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indicator 1: Soil Stability and Effective Soil Cover

The effects of soil stability and effective soil cover are directly related and analyzed together. 

Erosional processes, which are the direct measures of soil stability, are primarily changed by 

management activities when those activities affect soil cover and porosity. While it is not feasible to 

predict the soil cover following treatments for every location, general assumptions can be made in 

regards to the departure of soil cover from pre-existing levels based on proposed activities. Activities 

expected to affect soil stability and cover include harvest activities and fuels treatments.

The existing condition of soil stability and soil cover are above threshold values. The proposed 

activities of Alternative 1 will do little to change this indicator. There will be slight increases in soil 

cover due to activity fuels, but not enough of an increase in cover values (less than 50 percent) is 

expected where the Rim Fire resulted in deficiencies due to high vegetation severity. Erosion rates 

and Erosion Hazard Ratings will also remain little changed.

Shakesby et al. (1996) found that logging residue can decrease erosion and retain sediment in postfire 

logged sites. In general, harvest activities are expected to generate ground cover from both slash and 

breakage. However, there is conflicting research, indicating some areas may not have sufficient soil

cover post treatment. Studies directly measuring the change in soil cover following salvage activities 

are limited; studies of fuel increases however can serve as a reasonable proxy. McIver and Ottmar 

(2007) found that post-fire logging in an Oregon Ponderosa pine forest increased the amount of 

material less than 3 inches diameter to 2.8 tons/acre compared to 0.6 tons/acre in burned but 

unsalvaged stands. Donato et al. (2006) found that fine woody material increased above pre-fire 

levels following salvage logging of the 2002 Biscuit Fire. Although these studies reported material in 

weight as opposed to percentage ground cover, they support the idea that logging activities generate 

fine material that translates into soil cover. However, Chase (2006) found that both tractor logging 

and cable logging increased the amount of bare soil compared to burned and unlogged control plots. 

The amount of bare soil decreased with helicopter logging. Chapter 3.05 (Fire and Fuels) also 

discusses the material expected to be left after salvage operations.

Fuel treatments are also expected to affect the amount of soil cover. Machine-piling with a rake- fitted 

dozer followed by burning is expected to reduce soil cover to less than 20 tons per acre, creating areas 

where soil cover may go below threshold values. Machine-piling is not intended to reduce the fine 

fuels in contact with the ground, but because of “sweeping” of the surface by the larger targeted 

material, some surface cover will likely be displaced to piles. Monitoring by project administrators is 

expected to keep this displacement to a minimum. Pile-burning will have an impact on soil cover at 

the location of the pile. Fuel staff target 80 percent consumption of material in a pile, which will

likely leave less than 50 percent ground cover in that location. Burn piles will be dispersed throughout 

a unit and typically burn in a mosaic. The area extent of the piles is unknown; however it is expected 

that pile burning along with other soil disturbing activities will occupy less than 15 percent of a unit 

to conform to Forest Plan Standard and Guidelines.

A WEPP analysis was used to predict hillslope erosion. Skid trails and cable corridors are compacted 

surfaces with reduced ground cover that concentrate water and increase rill and gully erosion at water 

outlets or along the compacted surfaces. Proper installation of BMPs on skid trails will help minimize 

the increased sediment production due to salvage logging (Chase 2006). Decompacting of primary 

and secondary skid trails to increase infiltration and surface roughness along with implementation of 

211
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Soils National Forest

BMPs is expected to minimize the erosion and sedimentation related to the concentration of hillslope 

water flow caused by skidding.

Soil cover and erosion were evaluated both at the area extent of the proposed salvage treatments and 

on a per unit basis. About 59 percent of the proposed action area currently has soil cover of less than 

50 percent and 304 units are currently identified as likely to have less than 50 percent cover in more

than 15 percent of the area. It is not expected that these values will change significantly as a result of 

proposed activities. Although effective soil cover is expected to increase in areas of high vegetation 

burn severity, it is unlikely that activity fuels will add enough soil cover to increase values above the 

50 percent threshold in these areas. In the low and moderate vegetation burn severity, harvest and 

fuels activity are not likely to drop soil cover values below the 50 percent threshold since only 

activity generated material is treated during timber sale implementation

Table 3.11-6 shows modeling of the proposed activities which result in erosion rates dropping slightly 

for the project area from 3.1 tons per acre to 3.0 tons per acre, while the number of units where 

erosion rates exceeded acceptable soil loss increased slightly from 178 to 181. This increase is likely 

due to the decrease in cover values on steep slopes that are proposed for helicopter or skyline logging. 

EHR rates also will change little as a result of proposed activities. The number of units where the 

EHR exceeds ‘Moderate’ in over 15 percent of the unit stayed unchanged at 188 units. The small 

differences in erosion rates and the lack of change in EHR ratings are considered insignificant, but it 

is likely that erosion will increase as a result of the proposed action.

The use and development of temporary roads is part of the connected action to timber harvest that is 

expected to affect both soil cover and soil stability. The temporary roads were not considered in the 

unit-by-unit analysis and are addressed separately. About 4 miles of temporary roads will be 

constructed and 18 miles of existing temporary roads will be used. Ten of those 18 miles of existing 

temporary roads will be obliterated. It is expected that temporary roads will be deficient in ground 

cover, however, subsoiling, recontouring, installation of waterbars, and application of ground cover 

will reduce the risk of erosion. 

In summary, there is much uncertainty regarding the effects proposed activities will have on soil

cover and erosion. Research on post-fire logging resulting in erosion is limited (McIver and Starr, 

2001) and is not consistent. The lack of change from current conditions based on proposed activities 

did not show a substantial decrease or increase in EHR or erosion in the models used for this analysis. 

Although erosion may increase as a result of salvage activities, the magnitude, as Chou (1994) 

suggests is likely overwhelmed by the erosion and sedimentation resulting from the fire itself. What is 

clear from both research and modeling is that most of the analysis area will remain below minimum 

threshold values for effective soil cover and will continue to exceed soil stability thresholds. 

Skid trails and cable rows provide a conduit for rill erosion formation thereby increasing the amount 

of erosion and sediment (Chase 2006). Management requirements are incorporated into the proposed 

action to mitigate the effects of logging effects on erosion and soil cover. Also, most temporary roads 

will be obliterated (only those currently operating under other special uses will remain). Madej (2001) 

found that the activities proposed for restoration of skid trails, landings and temporary roads reduced 

sediment and runoff significantly when applied to closing forest roads. 

Indicator 2: Surface Organic Matter

Proposed activities expected to affect surface organic matter include hauling, temporary road 

construction and prescribed burning. Harvest activities including the use of tracked feller-buncher 

type equipment will affect the surface organic matter with localized surface displacement, but will not 

have a detrimental soil effect on the stands where those activities occur. Long-term surface organic 

matter is more likely to occur as a result of skidding material to landings and cable yarding material 

along cable corridors. Removal of the material will be highest closer to landings and on portions of 

the cable corridors that do not support a fully suspended load. Fresh deposits of broken branches and 

212
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

needle cast will occur, but this accumulation is expected to be thin with surface coverage below 

threshold standards. 

Long-term recovery of the soil organic material in high soil burn severity areas may be affected by 

the removal of the overstory. With the fine organic material and needles consumed in high severity 

vegetation burn areas, surface organic matter recovery depends on snag recruitment and needle fall to 

the soil surface. During field surveys, those portions of the analysis area with the highest depletion of 

surface organic material correlate with thick stands of burned trees smaller than the 16 inch diameter 

at breast height that will not be removed. Therefore, material is likely to remain to decompose and 

rebuild soil organic layers over time. 

Piling of fuels is not expected to significantly affect surface soil organic matter; however, piling will

reduce the amount of material that could contribute to future surface organic matter. Tractor-piling 

with a rake is likely to cause limited disturbance and displacement of the organic soil layers as target 

material sweeps the soil surface. The burning of piles is expected to generate enough heat to consume 

all soil organic layers although the extent is expected to be much lower than the threshold of 

disturbance of 15 percent extent.

Indicator 3: Soil Organic Matter

Displacement is the removal of surface layers of the mineral soil generally by mechanical means. All 

salvage activities have the potential to substantially displace the SOM. Feller-buncher activity will 

cause limited displacement. Displacement from harvesters is generally not considered detrimental 

displacement because the effects are localized. In ground based mechanical harvest units higher levels 

of displacement are likely to occur with skidding operations. Skidder tracks along with dragging of 

trees digs into the mineral soil surface and wedges the surface to the side. This creates berms and 

piles along the edges of skid trails. Skyline units are expected to have displacement along portions of 

the corridors, with higher displacement levels occurring closer to the landings. The most severe 

displacement is expected to occur on steeper temporary roads and skid trails. The steeper the slope on 

both temporary roads and skid trails, the more severe the displacement is likely to be due to cutbanking. Displacement results in the removal of nutrient rich loamy material exposing the high clay 

content subsurface. This subsurface is deficient in soil nutrients, reduces infiltration, and has higher 

natural soil strength impeding root penetration. Fox et al. (1989) found displacement caused by 

windrowing decreased forest productivity dramatically. Displacement can also lead to channelized 

flow from entrainment between berms, reduced infiltration, reduced surface roughness, and in the 

case of roads, high levels of compaction. While local displacement damages soil function, the 

activities resulting in negative effects will not exceed 15 percent of the area and impacts are not 

expected to be significant.

The other mechanism of displacement involves heat penetration into the mineral soil sufficient 

enough to char or volatize the organic compounds that form SOM. The diminishment of SOM caused 

by the Rim Fire dominates the existing condition; however, pile and jackpot burning is expected to 

produce enough heat where fuel loads exceed 20 tons/acre to consume SOM within the footprint of 

the piles. The extent and burn severity is unknown and is dependent on the size of the piles and 

distribution of fuels. The impact will be limited to the pile locations and small areas of high 

concentrations and therefore is not expected to be significant.

The development of skid trails will have the largest impact on SOM, but management requirements 

will mitigate the effects. It is clear from ocular review of LiDAR, there are units with little to no 

displacement and some units where the existing condition exceeds the 15 percent threshold for 

disturbance. Existing skid trails will be reused where practical. For many of the tractor units, existing 

skid trails are expected to be adequate for salvage harvest and new skid trail development will be 

unnecessary or minimal. Displacement caused by new skid trails and temporary road construction 

will be considered a long-term disturbance as no mitigations to replace displaced SOM are planned. 

213
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Soils National Forest

SOM will recover regardless of management activities in the long-term. SOM is expected to recover 

more rapidly in areas where SOM was displaced by fire, because nutrient cycling of ash and rapid 

vegetation regrowth of root dense, nitrogen-fixing shrubs will facilitate deposition of organic matter 

by decomposing roots and mineralization of decaying material in the soil. On soils where SOM will

be impacted by mechanical activities, the recovery is expected to be slower because residual nutrients 

of the fire will be displaced and SOM replenishing vegetation will be stunted where compaction 

occurs. 

Indicator 4: Soil Porosity

Changes in porosity occur both by the reduction of soil pore space by force applied to the soil surface 

(compaction) and the filling of pores by soil and ash material (soil sealing). Heavy equipment use is 

expected to increase compaction within treated areas. For this project, the dominant soil is rated as 

high compaction hazard primarily because of the increasing clay at depth. Within tractor units, 

compaction is expected to increase depending on the number of passes and the weight of the machine. 

Feller-buncher harvesting equipment is considered low ground-pressure equipment and typically does 

not travel the same location more than twice. Compaction is therefore expected to be slight where 

mechanical harvesting occurs. 

Skidding operations, however, will detrimentally compact the soil. Williamson and Neilson (2000) 

found that most maximum compaction occurs after 3 passes of log-laden equipment. Landings are 

areas of high compaction because they support skidding equipment, processors, and log trucks but all 

landings will be deep tilled after use on this project. Management requirements confine the extent of 

detrimental disturbance from skid trail patterns to less than 15 percent of a unit. However, it is likely 

that many units will exceed 15 percent disturbance because of this existing condition. Management 

requirements, such as subsoiling, substantially decrease the negative effects of compaction. Powers 

(2002) observed that subsoiling significantly improved the porosity of soils. Subsoiling temporary 

roads, landings and skid trails will limit the extent and duration of effects in these areas. Detrimental 

disturbance is expected to be minimal in helicopter units. The risk of compaction will be increased in 

those sky line and helicopter units where feller-buncher type harvesters assist handfallers in removing 

trees. In these units where no skid trails will be used, detrimental compaction is not expected outside 

cable corridors.

Although the effects of soil sealing resulting from the fire may be reduced before implementation 

starts, it is likely that soil surface disturbance through mechanical harvest activities will further reduce 

the effects of soil sealing by exposing more developed soil structure. Compacted road surfaces reduce

infiltration to near zero. Forest roads are the largest source of erosion. This is exacerbated in a burned 

environment because the capacity of the landscape to moderate flow and trap sediment is greatly 

reduced (Peterson et al. 2009). The extent of new and temporary road construction is limited, and 

while compaction of these surfaces is severe, the limited extent of activities is not expected to result 

in significant impacts to forest productivity. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The Rim Fire resulted in significant impacts to soils within the analysis area including increases in 

erosion potential, loss of soil cover, loss of soil organic matter and reduction in soil porosity from soil 

sealing. With no other actions planned (Appendix B) within the Rim Recovery soil analysis area, the 

cumulative effects for Alternative 1 are the same as the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 1. 

The cumulative effect of Alternative 1 is expected to slightly improve soil cover from activity fuels 

and will increase the porosity in existing skid trails, landings, and abandoned roads identified for use 

as temporary roads in the project; however in general the activities are not expected to substantially 

improve the soil indicators within the analysis area. 

214
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indicator 1: Soil Stability and Effective Soil Cover

Under Alternative 2, only indirect effects to soils occur. Soil cover for erosion protection will be 

limited to natural rates of accumulation. In areas of lower burn severity, needlecast from dead tree 

canopies will continue to accumulate as ground cover at natural rates. Soil stability will remain 

reduced and erosion risk will remain elevated in the short term, for 1 to 3 years, until ground cover 

and vegetation are reestablished. Higher burn severity areas currently lacking effective soil cover will

recover more slowly because woody material will be deposited naturally at a slower rate. Where the 

potential for soil cover to be added through needlecast is low, soil cover in the short term will mainly 

be added as dead trees shed branches and fall. Effective soil cover will only be fully reestablished 

after surface vegetation recovers. This will expose the soil to higher erosion potential over the next 3

to 5 years. Under this alternative, WSAs will not receive additional ground cover as proposed in 

Alternatives 3 and 4 and therefore the analysis area will not realize a reduction in erosion and 

sediment in areas identified as higher risk for sedimentation and erosion. Areas will have continued 

accelerated erosion for 3 to 5 years until soils stabilize and vegetation cover returns. 

Indicator 2: Surface Organic Matter

The Fuels Report (project record) states that smaller diameter class snags will fall within the fire 

perimeter at the highest rate in the first ten years. Larger snags will persist for relatively longer time 

periods, but most snags will be expected to fall within 20 years post-fire (Hood, Chuck and Smith 

2007). Within 10 years, surface fuels are projected to be 78 tons per acre. Within 30 years, surface 

fuels are projected to average 98 tons per acre due to dead trees falling over (Fuels Report). Richie 

(2013) showed that 10 years after the Black Mountain Fire, 80 percent of the basal area was on the 

ground. These predicted fuel loading levels pose a risk to soil productivity if reburned in a subsequent 

wildfire. The fuel loadings predicted exceed the levels that cause severe soil heating in a fire (Brown 

et al. 2003). While it is not possible to accurately predict when a fire will reburn, predicted fuel 

loadings in Alternative 2 will create an elevated fire hazard leading to excessive soil heating damage. 

One study, in adjacent Yosemite National Park, examined the effects of multiple fires on vegetation 

in unlogged areas. Areas of high severity were more likely to burn with an increased area of high 

severity again in future fires, partly because of a post-fire vegetation shift from forest to brush or 

chaparral (Wagtendonk 2012). Areas that burned at low or moderate burn severity initially and 

maintained forest conditions were more likely to burn at low or moderate burn severity in later fires. 

Other studies show that if salvaged logged areas reburn, they may have higher overall vegetation burn 

severity and fire effects than areas that were unlogged (Fraver et al. 2011; Thompson 2007). Most 

studies on this topic analyze the vegetation effects of reburn. There are fewer studies that directly 

compare soil effects and associated fire risk or hazard in unlogged and salvage logged areas, therefore 

impacts to soils in this scenario are less clear. It is expected that fuel loading in contact with the soil 

surface is likely to be the most important variable in determining risk of fire damage to the soil during 

a reburn and this Alternative will provide far more down woody material than treated stands. 

Indicator 3: Soil Organic Matter

Without the proposed management requirements associated with soil ground cover in WSAs and 

other areas with elevated erosion rates, soil organic matter could be lost through surface erosion until 

soils stabilize. In lower burn severity areas, less soil organic matter will be lost due to erosion without 

alteration by active management, and in the long-term it will develop at natural rates. With increased 

fuel loadings described under indicator 2, it is possible that soil heating effects could increase in 

future fires. High surface temperatures, especially from burning downed logs, raise soil temperatures, 

resulting in increased volatilization of soil organic matter. Prolonged heating under burning logs will

lead to lethal temperatures of greater than 122°F for fungi and 212°F (Boyer and Dell, 1980) for 

215
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Soils National Forest

nitrifying bacteria at greater soil depths. The loss of SOM is probably the most serious concern in 

terms of long-term soil effects. SOM dynamics and nutrient cycling will continue to recover 

naturally, once vegetation becomes re-established.

Indicator 4: Soil Porosity 

Existing levels of compaction will not be improved or changed. Existing compaction on abandoned 

roads and skid trails will remain until natural processes restore soil porosity. Additional compaction 

will not occur; however, areas with compacted, benched-in skid trails will not be subsoiled and are 

likely to remain compacted for decades.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

With no other actions planned (Appendix B) within the Rim Recovery soil analysis area, the 

cumulative effects for Alternative 2 are the same as the indirect effects of Alternative 2. The 

cumulative effect of Alternative 2 is not expected to improve soil cover or soil porosity. 

Alternative 3 

While Alternative 3 include less salvage acres, the area of impact is increased through proposed 

biomass removal. Impacts of biomass removal will result in similar soil effects, as machinery used to 

do the activities are the same. The proposed temporary road use increases by 18.3 miles while new 

road construction drops from 5.4 miles to 1 mile. The most substantial change to Alternative 3 

affecting the soil resource is the 3,536 acres of watershed treatments providing for additional cover if 

post-activity soil cover is not greater than 50 percent in WSAs. 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indicator 1: Soil Stability and Effective Soil Cover

The effects of activities to soil stability and effective soil cover from salvage activities and road work 

activities would be similar to Alternative 1. The addition of soil cover in the WSAs improves the soil 

stability and the amount of effective soil cover substantially due to the targeted application of soil 

cover in areas identified as most erodible and lacking in soil cover. Table 3.11-6 displays the modeled 

erosion rate decreases from the existing 3.1 tons per acre per year down to 2.2 tons per acre per year 

for Alternative 3. The number of units where the average unit erosion rates exceeded T-Factor 

similarly will decrease when compared to the existing condition from 194 to 136 units. 

Improvement in effective soil cover is also expected to increase, but will not be as considerable as the 

erosion rate reduction. This is due to cover being added only in the highest potential erosion rate

areas. Areas deficient in soil cover on gentle slopes are expected to remain deficient in soil cover until 

it recovers naturally over time. The area of Alternative 3 that is expected to have less than 50 percent

soil cover will decrease as a result of proposed activities from nearly 60 percent to 53 percent. The 

number of units where the amount of soil cover is less than 50 percent in at least 15 percent of the 

unit is expected to decrease from 335 to 329 units. 

The amount of area and number of units that are a ‘Moderate’ EHR rating or less improved with the 

modeled additions of soil cover, but not as dramatically as improvements in modeled erosion rates 

using WEPP. The area of EHR ratings above ‘Moderate’ decreased by 1 percent from 22 percent to 

21 percent and the number of units that have more than 15 percent of the unit area with a rating of 

‘High’ or ‘Very High’ decreased from 209 units to 203 units. Where EHR rating is improved from 

‘Very High’ to ‘High’ it is still considered above thresholds set by management direction. Although 

assumptions are factored into all modeling, the improvement of erosion rates, EHR, and soil cover is 

substantial enough to conclude the proposed activities in Alternative 3 will decrease erosion and 

increase cover sufficiently that they will have a net benefit to the analysis area.

216
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Indicator 2: Surface Organic Matter

The effects to surface fine organic matter will be the same as Alternative 1. The material added to the 

surface as a result of WSA treatments will not add to the surface organic matter. This material is 

undecomposed coarser material derived from non-commercial stems and will only cover 50 percent

of the soil. Treatments will not add appreciably to soil productivity. 

Indicator 3: Soil Organic Matter

Same as Alternative 1. 

Indicator 4: Soil Porosity

The effects to soil porosity will be similar to what is described for Alternative 1. The additional 

treatment will increase the amount of compaction within the analysis area. Additional areas of soil 

disturbance will not be expected to increase the percent of compaction in any treated areas above the 

amount expected with Alternative 1. Soil disturbance within Alternative 3 will be reduced in areas 

where treatment proposed in Alternative 1 does not occur. However, existing compaction on skid 

trails and landings within untreated areas will also persist.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1, except the addition of organic cover for watershed treatments would improve 

soil cover and reduce erosion rates as described in the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3. 

Alternative 4 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indicator 1: Soil Stability and Effective Soil Cover

Table 3.11-6 shows the modeled erosion rate for Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3 with a 

decrease from 3.0 tons per acre per year down to 2.2 tons per acre per year. On a unit-by-unit basis, 

the number of units where the average unit erosion rates exceeded T-Factor similarly decreased over 

the existing condition from 186 units to 131 units. The area of Alternative 4 that has less than 50

percent soil cover decreases from nearly 59 percent to 52 percent. The number of units where the 

amount of soil cover is less than 50 percent in at least 15 percent of the unit decreases from 317 to 

311 units. The amount of area and number of units at a ‘Moderate’ EHR rating or less increased, but 

improvements from added soil cover for EHR were not as dramatic as for modeled erosion rates with 

WEPP. The area of EHR ratings above ‘Moderate’ decreased by 2 percent from 22 percent to 20

percent and the number of units that are expected to have more than 15 percent of the unit area with a 

rating of ‘High’ or ‘Very High’ improved from 197 units to 191 units which is the same change in the 

number of units as Alternative 3. 

Indicator 2: Surface Organic Matter

Same as Alternative 3. 

Indicator 3: Soil Organic Matter

Same as Alternative 3. 

Indicator 4: Soil Porosity 

The effects to soil porosity will be similar to that described for Alternative 3. Soil disturbance within 

Alternative 4 will be reduced in areas where treatment is proposed in Alternative 3 does not occur. 

However, existing compaction on skid trails and landings within untreated areas will persist. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1, except the addition of organic cover for watershed treatments would improve 

soil cover and reduce erosion rates as described in the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 4. 

217
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Soils National Forest

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

Table 3.11-6 provides a summary of the effects across all alternatives for Indicators 1 and 2. 

Indicators 3 and 4 are dependent on analysis of LiDAR by the Remote Sensing Lab and not yet 

complete. For Indicators 3 and 4, the effects of each alternative are compared qualitatively. Indicators 

for erosion, soil cover, fine organic material, and soil organic material exceed threshold values used 

in the analysis. 

Indicator 1: Soil Stability and Effective Soil Cover

Alternatives 1 and 2 are similar in the effects to soil stability. High erosion rates and low cover values 

will remain for both alternatives; however, slight improvements to average erosion rates occur in 

Alternative 1 due to the addition of activity fuels. Conversely, the number of units where the erosion 

rates exceed acceptable soil loss increases in Alternative 1 due to the decrease in soil cover in areas 

that have near 100 percent soil cover in the existing condition. Because of the addition of 50 percent

cover prescribed in the WSA units, Alternatives 3 and 4 show marked improvement in cover values, 

EHR and erosion rates. The treatments are prescribed in those areas where deficiencies in soil 

stability pose the greatest risk to watershed resources.

Indicator 2: Surface Organic Matter

Little change is expected in Surface Organic Matter between the four alternatives.

Indicator 3: Soil Organic Matter

Little change is expected in Soil Organic Matter between the four alternatives.

Indicator 4: Soil Porosity

The overall porosity for Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 is expected to improve due to implementing the 

management requirement to subsoil primary skid trails and temporary road prisms situated on existing 

disturbance. The soil supporting most of the existing skid trails within the proposed units have 

reduced porosity exceeding threshold values. Porosity decreases in areas off of skid trails may also 

occur, but the effect is expected to be limited. Also, mechanical treatment in the action alternatives 

may increase the porosity by decreasing the effects of soil sealing. Porosity does not change under 

Alternative 2. 

Table 3.11-6 Summary of Indicators by Alternative

Indicators Alternative 1

(357 units + HT)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3

(368 units + HT)

Alternative 4

(350units + HT)

# Indicator Metric Existing Post Existing Post Existing Post Existing Post

1 Soil Stability, 

Erosion

Average Erosion Rate (tons/acre) 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.2 3.0 2.2

Number of units exceeding acceptable 

soil loss

178 181 194 136 186 131

1 Soil Stability, 

Erosion 

Hazard Rating

Number of units with EHR greater than 

Moderate rating in greater than 50 

percent of unit

188 188 209 203 197 191

Percent area greater than Moderate 

Rating

23 23 23 23 22 20 22 20

1 Soil Cover Number of units with more than 50 

percent of unit having less than 50 

percent soil cover

304 304 335 329 317 311

Percent area with less than 50 percent 

cover

58.9 58.9 60.0 60.0 59.5 52.8 58.7 51.5

2 Surface 

Organic 

Material

Percent area with less than 50 percent 

cover of surface organic material

61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61

HT=Hazard Tree Removal (Roadsides)

218
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

3.12 SPECIAL AREAS

This section describes the affected environment and the environmental consequences for Special 

Areas. For the purposes of this project, Special Areas are Forest Plan management area land 

allocations within or adjacent to the Rim Fire perimeter that include: Special Interest Areas (SIAs); 

Wild and Scenic Rivers and Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers (Wild and Scenic Rivers); and, 

Wilderness (USDA 2010a).

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction

The Forest Plan Compliance (project record) document identifies the Forest Plan S&Gs that 

specifically apply to this project and related information about compliance with the Forest Plan.

Special Interest Areas

Three SIAs are located within the Rim Fire perimeter: Bourland Creek Trestle Historic Area; Pacific 

Madrone Botanic Area; and, Jawbone Falls Heritage Area. The Rim Recovery project does not 

include treatment units within or adjacent to the Bourland Creek Trestle SIA; therefore, that SIA is 

excluded from further analysis. Forest Plan direction for SIAs is to protect values, make educational 

opportunities available and preserve the integrity of the special interest feature for which the areas 

were established (USDA 2010a, p. 129). Special cutting methods will be used to salvage mortality or 

improve the quality of resources other than the timber resource (p. 133). 

Wild and Scenic Rivers

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (82 Stat. 906, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287) establishes the 

National Wild and Scenic River System and establishes policy for managing designated rivers. Under 

the Act, designated rivers “shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their 

immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future 

generations” (16 USC 1271). Section 10(a) states: each component of the national wild and scenic 

rivers system shall be administered in such manner as to protect and enhance7

 the values which 

caused it to be included in said system without, insofar as is consistent therewith, limiting other uses 

that do not substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values. Section 12(a) states: 

particular attention shall be given to scheduled timber harvesting, road construction, and similar 

activities which might be contrary to the purposes of this Act.

FSH 1909.12, Chapter 8 includes direction to manage selected river corridors to preserve their

notable values or features as part of, or for eventual inclusion in, the National Wild and Scenic River 

System. 

Forest Plan direction for Wild and Scenic Rivers is to protect and enhance Proposed Wild and Scenic 

River characteristics and manage the same as designated Wild and Scenic Rivers (USDA 2010a, p. 

117). Designated and proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers, along with immediate environments, will be 

managed to preserve their free flowing condition and protect their outstandingly remarkable values 

(p. 111). The Forest Plan allocates Wild classification segments to Primitive or Semi-Primitive NonMotorized ROS; and, Scenic and Recreational classification segments to Roaded Natural ROS (p. 

114). Special cutting methods will be used to improve the quality of Wild and Scenic River resources 

(p. 116). 

Wilderness

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (public Law 88-577) and the 132 subsequent laws designating 

Wilderness contain numerous statutory provisions addressing management of Wilderness. It 

7 The Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council interprets Protect as elimination of adverse impacts and Enhance as 

improvement in conditions (IWSRCC 2002).

219

 
Chapter 3.12 Stanislaus

Special Areas National Forest

establishes a National Wilderness Preservation System of federal Lands where the earth and its 

community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. 

Several sections of FSM 2320 provide management direction for Wilderness:

 Wilderness values shall dominate over all other considerations except where limited by the 

Wilderness Act, subsequent legislation, or regulations (FSM 2320.3). 

 Do not maintain buffer strips of undeveloped wild land to provide an informal extension of 

Wilderness. Do not maintain internal buffer zones that degrade Wilderness values (FSM 2320.5). 

 Manage each Wilderness as a total unit and coordinate management direction when they cross 

other administrative boundaries (FSM 2320.5). 

 Where a choice must be made between Wilderness values and visitor or any other activity, 

preserving the Wilderness resource is the overriding activity (FSM 2320.6). 

 Display the relationship and coordination between the Wilderness and activities present in the 

Wilderness, as well as activities outside of the Wilderness that affect the management of 

Wilderness (FSM 2322.03). 

 Protect air quality and related values, including visibility, on Wilderness land designated class I 

by the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977 (FSM 2323.61). 

Forest Plan direction for Wilderness is to: maximize the quality and naturalness of the Wilderness 

environment; minimize impacts to the Wilderness resource while allowing it to be used for primitive 

recreation and preserving scenic, scientific, educational and historical values; all NFS lands within 

Congressionally designated Wilderness and areas recommended for Wilderness will be managed in 

accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 USC 1131-1136) as amended (USDA 2010a, p. 67). 

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Special Areas

Special Interest Areas

 The Rim Recovery project will not affect the Bourland Creek Trestle SIA because it is not located 

within or adjacent to any proposed treatment units. 

 Salvage and fuels reduction in the Pacific Madrone SIA would be conducted in such a way that 

project activities would not damage the integrity of the unique botanical features, the madrone 

trees, or seedlings and saplings.

 Salvage and roadside hazard trees through mechanical, cable and helicopter harvest methods 

would have no adverse effect to the Jawbone Falls SIA. 

 Use of existing breaches within linear sites, such as historic railroad grades and trails, would 

cause no adverse effect to the Jawbone Falls SIA. 

 Use of existing and development of new water sources are not anticipated to affect the Jawbone 

Falls SIA. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers

 For the purpose of this analysis, Wild and Scenic River values or ORVs are interchangeable. 

ORVs are specific to each river segment and may include cultural, ecologic, fish, geologic, 

historic, scenic, recreation, wildlife or other special and unique features (USDA 1991c). 

 Proposed treatments will not affect the free flowing conditions of any Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

 Management Requirements and Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in Chapter 2.02 and 

Chapter 2.03 would protect the water quality of the rivers. 

 Natural events such as landslides, downed dead trees and other hillside material falling into river 

corridors could block free flowing river or river segments. These natural events are unpredictable 

and not associated with project activity.

220
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

 Fire activity in the Tuolumne River canyon will be ongoing and is part of the evolution of the 

ecosystem. Scenery and other outstanding remarkable values (ORVs) are forever changing in this 

system with vegetative growth, fire, and regrowth. 

Wilderness

 Due to stringent operating specifications within timber sale contracts there is an expectation that 

dust associated with the removal of logs from the Forest (hauling) would be minimal. This 

includes operations immediately adjacent to the Wilderness.

 For the purposes of this project, the generic term Wilderness includes the Emigrant Wilderness 

and the Yosemite Wilderness.

 Yosemite National Park plans to remove hazard trees adjacent to roads.

 Due to the anticipated heavy logging traffic on Cherry Creek Road and other routes that access 

Kibbie Ridge and Lake Eleanor, those routes would be closed to public use for safety until the 

project is completed or roadside hazard trees abated.

 No helicopter flights will occur over the Emigrant Wilderness or Yosemite Wilderness.

 Since no proposed treatments occur in Wilderness, the alternatives will not affect the Wilderness 

characteristics for Untrammeled, Undeveloped, Natural, or Special Features and Values. 

Data Sources

Special Interest Areas

 GIS shapefiles with the location of the Pacific Madrone SIA. 

 GIS Layers of the Stanislaus National Forest Basemap 2014. 

 2009 GIS Ortho Photo layers. 

 Existing information from consultation with Indian Tribes, cultural resource records, historic 

archives, maps, and GIS spatial layers were used.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

 Stanislaus National Forest Wild and Scenic River Study (USDA 1991) 

 Tuolumne River Wild and Scenic Management Plan (USDA 1988) 

 Clavey River Ecosystem Project: Clavey River Watershed Assessment (USDA 2008)

 GIS

 Motorized Travel Management EIS (USDA 2009) 

Wilderness

 Stanislaus GIS Library

Special Areas Indicators

Special Interest Areas

 Special Interest Area Values: SIA values are specific to each SIA and may include unique 

botanic, cultural, geologic, scenic, historic and memorial features.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

 Wild and Scenic River Values: For a river to be eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation 

it must be free-flowing and, with its adjacent land area, must possess one or more outstandingly 

remarkable values (47 Federal Register 173, September 7, 1982; p. 39454-39461). For the 

purpose of this analysis, Wild and Scenic River Values and Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

(ORVs) are interchangeable. ORVs are specific to each river segment any may include cultural, 

ecologic, fish, geologic, historic, scenic, recreation, wildlife or other features (USDA 1991c). 

221
Chapter 3.12 Stanislaus

Special Areas National Forest

Wilderness

 Wilderness Characteristics: Since no proposed treatments occur in Wilderness, the alternatives 

will not affect the Wilderness characteristics for Untrammeled, Undeveloped, Natural, or Special 

Features and Values (Wilderness Assumptions). The remaining principal Wilderness 

characteristic described in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 (USDA 2007a) is:

- Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: the area 

provides solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation including a wide range of 

experiential opportunities such as: physical and mental challenge, adventure and selfreliance, feelings of solitude, isolation, self-awareness and inspiration. Solitude is the 

opportunity to experience isolation from sights, sounds, and the presence of others from the 

developments and evidence of humans. The opportunity to experience isolation from the 

evidence of humans, to feel a part of nature, to have a vastness of scale, and a degree of 

challenge and risk while using outdoor skills are measures of primitive and unconfined 

recreation.

Special Areas Methodology by Action

Special Interest Areas

 A field visit revealed that Pacific madrone trees in the SIA survived the Rim Fire.

 Analysis of effects to Pacific madrone trees from activities proposed in the Rim Recovery project 

utilized existing data acquired primarily through past site monitoring and anecdotal information 

from botanists from other Forests. 

 Utilizing previous archaeological inventories from past projects that meet current survey 

standards (1986 to present); nearly 53 percent of the proposed treatment areas were eliminated 

from further inventory. A strategy to intensively survey (15 to 30 meter interval spacing) the 

remaining treatment areas is consistent with the Rim PA. 

 The timeframe for this analysis is three years, an appropriate temporal boundary because the 

activities associated with this project should be completed within three years. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers

 The geographic extent of this analysis for direct and indirect effects is river corridor boundary, 

one-quarter-mile on either side of the high water mark of the rivers. 

 The analysis for cumulative effects includes those effects within the river corridor and, given that 

nearly the entire project area drains to these rivers, cumulative effects of this project occur at the 

watershed scale. Chapter 3.14 (Watershed) displays potential cumulative watershed effects (e.g., 

sedimentation and other impacts to water quality).

 The analysis of each alternative considers whether the activities would alter ORVs of the 

associated river segments.

 The short-term timeframe for this analysis is three years, an appropriate temporal boundary 

because the activities associated with this project should be completed within three years. 

 The long-term timeframe for this analysis is ten years, an appropriate temporal boundary which 

allows effects of completed activities associated with this project to be established.

Wilderness

 The geographic extent of this analysis is the Wilderness within one half mile of project activities. 

Rim Recovery project activities would occur on NFS land adjacent to the Wilderness. No project 

activities are planned in the Emigrant Wilderness. Yosemite National Park manages the Yosemite 

Wilderness. This unit of spatial analysis for determining cumulative effects is appropriate.

 The timeframe for this analysis is three years, an appropriate temporal boundary because the 

activities associated with this project should be completed within three years. 

222
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Special Interest Areas: Affected Environment

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Jawbone Falls Heritage Area

The Jawbone Falls SIA was established in 2000. Consisting of 47 acres, the area was identified by the 

Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians as sacred and one of the most significant traditional cultural 

properties of the Central Sierra Me-Wuk people. At the time it was established significant cultural 

values were identified through field surveys and consultation with Indian Tribes and other interested 

parties. The specific nature of the cultural resources is administratively confidential, under the 

provisions of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1974, as amended (43 CFR 7). 

From the onset of the Rim Fire, the Forest Archaeologist consulted with the Tuolumne Me-Wuk 

Tribal Council regarding protection of traditional/cultural areas significant to the Me-Wuk people. 

Native peoples currently utilize the area for traditional purposes and will continue to do so. 

Historic records, maps and oral accounts encompassing the Jawbone Falls SIA boundary indicate 

moderate land use since the 1880s in the form of ranching, cattle grazing and railroad logging.

Earliest records indicate a number of homesteads patented near the area of Jawbone Falls mainly for 

acquiring title to valuable timber. However, some of the existing trail and road system is likely 

connected to moving livestock to summer pasturage. Associated features affected by the fire include

fences, wooden troughs and collapsed wooden structures (range cabins).

The West Side Lumber Company, founded in 1899, did not reach the area of the SIA until the 1940s. 

As the company expanded to its easternmost timber tracts during this time period, timber in and 

around Jawbone Falls was harvested. Associated features affected by the Rim Fire include railroad 

grades, cut and fill structures, donkey sets and associated equipment.

Pacific Madrone Botanic Area

The Pacific Madrone SIA consists of two small groves of Pacific madrone trees covering 15 acres. It 

is located along Road 1S13C in Packard Canyon where roadside hazard tree removal is proposed. The 

management emphasis of this SIA is to protect and manage the unique botanical features for which it 

was designated, namely the southern-most groves of Pacific madrone in the Sierra Nevada. Resource 

activities such as roadside hazard tree removal are allowed within the SIA provided the integrity of 

the SIA is protected (USDA 2010a). In recent years, discovery of young Pacific madrone trees and 

saplings outside of the SIA indicates madrone trees have been successfully reproducing and 

expanding their distribution in the vicinity.

The Pacific Madrone SIA occurs within an area which had not burned for more than 100 years. In the 

past, timber harvest occurred in the SIA, but more recently management activities have not taken 

place. As a result, the understory became overgrown with regeneration conifers. The habitat within 

the SIA tends to be comparatively cool and damp owing to the northeast aspect and position in the 

bottom of a perennial stream drainage. Madrone trees in the SIA survived the Rim Fire likely due to 

the microclimate of the site. Additionally, it is possible fire burned through this area at night when 

fire activity was lower. Madrone trees outside the SIA did not fare as well; most reportedly sustained 

canopy mortality. Pacific madrone is known to resprout from the root crown after fire, so many trees 

with canopy mortality will likely survive.

223
Chapter 3.12 Stanislaus

Special Areas National Forest

Special Interest Areas: Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT ANDINDIRECTEFFECTS

Jawbone Falls Heritage Area

Cultural resource sites located within the boundaries of the SIA would be delineated with coded 

flagging and/or other effective marking (i.e., “flag and avoid”) for protection prior to project 

implementation as stipulated in the Rim PA. Potential direct and indirect effects to the Jawbone Falls 

SIA are minimal as proposed treatments within the SIA would be limited to trees approved by the 

Tribe and selected to enhance or protect cultural values that make the SIA significant and unique. 

Additional actions include the reconstruction of Forest Service Roads 2N78 and 2N08Y to provide 

access to treatment units. Reconstruction would end near the decommissioned area at Jawbone Creek 

below the falls and would not affect the cultural values of the SIA.

Pacific Madrone Botanic Area

Forest Plan direction reduces the risk of roadside hazard tree removal damaging the integrity of the 

Pacific Madrone SIA. Where removal of hazard trees would jeopardize the integrity of the SIA by 

damaging or killing madrone trees, “special cutting methods” for abating the hazards would be 

implemented, such as falling and leaving the hazard trees (USDA 2010a). Therefore there would be 

no direct or indirect effects to the Pacific Madrone SIA.

CUMULATIVEEFFECTS

Jawbone Falls Heritage Area

The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 1 are minimal and would not degrade the integrity of this 

SIA. Other present or foreseeable future projects (Appendix B) are or will be subject to NHPA

Section 106 compliance and potential effects to cultural resources would be identified at that time 

following stipulations in the Rim PA. Alternative 1, when combined with the past, present and 

foreseeable future actions and events are not expected to cumulatively lead to increased impacts to the 

cultural values or cultural resources of the Jawbone Falls SIA. 

Pacific Madrone Botanic Area

Forest Plan direction ensures that Rim Recovery project activities would not degrade the integrity of 

this SIA. No other present or foreseeable future projects are planned for the SIA location (Appendix 

B). With no direct or indirect effects to the Pacific Madrone SIA and no foreseeable future actions, no 

cumulative effects occur under Alternative 1. 

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT ANDINDIRECTEFFECTS

Jawbone Falls Heritage Area

Alternative 2 has no direct effects; indirect effects to cultural values and resources may occur through 

inaction. The existing threat of fire weakened trees falling naturally, and potentially damaging already 

fragile cultural sites, would continue unabated leading to increased potential for ground disturbance 

and damage to site features and cultural values.

Pacific Madrone Botanic Area

Alternative 2 has no direct effects; indirect effects may occur in untreated areas if falling dead trees 

damage madrone trees and saplings, or kill madrone seedlings. Downed dead trees could block 

germinating madrone seeds, cause excess ground level shading for madrone seedlings and create high 

fuel accumulations, which could burn at high intensity causing madrone crown mortality and possibly 

killing madrone trees, saplings or seedlings. 

224
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

CUMULATIVEEFFECTS

Jawbone Falls Heritage Area

Alternative 2 poses indirect effects to this SIA. Other present or foreseeable future projects (Appendix 

B) are or will be subject to NHPA Section 106 compliance and potential effects to cultural resources 

would be identified at that time following stipulations in the Rim PA. With indirect effects to the 

Jawbone Falls SIA and no effects from foreseeable future actions, the minimal indirect effects 

described under Alternative 2 are the cumulative effects of Alternative 2.

Pacific Madrone Botanic Area

Alternative 2 poses indirect effects to this SIA. No other present or foreseeable future projects are 

planned for the SIA location (Appendix B). With indirect effects to the Pacific Madrone SIA and no 

foreseeable future actions, the indirect effects described under Alternative 2 are the cumulative effects 

of Alternative 2. 

Alternative 3

DIRECT ANDINDIRECTEFFECTS

Pacific Madrone Botanic Area

Same as Alternative 1. 

Jawbone Falls Heritage Area

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVEEFFECTS

Jawbone Falls Heritage Area

Same as Alternative 1. 

Pacific Madrone Botanic Area

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4

DIRECT ANDINDIRECTEFFECTS

Jawbone Falls Heritage Area

Same as Alternative 1. 

Pacific Madrone Botanic Area

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVEEFFECTS

Jawbone Falls Heritage Area

Same as Alternative 1. 

Pacific Madrone Botanic Area

Same as Alternative 1. 

225
Chapter 3.12 Stanislaus

Special Areas National Forest

Wild and Scenic Rivers: Affected Environment

One congressionally designated and two proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers lie within the Rim Fire 

perimeter. This includes all 29 miles of the designated Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River on NFS 

lands; the lower half of the Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River (24 miles); and, all of the South 

Fork Tuolumne Proposed Wild and Scenic River (2 miles). 

About 98 percent of the Rim Fire burned within the Tuolumne River watershed. The remaining 2 

percent burned in the North Fork Merced River watershed along the southern edge of the fire. Table 

3.12-1 displays the river segments affected by the Rim Fire.

Table 3.12-1 Wild and Scenic River Corridors Affected by the Rim Fire

Wild and Scenic River Classification Segments (miles)

Clavey River Wild 3 16.2

Scenic 3 7.3

Tuolumne River Wild 3 21.5

Scenic 1 4.7

Recreation 1 0.6

South Fork Tuolumne River Scenic 1 2.5

Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River

The Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River includes 33 miles of Wild and 14 miles of Scenic 

segments. The Rim Fire affected half (23.5 miles) of the 47 mile river corridor: 7.3 miles of Scenic 

classification and 16.2 miles of Wild classification are within the analysis area. The primary ORVs of 

the Clavey River inside the Rim Fire perimeter include the following (USDA 1991c, p. 46-50) 

 Ecological: The Clavey River (including Bell and Lily Creeks) has a combination of landscape 

ecology features making it distinct within the Sierra Nevada Mountains: 1) free-flowing 

characteristics; 2) abundance and quality of life zones and vegetation; 3) elevation range; and, 4) 

relative remoteness and lack of development.

The Clavey River is one of the longest remaining free-flowing streams in the Sierra Nevada. It is 

47 miles from source to mouth, including both headwater forks, Bell and Lily Creeks. Freeflowing condition is an important value because little remains in the Sierra Nevada. From the 

Feather River on the north to the Kern River on the south, all but one (the Consumnes) of the 15 

major rivers in the Sierra, are impounded. Of 90 major tributaries, only four streams greater than 

40 miles are free-flowing with no impoundments or diversions from headwaters to mouth. The 

Clavey River contains all but one Sierra Nevada life zone within its watershed. Elevation ranges 

from 1,200 feet at its mouth to 9,200 feet at its headwaters, allowing for all life zones except true 

alpine. At its headwaters, sub-alpine forests of red fir, lodgepole, western white pine and 

mountain hemlock combine with mountain meadows and granite-bound lakes. All forest habitats 

are found as elevation decreases, ending with the California chaparral type at the mouth of the 

river. Within the Clavey's wide variety of high to low elevation vegetative types, one is truly 

unique: Bell Meadow, at 6,500 feet along Bell Creek, contains the largest stand of quaking aspen 

(110 acres) in the southern half of the Sierra Nevada.

Another feature of the Clavey River is its minimal development. It is almost entirely under 

federal ownership; even the portions outside of Wilderness are relatively undisturbed and remote. 

Private lands and developments such as towns and roads line portions of most other rivers in the 

Sierra. The Clavey, although crossed by several roads, has remained relatively undisturbed 

because of its remoteness, rugged nature and its north-south geographic orientation. For much of 

its length, the Clavey runs perpendicular to the east-west trend of major roadways in its 

watershed. 

226
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

 Fish: one of the first streams in California to be designated as a Wild Trout Stream, representing 

a mid to low elevation trout stream in a remote location. 

Wild Trout streams provide self-sustaining trout fisheries which are not supplemented by 

hatchery stocking. It is believed that almost the entire basin contains only fish "native" to this 

portion of the Sierra Nevada. About 95 percent of the basin has an original fish assemblage. 

Rainbow trout is the only trout species in the basin (Lily Creek is reported to have some brook 

trout and brown trout may spawn at the confluence with the Tuolumne River). Rainbow trout are 

found in all of the Clavey and its tributaries capable of supporting coldwater fish. 

The lower portion of the Clavey also contains a native assemblage of warm water fish including 

Sacramento suckers, Sacramento squawfish and hardhead. Due to extensive planting of nonnative trout species and the illegal introductions of non-native warm water fish species, few other 

streams in the Sierra contain only the original assemblage of fish species. The Clavey River may 

be the only "rainbow trout" river left, in the Sierra Nevada, with its original fish assemblage still 

intact and relatively unaffected by introduced species.

 Scenic: outstanding Variety Class A landscape includes a deep, V-shaped, river-cut canyon 

through metasedimentary rock. 

The river provides a variety of water forms including rapids, cascades and pools. Vegetation 

patterns are varied, including scattered ponderosa pine and oak/grass woodland. The scenic 

values of the lower Clavey are similar to those of the lower Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River.

 Wildlife: a large tract of late seral stage forest habitat is centered on the Clavey River between 

Reed Creek and Road 3N01. 

Five SOHAs and two fisher reproductive units are located on or adjacent to the river, within 

8,000 acres of older mature forest habitat. It is unusual to have this much older mature forest 

habitat at this elevation in the Sierra.

 Recreation: hiking and fishing are the popular dispersed activities. Access is limited and 

portions are remote and wild, resulting in a rare opportunity for solitude and non-motorized

recreation experiences, below the snow and available all year. 

This portion of the Clavey has been traversed by expert kayakers. It is a native trout fishery, and a 

State designated Wild Trout Stream which is significant to anglers. Hiking and swimming are the 

popular activities near the Clavey's confluence with the Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River.

The Rim Fire burned with varying intensity along the one-half mile wide river corridor, consuming 

vegetation with a basal area loss of less than 50 percent in 17 miles of the corridor, and a basal area 

loss of greater than 50 percent in the other 12 miles. Loss of vegetation has seriously compromised 

the Scenic ORV of the river corridor and resulted in reduced visual diversity and wildlife habitat.

South Fork Tuolumne Proposed Wild and Scenic River

The South Fork Tuolumne Proposed Wild and Scenic River, located in the south-central portion of 

the Forest, includes the 2 mile Scenic segment from the Middle Fork Tuolumne River to the 

Tuolumne River. Outstanding remarkable values include Scenic and Other (USDA 1991c, p. 51): 

 Scenic: outstanding Variety Class A landscape includes a deep, rugged canyon. 

The river provides a variety of water forms including rapids, cascades, waterfalls, and pools. Rim 

of the World Vista, located above the river area on Highway 120 (Big Oak Flat route to Yosemite 

National Park), provides outstanding scenic views of the deep river canyon, all the way to its 

confluence with the Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River. 

 Other: considered sensitive because they are fragile or nonrenewable. 

227
Chapter 3.12 Stanislaus

Special Areas National Forest

About 65 percent of the viewshed in the one-half mile wide river corridor is affected with a basal area 

loss of over 75 percent due to the Rim Fire. The remaining 35percent of the river corridor viewshed 

sustained 25 to 75 percent basal area loss. Some randomly scattered and small (less than 1 acre) 

patches of less than 25 percent basal area loss exist along the corridor. Loss of vegetation severely 

compromised the scenic ORV for this river.

One electricity transmission line crosses over the river corridor and an aqueduct (tunnel) crosses 

under and parallel to the river corridor. Two un-numbered roads totaling about one-half mile access 

the transmission line in the river corridor. There are no recreational facilities.

Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River

The Stanislaus National Forest portion of the Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River includes 24 miles of 

Wild, 4 miles of Scenic, and 1 mile of Recreational segments. The river is located in the south-central 

part of the Forest. ORVs include fish, geologic, historic/cultural, recreation, scenic, 

scientific/educational, whitewater boating and Wilderness characteristics.

Lumsden Road (1N10) runs 5.9 miles along the south and west sides of the river within the scenic 

corridor, crossing once at the Lumsden Bridge. Routes off the Lumsden road within the river corridor 

include the 0.1 mile 1S52, 0.1 mile 1N10A, and 0.2 mile 1N10E. Two hiking trails, 17E40 and 

17E56, run parallel to the river on the south side and are in a Wild classification segment of the river. 

One trailhead, one put-in for boating, 3 camping sites, and one gaging station are the only facilities 

within the Scenic segment of the river. Dispersed camping associated with boating occurs along the 

river west of Merals Pool.

The Rim Fire burned with varying intensity along the one-half mile wide river corridor, mostly 

consuming vegetation greater than 50 percent of the basal area. Because of steep canyon walls, an 

estimated 10 to15 miles has a view from the river corridor where over 75 percent of the vegetation 

has been consumed. This is both the west end of the river and the easterly end of the river. In areas 

where the corridor is flatter, about 19 miles have basal area consumption of 0 to 50 percent. Loss of 

vegetation has seriously compromised the Scenic ORV of the river corridor, reduced visual diversity 

and wildlife habitat, and created an increased risk of soil erosion within the steep slopes of the 

canyon. 

The Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River was divided into eight segments for planning purposes, with 

boundaries between segments based on the types and levels of existing development, access, 

recreation opportunity, and the potential for classification as a unit separate from adjacent segments. 

Table 3.12-2 shows the eight segments, their length and classification.

Table 3.12-2 Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River Classifications

Segment Classification Length 

(miles)

Yosemite to Early Intake Wild 5

Early Intake to Cherry Creek Recreational 1

Cherry Creek to Lumsden Area Wild 4

Lumsden Area Scenic 4

Lumsden Area to Clavey River Wild 4

Clavey River to Indian Creek Wild 3

Indian Creek to Mohican Mine Wild 6

Mohican Mine to Terminus Wild 2

Total 29

228
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Wild and Scenic Rivers: Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT ANDINDIRECTEFFECTS

Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River

Under Alternative 1, no research is proposed; therefore, no direct or indirect effects related to that 

action would occur. 

Salvage

Alternative 1 proposes to treat 644 acres of salvage harvest by means of tractor (130 acres), helicopter 

(506 acres), and skyline (8 acres) logging methods in the Scenic corridor of the Clavey River. 

Landings would be constructed for decking logs and piling slash materials. Whole tree yarding would 

occur in tractor units to reduce fuel loading. Landings would be restored post-harvest via deep tilling, 

contouring, and scattering of slash. Drop and lop is proposed in helicopter units A04 and A05, for a 

maximum of 505 acres within the river corridor. Machine pile and burning is proposed in tractor unit 

A03, for a maximum of 80 acres within the river corridor. Jackpot burning is proposed as needed in 

units A03, A04, and A05, for a maximum total of 585 acres. 

The direct effects of all these activities include ground disturbance in tractor units from skidding logs 

to landings, potential for sedimentation runoff, and negative visual effects from logging debris on the 

ground. Noise disturbance from logging equipment is not a factor as the area is closed to the public 

during these operations. The negative visual effects of logging debris and the already burned 

landscape would be tempered over time with vegetation recovery activities and natural regrowth of 

plants and trees. BMPs and management design criteria mitigate the effects of soil disturbance, 

erosion, and restoration of disturbed ground. BMPs also mitigate disturbance and activities adjacent 

to the river itself as well as in the one-half mile wide river corridor. 

Indirect effects of salvage harvest are short-term degraded scenic beauty, an ORV for these segments 

of the corridor. Scenic beauty would be restored over time as vegetation recovers naturally, and plant 

and tree diversity increases.

Roadside Hazard Trees

Roadside hazard tree removal is proposed along 1N01, 2N29, 2N29A, 3N56Y in the Scenic 

segments. Roadside hazard tree removal is also proposed along 0.2 miles of 2N40, which runs mostly 

outside the edge of the Wild segment of the Clavey River. About 5.7 miles of road and 268 acres 

within the Wild and Scenic River corridor would be treated by this activity. Resulting short term 

direct and indirect effects would be visible slash piles, stumps, and other signs of logging activity. 

Piles would be burned, creating additional short term visual effects. Over time, vegetation would 

return and obscure the products of these activities, after which scenic values should not be further 

affected.

Roads

Alternative 1 proposes to build 0.2 miles of new road on P3N56Y to access unit A01A within the 

Scenic portion of the river corridor. Live tree removal as well as hazard tree removal and a landing 

constructed at the terminus are proposed. The road would be gated at the end of logging operations 

and kept for administrative use. The direct effects of new road construction are ground disturbance, a 

new linear feature on the Scenic landscape, and increased easy access to the river by bike, foot, or 

horse. There is no apparent indirect effect. The landscape would recover over time and the linear 

feature would eventually be unnoticeable from the river bottom. BMPs and management requirements 

for new road construction, erosion, watershed, and aquatics would mitigate the direct effects of 

construction activities. 

229
Chapter 3.12 Stanislaus

Special Areas National Forest

Alternative 1 also proposes to reconstruct 2.7 miles of roads 02N29, 02N29A, and 03N56Y. 

Improvements would provide for serviceability for project haul vehicles, as well as for proper 

hydrologic function and stream protection in accordance with applicable BMPs. Reconstruction 

would improve the road conditions as needed for safe and efficient haul of forest products. A number 

of NFS trails managed for motor vehicle use are included for reconstruction. These routes would be 

returned to their prior condition, including reestablishing drainage features as previously designed, 

when the project is complete. Direct and indirect effects from these activities include soil disturbance 

and vegetation removal. Reconstruction would provide safer travel for the public and a more 

stabilized road system for the Clavey River corridor, reducing point source sedimentation. 

Alternative 1 proposes 4.7 miles of maintenance on roads 01N01, 02N29, 02N40, and 03N56Y within 

the river corridor. Direct and indirect effects from road maintenance are temporary in nature, resulting 

from soil disturbance. This is of short duration and mitigated through BMPs and management 

requirements for road maintenance, soils, watershed, and aquatics. 

One route, P17EV11-1 accessing unit A10 is proposed for temporary use then reverted to original use 

post-project. Direct and indirect effects include a short term loss of recreation opportunities and are 

addressed in Recreation Chapter. 

Indicators

The above activities would add slightly to the already degraded condition of Scenic segments of the 

river corridor caused by the Rim Fire. However, the activities are of short duration and would not 

degrade the ORVs of fish, wildlife or recreation, which have already been affected by the Rim Fire 

itself. Where project activities are proposed within sight distance of Wild and Scenic Rivers, distance 

and geographic features would obscure most treatments from the casual observer or users of those 

areas. Vegetation recovery, woody debris in stream channels, and hazard reduction at recreation sites 

would all contribute to the eventual recovery of these compromised values (also refer to 3.03 

Aquatics, 3.08 Recreation and 3.14 Watershed). 

South Fork Tuolumne Proposed Wild and Scenic River

Under Alternative 1, no salvage or research is proposed; therefore, no direct or indirect effects related 

to those actions would occur. 

Roadside Hazard Trees

The proposed action includes roadside hazard tree removal on 0.2 miles and 9 acres along private 

road FR7858 within the Scenic portion of the South Fork Tuolumne River. Short term direct and 

indirect effects would be visible slash piles, stumps, and other signs of logging activity. Piles would

be burned, creating additional short term visual effects. Over time, vegetation would return and 

obscure the effects of these activities, after which scenic values should not be further affected.

Roads

Alternative 1 proposes 0.5 miles of road maintenance within the South Fork Tuolumne River corridor 

on roads 01S98Y, 01S98YA spur, 01S99Y, and FR7858. Direct and indirect effects from road 

maintenance are temporary in nature, resulting from soil disturbance. This is of short duration and 

mitigated through BMPs and management requirements for road maintenance, soils, watershed, and 

aquatics.

Indicators

These activities are of short duration and do not degrade the ORVs of fish, wildlife or recreation 

which have already been affected by the Rim Fire itself. Where project activities are proposed within 

sight distance of Wild and Scenic Rivers, distance and geographic features would obscure most 

treatments from the casual observer or users of those areas. Vegetation recovery, woody debris in 

230
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

stream channels, and hazard reduction at recreation sites would all contribute to the eventual recovery 

of these compromised values (also refer to 3.03 Aquatics, 3.08 Recreation and 3.14 Watershed). 

Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River

Under Alternative 1, no salvage harvesting or research is proposed; therefore, no direct or indirect 

effects related to these actions would occur.

Roadside Hazard Trees

Alternative 1 includes roadside hazard tree removal on about 286 acres within the Scenic corridor 

around the recreation facilities and gaging station, and on 6.4 miles along Lumsden Road (1N10) and 

its spurs 1N10C, 1N10E, and 1S52. Short term direct and indirect effects would be visible slash piles, 

stumps, and other signs of logging activity. Piles would be burned, creating additional short term 

visual effects. Over time, vegetation would return and obscure the effects of these activities, after 

which scenic values should not be further affected.

Roads

Alternative 1 proposes 6.4 miles of road maintenance within, or adjacent to, the Scenic section of the 

Tuolumne River corridor along Lumsden road (1N10) and its spurs (1N10C, 1N10E, and 1S52); and, 

0.26 miles of road maintenance on road FR99001, within the Recreation section of the river corridor. 

Direct and indirect effects from road maintenance are temporary in nature, resulting from soil 

disturbance. This is of short duration and mitigated through BMPs and management requirements for 

road maintenance, soils, watershed, and aquatics.

Indicators

These activities are of short duration and do not degrade the ORVs of fish, wildlife or recreation 

which have already been affected by the Rim Fire itself. Where project activities are proposed within 

sight distance of Wild and Scenic Rivers, distance and geographic features would obscure most 

treatments from the casual observer or users of those areas. Vegetation recovery, woody debris in 

stream channels, and hazard reduction at recreation sites all contribute to the eventual recovery of 

these compromised values (also refer to 3.03 Aquatics, 3.08 Recreation and 3.14 Watershed). 

CUMULATIVEEFFECTS

Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River

Maintaining the free-flowing condition of this river is necessary to maintain the Wild and Scenic 

values. The treatments proposed under Alternative 1 would not affect the existing flow regimes as 

construction actions do not occur within the stream channels. Constriction of flow is not anticipated 

as a result of road construction, as no stream crossings are proposed within the one-quarter mile 

buffer. Falling dead trees or dead trees rolling downhill could occur from natural processes. Minor 

increases in stream flow may have occurred following the fire, as fire-killed trees no longer utilize 

water, resulting in reduced evapotranspiration rates along the hillslopes. Removal of fire-killed trees 

under the proposed action would not result in any further measurable changes to evapotranspiration 

rates.

Maintaining high water quality is also needed to maintain Wild and Scenic values. Management 

requirements have been designed to minimize water quality impacts. This includes requirements such 

as maintaining or increasing ground cover, subsoiling compacted areas, smoothing out ruts, and 

improving drainage features on existing roads. While some sedimentation could occur as a result of 

proposed actions, it is anticipated to be minimal and of short duration and is not expected to affect the 

long-term beneficial uses and purposes for which the river was designated or made eligible. None of 

the streams with special designations such as Wild and Scenic Rivers or Heritage Trout Waters are 

expected to be adversely affected by sediment. No negative cumulative effects from the proposed 

action are expected.

231
Chapter 3.12 Stanislaus

Special Areas National Forest

Two ongoing or planned projects propose actions to occur within the Wild and Scenic River 

corridors: the Rim HT project, and the Twomile Ecological Restoration projects (including the 

Looney and Thommy timber sales, and planned activities along motorized trails and roads). Table 

3.12-3 and Table 3.12-4 summarize the types and extent of activities within the river corridors 

proposed by these projects. 

Table 3.12-3 Roadside and Powerline Hazard Tree Removal

River Corridor Acres

Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River 143

Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River 20

South Fork Tuolumne Proposed Wild and Scenic River 106

The activities associated with these projects are not expected to affect the existing flow regimes as no 

construction is proposed or planned in the channel. Project implementation would have short-term 

effects on the scenic ORVs, but this would be mitigated over time with the regrowth of vegetation. 

There would also likely be temporary effects on recreational opportunities along roads or trails, or in 

areas, that are closed to recreational use during project implementation. Effects from these projects to 

water-based ORVs (fish and water quality) and to wildlife values within the river corridors (also refer 

to 3.03 Aquatics and 3.15 Wildlife) are mostly positive and the Forest Service is legally responsible 

to minimize and/or mitigate project effects to these resources through established management 

requirements. Therefore, overall effects of reasonably foreseeable future actions would be minimal 

and short-term, and no negative cumulative effects from the proposed actions are expected. 

Table 3.12-4 Twomile Ecological Restoration Projects (Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River)

Planned Actions Treatments Acres

Looney Timber Sale

Dozer pile/Prescribed burn 44.0

Prescribed burn 29.0

Thin/biomass/dozer/burn 123.0

Thommy Timber Sale Handcut/pile/burn 7.0

Trails

Close & Restore 2.5

New Construction 0.3

Reconstruction 0.1

Rock Barrier 0.1

Roads

Close 2.0

Decommission 0.3

Maintenance 9.0

Reconstruction 0.1

South Fork Tuolumne Proposed Wild and Scenic River

Same as Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River.

Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River

Same as Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT ANDINDIRECTEFFECTS

Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River

No activities are proposed under this alternative. Alternative 2 would have no effect on the freeflowing condition of any of the Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River. Activities that may be 

beneficial to water quality would not occur. This includes subsoiling of existing skid trails and 

reconstructing roads to improve drainage and reduce hydrologic connectivity. However, the high 

water quality needed to maintain the Wild and Scenic values would be maintained under Alternative 

232
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

2. Naturally occurring events could interrupt free flowing rivers such as landslides or trees falling 

over into the river. Introduction of woody debris into the river would occur naturally. 

Water quality would decrease as road conditions continue to decline and sedimentation gradually 

increases overtime. Additionally, large woody material recruitment rates would naturally remain high 

in areas that sustained moderate and high vegetation severity fire conditions. In the first 10 to 20 

years large woody material may alter free-flowing conditions, but would eventually provide 

beneficial functions such as creating pool habitats and trapping sediment. 

Activities beneficial to the recovery of ORVs for wildlife, fisheries, and scenery would also not 

occur. The landscape would recover over time; vegetation such as forbs, grasses, and shrubs would 

reestablish on the landscape and bring visual and plant diversity back into the scenic corridors. 

South Fork Tuolumne Proposed Wild and Scenic River

Same as Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River.

Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River

Same as Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River.

CUMULATIVEEFFECTS

Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River

No direct effects would result from the implementation of this alternative. The indirect effects 

described above focus on hydrologic connectivity and drainage of roads. Increased sediment would 

be expected from the road system if maintenance and reconstruction actions are not taken. 

Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River

Same as Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River.

South Fork Tuolumne Proposed Wild and Scenic River

Same as Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River.

Alternative 3

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River

Salvage

Direct and indirect effects of salvage harvesting are similar or less than those described under 

Alternative 1 because Alternative 3 would treat fewer acres within the Wild and Scenic corridor. This 

alternative would treat 297 acres by means of tractor (54 acres) and helicopter (243 acres) logging 

methods in the Scenic corridor of the Clavey River. Landings would be constructed for decking logs 

and piling of slash materials. Whole tree yarding would occur in tractor units to reduce fuel loading. 

Landings would be restored post-harvest via deep tilling, contouring, and scattering of slash. Drop 

and lop is proposed in units A04, A05A, A05B, and A05C, for a maximum of 245 acres within the 

river corridor. Machine piling and burning is proposed in unit A03 for a maximum of 51 acres within 

the river corridor. Jackpot pile burning is proposed in all five units, as needed based on post-harvest 

fuel loads, for a maximum of 296 acres within the river corridor. 

Roadside Hazard Trees

Roadside hazard tree removal is proposed on 6.2 miles and 287 acres along 1N01, 2N29, 2N29A, 

02N40, and 3N56Y in the Scenic segments of the Clavey River. Effects of roadside hazard tree 

removal are similar to those described under Alternative 1. 

233
Chapter 3.12 Stanislaus

Special Areas National Forest

Roads

Alternative 3 proposes to reconstruct 1.9 miles of road 2N29 and 2N29A within the river corridor; 

fewer than that proposed under Alternative 1. Effects of road reconstruction would be similar to those 

described under Alternative 1. 

Alternative 3 proposes 5.4 miles of maintenance on roads 01N01, 02N29, 02N40, and 03N56Y within 

the river corridor; slightly more than that proposed under Alternative 1. Effects of road maintenance 

would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. 

Research

Five of the PSW study plots designated under Alternative 3 intersect the Scenic segment of the 

Clavey River. However, as these areas are all control plots, no timber salvage or associated activities 

would occur. Proposed research activities (installing study design features and instrumentation, 

collecting data) are limited on a spatial scale and would have no measurable impact on any ORVs.

Indicators

The effects of Alternative 3 on water quality of Wild and Scenic Rivers is anticipated to be similar or 

less than those described under Alternative 1. 

South Fork Tuolumne Proposed Wild and Scenic River

Under Alternative 3, no salvage or research, is proposed within this corridor; therefore, no direct or 

indirect effects related to those actions would occur.

Roadside Hazard Trees

The effects of roadside hazard tree removal are the same as Alternative 1. 

Roads

The effects of road maintenance are the same as Alternative 1. 

Indicators

The effects of Alternative 3 on the water quality of Wild and Scenic Rivers is anticipated to be similar 

or less than those described under Alternative 1. 

Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River

Under Alternative 3, no salvage harvesting, roadside hazard tree removal, or research is proposed; 

therefore, no direct or indirect effects related to those actions would occur. 

Roads

Less road maintenance is also proposed. A total of 0.26 miles of road maintenance on road FR99001 

is proposed within the Recreation section of the Tuolumne River corridor. Effects of road 

maintenance would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. 

Forest Plan Amendment

Under Alternative 3, a proposed Forest Plan amendment would create a new Forest Carnivore 

Connectivity Corridor (FCCC). The FCCC overlaps 1,100 acres of the Wild and Scenic sections of 

the Tuolumne River corridor. This Forest Plan Amendment does not affect the river or its ORVs 

(Chapter 3.01). 

Indicators

The effects of Alternative 3 on the water quality of Wild and Scenic Rivers is anticipated to be similar 

or less than those described under Alternative 1. 

234
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River

Same as Alternative 1. 

South Fork Tuolumne Proposed Wild and Scenic River

Same as Alternative 1. 

Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River

Salvage

Alternative 4 proposes to treat about 7 acres of salvage harvest by means of tractor (4 acres) and 

helicopter (3 acres) logging methods in the Scenic corridor of the Clavey River. Landings would be 

constructed for decking logs and piling of slash materials. Whole tree yarding would occur in tractor 

units to reduce fuel loading. Landings would be restored post-harvest via deep tilling, contouring, and 

scattering of slash. Drop and lop is proposed in units A05C and F15, for a total of 2.7 acres within the 

river corridor. Jackpot pile burning is proposed in units A05C and F15, as needed based on postharvest fuel loads, for a maximum of 2.7 acres within the river corridor. The effects of these actions 

would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. 

Roadside Hazard Trees

Roadside hazard tree removal is proposed on 1N01, 2N29, 2N29A, 02N40, and 3N56Y in the Scenic 

segments, covering 7.4 miles of road and 341 acres. The additional length of road compared to 

Alternatives 1 and 3 is due to unit acreage for salvage logging dropped in this alternative, thereby 

requiring hazard tree removal along roads in those units. The effects of roadside hazard tree removal 

are the same as those described under Alternative 1. 

Roads

Under Alternative 4, no new road construction or reconstruction is proposed; however, 7.3 miles of 

maintenance is proposed on roads 01N01, 02N29, 02N29A, 02N40, and 03N56Y within the river 

corridor. Effects of road maintenance are the same as those described under Alternative 1. 

Research

The effect of the five PSW study plots are the same as described under Alternative 3. 

Indicators

The effects of Alternative 4 on the water quality of Wild and Scenic Rivers is anticipated to be similar 

or less than those described under Alternative 1. 

South Fork Tuolumne Proposed Wild and Scenic River

Same as Alternative 3. 

Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River

Same as Alternative 3. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River

Same as Alternative 3. 

235
Chapter 3.12 Stanislaus

Special Areas National Forest

South Fork Tuolumne Proposed Wild and Scenic River

Same as Alternative 3. 

Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River

Same as Alternative 3. 

Wilderness: Affected Environment

The Emigrant Wilderness is in Tuolumne County. It is characterized by large expanses of bare, 

glaciated granite and sub-alpine vegetation types, numerous glacial lakes, high quality scenery and 

Wilderness recreation opportunities. It is bordered on the east by Toiyabe National Forest and 

Yosemite National Park. The Emigrant Wilderness became part of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System in 1975. The California Wilderness Act of 1984 added 5,855 acres to the original 

area. Most of the recreation use in the Emigrant Wilderness Area is for hiking, camping, backpacking, 

and horse-back riding; pack-stock are also commonly used. Fishing is popular at most lakes, but 

hunting use is light. 

Commercial livestock grazing occurs in some areas. Tungsten mining in the Snow Lake area has 

occurred in the past. Portions of several streams which are eligible for Wild and Scenic River 

designation and include Kennedy Creek (proposed Wild and Scenic River), Relief Creek South Fork 

Stanislaus River, Buck Meadow Creek, Summit Creek, and the Cherry Creek system.

A majority of Wilderness recreation use occurs from early July through early September. Kibbie 

Ridge Trail can be an exception because of exposure to summer sun and heat. Recreation use does 

occur outside of the peak times, but visitation is considerably lower due to weather, access, school 

schedules, and deer hunting season. Because of the popularity of equestrian activities the Aspen 

Meadow and Kennedy Pack Stations operate under Outfitter and Guide Special Use Permits to 

provide horseback riding and pack and saddle service to Wilderness visitors.

The Emigrant Wilderness is contiguous with Yosemite Wilderness to its south. Most recreation

within the geologic extent originates from the Kibbie Ridge and Lake Eleanor Trail Heads. Popular 

destinations from these trail heads include Eleanor and Kibbie Lakes in Yosemite National Park 

(Wilderness).

Cherry Lake, Cherry Lake Road, Kibbie Ridge and Lake Eleanor Trailheads are in an area of high 

timber removal activity. Treatments could include helicopter, tractor and roadside hazard tree 

removal activities.

Wilderness: Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT ANDINDIRECTEFFECTS

Under Alternative 1, treatments proposed within a half mile of Wilderness include 18 tractor units 

(992 acres), three helicopter units (281 acres), two skyline units (25 acres), and roadside hazard tree 

removal.

Road treatments proposed within one half mile of Wilderness include 5.19 miles of maintenance, 

10.80 miles of reconstruction, 0.24 miles of skid zones outside treatment units, and 0.86 miles of 

temporary road. 

In the geographic extent, visuals (project activity), noise and dust produced during ground based and 

helicopter operations may negatively disrupt the solitude qualities of Wilderness character. The 

amount of work proposed within a half mile of Wilderness is expected to be completed within a 

matter of weeks to months; therefore, negative effects to Wilderness solitude would be limited in 

duration. Additionally, trailheads would be closed during operational periods, which would greatly 

236
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

reduce potential effects to Wilderness experience. Effects of trailhead closures are discussed in detail 

in the Chapter 3.08 (Recreation). 

CUMULATIVEEFFECTS

The outstanding opportunities for solitude qualities in Wilderness character would likely continue to 

be degraded for the short-term (the length of time planned treatment activities occur) adjacent to the 

Wilderness. There are no other reasonably foreseeable projects within the geographic extent of the 

Wilderness that would affect Wilderness character.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT ANDINDIRECTEFFECTS

This alternative would not impact the outstanding opportunities for solitude qualities of Wilderness

character; there would be no change to Wilderness character.

CUMULATIVEEFFECTS

There are no direct or indirect effects, so there are no cumulative effects. 

Alternative 3

DIRECT ANDINDIRECTEFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVEEFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4

DIRECT ANDINDIRECTEFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVEEFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

Special Interest Areas

Jawbone Falls Heritage Area: under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, the direct and indirect effects are 

minimal and are not expected to cumulatively lead to increased impacts to the cultural values of the 

Jawbone Falls SIA. Indirect effects under Alternative 2 include potential for ground disturbance and 

damage to site features and cultural values. 

Pacific Madrone Botanic Area: under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, no direct, indirect or cumulative 

effects are expected in the Pacific Madrone SIA. Indirect effects under Alternative 2 include damage 

from falling trees.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, proposed activities would have negative short-term effects on the 

scenic quality of the river corridors; however, these effects would be minimal in comparison to the 

already degraded scenic quality due to the Rim Fire itself. While some sedimentation could occur, it 

is anticipated to be minimal and of short duration and is not expected to affect the long-term 

beneficial uses and purposes for which these rivers were designated or made eligible. Over time as 

vegetation regrows, effects to the scenic beauty, vegetative diversity, and wildlife habitat are all 

expected to decrease until they are no longer evident.

237
Chapter 3.12 Stanislaus

Special Areas National Forest

Under Alternative 2, the high water quality needed to maintain wild and scenic values would be 

maintained.

Wilderness

Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 would temporarily degrade the solitude qualities of Wilderness character, 

while Alternative 2 would not affect solitude qualities of Wilderness character.

238
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

3.13 TRANSPORTATION

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction

Multiple statutes, regulations and executive orders identify the general requirement for transportation 

evaluation in support of Forest Service planning and decision making. These include, but are not 

limited to the following.

 National Forest Roads and Trails Act of October 13, 1964, as amended (16 U.S.C. 532-538) 

authorizes road and trail systems for the National Forests including granting of easements across 

NFS lands, construction and financing of maximum economy roads (FSM 7705), and imposition 

of requirements on road users for maintaining and reconstructing roads, including cooperative 

deposits for that work.

 Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 402) authorizes state and local governments and 

participating federal agencies to identify and survey accident locations; to design, construct, and 

maintain roads in accordance with safety standards; to apply sound traffic control principles and 

standards; and to promote pedestrian safety.

 National Trails System Act of October 2, 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1241-1249) establishes the National 

Trails System and authorizes planning, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of trails 

established by Congress or the Secretary of Agriculture.

 Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978, as amended (23 U.S.C. 101a, 201-205) 

supersedes the Forest Highway Act of 1958. This law authorizes appropriations for forest 

highways and public lands highways. Establishes criteria for forest highways; defines forest 

roads, forest development roads and forest development trails (referred to as “NFS roads” and 

“NFS trails” in Forest Service regulations and directives); and limits the size of projects 

performed by Forest Service employees on forest roads. It also establishes the Federal Lands 

Highway Program.

The Forest Plan Compliance (project record) document identifies the Forest Plan S&Gs that 

specifically apply to this project and related information about compliance with the Forest Plan.

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Transportation

 The Forest transportation system is the primary data used to summarize this effects analysis. All 

distance figures are approximate values based on the Forest transportation atlas (including spatial 

GIS data and tabular INFRA data) and are limited to the accuracy of those sources which includes 

measurements from GIS, GPS, field instruments and aerial photography. Mileages have been 

updated throughout the planning process as better information has been made available and may 

change slightly with additional field verification and project implementation. 

 All road work and infrastructure improvements will be conducted in accordance with the project 

management requirements.

 The spatial boundary and subject for analysis includes the existing rock material sources and 

water sources and the network of roads and trails within the project area. 

 Effects are assessed based on a 15-year time frame, assuming all project actions associated with 

the transportation network will be completed by that time.

Data Sources

Forest transportation atlas: Roads and motorized trail information as contained in geographic 

information system (GIS) spatial data and Forest Service Infrastructure (INFRA) tabular data.

239
Chapter 3.13 Stanislaus

Transportation National Forest

Transportation Indicators

Indicators used in the analysis of transportation effects include summaries of road work and 

associated impacts to the Forest transportation system. Key indicators include:

 Forest transportation system conditions 

 Traffic

 Health and safety

 Qualitative effects summary based on a scale from beneficial to adverse

Transportation Methodology by Action 

Actions, or the lack of action, effect roads and motorized trails in the project area. Each alternative 

presents a summary of effects considering the following activities.

 Commercial Salvage: Activities required to reduce fuel loads and improve road user safety 

through timber salvage and biomass removal and to process it into lumber, electrical energy, and 

other forest products with commercial value.

 Wildlife/Fuels Biomass Removal: Activities directed by the Forest Service to gather and 

remove additional biomass for the benefit of wildlife and further fuel reduction. 

 Post-Contract Forest Service Activities: Additional treatment of units after the commercial 

salvage operations are complete that use tractors to pile and burn excess fuels, drop and lop

activities, and mastication of biomass in watershed areas.

 Restoration of Access for Recreation: Reopening the burn area for public access and 

recreational activities.

Affected Environment

Existing Conditions

The project area contains 957 miles of existing roads and motorized trails managed by a variety of 

agencies, landowners and organizations. Table 3.13-1 displays the existing network by jurisdiction. 

Table 3.13-1 Existing Transportation System by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction miles

Bureau of Land Management 0.6

County 21.8

National Park Service 0.3

Other 7.6

Private 146.8

State 13.1

Stanislaus National Forest

National Forest System Roads 707.1

National Forest System Trails 18.2

Other Non-system Routes 41.5

Subtotal National Forest 766.8

Total 957.0

Source: Forest Transportation Atlas

FOREST TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

The Forest transportation system included in this analysis is comprised of NFS roads and motorized

NFS trails. The NFS trails are managed for full-size motor vehicle use and are often referred to as 4-

wheel-drive trails. NFS roads are broken down by operational maintenance level, which describes the 

standard to which the road is currently managed. Table 3.13-2 displays the National Forest System 

240
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

roads under Stanislaus National Forest jurisdiction by Maintenance Level and Appendix E contains a 

list of each individual road within the project area. 

Table 3.13-2 National Forest System Roads by Maintenance Level

ML Summary Description miles

5 High degree of user comfort and convenience 54.7

4 Moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds 19.8

3 Maintained for travel by prudent driver in standard passenger car 59.0

2 High clearance vehicle use 535.2

1 Intermittent use road while placed in storage 38.3

Total 707.1

Source: Forest Transportation Atlas; ML=Maintenance Level

NON-SYSTEM ROADS

Table 3.13-1 shows a number of routes in the project area are managed and under jurisdictions other 

than the Forest Service. Other non-system roads under Forest Service jurisdiction exist on the 

landscape, and are not managed as part of the Forest transportation system. These include 

unauthorized routes and roads associated with some sort of authorized use, such as an agreement, 

permit, or right-of-way. 

CONDITION

The conditions of the project area routes vary from well-maintained, including those treated under 

BAER (Burned Area Emergency Response), to badly eroding and overgrown. Due to the limitations 

of the NFS road maintenance program, few of the NFS roads and trails, and none of the unauthorized 

roads, receive frequent or regular maintenance. Figure 3.13-1 shows roads within the fire boundary 

are now lined with dead and dying trees, considered danger8 trees or roadside hazards.

After containment of the Rim Fire, a BAER effort was conducted in order to protect assets from risks 

associated with the potential for high surface flows, flooding, and erosion during rainfall events. 

Assets included NFS roads and trails, as well as features on those routes including stream crossings. 

A number of roads were maintained during this effort, including dozens of stream crossings 

improvements or replacements as well as maintenance, improvement, and installation of hundreds of 

road surface drainage structures.

Numerous road segments accessing proposed project treatment units need improvement for logging 

trucks, chip vans, and other project vehicles and equipment. In the absence of regular maintenance, 

the surface conditions have deteriorated and the traveled ways have become partly or completely 

overgrown or blocked by fallen trees or washouts.

Many of the road and motorized trail segments are designated as open to public motorized traffic, for 

access to particular destinations, or for motorized recreation. The Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map and 

the Stanislaus National Forest Infra database display those designations. Currently the project area is 

closed to the public by temporary Forest Order, to provide for public safety and protect natural 

resources.

8 While the Forest Service engineering policy uses the term “danger tree” (see glossary for definition), the synonymous term “hazard tree” 

is also commonly used and will be used throughout the Rim Fire Recovery EIS. 

241

 
Chapter 3.13 Stanislaus

Transportation National Forest

Figure 3.13-1 Dead Trees and Roadside Hazards along NFS Road 1N79

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

To support the proposed actions, existing routes will be utilized for access and removal when possible 

(Chapter 2.01 and Table 2.05-1). During implementation, traffic will increase due to movement of 

equipment, forest products, and personnel in and out of the project area. Traffic management in 

accordance with standard contract provisions will mitigate risks to workers and provide for public 

safety. Communications, including use of radios, will provide for safer and more efficient traffic 

flow. Temporary route closures to public traffic are expected to provide for worker and public safety 

during project implementation, resulting in a short-term reduction in public access. Felling and 

removal of roadside hazard trees will also provide for safer and more efficient Forest transportation 

system use during implementation of the project. 

Following implementation, the combination of road maintenance, Forest transportation system 

improvements, and removal of roadside hazards will provide for long-term public and administrative 

access throughout the project area. In addition, the roadwork applied during implementation will 

leave the system in a more stable and functional condition, minimizing adverse resource impacts. No 

long-term changes to public motor vehicle use are proposed under this alternative; previously 

designated routes documented on the motor vehicle use map (MVUM) will remain open following 

project implementation. 

In summary, Alternative 1 has positive direct and indirect effects on the Forest transportation system. 

Benefits include catching up on deferred maintenance, improving the roads to minimize adverse 

resource impacts, and sustaining safe public and administrative access throughout the Rim Fire area.

242
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The Rim HT project will remove hazard trees from main roads within the fire perimeter. The shortterm combination of traffic from the removal of forest products from these projects will be 

substantial, and will require adequate traffic control, temporary public road closures, and proper 

communications to maintain safe and efficient traffic flow. A short-term reduction in public access

will occur in order to minimize user conflicts during project implementation. Main collector and 

arterial forest roads will receive the majority of traffic and will have surface deterioration 

proportionate to the traffic volume. Maintenance activities will be necessary in order to maintain the 

function of these roads; otherwise the standard will be reduced. 

About 100 miles of additional routes within the project area are expected to be treated under various 

restoration projects, including road and trail maintenance, reconstruction, and decommissioning of 

routes contributing to resource problems. Following implementation of these projects, a well 

maintained road system will exist and provide long-term public and administrative access throughout 

the project area. 

Considering cumulative effects associated with Alternative 1, the overall long-term Forest 

transportation system within the project area will benefit, resulting in a safer, more efficient, and 

more utilized network. Long-term public and administrative access will be sustained throughout the 

project area.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Under Alternative 2, indirect effects include dead and weakened trees falling across roads and trails, 

blocking access and reducing road user safety. This will reduce access and eventually limit the longterm ability to manage and maintain the Forest transportation system within the project area. It will 

also result in a more dangerous, inaccessible, underutilized, and undermanaged network leading to 

adverse resource impacts including improperly functioning road drainage systems. Without the 

opportunity to utilize revenue from sales of salvaged timber, the Forest transportation system within 

the project area will not receive maintenance and improvement treatments, and will not likely ever 

return to the condition for which it was designed and managed prior to the Rim Fire. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The Rim HT project will remove hazard trees from main roads within the fire perimeter. The amount 

of traffic from the removal of forest products from that project will be substantial. A short-term 

reduction in public access will occur in order to minimize user conflicts during project 

implementation. Surface deterioration proportionate to the traffic volume will occur on those main 

roads. Maintenance activities will be necessary in order to maintain the function of those roads; 

otherwise the standard will be reduced. 

About 100 miles of additional routes within the project area are expected to be treated under various 

restoration projects, including road and trail maintenance, reconstruction, and decommissioning of 

routes contributing to resource problems. If no action is taken on the lower standard system roads as 

proposed under the action alternatives access to these areas will not exist for a substantial period of 

time and those roads outside of the 100 miles mentioned above will become inaccessible due to 

falling dead trees and road surface deterioration. 

243
Chapter 3.13 Stanislaus

Transportation National Forest

Alternative 3

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

Alternative 1 provides the most beneficial transportation effects (direct, indirect and cumulative) 

followed with less beneficial effects by Alternative 3 and then Alternative 4. Alternative 2 is the only 

alternative with adverse transportation effects (indirect and cumulative).

244
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

3.14 WATERSHED

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction

Protection of water quantity and quality is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service 

(USDA 2007). Management activities on NFS lands must be planned and implemented to protect the 

hydrologic functions of forest watersheds, including the volume, timing, and quality of streamflow. 

The following direction is relevant to the action alternatives as they affect water resources. 

The Clean Water Act of 1948 (as amended in 1972 and 1987) establishes as federal policy for the 

control of point and non-point pollution, and assigns the states the primary responsibility for control 

of water pollution. Compliance with the Clean Water Act by national forests in California is achieved 

under state law (below). 

Non-point source pollution on National Forests is managed through the Regional Water Quality 

Management Handbook (USDA 2011), which relies on implementation of 35 prescribed regional best 

BMPs, as well as 23 national BMPs (USDA 2012) relevant to this project. The Watershed Report 

Appendix B (project record) lists these BMPs and their associated management requirements. 

The California Water Code consists of a comprehensive body of law that incorporates all state laws 

related to water, including water rights, water developments, and water quality. The laws related to 

water quality (sections 13000 to 13485) apply to waters on the national forests and are directed at 

protecting the beneficial uses of water. Of particular relevance for the Proposed Action is section 

13369, which deals with non-point-source pollution and best management practices.

The Porter-Cologne Water-Quality Act, as amended in 2006, is included in the California Water 

Code. This act provides for the protection of water quality by the state Water Resources Control 

Board and the regional water quality control boards, which are authorized by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency to enforce the Clean Water Act in California.

The Forest Plan Compliance (project record) document identifies the Forest Plan S&Gs that 

specifically apply to this project and related information about compliance with the Forest Plan. 

Effects Analysis Methodology

The four project alternatives were reviewed in fifteen of the eighteen HUC 6 and five HUC7 

watersheds to determine effects on water resources. Beneficial uses of water and water quality 

objectives in the California Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) of the Central Valley Regional 

Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB 2011) were utilized as a regulatory benchmark regarding 

the existing condition and to assess the effects of the proposed action and its alternatives on water 

quality. The water quality parameters considered in the watershed analysis were water temperature, 

sediment related parameters, and pesticides (registered borate compound). These are the pollutants 

with the potential of being affected by project management activities.

Assumptions Specific to Watershed

 Watershed condition from the Rim Fire will recover, as will effects of the Rim Fire Recovery 

Project.

 Water quality effects will occur at a magnitude below adversely affecting beneficial uses of water 

unless uncontrollable events occur. These include an abnormally high amount and/or intensity of 

precipitation or the occurrence of another fire in the project area as the watersheds recover from 

the effects of the Rim Fire. 

 Water Quality Best Management Practices will be implemented and effective unless 

uncontrollable factors occur. These include an abnormally high amount and/or intensity of 

245
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

precipitation or the occurrence of another fire in the project area as the watersheds recover from 

the effects of the Rim Fire. 

 The Soils Report (project record) provides assumptions associated with Disturbed WEPP 

modeling. 

 The Watershed Report Appendix A (project record) provides assumptions associated with 

Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) modeling for cumulative watershed effects.

Data Sources

 Satellite Imagery – Worldview, Landsat, and LiDAR 

 Forest Land Management Databases and planning documents – Forest Service Activity Tracking 

System (FACTS) and the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA)

 Stanislaus StreamScape Inventory – Stream Survey Data from 2005-2012 

 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Inventory, Clavey River 2007

 Burned Area Emergency Response Program – Past Fire information; Rim Fire watershed data

 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 

 CalFire – Timber Harvest Plans (THPs), Non-Industrial Timber Management Plans (NTMPs), 

and Notices of Emergency Timber Operations (Frese 2013-2014) 

 Yosemite National Park – GIS shapefile with past and future activities within Park boundaries 

Watershed Indicators

 Water Quality Parameters – temperature, sediment, pesticides (measure – meet WQ objectives)

 Stream Condition – channel form, streambank stability, pool sediment (measure – SSI protocol) 

 Riparian Vegetation – recovery (measures – no damage from project activities; recruitment 

unimpeded) 

 Ground Cover – riparian areas (measures - retention of existing; addition in riparian areas and 

watershed sensitive areas (WSA) (acres))

 Cumulative watershed effects (measure – ERA)

Watershed Methodology by Action

The direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the four project alternatives were evaluated using the 

following methods: 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

 Literature Review – A thorough review of the literature was conducted related to the direct and 

indirect effects of actions that affect the watershed resource proposed in this project. 

 Modeling – Disturbed WEPP was utilized to predict project related erosion.

 Monitoring – A review of Water Quality Best Management Practices Evaluation Program 

(BMPEP) results on the Stanislaus National Forest for activities related to the project was 

conducted. BMPEP monitoring results over the past decade were useful for predicting outcomes 

of the management activities proposed in this project. 

 Field Evaluation – Field review of proposed treatment units and watershed conditions within the 

project area was conducted. 

 GIS – GIS was used for analyzing data collected from fieldwork, satellite imagery products and 

forest databases related to the project.

CUMULATIVE WATERSHED EFFECTS

A Cumulative Watershed Effects analysis was conducted using the CWE model adopted by the 

Pacific Southwest Region of the USDA Forest Service as a method of addressing cumulative 

watershed effects (USDA 1990). The model is referred to as Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA). ERA 

values are calculated using a computer model developed on the Stanislaus National Forest (Rutten 

and Grant 2008). The Watershed Report Appendix A (project record) provides further details. 

246
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Affected Environment

Watershed Setting

The Rim Fire burned through numerous watersheds in the central and southern portions of the 

Stanislaus National Forest, and some overlap eastward into Yosemite National Park where the 

remainder of the fire occurred. These watersheds are an important component of the water supply, 

fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, timber production and other values of the Sierra Nevada 

mountain range. Portions of the watersheds within the Rim Fire perimeter burned in several fires 

during the 20th century, while some areas have not burned in over 100 years. About 98 percent of the 

Rim Fire burned within the Tuolumne River watershed. The remaining 2 percent burned in the North 

Fork Merced River watershed along the southern edge of the fire.

Watersheds in the Rim Fire are delineated in accordance with the national watershed classification 

system (USGS 2013). This system is a spatial hierarchy of eight nesting watershed size classes 

ranging from very large (greater than 250,000 acres) to very small (less than 2,000 acres). This 

classification system uses the term Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) to describe all watershed size 

classes (Table 3.14-1). They are called HUC levels and are numbered in order from one to eight in 

descending size class. Each HUC level code is a two digit number that ties to a watershed size and 

name. For example, HUC Level 1 is a two digit code whereas as HUC Level 5 is a 10 digit code. 

Table 3.14-1 shows an example of how this nesting system applies to the Rim Fire watersheds. 

Table 3.14-1 Hydrologic Unit Code System (HUC)

HUC

Level

HUC

Name

HUC Size

(average acres)

Rim Fire

Examples

1 Region 100,000,000 NA

2 Sub-region 10,000,000 NA

3 Basin 7,000,000 San Joaquin River

4 Sub-basin 450,000 Tuolumne River

5 Watershed 40,000-250,000 Clavey River

6 Sub-watershed 10,000-40-000 Reed Creek

7 Drainage 2,000-10,000 Reynolds Creek

8 Sub-drainage Less than 2,000 Lost Creek

The Stanislaus National Forest includes HUC Level 4 through 8 watersheds. (The term watershed is 

often used generically even though each HUC level has a unique name). The HUC Level 4 

watersheds on the forest are the headwaters of large rivers that continue downstream off the forest 

(e.g., Tuolumne River). 

Nine HUC 5 Level watersheds are within the Rim Fire; within those, are 18 HUC Level 6 watersheds. 

Table 3.14-2 displays the HUC Level 5 and HUC Level 6 watersheds relevant to the fire area, 

including total HUC Level 5 and HUC Level 6 watershed acreage. Note that the HUC Level 6 

watershed acreage does not add up to that of seven of the nine HUC Level 5 watersheds. This is 

because in those watersheds additional HUC Level 6 watersheds are fully outside the fire perimeter. 

Watershed acreage within the Stanislaus National Forest boundary is less in some watersheds and will 

be described in the existing condition and environmental consequences sections of this report. The 

HUC Level 5 watersheds in Table 3.14-2 are listed clockwise around the fire area beginning where 

the main channel of the Tuolumne River exits the Rim Fire perimeter. 

Given the large size of the fire, the HUC Level 6 watersheds are the most appropriate scale for 

watershed description and analysis of the effects of the Rim Fire Recovery Project. HUC Level 5 

watersheds will be described for spatial context and broad scale analysis, and selected HUC Level 7 

watersheds will be discussed where more detailed analysis is indicated. Figure 3.14-1 displays the 

HUC Level 6 watersheds relevant to the Rim Fire. 

247
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

Figure 3.14-1 HUC Level 6 Watersheds in the Rim Fire Area

248
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.14-2 Principal Watersheds in the Rim Fire Area

HUC Level 5

(40,000-250,000 acres)

HUC Level 6

(10,000-40,000 acres)

Name acres Name acres

Big Creek-Tuolumne River 81,721 Big Creek 18,734

Grapevine Cr-Tuolumne River 23,817

Jawbone Cr-Tuolumne River 27,629

North Fork Tuolumne River 63,849 Lower North Fork Tuolumne River 34,210

Clavey River 100,645 Lower Clavey River 17,871

Middle Clavey River 26,912

Reed Creek 24,527

Cherry Creek 90,892 Lower Cherry Creek 24,383

Upper Cherry Creek 16,344

West Fork Cherry Creek 26,149

Eleanor Creek 59,906 Miguel-Eleanor Creek 15,798

Falls Creek-Tuolumne River 124,244 Poopenaut Valley-Tuolumne River 18,232

Middle Fork Tuolumne River 46,635 Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River 14,928

Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River 31,707

South Fork Tuolumne River 57,855 Lower South Fork Tuolumne River 19,988

Upper South Fork Tuolumne River 37,866

North Fork Merced River 79,110 Bull Creek 21,064

Bean Creek-North Fork Merced River 36,739

Existing Conditions

Several factors that affect watershed condition have occurred in the Rim Fire Recovery project area. 

These include natural events and management activities that create ground disturbance and alter 

natural hydrologic processes. 

WILDFIRE EFFECTS

The Rim Fire, like almost all wildfires, is a mosaic of high, moderate and low soil burn severity plus 

unburned areas within the perimeter. Many past fires occurring within the Rim Fire perimeter have 

nearly half or more of their total acreage in the low and unburned categories that resulted in minimal 

to negligible watershed impact. Most watershed damage occurs from high soil burn severity, and 

lesser from moderate soil burn severity.

The principal effects of soil burn severity are the reduction of ground cover and infiltration capacity. 

High soil burn severity has the most watershed effect since it usually results in very low remaining 

ground cover, ranging from 0-20 percent, and the most increase in water repellency. These factors 

make it insufficient to adequately prevent accelerated soil erosion and, where eroded soil can reach 

waterways, cause stream sedimentation. Moderate soil burn severity is usually less damaging since 

the soil is not as impacted and the singed conifer needles fall to the forest floor partially replacing lost 

ground cover. Low soil burn severity is usually an insignificant factor since most pre-fire cover 

remains and infiltration is mostly retained. 

High soil burn severity usually chars the soil crust, damaging soil structure, killing plant roots, 

removing all, or mostly all, ground cover (litter and duff) and often results in strongly water repellent 

soil. Moderate soil burn severity does less damage since its soil structure effect and degree of water 

repellency is usually lower. Low soil burn severity has minimal soil impact, usually scorching ground 

and portions of tree trunks and bases of tree crowns; few trees are killed. The combination of high and 

moderate soil burn severity usually represents what is known as a stand replacing fire since nearly all 

trees are killed. Often in forested areas, post-fire vegetation condition acts as a visual indicator of soil 

burn severity. High soil burn severity is indicated by fully killed trees with all needles and often many 

branches consumed. Moderate soil burn severity is viewed as killed trees with browned needles 

remaining (most fall before winter, providing natural ground cover). Low soil burn severity usually 

249
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

results in patchy ground fire with lower portions of trunks blackened and some lower crowns singed. 

Soil burn severity classes are shown in Figures 1.0-2, 1.0-3 and 1.0-4. These photos were taken 

shortly after the Rim Fire. Note the needlecast in the moderate soil burn severity photo, with more to 

come from needles still in the trees. 

Soil burn severity is a measure of the effect of ground heat as a fire burns across a landscape, and is 

not the same as fire intensity or vegetation burn severity. Fire intensity is a measure of heat produced 

by a fire (BTUs). Vegetation burn severity measures both vegetation canopy mortality and vegetation 

basal area mortality resulting from wildfire. For the remainder of this report reference to burn severity 

will mean soil burn severity unless otherwise noted. 

While the Rim Fire area is the largest of the fires within the forest to date, it does not have the highest 

soil burn severity. Its high soil burn severity is the second lowest of the principal fires within its 

perimeter since 1973. Though its high soil burn severity is much less than its next largest predecessor, 

the Stanislaus Complex Fire of 1987, the Rim Fire has resulted in about 10,000 acres of very low 

ground cover distributed in various sized large to small patches across the 154,530 acres of NFS land 

it burned. Table 3.14-3 displays soil burn severity for the six largest fires within the Rim Fire 

perimeter that have soil burn severity information. 

Table 3.14-3 Soil Burn Severity for Selected Fires in Relation to the Rim Fire

Fire

Name

Fire

Year

NFS

(acres)

Soil Burn Severity (%)

High Mod Low3

Rim 2013 176,800 7 37 56

Stanislaus Complex 1987 147,100 36 20 44

Rogge1 1996 19,400 0 41 59

Granite 1973 17,100 55 30 15

Ackerson2 1996 11,300 19 14 67

Pilot 1999 4,000 46 25 29

1 No high soil burn severity due to low fuel loading over much of 

the area because of new plantations after the Stanislaus Complex fire. 

2 This fire was much larger overall, with most acreage in Yosemite National Park.

3 Low and Unburned

Distribution of soil burn severity within a fire area is also important. A spatial mosaic of all severities 

can reduce on and off site soil and water effects while concentrations of high soil burn severity can 

cumulatively increase effects. The largest concentrations of high soil burn severity in the Rim Fire 

occur in Granite Creek, within the 1973 Granite Fire, and in the Corral Creek and Reed Creek areas, 

both previously unburned. Other lesser high soil burn severity concentrations are scattered throughout 

the fire area, surrounded by moderate and/or low soil burn severity areas as well as unburned areas. 

These concentration areas, and other smaller severely burned sites in the fire, were identified by the 

Rim Fire BAER team as a watershed value at risk for loss of soil productivity and stream 

sedimentation. As a result, action to minimize the risk was taken in November, 2013. Helicopters 

applied weed free rice straw mulch to 4,300 acres of the highest priority portions of these locations 

(i.e., steep slopes, high erosion risk, and stream proximity). Helicopter mulching produces a uniform 

layer of straw, about 1 to 1 1⁄2 inches deep that provides 80-100 percent ground cover. An additional 

BAER action, mastication, was conducted on 40 acres of high soil burn severity area to increase 

ground cover. Mastication is mechanical chipping of small trees. Low-ground-pressure tracked 

equipment with an articulated arm and a chipping head provides immediate cover to bare areas.

Another burn concentration area in the Rim Fire is in the Tuolumne River canyon. It began near the 

Clavey River confluence and continued upstream to Cherry Creek, then up Cherry Creek to Eleanor 

Creek in Yosemite National Park. Much of the canyon vegetation is dominated by chaparral and other 

flashy fuels which burned hot and fast up canyon, where the fire then spread northward and led to the 

250
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

conifer dominated high soil burn severity concentrations mentioned above. The canyon soil burn 

severity is classed as moderate, even though vegetation was well consumed, since the fire here had 

little residence time and thus, minimally degraded soil properties or increased watershed runoff 

response. This concentration area is a near repeat of that of the Stanislaus Complex Fire in 1987. The 

Tuolumne River canyon burns easily, and the 26-year-old vegetation was mature and ready to burn 

again. 

Overall in the Rim Fire, effective watershed cover exists on about 56 percent of the land within the 

fire perimeter (the total of the low soil burn severity and the unburned portion within the fire 

perimeter). This cover consists of living vegetation which primarily includes conifer trees with forest 

floor litter and duff, plus brush and smaller woody shrubs. This ground cover was supplemented in 

much of the moderately burned conifer areas due to needlecast. While this is not as effective as living 

cover it does provide a measure of effectiveness compared to high burn severity areas since it resists 

initiation of rainsplash erosion. Helicopter mulching and mastication mitigated some of the worst 

high soil burn severity areas, but other locations of high soil burn severity areas remain with 

inadequate cover. 

In addition to the effects of soil burn severity on watershed condition, increased runoff can be another 

watershed response to fire. Reduced ground cover and impaired rainfall infiltration rates due to water 

repellent soil caused by fire heat can cause a short term increase in streamflow and raise the 

probability of flooding during large or intense storms. However, the risk of such occurrences 

affecting life or property values in the Rim Fire area is low. The Rim Fire is closed to public use 

throughout the first winter after the fire, and road damage is likely to be minimal based on winter 

2013-2014 having below average precipitation without large damaging storms. 

In summary, the Rim Fire was a classic mixed severity fire, not only across the entire fire, but at all 

watershed scales. Patch size of each soil burn severity class in this mosaic was also mixed – some 

patches hundreds to several hundreds of acres, others tens to hundreds, and yet others where all three 

classes occurred within ten acres. Mixed severity was also distributed similarly from stream to ridge 

within most watersheds. Riparian areas burned in a mosaic as did the hillslopes above them. The 

largest high soil burn severity patches occurred in the uplands, mostly on south-facing slopes where 

the fire could easily pre-heat fuels. 

At the Rim Fire watershed scale, the amount of soil burn severity varies widely among and within all 

HUC level watersheds. In general it is least for the HUC 5 watersheds, more for the HUC 6 

watersheds and greatest for the HUC 7 watersheds. Many HUC 5 watersheds, being the largest, have 

substantial portions outside the Rim Fire perimeter. The HUC 6 watersheds, though generally having 

more acreage within the fire, also have a highly variable amount of soil burn severity based on fire 

location and watershed acreage within the fire perimeter. The HUC 7 watersheds have the highest 

burn severity, having been selected on the basis of being watershed analysis emphasis areas due to 

severe burn and/or concentrated post-fire management activities. 

Table 3.14-4 provides an overview of the three watershed scales and the portion each occupies within 

the Rim Fire and the Stanislaus National Forest. It also shows the soil burn severity of each watershed 

as an indicator of existing condition relative to ground cover and vegetation alteration by the fire. Rim 

Fire information is provided at the top of the table for comparison with the HUC Level 5, 6, and 7 

watersheds. Refer to Figure 3.14-1 for the locations of the HUC 6 watersheds as well as to gain an 

understanding of the locations of their HUC 5 and 7 counterparts. 

Table 3.14-4 shows the similarities and variations among watersheds. Watershed area within the fire 

perimeter ranges 1-100 percent among the HUC 5 and 6 watersheds, and all the HUC 7 watersheds 

are 100 percent within the perimeter. The percentage of watershed area within the Stanislaus National 

Forest is high for all watersheds except for portions of the four HUC 5 watersheds that extend east of 

the forest into Yosemite National Park. 

251
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

The amount of soil burn severity across the fire also exhibits similarities and variations by watershed. 

Moderate soil burn severity is greater than high severity in every watershed, ranging from two to ten 

times as much. High soil burn severity is similar in almost all HUC 5 and HUC 6 watersheds; all nine 

HUC 5s are less than 10 percent as are 16 of the 18 HUC 6s. HUC 7 watersheds are dissimilar to their 

larger counterparts in that they almost all have greater high and moderate soil burn severity. 

Table 3.14-4 also shows that 25 of the 32 watersheds have more than 50 percent acreage in the low 

soil burn severity/unburned class. Half of those watersheds have greater than 75 percent in this same 

class. The remaining seven watersheds include all five HUC 7s and two of the more heavily burned 

HUC 6s: Lower Cherry Creek and the Lower Middle Fork of the Tuolumne River. The fire-wide 

average of 56 percent in the low/unburned class is made up of a high percentage of predominantly 

low/unburned watersheds punctuated by several highly burned ones. 

Table 3.14-4 Rim Fire Watershed Condition Overview

HUC Level and Name HUC within

Rim Fire (%)

HUC within

NF (%)

Soil Burn Severity (%)

High Mod Low3

Rim Fire Summary1 - 69 7 37 56

5 – Big Creek-Tuolumne River 56 70 5 27 68

 6 – Big Creek <1 52 0 <1 >99

 6 – Grapevine Creek-Tuolumne River 77 82 1 26 73

 6 – Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River 99 100 14 56 30

 7 – Corral Creek 100 100 31 58 11

 7 – Lower Jawbone Creek 100 100 10 75 15

5 – North Fork Tuolumne River 9 92 0 3 97

 6 – Lower North Fork Tuolumne River 17 89 1 6 93

5 – Clavey River 52 100 3 15 82

 6 – Lower Clavey River 100 100 4 45 51

 7 – Bear Springs Creek-Lower Clavey River 100 100 7 43 50

 6 – Middle Clavey River 69 100 2 11 87

 6 – Reed Creek 66 100 7 16 77

 7 –Lower Reed Creek 100 100 21 41 38

5 – Cherry Creek 24 93 3 12 85

 6 – Lower Cherry Creek 84 98 10 43 47

 7 – Granite Creek 100 100 30 62 8

 6 – Upper Cherry Creek 7 100 0 1 99

 6 – West Fork Cherry Creek 1 100 0 <1 >99

5 – Eleanor Creek2 28 2 1 9 90

 6 – Miguel Creek-Eleanor Creek 76 6 4 31 65

5 – Falls Creek-Tuolumne River2 19 4 1 5 94

 6 – Poopenaut Valley-Tuolumne River 99 30 6 33 61

5 – Middle Fork Tuolumne River2 68 34 7 32 61

 6 – Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River 100 100 6 57 37

 6 – Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River 53 3 8 21 71

5 – South Fork Tuolumne River2 88 41 4 29 67

 6 – Lower South Fork Tuolumne River 100 100 4 43 53

 6 – Upper South Fork Tuolumne River 83 9 3 22 75

5 – North Fork Merced River 8 81 0 3 97

 6 – Bull Creek 6 100 0 2 98

 6 – Bean Creek-North Fork Merced River 14 92 0 4 96

1 Soil Burn Severity Percent is of the fire area. 2 Substantial portion of the fire extends east into Yosemite National Park.

3 Low and Unburned

The most visible watershed impact of the fire was in the high soil burn severity areas since it reduced 

ground cover to less than 20 percent, often near zero. Ground cover in the moderate soil burn severity 

252
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

areas was also substantially reduced as nearly all trees were killed by the fire, though needlecast 

replacement cover of 50 percent or more occurred in many of the conifer forested areas. 

VEGETATION CONDITION

Hillslopes

The remaining live vegetation within the Rim Fire perimeter consists largely of second growth forest 

stands from legacy logging as well as more recent various aged timber plantations. It also consists of 

unlogged natural stands, some of which are very old. Despite the diversity of this vegetation, it almost 

all currently shares a common trait: high stand density. An excessive number of tree stems per acre 

creates closed canopies and an undesirable fuel ladder. This dense condition makes the forest 

vegetation as vulnerable in future wildfires as has recently occurred. At the scale of the Rim Fire 

about 44 percent of live vegetative canopy was lost, in various mosaic patterns, and about 56 percent

remained largely unaffected. As Table 3.14-4 showed, the amount of soil burn severity and vegetation 

burn severity varied substantially among the watersheds in the fire area. 

Riparian Conservation Areas

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCA) are corridors along stream channels and surrounding meadows, 

springs and other wetland areas that provide habitat for plants that thrive on a high water table. These 

riparian obligate species and include resprouting trees such as alders, big leaf maples, dogwoods, 

cottonwoods and aspens, shrubs such as willows, and a variety of streamside and meadow herbaceous 

plants. Conifers also coexist in RCAs with obligate species, often growing well near streams.

Table 3.14-5 shows the watershed effect of the Rim Fire on vegetation condition in RCAs by 

watershed. A 100-foot buffer along all perennial and intermittent streams (100 feet on each side for a 

total width of 200 feet) was selected to insure incorporation of all riparian obligate species and the 

principal near-stream location of shading conifers. Both soil and vegetation burn severity measures

were assessed for validation of comparability. This 100-foot buffer represents an average of about 7 

percent of the total area in the Rim Fire watersheds, with a range of 5-9 percent among all 

watersheds. 

In Table 3.14-5, the RCA columns display soil and vegetation burn severity for all HUC 6 and HUC 7 

watersheds in the Rim Fire. The RCA H + M column is the sum of high and moderate soil burn 

severity in the 100-foot stream buffer. The Watershed column displays the sum of the high and 

moderate burn severity for the entire watershed. The RCA H + M column is the key information for 

comparing soil to vegetation burn severity and RCA-to-watershed soil burn severity. 

Table 3.14-5 shows that RCA soil and vegetation burn severity match closely in almost all 

watersheds. In 21 of 23 watersheds soil and vegetation burn severity are within 5 percent of one 

another, and the remaining two are 7 percent and 8 percent. In most cases the vegetation burn severity 

is equal to or slightly less than the soil burn severity. The two measures validate they are comparable 

for estimating vegetation loss. Soil burn severity has the added advantage of also being able to 

indicate ground cover condition. 

Comparing RCA to watershed, the table shows that RCA soil burn severity is in most cases less than 

for the watershed as a whole. RCA soil burn severity is not higher than watershed soil burn severity in 

19 of the 23 watersheds in Table 3.14-5. The four that are higher are barely so, and many of the 

watershed soil burn severity percentages are much higher than the RCA. 

The Rim Fire burned more severely in the uplands than near the streams in nearly all watersheds, and 

substantially more in many. And though it burned less in RCA there was still a notable loss of the 

stream shade capacity of conifers and riparian obligate trees and shrubs in many watersheds. But 

while the conifers will be long in returning to replace shade, the riparian trees will fill the void in the 

short run and also provide biodiversity along stream reaches burned in the Rim Fire. 

253
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

Table 3.14-5 Riparian Conservation Area Soil and Vegetation Burn Severity

HUC Level and Name

Riparian Conservation Area (RCA)

(100-foot stream buffer)

Watershed

(total acres)

Soil

Burn Severity

% acres in

RCA

Vegetation

Burn Severity

% acres with 75-100%

Canopy Mortality

Soil

Burn Severity

% acres in

Watershed

High Mod Low H+M High+Mod

5 – Big Creek-Tuolumne River

 6 – Big Creek 0 0 100 0 0 0

 6 – Grapevine Creek-Tuolumne River 0 11 89 11 15 27

 6 – Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River 11 38 51 49 50 70

 7 – Corral Creek 41 51 9 92 88 89

 7 – Lower Jawbone Creek 3 42 55 45 49 85

5 – North Fork Tuolumne River

 6 – Lower North Fork Tuolumne River 1 8 91 9 6 7

5 – Clavey River

 6 – Lower Clavey River 1 19 80 20 19 49

 7 – Bear Springs Creek-Lower Clavey River 2 17 81 19 14 50

 6 – Middle Clavey River 1 7 92 8 7 13

 6 – Reed Creek 3 10 87 13 11 23

 7 –Lower Reed Creek 12 31 56 43 41 62

5 – Cherry Creek 

 6 – Lower Cherry Creek 13 34 53 47 45 53

 7 – Granite Creek 35 59 6 94 91 92

 6 – Upper Cherry Creek 0 0 100 0 0 1

 6 – West Fork Cherry Creek 0 0 100 0 0 0

5 – Eleanor Creek1

 6 – Miguel Creek-Eleanor Creek 4 34 62 38 41 35

5 – Falls Creek-Tuolumne River1

 6 – Poopenaut Valley-Tuolumne River 5 27 68 32 32 39

5 – Middle Fork Tuolumne River1

 6 – Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River 5 50 45 55 50 63

 6 – Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River 3 22 75 25 17 29

5 – South Fork Tuolumne River1

 6 – Lower South Fork Tuolumne River 2 23 75 25 18 46 

 6 – Upper South Fork Tuolumne River 4 19 77 22 17 25

5 – North Fork Merced River

 6 – Bull Creek 0 2 98 2 2 2

 6 – Bean Creek-North Fork Merced River 0 2 98 2 2 4

1 Substantial portion of the fire extends east into Yosemite National Park.

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CONDITION

Road density in the Rim Fire area ranges from one to six miles of road per square mile, with an 

average of about 4 miles per square mile. This is similar to other roaded multiple-use areas within the 

forest. Prior to the Rim Fire, the existing road network within its perimeter was adequate to serve the 

needs of forest management activities. However, up to six miles of road construction is planned for 

post-fire salvage harvest to reach burned areas previously not accessible. This would add less than 

one percent to the road network in the fire area, or negligible change in road density compared with 

the existing road network. 

Road sediment discharge increases are expected as a result of the Rim Fire. Most increases are likely 

to occur in high soil burn severity areas within the Rim Fire, and to a lesser extent in moderate soil 

burn severity areas. Problems include locations of improper road drainage function and culverts at 

road-stream crossings. The undersized culverts cannot handle post-fire flow volume and the 

additional woody debris and sediment it carries. The quantity and effect of fire-related sediment254
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

delivery increase is uncertain, due to variability in winter weather prior to the implementation of the 

Rim Fire Recovery.

STREAM CONDITION

Stream condition inventories were conducted along portions of 23 streams within the Rim Fire area 

between 2005 and 2012. These are part of the forestwide Stanislaus StreamScape Inventory (SSI) 

program to determine stream condition prior to management activities or for baseline watershed

information (Frazier et al. 2008). SSI consists of 21 attributes of stream condition measured 

continuously along wadeable stream channels in lengths that have ranged from about 1 to nearly 10 

miles. Some larger streams become wadeable by late summer, such as the Middle and South Forks of 

the Tuolumne River, the Clavey River and Reed Creek. They, among many of their tributaries,

comprise the streams represented here. The main channel of the Tuolumne River has not been 

inventoried due to its size and regulated flow regime which creates unsafe SSI working conditions. 

Table 3.14-6 summarizes the existing condition of these streams based on key indicators. 

Table 3.14-6 Rim Fire Stream Condition Summary

Stream Channel Indicators Stream Habitat Indicators

Streambank

Stability

Channel

Form

Pool Tail

Fine Sediment

Pool Bed

Fine Sediment

Water Temperature

Maximum

% Streams % Normal or

Rejuvenating Streams % Streams % Streams Deg. C and (F) Streams

>75 21 >75 16 <10 16 <10 18 <15 (59) 10

50-75 1 50-75 4 10-20 3 10-20 3 15-20 (59-68) 9

<50 1 <50 3 >20 4 >20 2 >20 (68) 4

Stream Channels

Streambank stability is assessed in quartile percentage classes at 100-meter increments. The summary 

above represents the percentage of streambank stability on all streams inventoried. Twenty one of the 

23 streams have a majority of their stream length in the greater than 75 percent stability quartile with 

no 100-meter increments less than 50 percent stable. This indicates the streambank stability for the 

surveyed stream is either fully or highly likely to be greater than 75 percent, which represents a very

stable stream system. Numerous streams have over 90 percent of their length fully classified in the 

upper quartile. 

Channel form, or shape, is assessed in SSI in four classes which depict excellent to poor condition. 

The Normal class is one whose channel fits proper morphological features for its stream type. These 

factors include width-to-depth and entrenchment ratios, streambank angle, and other measures of 

channel shape (Rosgen 1996). The Rejuvenating class is a channel form that shows evidence of 

legacy disturbance but is recovering or has recovered to good condition. These classes are combined 

to assess condition of the channel form. For example, a stream with more than 75 percent of its length 

in these classes, provided the Normal class is greater, is in very good condition. Sixteen of the 

inventoried streams are in this condition, while the remaining streams have some portions with 

evidence of accelerated incision or widening. 

Overall, the two stream channel indicators show a high percentage of the inventoried streams were in 

very good condition prior to the Rim Fire. Stream condition is expected to be affected by post-fire 

erosion and sedimentation though the magnitude is uncertain, and is largely reliant upon winter 

weather events. Effects may be mitigated in areas that received BAER hillslope and road treatments 

in the fall of 2013. 

Stream Habitat

SSI quantitatively measures stream pool sediment serving as indicators of stream habitat quality and 

sedimentation. Pools are the sediment reservoirs in streams. Sediment in stream pools is an indicator

255
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

of deposition from the surrounding watershed, and thus shows whether excessive input is present. 

Excessive sedimentation can arise from ground disturbing management activities such as salvage 

harvest or roads, or from natural events such as floods or mass wasting (e.g., landslides, debris flows). 

Fine sediment is measured since it represents the smallest soil particles, which are the key 

components of aquatic habitat. Excessive fine sediment in stream pool tails can reduce fish spawning 

success. Excess pool bed sediment reduces pool area that can be used for fish rearing and 

productivity. Pool tail fine sediment is calculated at pool outlets, and pool bed fine sediment is 

measured throughout the full length of stream pools. Pool tail sediment less than 20 percent is usually 

considered suitable for fish spawning. Pool bed sediment, measured as the length of fine sediment 

deposition in a pool, characterizes the amount of settleable material sourced from the watershed. The 

same percentage threshold is used for pool bed sediment as for pool tails. 

As shown in Table 3.14-6, pool tail and pool bed sediment were very low in the inventoried streams. 

It is not excessive since presence of native fish of all age classes are common or abundant in these 

streams. The amount of pool sediment in these streams is an indicator of a very stable watershed

landscape, including recovery from past disturbances by wildfire and ground-disturbing management 

activities. 

Water temperature was also excellent in these streams. The SSI data are the maximum daily 

temperatures and all are suitable for the native aquatic organism communities. Even the streams with 

maximum temperatures exceeding 68 degrees Fahrenheit, a threshold of concern for cold water fish, 

were only slightly higher and their minimum daily temperatures are well below the threshold. 

Benthic macroinvertebrates (BMI) are another indicator of stream health. They were sampled in the 

Clavey River in 2007 as well as several of its tributaries within the Rim Fire perimeter as part of the 

stream condition inventory for the Clavey River Ecosystem Project (CREP 2008). The BMI data were 

evaluated using the River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System (RIVPACS) (Hawkins et 

al. 2000). Numeric values very close to 1 indicate reference condition, meaning streams are in as 

good of condition as naturally occurs. Numbers exceeding 1 are better than what is expected. A score 

of 0.9 or 90 percent, means the stream health is in excellent condition. Streams and their BMI scores 

are as follows: Two Mile Creek (0.991), Hull Creek (1.106), Clavey River (0.927), Reed Creek 

(1.021), Bourland Creek (1.166), Cottonwood Creek (1.166), and Bear Springs Creek (0.932). No 

impairment of stream habitat or water quality was evident.

Prior to the Rim Fire no significant management activity disturbances or natural events likely altered 

the stream conditions described previously. Effects from the Rim Fire on stream channel and aquatic 

habitat condition are expected to occur in winter 2013-2014 due to weather related events. The 

magnitude is largely dependent on storm size and frequency. 

WATER QUALITY CONDITION

Prior to the Rim Fire, water quality was considered excellent at all the watershed scales previously 

described. Throughout the main Tuolumne River and its tributaries there is substantial evidence of 

high quality water. The US Environmental Protection Agency maintains a list of waters with impaired 

water quality under Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CVRWQCB 2010). The 

Tuolumne River is not listed as an impaired stream, nor is the Merced River. At the smaller scale, SSI 

and BMI data collected in the Rim Fire area have shown evidence of excellent water quality where 

sampled in the watersheds across the fire area. 

Water quality degradation resulting from erosion and stream sedimentation following the Rim Fire 

occurred as expected for a winter that turned out to be below average in precipitation with few storms 

exceeding a 1-2 year return interval. First, early winter rainfall began to mobilize easily dislodged ash 

and streamside sediment in highly burned areas with little ground cover. Streams and rivers ran 

variably turbid, some very much so, during and after storms depending on rainfall intensity, soil type 

and other factors. Decreases in turbidity and sediment transport occurred between storms. This 

256
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

process of storm driven sediment delivery and transport repeated itself over the winter. Sediment 

mobilization, transport and deposition were moderate, without major degradation. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Direct and indirect effects of proposed activities are described below for 15 of 18 HUC 6 watersheds 

and five HUC 7 watersheds. Three HUC 6 watersheds (Big Creek, Upper Cherry Creek, and West 

Fork Cherry Creek) are not assessed below due to the negligible amount of high and moderate soil

burn severity in their watersheds (Table 3.14-4). The selection of five HUC 7 watersheds is described 

in the Watershed Report Appendix A: Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis Methodology. 

Erosion and Sedimentation

Factors Affecting Erosion and Sedimentation

Soil Compaction

Compaction of soil from mechanized equipment can lead to hydrologic effects such as lower 

infiltration rates and increased runoff. These effects are anticipated to be greatest in the portion of the 

project area where ground-based salvage logging is proposed, less where cable logging is proposed, 

and least where helicopter logging is proposed. 

Soil Displacement

In ground-based harvesting units, soil displacement may occur where logs are dragged to skid trails 

using end lining. Less soil displacement occurs with hand felled trees that have 1-end suspension to a 

dozer or skidder. When feller-bunchers are used, there is less dragging of individual logs because the 

feller-buncher can “bunch” these logs into a pile for the skidder to move. However, additional 

displacement of soil may occur in the feller-buncher tracks, particularly where the equipment has 

turned. 

In skyline harvesting units, soil displacement may occur in harvest corridors where full suspension is 

not possible and logs are dragged on the ground. In addition, portions of some skyline units with 

slopes less than 45 percent may utilize a feller-buncher to cut the trees. In these locations, additional 

soil displacement may occur as a result of feller-buncher tracks.

In helicopter units, hand felling and lifting of trees is anticipated to result in negligible soil 

displacement. However, portions of some helicopter units with slopes less than 45 percent may utilize 

a feller-buncher to cut the trees. In these locations, additional soil displacement may occur as a result 

of feller-buncher tracks. 

Ground Cover 

Management requirements were designed to maintain or increase ground cover in near-stream areas. 

Within RCAs, ground cover is expected to increase under the proposed action as a result of 

maintaining post-fire conifer needle cast, application of ground cover through logging slash or other 

means, and natural recovery of live vegetation. A maximum of 10 tons/acre of fuel loading is 

allowed. 

Erosion and Sedimentation from Treatment Activities

Salvage of Merchantable and Non-Merchantable Trees

Research on salvage logging has shown large variability in sediment production. Some studies have 

concluded that salvage logging may reduce post-fire sediment production rates by reducing 

hydrophobicity and disturbing sealed soil surfaces, while others have found increased sediment 

production rates due to soil compaction and ground disturbance (Chase 2006). Silins et al. found that 

257
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

post-fire salvage logging creates more effective terrestrial sediment transport networks to stream 

channels and produced more sediment than areas burned but not logged (Silins et al. 2009). Others 

have found difficulty in distinguishing between erosion due to logging and that from the fire itself 

(McIver and Starr, 2001). On the Stanislaus National Forest, research following the Stanislaus 

Complex in 1987 found that differences in sediment production from logged and unlogged sites were 

not statistically significant. This was attributed to either the high variability in disturbance within each 

treatment or the large effect of the fire itself on sediment output (Chou et al. 1994). 

The type of logging system used can affect sediment production. Helicopter logging and cable 

yarding systems with partial or full suspension typically have smaller impacts on sediment production 

(Beschta et al. 2004). Chou et al. measured 18 percent ground disturbance in cable logged units and 

35 percent ground disturbance in tractor logged units following the Stanislaus Complex (Chou et al. 

1994). Chase found no difference in sediment production between tractor, cable, and helicopter sites 

due to the variability between sites. However, he was able to conclude that post-fire salvage logging 

treatments that increase ground disturbance and bare soil would generate more sediment (Chase 

2006). 

Erosion and sedimentation monitoring on green timber sales on four national forests in California has 

shown that timber harvest alone rarely initiates large amounts of runoff and surface erosion. Most 

erosion was initiated by skid trails (Litschert and MacDonald 2009). This research found that 

sediment delivery from timber harvest may be reduced by locating skid trails away from streams, 

maintaining high surface roughness downslope of waterbars, and promptly decommissioning skid 

trails following harvest. Concentrated flow from a skid trail or waterbar was more likely to form a rill 

or sediment plume when the downslope area had low surface roughness (Litschert and MacDonald 

2009). Research on salvage logging tends to agree with the research on green sales. Proper 

installation and maintenance of waterbars on skid trails and cable rows should help minimize the 

increase in sediment production due to salvage logging (Chase 2006). 

Despite the variability in research results, some key points are brought up repeatedly in the literature 

including: (1) Minimize compaction to the extent possible; (2) Minimize soil displacement; (3) 

Maintain or increase ground cover to filter sediment. Management requirements and BMPs were 

designed to accomplish these three tasks. 

Erosion modeling using Disturbed WEPP (Water Erosion Prediction Project) was conducted within 

the fire perimeter to determine both post-fire (pre-implementation) and post-implementation annual 

erosion rates for the first year post-fire. Chapter 3.11 (Soils) provides more information on the 

Disturbed WEPP model and assumptions, as well as unit specific analyses. Table 3.14-7 models 

erosion rates in each watershed. 

Thirteen of the fifteen HUC 6 watersheds are anticipated to have negligible changes in erosion at the 

watershed scale (Table 3.14-7). The two HUC 6 watersheds with projected changes in erosion (Reed 

Creek and Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River) had lower erosion rates post-implementation than 

post-fire. This is attributed to increased ground cover in high vegetation burn severity areas due to the 

addition of activity fuels. The modeling indicated that all five HUC 7 watersheds would have changed 

erosion rates following project implementation. Four of the five watersheds would have decreased 

erosion rates. One of the watersheds, Granite Creek, was projected to have an increase in erosion 

from 3.6 tons/acre to 3.7 tons/acre. This was attributed to the hazard tree treatment in lightly burned 

areas where ground cover is anticipated to decrease.

Both increases and decreases in erosion rates at the watershed scale were very minimal. The largest 

volumetric rate change was 0.3 tons/acre in the Corral Creek watershed and the largest percent 

change was -7.1 percent in the Reed Creek watershed. 

258
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.14-7 Alternative 1: Post-Fire and Post-Implementation Erosion Rates and Percent Change for Each 

Watershed

HUC Level and Name

Post-Fire

Erosion Rate

(tons/acre)

Post-Implementation

Erosion Rate

(tons/acre)

Erosion Rate1 

Change (%)

6 - Grapevine Creek-Tuolumne River 2.0 2.0 0.0

6 - Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River 3.6 3.6 0.0

 7 - Corral Creek 4.7 4.4 -6.4

 7 - Lower Jawbone Creek 4.9 4.8 -2.0

6 - Lower North Fork Tuolumne River 0.9 0.9 0.0

6 - Lower Clavey River 2.9 2.9 0.0

 7 - Bear Springs Creek 3.1 3.0 -3.2

6 - Middle Clavey River 1.2 1.2 0.0

6 - Reed Creek 1.4 1.3 -7.1

 7 - Lower Reed Creek 3.2 3.1 -3.1

6 - Lower Cherry Creek 2.4 2.4 0.0

 7 - Granite Creek 3.6 3.7 2.8

6 - Miguel Creek-Eleanor Creek 1.1 1.1 0.0

6 - Poopenaut Valley-Tuolumne River 1.4 1.4 0.0

6 - Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River 2.9 2.8 -3.4

6 - Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River 0.9 0.9 0.0

6 - Lower South Fork Tuolumne River 3.1 3.1 0.0

6 - Upper South Fork Tuolumne River 0.9 0.9 0.0

6 - Bull Creek 0.6 0.6 0.0

6 - Bean Creek-North Fork Merced River 0.7 0.7 0.0

1 Negative percent change indicates reduced erosion. Positive percent change indicates increased erosion.

Table 3.14-8 Alternative 1: Salvage Logging by Soil Burn Severity Within 100 feet of a Perennial Stream, 

Intermittent Stream, or Special Aquatic Feature

HUC Level and Name

Salvage Logging Within 100 Feet of a Perennial Stream,

Intermittent Stream, or Special Aquatic Feature (acres)

High Soil

Burn Severity

Moderate Soil

Burn Severity

Low Soil

Burn Severity

6 - Grapevine Creek-Tuolumne River 0 26 35

6 - Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River 73 177 50

 7 - Corral Creek 42 66 19

 7 - Lower Jawbone Creek 7 49 2

6 - Lower North Fork Tuolumne River 1 14 24

6 - Lower Clavey River 6 47 54

 7 - Bear Springs Creek 6 26 31

6 - Middle Clavey River 6 72 156

6 - Reed Creek 47 101 81

 7 - Lower Reed Creek 46 91 25

6 - Lower Cherry Creek 58 132 35

 7 - Granite Creek 47 76 4

6 - Miguel Creek-Eleanor Creek 0 4 13

6 - Poopenaut Valley-Tuolumne River 4 4 1

6 - Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River 47 333 140

6 - Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River 0 12 8

6 - Lower South Fork Tuolumne River 11 174 264

6 - Upper South Fork Tuolumne River 0 6 20

6 - Bull Creek 0 6 11

6 - Bean Creek-North Fork Merced River 0 17 28

Although modeling results indicate that changes in erosion rates would likely be minimal as a result 

of the proposed action, stream sedimentation still has the potential to occur as a result of the proposed 

259
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

action, particularly in areas where logging activities create more effective sediment transport 

networks to stream channels. From a hydrologic standpoint, increased compaction, increased soil 

displacement, and changes in ground cover are most critical in the near stream areas where stream 

sedimentation is most likely. Knowledge of soil burn severity in these areas is important because 

areas of low soil burn severity have much greater potential to filter sediment than areas of high soil 

burn severity. Table 3.14-8 describes salvage logging acres (combined salvage units and hazard tree 

removal) within 100 feet of perennial or intermittent streams and SAFs by soil burn severity. All 

system types (ground-based, skyline, and helicopter) are included in this table.

Despite implementation of BMPs and management requirements, increased stream sedimentation is 

anticipated as a result of the proposed action, particularly in areas where logging activities create 

more effective sediment transport networks to stream channels. This is more likely to occur in the 

Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River, Corral Creek, Reed Creek, Lower Reed Creek, Lower Cherry 

Creek, Granite Creek, and Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River watersheds than in other HUC 6 or 

HUC 7 watersheds due to the larger acreages of high soil burn severity areas near streams proposed 

for treatment. 

Piling and Burning

Lop and scatter in the helicopter units would increase ground cover and improve contact of ground 

cover with the soil, increasing the ability of the ground cover to filter sediment. This fuel reduction 

treatment is anticipated to reduce soil erosion in the units where it is implemented. 

Jackpot burning and hand piling and burning would result in reduced fuel loading with very little 

ground disturbance. Although some soil movement could occur following these activities, it is 

anticipated to be minor and short term. 

Machine piling could be implemented using either a dozer (dozer piling) or an excavator or other 

similar piece of equipment (grapple piling). Management requirements would prohibit machine piling 

within 25 feet of an ephemeral stream and within 50 feet of a perennial stream, intermittent stream, or 

SAF. The disturbance caused by dozer piling is expected to be greater than that caused by grapple 

piling. That is because the dozer would push the fuels into a pile, whereas an excavator would pick up 

and place fuels into a pile. 

In areas of low soil burn severity, riparian buffers are anticipated to be largely intact and have ground 

cover capable of filtering sediment movement resulting from machine piling. In areas of moderate 

soil burn severity, riparian buffers may be variable. However, ground cover in the form of needle cast 

can help filter runoff caused by machine piling disturbance. In areas of high soil burn severity little, if 

any, ground cover remains to filter sediment laden runoff resulting from the impacts of machine 

piling. However, implementation of BMPs and management requirements, including increasing 

ground cover within 100 feet of perennial and intermittent streams and SAFs provides for increased 

ground cover in these areas. Although it is anticipated that some sediment could reach streams as a 

result of machine piling, streamside buffers, needle cast, and/or placed ground cover should minimize 

this. 

Roads

Forest roads cause hydrological effects by concentrating and channelizing surface and subsurface 

flow. Following wildfire, the ability of the landscape to filter runoff from roads can be reduced due to 

a decrease in ground cover (Peterson 2009). 

Road Construction

By altering infiltration rates, road construction can increase overland flow rates and sediment yields 

(USDA 2013). Soil erosion associated with roads is highest during the first year or two following 

construction. This is due to the cut banks and fill slopes needing time to revegetate and stabilize 

(Peterson 2009). 

260
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Increases in permanent road mileage by 5.4 miles as a result of the proposed action range from a 0.08 

percent increase in the Upper South Fork Tuolumne River watershed to a 1.79 percent increase in the 

Middle Clavey River watershed. This would include 6 new permanent stream crossings along the 

newly constructed roads. BMPs and management requirements would limit sediment inputs to 

streams during road construction. 

Although some erosion and sedimentation is anticipated as a result of these activities, particularly in 

the first year or two following construction, overall increases in erosion and sedimentation are 

anticipated to be low as the percent increase in road mileage is low.

Road Reconstruction and Maintenance

Reconstruction is proposed on 320 miles of roads and maintenance is proposed on an additional 216 

miles of road. Activities on temporary use-revert roads (8.4 miles) are anticipated to be similar to 

reconstruction. On road surfaces that are draining well, maintenance is important because a lack of 

road maintenance can result in progressive degradation of road-drainage structures and functions 

(USDA 2013). However, increased drainage features such as culverts and dips are needed on some 

roads to minimize hydrologic effects. This is particularly important with increased runoff from 

hillslopes following fire. In these situations, reconstruction is required to adequately improve 

drainage features and minimize impacts. 

Erosion and sedimentation is anticipated along maintained and reconstructed roads. However, 

implementation of BMPs and management requirements are expected to minimize these effects. Road 

reconstruction may actually reduce erosion and sedimentation that is currently occurring as this 

treatment would involve improving road drainage features. 

Temporary Road Construction

Of the 13.9 miles of temporary roads identified for use under Alternative 1, 10.0 miles (72 percent) 

already exist on the ground as non-system routes. While additional traffic on these routes would cause 

soil disturbance and has the potential for increased erosion and sedimentation, these routes would be 

decommissioned following use, resulting in a net decrease of 10.0 miles of road on the landscape. The 

3.9 miles of new temporary roads would reduce infiltration and lead to potential increases in erosion 

and sedimentation. However, decommissioning these roads after use would reduce these impacts in 

the long term. 

Material Source Development

Of the seven material source sites proposed for use, Jawbone Quarry, Duckwall Quarry, and Bourland 

Quarry are located closest to surface waters. Jawbone Quarry and Bourland Quarry are about 200 feet 

from the nearest stream and are bounded by a road, which would prevent further expansion towards 

surface waters. Duckwall Quarry is located on private land and has an intermittent channel running 

under the site through a culvert. Soil burn severity was primarily low surrounding this site, so the 

potential of vegetation to filter sediment moving off site remains high. All three sites were utilized in 

previous timber sales with no reports of water quality concerns. 

Due to distance from surface waters, roads preventing site expansion towards surface waters, filtering 

potential of remaining vegetation, and applications of BMPs and management requirements, erosion 

and sedimentation originating from material source sites are anticipated to be negligible.

Water Source Development

Eighty-one potential water sources are identified under the proposed action. However, BMPs and 

management requirements include minimum flow requirements for both fish-bearing and non-fish 

bearing streams. It is anticipated that many of the proposed drafting sites would not be approved for 

use due to low flows. 

261
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

BMP effectiveness monitoring shows that water source development was completed effectively in the 

past and resulted in only minimal sediment inputs to streams. The effects of water source 

development on erosion and sedimentation are anticipated to be minimal under the proposed action. 

Fuel Loading 

The proposed action would reduce the fuel loading in the project area watersheds. Coarse woody 

debris would be reduced to about 10 tons/acre. This would result in lower flame lengths and fireline 

intensities, allowing for direct attack of future wildfires. These reduced fuel loadings could be 

maintained with prescribed fire. Increased erosion following fire is related to the amount of 

vegetation removed. Prescribed burns, by design, do not consume extensive areas of organic matter 

(Baker 1990). Therefore, prescribed fires have little impact on erosion and sedimentation, whereas 

intense wildfires may have substantial impacts (Brooks et al. 1997). Reducing fuel loading and then 

maintaining this with prescribed fire has less potential for erosion and sedimentation than allowing 

fuel loading to increase as snags fall and having another large stand-replacing wildfire in the future. 

The Fuels Report (project record) has more information on fuel loading. 

Riparian Vegetation

Riparian vegetation may be beneficially affected by the proposed action where burned overstory trees 

are removed. Increasing sunlight in streamside areas provides an energy input that often stimulates 

regrowth of the riparian plant community. Though this effect is largely a result of the fire removing 

stream shade cover and moisture competition, removal of burned tree boles may have a slight 

incremental effect. Another variable affecting riparian plant growth is the short term increase in 

streamflow and near-stream ground water following a fire as a result of a reduction in plant 

transpiration due to tree mortality. 

One fen was identified within the roadside hazard tree removal area. No fens are within salvage 

treatment units. Removal of hazard trees near the fen is not anticipated to affect it, as management 

requirements such as equipment exclusion zones would be implemented.

There are about 60 acres of meadows identified within the proposed action treatment units. Removal 

of trees along meadow edges is not expected to affect meadows, as management requirements would 

be implemented. 

Stream Condition

Stream Flow

Water yield typically increases in the first year following wildfire due to a reduction in soil water 

storage, interception, and evapotranspiration when vegetation is killed. This change decreases with 

time as vegetation reoccupies a watershed (Peterson et al. 2009). Under the proposed action, live trees 

would only be removed if they are a hazard tree and pose a risk to health and safety. Otherwise, all 

trees proposed for harvest would be dead and their removal would not affect soil water storage, 

interception, or evapotranspiration beyond the changes that already occurred as a result of the fire.

Modeling has indicated that increased surface roughness promotes infiltration and reduces overland 

flows, leading to reduced storm peak events and total flows (Smith et al. 2011). BMPs and 

management requirements under the proposed action would involve adding ground cover and 

minimizing compaction. Therefore, measurable changes in stream flow are not anticipated to result 

under the proposed action. 

Stream Morphology

Prior to the Rim Fire, stream surveys throughout the project area indicated that most stream banks 

were stable and that channel form was predominately either normal (no active downcutting or 

evidence of accelerated past incision) or rejuvenating (evidence of legacy disturbance, but channel 

has recovered or is recovering to good condition). 

262
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Increased high peak flows following the Rim Fire have the potential to cause channel incision, 

primarily in low-gradient stream reaches with small, mobile substrate. However, measureable 

changes in flow are not anticipated as a result of the proposed action. Therefore, if channel incision 

does occur within the project area, it is likely the result of the fire or from large storms, not the 

proposed action. 

Stream banks that were stable pre-fire may no longer have adequate cover to maintain their stability. 

This is particularly the case in areas of high soil burn severity. As discussed above, riparian 

vegetation is resilient following fires and is expected to flourish in the post-fire conditions of 

increased sunlight and water. This would allow for natural recovery of bank stability. The effect of 

the proposed action on streambank stability is expected to be minimal. Mechanized equipment 

exclusion zones are applied to all streams so that equipment is only allowed on stream banks at 

designated crossing locations. Skid trail stream crossings are limited to two per mile on perennial and 

intermittent streams and three per mile on ephemeral streams. Management requirements to maintain 

or provide ground cover within 100 feet of perennial and intermittent streams would provide for 

stability while riparian vegetation recovers.

Large Woody Debris

Following wildfire, snags falling into streams may be the main source of wood to streams until trees 

in the post-fire riparian areas are large enough to fall into streams and create habitat (Reeves 2006). 

Under the proposed action, existing downed large woody debris in the channel would be retained. In 

addition, a minimum of 20 pieces of large woody debris per mile of perennial or intermittent stream 

would be retained and felled into the stream channel. As a result of the proposed action, large woody 

debris levels in streams would increase in the short term following project implementation. Levels 

would be lower, in the long term, however, than if harvesting did not occur near stream channels. The 

Aquatics section gives more information on large woody debris. 

Water Quality (Beneficial Uses of Water)

Uses of water for the Tuolumne River from its source to New Don Pedro Reservoir are municipal and 

domestic supply, irrigation, stock watering, power, contact and non-contact recreation, warm and cold 

water freshwater habitat, and wildlife habitat. Existing uses of water for the Merced River from its 

source to McClure Lake are irrigation, power, contact and non-contact recreation, warm and cold 

water freshwater habitat, and wildlife habitat. A potential use for the Merced River is municipal and 

domestic water supply (CVRWQCB, 2011). Beneficial uses are maintained when their related water 

quality objectives are met. Water quality objectives that could be affected by the proposed action are 

water temperature, sediment related parameters (sediment, settleable material, suspended material, 

and turbidity), and pesticides. There are no 303(d) listed impaired waterbodies within the project 

analysis area. This indicates that water quality is excellent at this large scale.

Water Temperature

Stream channel shade is highly influential in regulating water temperatures (Rutherford et al. 2004). 

Channel shade was reduced in portions of the project area where near-stream trees were killed by the 

fire. Removal of the near-stream dead conifer trees is anticipated to have very little effect on stream 

shading. These trees, if left standing, would provide little to no shade in the future. Therefore, warm 

and cold water freshwater habitat would not be affected by the proposed action. 

Sediment-Related Parameters

None of the sediment related beneficial uses of water should be impaired as a result of the proposed 

action. Minor, short term increases in sediment related parameters are expected but not to the extent 

of adversely affecting beneficial uses. Anticipated sediment increases vary by watershed based on 

amount of project activity and watershed effects of the Rim Fire. None of the streams with special 

designations such as Wild and Scenic Rivers or Heritage Trout Waters are expected to be adversely 

263
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

affected. No known impairment of beneficial uses has occurred as a result of other past fire salvage 

harvesting on the Stanislaus National Forest in settings where the percentage of high soil burn 

severity was greater than the Rim Fire. 

Pesticides (Registered Borate Compound)

A registered borate compound is proposed for application to tree stumps 14 inches and greater in 

diameter to limit the spread and establishment of new centers of annosum root disease within mixed 

severity harvest areas. Following application to tree stumps, rainfall and consequent runoff could lead 

to contamination of standing water or streams. In addition, accidental spills into a small body of water 

are possible (USDA 2006). However, given the highly focused application method for borate, 

application of granular product to cut tree stump surfaces, the potential to contaminate surface water 

is limited. In addition, management requirements, including not applying within 10 feet of surface 

water, when rain is falling, or when rain is likely that day (i.e. when the National Weather Service 

forecasts 50 percent or greater chance), would minimize any actual effect to a minor or negligible 

amount. Effects to municipal and domestic supply, contact and non-contact recreation, and warm and 

cold freshwater habitat are not anticipated. The Risk Assessment in the Vegetation Report has more 

information on the registered borate application. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The process for analyzing cumulative watershed effects (CWE) consists of two steps: (1) an office 

evaluation which consists of determining the risk of cumulative effects using a predictive model and 

researching watershed history, and (2) field evaluation of streamcourse indicators of cumulative 

effects. 

Step 1, the risk of cumulative effects, is evaluated using the Forest Service equivalent roaded acreage 

(ERA) methodology, adopted by Region 5 as a method of addressing cumulative watershed effects 

(USDA 1990). A description of the ERA methodology can be found in the Watershed Report 

Appendix A: Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis Methodology. 

Step 2, field evaluation, is necessary for comparing the modeled ERA prediction with actual and 

expected future field conditions. Project-related water quality parameters and watershed condition are 

evaluated via in-stream and near-stream indicators of condition. This evaluation is essential to help 

interpret cumulative effects of past projects and potential cumulative effects given proposed activities 

and other reasonably foreseeable future activities. Field review was used to verify that the geographic 

and temporal extent of analysis was adequate for evaluation of cumulative watershed effects 

(Connaughton 2005). 

Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERAs)

The CWE ERA analysis for the Rim Fire Recovery EIS was conducted on all lands (public and 

private) within twelve HUC 6 and five HUC 7 level watersheds. GIS analysis was used to calculate 

acreages of activities in the watersheds. ERA values for these activities were summed and then were 

compared to a Threshold of Concern (TOC). The TOC for all HUC 6 and HUC 7 watersheds 

analyzed was 12-14 percent. Table 3.14-9 gives a summary of ERA values by watershed. 

Previous analyses on the forest have indicated that the effects of livestock grazing at the watershed

scale are low. Ground disturbance from livestock grazing is essentially a site issue rather than a 

watershed scale issue. This is because impacts of livestock grazing tend to be higher in low gradient 

stream channels through meadows than in upland areas, and these low gradient areas make up a small 

percentage of the watershed acreage. This results in little change to ERA values. Because of this, 

impacts of grazing are considered narratively for this project, but not quantitatively.

264
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.14-9 Alternative 1: Annual Percent ERA for each HUC 6 and HUC 7 Analysis Watershed

HUC Level and Name 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

6 - Grapevine Creek-Tuolumne River 4.31 3.51 2.52 2.37 2.19 2.01 1.83 1.70 1.56 1.43

6 - Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River 16.241 14.891 11.79 10.34 8.80 7.08 5.46 4.51 3.57 2.63

 7 - Corral Creek 20.031 21.391 17.961 15.861 13.611 10.80 8.01 6.70 5.39 4.08

 7 - Lower Jawbone Creek 14.001 12.751 9.47 8.58 7.55 6.26 4.98 4.20 3.43 2.66

6 - Lower Clavey River 9.59 8.94 7.13 6.40 5.65 4.78 3.93 3.27 2.62 2.00

 7 - Bear Springs Creek 13.001 12.441 10.28 9.14 8.00 6.67 5.37 4.38 3.38 2.50

6 - Middle Clavey River 4.93 5.42 4.93 5.32 5.62 5.77 5.05 4.44 3.83 3.24

6 - Reed Creek 8.23 9.47 8.48 8.05 7.17 6.12 5.04 4.30 3.58 2.85

 7 - Lower Reed Creek 17.471 18.101 15.401 13.401 11.50 9.23 7.07 5.90 4.73 3.56

6 - Lower Cherry Creek 11.36 10.11 7.91 6.95 5.93 4.82 3.74 3.15 2.55 1.96

 7 - Granite Creek 26.521 24.131 19.541 16.921 14.181 11.18 8.29 6.82 5.35 3.90

6 - Miguel Creek-Eleanor Creek 3.69 2.64 1.36 1.12 0.89 0.63 0.37 0.32 0.28 0.23

6 - Poopenaut Valley-Tuolumne River 4.56 3.30 1.91 1.63 1.32 0.99 0.66 0.60 0.54 0.49

6 - Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River 12.721 15.131 13.251 12.181 10.92 9.34 7.82 6.62 5.43 4.25

6 - Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River 3.74 2.78 1.74 1.36 0.99 0.60 0.22 0.20 0.17 0.15

6 - Lower South Fork Tuolumne River 9.13 9.91 8.58 7.94 7.50 6.51 5.59 4.87 4.15 3.44

6 - Upper South Fork Tuolumne River 3.19 2.47 1.56 1.34 1.11 0.88 0.66 0.60 0.54 0.47

1 Denotes watersheds over the TOC

HUC 6 and 7 Watersheds

Management requirements and BMPs were proposed to maintain or improve current conditions in the 

watersheds. This includes increasing ground cover within 100 feet of perennial and intermittent 

streams and special aquatic features and exclusion zones for ground-based equipment. Effectiveness 

monitoring is done annually on projects throughout the forest at randomly selected sites to determine 

if BMPs were effective. If Alternative 1 was selected, additional monitoring beyond effectiveness 

monitoring would be required by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board for all 

watersheds (both HUC 6 and HUC 7) over the TOC. Forensic monitoring inspections would be 

conducted during the winter period. These inspections are designed to detect potentially significant 

sources of pollution such as failed management measures or natural sources. The goal of winter 

forensic monitoring is to locate sources of sediment production in a timely manner so that rapid 

corrective action may be taken where feasible and appropriate (CVRWQCB 2005). In addition, in 

accordance with the Region 5 Forest Service Water Quality Management Handbook, project-level inchannel monitoring would be conducted following the Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) protocol 

(USDA 2011, Frazier et al. 2005).

Stream condition in the project area watersheds was evaluated to identify indications of past or 

present cumulative effects, and the potential for adverse impacts from future cumulative effects. The 

evaluation of stream condition included pre-fire stream surveys in most watersheds following the 

StreamScape Inventory (SSI) Protocol, which included observations of streambed sediment, 

streambank stability, and attributes of stream morphology (Frazier et al. 2008). 

All watersheds which exceeded the TOC are discussed in detail below.

Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River (HUC 6), Corral Creek (HUC 7), and Lower Jawbone Creek (HUC 7)

ERA Summary

Under Alternative 1, the ERA in the Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River watershed would increase from 

its current 14.68 percent (no action) to 16.24 percent in the first year of implementation, 2014. This is 

the maximum ERA. The ERA falls back below the TOC by 2016 and by 2023 is down to 2.63 

percent. The previous activities in the watershed, which have an ERA value of 9.99 percent in 2014, 

are large contributors to the high ERA values. These activities include the fire itself, fire suppression, 

265
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

timber harvest on private and NFS lands before the fire, and salvage activities on private lands after 

the fire. 

The ERA in the Corral Creek HUC 7 watershed would increase from its current 16.33 percent (no 

action) to 20.03 percent in the first year of implementation, 2014. This would further increase in 

2015, with a maximum ERA of 21.39 percent. The ERA falls back below the TOC by 2019 and by 

2023 is down to 4.08 percent. The ERA is over the 12-14 percent threshold of concern for this 

watershed. This is due in large part to the previous activities in the watershed, which have an ERA 

value of 12.71 percent. With few previous land management activities in the watershed, the main 

reason the previous activities ERA was so high was because 89 percent of the watershed burned at 

high or moderate soil burn severity.

The ERA in the Lower Jawbone Creek HUC 7 watershed would increase from its current 11.80 

percent (no action) to 14.00 percent in the first year of implementation, 2014. This is the maximum 

ERA. The ERA falls back below the TOC by 2016 and by 2023 is down to 2.66 percent. The ERA is 

over the 12-14 percent threshold of concern for this watershed. This is due in large part to the 

previous activities in the watershed, which have an ERA value of 9.95 percent. With few previous 

land management activities in the watershed, the main reason the previous activities ERA was so high 

was because 85 percent of the watershed burned at high or moderate soil burn severity. 

Stream Condition Summary

Pre-fire stream surveys in the Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River watershed were conducted in Drew 

Creek and Corral Creek. Surveys indicated that the condition of Drew Creek was good overall (i.e., 

stable banks, normal channel morphology, and low pool bed sediment). The RCA surrounding Drew 

Creek burned at low severity, so stream condition post-fire is likely the same as pre-fire. Very little 

treatment is proposed under Alternative 1 in the southern part of the Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River 

watershed near Drew Creek, so stream condition is anticipated to remain good. 

Pre-fire stream surveys in Corral Creek, on the other hand, showed much of the channel to be 

rejuvenating from past disturbance. Pre-fire bank stability was moderate, and is likely to be greatly 

reduced by the fire. This stream is still sensitive to further disturbance. Due to this sensitivity, 

additional management requirements were put in place for Corral Creek. A large equipment exclusion 

zone prohibits mechanized equipment between Corral Creek and its near-stream roads. Ground cover 

will be maintained or provided along its banks to minimize erosion and increase stability. This is in 

addition to 700 acres of straw mulch that was applied to the area as part of BAER treatments. Despite 

these treatments, Corral Creek is one of the areas which have the greatest potential for stream 

sedimentation following treatment.

Pre-fire stream surveys were not conducted in the Lower Jawbone Creek HUC 7 watershed. 

However, the acreage of high soil burn severity in this watershed was relatively low (10 percent). 

There was only 3 percent high soil burn severity within 100 feet of streams, meaning that most of the 

high soil burn severity was on the hillslopes. In this watershed, only 7 acres of salvage logging 

treatment is proposed in a high soil burn severity area within 100 feet of a perennial stream, 

intermittent stream, or SAF. This low acreage of treatment proposed within the highest risk area 

makes it likely that any increases in sedimentation would be minimal. 

The proposed action is anticipated to result in increased sedimentation in the Jawbone CreekTuolumne River watershed, particularly in the Corral Creek HUC 7 watershed. However, 

management requirements and BMPs are anticipated to minimize these effects to the extent feasible. 

Monitoring is anticipated to identify any problem areas so that corrective action could be taken 

quickly. Due to these mitigations, the proposed action is not anticipated to result in adverse off-site 

cumulative effects to sediment-related water quality parameters or to watershed condition (i.e. 

degradation of stream channel morphology, accelerated erosion or loss of soil productivity). The 

266
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

proposed action also is not anticipated to result in cumulative effects to water temperature, as only 

dead trees would be removed and these provide minimal shade. 

Bear Springs Creek (HUC 7)

ERA Summary

The ERA in the Bear Springs Creek HUC 7 watershed would increase from its current 11.36 percent 

(no action) to 13.00 percent in the first year of implementation, 2014. This is the maximum ERA. The 

ERA falls back below the TOC by 2016 and by 2023 is down to 2.50 percent. The ERA is over the 

12-14 percent threshold of concern for this watershed. This is due in large part to the previous 

activities in the watershed, which have an ERA value of 5.92 percent. These previous activities 

include the fire itself, in which 50 percent of the watershed burned at moderate or high soil burn 

severity, as well as timber activities (both green tree sales and salvage) on private lands. An 

additional 4.20 percent of the ERA is attributed to planned salvage activities on private land as well 

as hazard tree removal on NFS lands along maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 roads. 

Stream Condition Summary

Pre-fire stream surveys were not conducted in the Bear Springs Creek HUC 7 watershed. However, 

the acreage of high soil burn severity in this watershed was low (7 percent). Only 2 percent high soil 

burn severity occurs within 100 feet of streams, meaning that most of the high soil burn severity was 

on the hillslopes. In the Bear Springs Creek watershed, only 6 acres of salvage logging treatment is 

proposed in a high soil burn severity area within 100 feet of a perennial stream, intermittent stream, or 

SAF. This low acreage of treatment proposed within the highest risk area makes it likely that any 

increases in sedimentation would be minimal. Due to implementation of management requirements 

and BMPs, as well as monitoring to identify problem areas, the proposed action is not anticipated to 

result in adverse off-site cumulative effects to sediment-related water quality parameters or to 

watershed condition (i.e. degradation of stream channel morphology, accelerated erosion or loss of 

soil productivity). The proposed action also is not anticipated to result in cumulative effects to water 

temperature, as only dead trees would be removed and these provide minimal shade.

Lower Reed Creek (HUC 7)

ERA Summary

The ERA in the Lower Reed Creek HUC 7 watershed would increase from its current 14.98 percent 

(no action) to 17.47 percent in the first year of implementation, 2014. This would further increase in 

2015, with a maximum ERA of 18.10 percent. The ERA falls back below the TOC by 2018 and by 

2023 is down to 3.56 percent. The ERA is over the 12-14 percent threshold of concern for this 

watershed. This is due in large part to the previous activities in the watershed, which have an ERA 

value of 12.38 percent in 2014. These previous activities include the fire itself, in which 62 percent of 

the watershed burned at moderate or high soil burn severity, as well as timber activities (both green 

tree sales and salvage) on private and NFS lands. 

Stream Condition Summary

Reed Creek and Niagara Creek are the main channels in the Lower Reed Creek watershed. Reed 

Creek had high bank stability pre-fire and had 99 percent of its length in a normal channel form. 

Niagara Creek had more evidence of past instability, with sections of low bank stability (6 percent of 

surveyed length) and almost half its length incised, incised and widened, or rejuvenating. Despite this, 

both streams had low pool bed and pool tail sediment. 

In the Lower Reed Creek watershed, 46 acres of salvage logging treatment is proposed in a high soil 

burn severity area within 100 feet of a perennial stream, intermittent stream, or SAF. Reed Creek is 

bedrock controlled and highly erosion resistant, so changes in stream channel form are unlikely. 

Niagara Creek is more sensitive to disturbance, as its dominant substrate is gravel which is much 

more easily mobilized in high flows. Management requirements and BMPs were designed to address 

267
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

this sensitivity. This includes equipment exclusion zones and ground cover treatments. In addition, 

about 1,900 acres of straw mulch was applied to this watershed as part of BAER treatments. Despite 

these treatments, the Lower Reed Creek HUC 7 watershed is one of the areas which have the greatest 

potential for stream sedimentation following treatment.

The proposed action is anticipated to result in increased sedimentation in the Lower Reed Creek 

watershed. However, management requirements and BMPs are anticipated to minimize these effects 

to the extent feasible. Monitoring is anticipated to identify any problem areas so that corrective action 

could be taken quickly. Due to these mitigations, the proposed action is not anticipated to result in 

adverse off-site cumulative effects to sediment-related water quality parameters or to watershed 

condition (i.e. degradation of stream channel morphology, accelerated erosion or loss of soil 

productivity). The proposed action also is not anticipated to result in cumulative effects to water 

temperature, as only dead trees would be removed and these provide minimal shade.

Granite Creek (HUC 7)

ERA Summary

The ERA in the Granite Creek HUC 7 watershed would increase from its current 24.68 percent (no 

action) to 26.52 percent in the first year of implementation, 2014. This is the maximum ERA. The 

ERA falls back below the TOC by 2019 and by 2023 is down to 3.90 percent. The ERA is over the 

12-14 percent threshold of concern for this watershed. This is due primarily to the previous activities 

in the watershed, which have an ERA value of 17.66 percent in 2014. These previous activities 

include the fire itself, in which 92 percent of the watershed burned at moderate or high soil burn 

severity, as well as timber activities (both green tree sales and salvage) on private and NFS lands. 

Stream Condition Summary

No pre-fire SSI data was collected for the Granite Creek watershed. In this watershed, 47 acres of 

salvage logging treatment is proposed in a high soil burn severity area within 100 feet of a perennial 

stream, intermittent stream, or SAF. The granitic soil prevalent in this watershed is highly erodible. 

About 30 percent of the watershed burned at high soil burn severity, and an additional 62 percent 

burned at moderate soil burn severity. Because of this sensitivity, about 750 acres of straw mulch was 

applied to the Granite Creek watershed as part of BAER treatments. 

The proposed action is anticipated to result in increased sedimentation in the Granite Creek 

watershed. This watershed experienced the greatest burn severity of any of the HUC 7 watersheds. 

However, management requirements and BMPs are anticipated to minimize these effects to the extent 

feasible. Monitoring is anticipated to identify any problem areas so that corrective action could be 

taken quickly. Due to these mitigations, the proposed action is not anticipated to result in adverse offsite cumulative effects to sediment-related water quality parameters or to watershed condition (i.e. 

degradation of stream channel morphology, accelerated erosion or loss of soil productivity). The 

proposed action also is not anticipated to result in cumulative effects to water temperature, as only 

dead trees would be removed and these provide minimal shade. 

Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River (HUC 6)

ERA Summary

The ERA in the Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River watershed would increase from its current 9.96 

percent (no action) to 12.72 percent in the first year of implementation, 2014. This would further 

increase in 2015, with a maximum ERA of 15.13 percent. The ERA falls back below the TOC by 

2018 and by 2023 is down to 4.25 percent. The ERA is over the 12-14 percent threshold of concern 

for this watershed. This is due in large part to the previous activities in the watershed, which have an 

ERA value of 7.21 percent in 2014. These previous activities include the fire itself, in which 63 

percent of the watershed burned at moderate or high soil burn severity, as well as timber activities on 

private and NFS lands. 

268
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Stream Condition Summary

Nearly 10 miles of pre-fire stream survey data was collected on the main stem of the Middle Fork 

Tuolumne River. Bank stability was very high and channel form was normal for its entire length, 

indicating no evidence of past channel incision. Pool tail and pool bed fines were also low. Part of 

this watershed was burned previously in the Pilot Fire, and good pre-Rim Fire condition indicates that 

impacts of past wildfire have not affected stream channel stability. The areas of high soil burn 

severity in the Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River watershed were relatively small patches well 

distributed throughout the watershed. This spatial mosaic of all severities can reduce on and off site 

soil and water effects. 

The proposed action is anticipated to result in increased sedimentation in the Lower Middle Fork 

Tuolumne River watershed. However, management requirements and BMPs are anticipated to 

minimize these effects to the extent feasible. Monitoring is anticipated to identify any problem areas 

so that corrective action could be taken quickly. Due to these mitigations, the proposed action is not 

anticipated to result in adverse off-site cumulative effects to sediment-related water quality 

parameters or to watershed condition (i.e. degradation of stream channel morphology, accelerated 

erosion or loss of soil productivity). The proposed action also is not anticipated to result in cumulative 

effects to water temperature, as only dead trees would be removed and these provide minimal shade.

Grazing

Active grazing allotments are located in all of the analysis HUC 6 and HUC 7 watersheds except 

Miguel Creek-Eleanor Creek. The resumption of grazing on these allotments has the potential to slow 

recovery of riparian vegetation and increase ground disturbance, particularly along stream banks. 

However, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines require the prevention of disturbance from livestock 

from exceeding 20 percent of stream reach or 20 percent of natural lake and pond shorelines. It also 

limits browse to no more than 20 percent of the annual leader growth on mature riparian shrubs and 

no more than 20 percent of individual seedlings. In this project area the browse limit would apply to 

streamside areas where riparian obligates trees and shrubs are naturally resprouting and reseeding 

after the fire. Although resumption of grazing within the analysis watersheds is anticipated to result in 

ground disturbance and a reduction in riparian vegetation, these effects are anticipated to be localized 

and adherence to Standards and Guidelines should allow for riparian vegetation recovery to progress 

naturally.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Erosion and Sedimentation

Factors Affecting Erosion and Sedimentation

Soil Compaction

Under the no action alternative, soil compaction from management activities would not occur. 

However, activities under the action alternatives designed to reduce soil compaction would not occur 

either. Field review and LiDAR imagery has indicated an extensive skid trail network within the 

project area. Many of these pre-existing skid trails were not properly decommissioned in the past, and 

thus are concentrating runoff and causing erosion and sedimentation. Under the action alternatives, 

existing skid trails would be re-used to the extent practicable, and then subsoiled and waterbarred, 

reducing compaction and the risk of erosion and sedimentation. This would not occur under 

Alternative 2. 

Soil Displacement

Soil displacement would not occur as a result of Alternative 2. 

269
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

Ground Cover 

Under the no action alternative, ground cover in high soil burn severity areas is expected to be lower 

than that found under any action alternative. That is because ground cover treatments such as drop 

and lop, mastication, and lop and scatter of activity fuels would not occur. Over time, trees falling 

would increase ground cover in these areas. Live vegetative recovery would increase over time under 

the no action alternative. This recovery is anticipated to be faster than under the action alternatives 

because disturbance by heavy equipment would not occur. Ground cover is expected to be less under 

Alternative 2 than the action alternatives until the area could naturally regain ground cover, through 

both the falling of snags and the recovery of live vegetation. 

Erosion and Sedimentation from Treatment Activities

Salvage of Merchantable and Non-Merchantable Trees

Erosion modeling using Disturbed WEPP (Water Erosion Prediction Project) was conducted within 

the fire perimeter to determine both post-fire (pre-implementation) and post-implementation erosion 

rates for the first year post-fire. With only one exception, erosion rates for HUC 6 and HUC 7 

watersheds under the no action alternative were either the same or greater than erosion rates under 

any action alternative. This was attributed to the increase in ground cover that would occur under the 

action alternatives, but would not occur under the no action alternative. Logging activities create 

more effective sediment transport networks to stream channels. These transport networks would not 

be created under Alternative 2. However, sediment transport networks originating from existing skid 

trails would not be mitigated by subsoiling under Alternative 2, as they would be under the action 

alternatives.

Piling and Burning

No piling and burning would occur under Alternative 2, so there is no risk of erosion and 

sedimentation. 

Roads

Road Construction

The increased overland flow rates and sediment yields associated with road construction would not 

occur under Alternative 2. 

Road Reconstruction and Maintenance

One of the purposes of the Rim Fire Recovery project is to improve road infrastructure to ensure 

proper hydrologic function. Reconstruction and maintenance would not occur under Alternative 2, so 

the goal of ensuring proper hydrologic function would not be met. Any sediment related issues 

associated with roads within the project area would continue on current trends and may degrade with 

time. Roadside hazard trees would not be removed under the no action alternative. This means that 

many maintenance level 2 roads would be closed to access either through gates or through snags 

falling across roads. This would limit the ability of the forest to conduct storm patrols on roads. 

Excessive concentrations of downed trees and debris above stream crossings could increase the risk 

of future crossing failures by causing plugging problems at culverts and bridges. Because access on 

these roads would be limited, discovery of the problem sites would be delayed, likely resulting in 

greater damage to road surfaces and subsequent stream sedimentation.

Temporary Road Construction

The increased overland flow rates and sediment yields associated with new temporary road

construction would not occur under Alternative 2. However, 70-72 percent of the temporary roads 

proposed for use under the action alternatives already exist on the ground. These roads would be 

decommissioned following use, resulting in a net decrease of up to 22.7 miles of road on the 

landscape. This decommissioning of existing roads would not occur under the no action alternative. 

270
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Material and Water Source Development

No material or water sources would be developed under Alternative 2, so there is no risk of erosion 

and sedimentation. 

Fuel Loading 

The no action alternative would allow for fuel loading to increase in the project area. Nearly all snags 

would be expected to fall by 20 years post-fire. The limbs and boles from these fallen trees would 

accumulate as surface fuels. This fuel is expected to increase each decade as trees fall over. Within 10 

years, surface fuels are projected to average 78 tons per acre due to dead trees falling over. Within 30 

years, surface fuels are projected to average 98 tons per acre. 

Increased erosion following fire is related to the amount of vegetation removed. Prescribed fires, by 

design, do not consume extensive areas of organic matter (Baker 1990). Therefore, they have little 

impact on erosion and sedimentation, whereas intense wildfires may have substantial impacts (Brooks 

et al. 1997). The high fuel loadings that are projected to occur under Alternative 2 could not be 

maintained with prescribed fire. Fire behavior is expected to increase once standing dead is on the 

ground. A future reburn under such extreme fuel loading would likely lead to soil erosion and 

sedimentation much more severe than that caused by the reduction of fuel loading under the action 

alternatives and maintaining these reduced loadings in the future by utilizing prescribed fire.

Riparian Vegetation

Under Alternative 2, there would be no disturbance to riparian vegetation. However, the removal of 

burned tree boles could have a slight incremental effect on increasing sunlight, and this would not 

occur under Alternative 2. 

Stream Condition

Stream Flow

No changes in stream flow are anticipated as a result of the no action alternative. 

Stream Morphology

Ground cover treatments along stream banks have the potential to increase bank stability post-fire, 

particularly in areas where a high percentage of ground cover was consumed by the fire. These 

treatments would not occur under Alternative 2. Bank stability would increase over time as live 

vegetation recovered, but percent cover along stream banks would likely be lower under Alternative 2 

than the action alternatives until live vegetative recovery occurs.

Large Woody Debris

Levels of large woody debris (LWD) in streams would be high under Alternative 2 as all snags would 

be retained and over time many near-stream snags would fall into streams. The effects of these fallen 

snags on roads were discussed above in the Erosion and Sedimentation section. The effect of this high 

level of LWD on stream condition is uncertain. In streams with low levels of LWD this extra loading 

may be beneficial in storing stream sediment. In streams with high levels of LWD, this extra loading 

may be excessive. Larger rivers should be capable of transporting these high loads of LWD to 

downstream reservoirs. 

Water Quality (Beneficial Uses of Water)

Water Temperature

No effect to water temperature is anticipated under Alternative 2. 

Sediment-Related Parameters

Ground disturbance from mechanized equipment that could lead to stream sedimentation would not 

occur under Alternative 2. However, activities that could reduce stream sedimentation, such as 

271
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

ground cover treatments, subsoiling of existing skid trails, road reconstruction to reduce hydrologic 

connectivity, and decommissioning of existing temporary roads would not occur. 

Pesticides (Registered Borate Compound)

A registered borate compound would not be used under Alternative 2. 

Summary

Beneficial uses of water would continue to be met. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERAs)

Table 3.14-10 shows ERAs were calculated for twelve HUC 6 and five HUC 7 watersheds.

HUC 6 and 7 Watersheds

ERAs exceed the threshold of concern in one HUC 6 and three HUC 7 watersheds under the no action 

alternative. These high values can be attributed to the fire itself as well as past and future 

management activities on private and NFS lands. 

Grazing

Same as Alternative 1. 

Table 3.14-10 Alternative 2: Annual Percent ERA for each HUC 6 and HUC 7 Analysis Watershed

HUC Level and Name 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

6 - Grapevine Creek-Tuolumne River 3.91 2.99 2.05 1.95 1.83 1.70 1.58 1.51 1.43 1.35

6 - Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River 14.681 11.68 8.58 7.33 5.99 4.68 3.47 2.93 2.38 1.84

 7 - Corral Creek 16.331 12.951 9.39 7.76 6.03 4.31 2.60 2.37 2.14 1.91

 7 - Lower Jawbone Creek 11.80 8.73 5.61 4.98 4.17 3.39 2.60 2.31 2.02 1.73

6 - Lower Clavey River 8.41 6.45 4.44 3.93 3.39 2.86 2.33 1.99 1.66 1.37

 7 - Bear Springs Creek 11.36 9.11 6.82 5.95 5.06 4.18 3.29 2.72 2.14 1.67

6 - Middle Clavey River 3.64 3.25 2.73 3.36 3.86 4.28 3.82 3.46 3.10 2.76

6 - Reed Creek 7.06 6.17 5.50 5.30 4.63 3.95 3.22 2.85 2.48 2.11

 7 - Lower Reed Creek 14.981 12.431 9.51 7.92 6.39 4.85 3.43 2.98 2.53 2.07

6 - Lower Cherry Creek 10.58 8.30 5.99 5.16 4.28 3.41 2.56 2.20 1.84 1.48

 7 - Granite Creek 24.681 20.331 15.821 13.391 10.86 8.33 5.92 4.93 3.94 2.96

6 - Miguel Creek-Eleanor Creek 3.47 2.22 0.98 0.77 0.56 0.36 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14

6 - Poopenaut Valley-Tuolumne River 4.45 3.06 1.68 1.41 1.11 0.81 0.51 0.48 0.46 0.43

6 - Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River 9.96 7.68 5.23 4.66 3.95 3.36 2.84 2.62 2.41 2.21

6 - Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River 3.66 2.61 1.56 1.20 0.83 0.47 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11

6 - Lower South Fork Tuolumne River 7.01 5.62 3.97 3.75 3.69 3.30 2.91 2.72 2.53 2.34

6 - Upper South Fork Tuolumne River 3.07 2.22 1.28 1.09 0.88 0.69 0.50 0.47 0.44 0.41

1 Denotes watersheds over the TOC

Alternative 3 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Erosion and Sedimentation

Factors Affecting Erosion and Sedimentation

The potential for soil compaction and displacement are similar to Alternative 1 because similar 

acreages of mechanical treatment are proposed and because management requirements and BMPs 

prescribed under Alternative 1 are also prescribed under Alternative 3. 

Alternative 3 includes site-specific requirements for increasing ground cover to reduce erosion and 

sedimentation in watershed sensitive areas (WSAs). WSAs are portions of the watersheds that were 

determined to be at high risk of soil erosion and sedimentation due to the combined effects of the Rim 

272
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Fire and proposed recovery activities. Criteria for evaluating the existence of WSAs include: 

proposed recovery activities, burn severity, percent slope, slope shape, slope length, existing and 

potential soil cover, proximity to intermittent and perennial drainages, and proximity to high runoff 

response soils. Two treatments are prescribed to achieve increased ground cover: mastication and 

drop and lop. Mastication is proposed on 1,309 acres of WSAs and would involve grinding or 

shredding dead trees less than 10 inches dbh into chunks less than 2 feet in length to create ground 

cover. Drop and lop is proposed on an additional 2,228 acres of WSAs under Alternative 3. This 

treatment would involve felling non-merchantable trees less than 10 inches dbh and lopping them into 

pieces in lengths short enough such that the dropped material is not stacked and has as much ground 

contact as practical. A minimum 50 percent effective ground cover is desired under both treatment 

techniques. A maximum of 10-20 tons/acre of fuel loading is allowed. Under Alternative 3, research 

would be conducted to determine the effectiveness of these ground cover treatments at reducing 

erosion and sedimentation. 

Erosion and Sedimentation from Treatment Activities

Salvage of Merchantable and Non-Merchantable Trees

As described under Alternative 1, erosion modeling using Disturbed WEPP (Water Erosion 

Prediction Project) was conducted within the fire perimeter to determine both post-fire (preimplementation) and post-implementation erosion rates. Table 3.14-11 models erosion rates in each 

watershed. 

Table 3.14-11 Alternative 3: Post-Fire and Post-Implementation Erosion Rates and Percent Change for Each 

Watershed

HUC Level and Name

Post-Fire

Erosion Rate

(tons/acre)

Post-Implementation

Erosion Rate

(tons/acre)

Erosion Rate1 

Change (%)

6 - Grapevine Creek-Tuolumne River 2.0 1.9 -5.0

6 - Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River 3.6 3.3 -8.3

 7 - Corral Creek 4.7 3.5 -25.5

 7 - Lower Jawbone Creek 4.9 4.4 -10.2

6 - Lower North Fork Tuolumne River 0.9 0.9 0.0

6 - Lower Clavey River 2.9 2.7 -6.9

 7 - Bear Springs Creek 3.1 2.7 -12.9

6 - Middle Clavey River 1.2 1.1 -8.3

6 - Reed Creek 1.4 1.2 -14.3

 7 - Lower Reed Creek 3.2 2.5 -21.9

6 - Lower Cherry Creek 2.4 2.3 -4.2

 7 - Granite Creek 3.6 3.4 -5.6

6 - Miguel Creek-Eleanor Creek 1.1 1.1 0.0

6 - Poopenaut Valley-Tuolumne River 1.4 1.4 0.0

6 - Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River 2.8 2.4 -14.3

6 - Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River 0.9 0.9 0.0

6 - Lower South Fork Tuolumne River 3.1 2.8 -9.7

6 - Upper South Fork Tuolumne River 0.9 0.9 0.0

6 - Bull Creek 0.6 0.6 0.0

6 - Bean Creek-North Fork Merced River 0.7 0.7 0.0

1 Negative percent change indicates reduced erosion. Positive percent change indicates increased erosion.

Seven of the fifteen HUC 6 watersheds are anticipated to have negligible changes in erosion at the 

watershed scale (Table 3.14-11). The eight HUC 6 watersheds with projected changes in erosion had 

lower erosion rates post-implementation than post-fire. This is attributed to increased ground cover in 

high vegetation burn severity areas due to mastication, drop and lop, and the addition of activity fuels. 

The modeling also indicated that all five HUC 7 watersheds would have decreased erosion rates 

273
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

following project implementation. The largest erosion rate change was a reduction of 1.2 tons/acre (-

25.5 percent) in the Corral Creek watershed.

Although modeling results indicate that erosion rates either would not measurably change or would 

decrease as a result of Alternative 3, stream sedimentation still has the potential to occur as a result of 

this alternative, particularly in areas where logging activities create more effective sediment transport 

networks to stream channels. Table 3.14-12 shows salvage logging acres (combined timber units and 

hazard tree removal) within 100 feet of perennial or intermittent streams and SAFs by soil burn 

severity. All system types (ground-based, skyline, and helicopter) are included in this table.

Despite implementation of BMPs and management requirements, increased stream sedimentation is 

anticipated as a result of Alternative 3, particularly in areas where logging activities create more 

effective sediment transport networks to stream channels. This is more likely to occur in the Jawbone 

Creek-Tuolumne River, Corral Creek, Reed Creek, Lower Reed Creek, Lower Cherry Creek, Granite 

Creek, and Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River watersheds than in other HUC 6 or HUC 7 

watersheds due to the larger acreages of high soil burn severity areas near streams proposed for 

treatment. 

Table 3.14-12 Alternative 3: Salvage Logging by Soil Burn Severity Within 100 feet of a Perennial Stream, 

Intermittent Stream, or Special Aquatic Feature

HUC Level and Name

Salvage Logging Within 100 Feet of a Perennial Stream,

Intermittent Stream, or Special Aquatic Feature (acres)

High Soil

Burn Severity

Moderate Soil

Burn Severity

Low Soil

Burn Severity

6 - Grapevine Creek-Tuolumne River 0 23 34

6 - Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River 76 234 78

 7 - Corral Creek 45 92 23

 7 - Lower Jawbone Creek 8 53 3

6 - Lower North Fork Tuolumne River 1 14 24

6 - Lower Clavey River 6 56 78

 7 - Bear Springs Creek 6 26 31

6 - Middle Clavey River 6 49 134

6 - Reed Creek 48 105 82

 7 - Lower Reed Creek 47 94 25

6 - Lower Cherry Creek 49 113 38

 7 - Granite Creek 37 55 3

6 - Miguel Creek-Eleanor Creek 0 4 13

6 - Poopenaut Valley-Tuolumne River 4 4 1

6 - Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River 47 327 137

6 - Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River 0 12 8

6 - Lower South Fork Tuolumne River 11 169 260

6 - Upper South Fork Tuolumne River 0 3 23

6 - Bull Creek 0 7 11

6 - Bean Creek-North Fork Merced River 0 17 28

Mastication

Mastication is proposed on 1,309 acres of WSAs and would involve grinding or shredding dead trees 

less than 10 inches dbh into chunks less than 2 feet in length to create ground cover. Research in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin indicated that creating 25 percent ground cover with masticated material was 

effective at filtering sediment in unburned areas (Harrison 2012).

Although heavy equipment is used in the mastication treatment, it is not expected to cause measurable 

erosion and sedimentation. This treatment creates ground cover and thus is used to prevent erosion 

and filter sediment. BMPs and management requirements for ground-based mechanized equipment 

274
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

apply to mastication. This includes requirements such as equipment exclusion zones and restrictions 

on wet weather operations. 

Piling and Burning

The effects of piling and burning under Alternative 3 are anticipated to be similar or less than those 

found under Alternative 1. One difference is that dozer piling is prohibited in WSAs. In these areas, 

grapple piling is the only machine piling technique allowed. Because of this, less dozer piling acres 

are proposed under Alternative 3 than Alternative 1. The effects of grapple piling on erosion and 

sedimentation are anticipated to be less than dozer piling because materials are picked up and moved 

into piles rather than pushed into piles. Another difference is that allowable fuel loading under 

Alternative 1 is 10 tons/acre, while it is 10-20 tons/acre under Alternative 3. This would result in the 

need for slightly less piling under Alternative 3. 

Roads

Alternative 3 includes about 1 mile of new road construction, 324 miles of road reconstruction, 201 

miles of road maintenance, 3.3 miles of temporary use-revert and 35 miles of temporary road

construction. This would include 1 new permanent stream crossing along a newly constructed road. 

Road Construction

The effects of new road construction on erosion and sedimentation are anticipated to be less under 

Alternative 3 than Alternative 1. This is because only 1.04 miles of new road construction are 

proposed under Alternative 3, whereas Alternative 1 proposes 5.4 miles. In addition, Alternative 1 

proposed 6 perennial and intermittent stream crossings, while Alternative 3 proposes only 1 

intermittent stream crossing. The change in permanent road mileage as a result of Alternative 3 is a 

0.65 percent increase in the Middle Clavey River watershed. BMPs and management requirements 

would limit sediment inputs to streams during road construction. Although some erosion and 

sedimentation is anticipated as a result of this activity, particularly in the first year or two following 

construction, overall increases in erosion and sedimentation are anticipated to be low as the percent 

increase in road mileage is low.

Road Reconstruction and Maintenance

Effects of road reconstruction and maintenance on erosion and sedimentation are expected to be 

similar to those described for Alternative 1, as the mileage proposed for these treatments are similar 

and the same BMPs and management requirements would be implemented. 

Temporary Road Construction

Of the 32.2 miles of temporary roads identified for use under Alternative 3, 22.7 miles (70 percent) 

already exist on the ground as non-system routes. While additional traffic on these routes would cause 

soil disturbance and has the potential for increased erosion and sedimentation, these routes would be 

decommissioned following use, resulting in a net decrease of 22.7 miles of road on the landscape. The 

construction of new temporary roads would reduce infiltration and lead to potential increases in 

erosion and sedimentation. However, decommissioning these roads after use would reduce these 

impacts in the long term. 

Material and Water Source Development

The effects of material and water source development on erosion and sedimentation are anticipated to 

be the same for Alternative 3 as Alternative 1 as the sites proposed for use are the same.

Fuel Loading 

Fuel loading would decrease in the project area watersheds under Alternative 3. Coarse woody debris 

would be reduced to 10-20 tons/acre in all units proposed for treatment. This is slightly higher than 

the 10 tons/acre prescribed under Alternative 1. Allowable tons/acre increase under Alternative 3 to 

275
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

provide for increased ground cover capable of filtering erosion, and for other resource benefits. This 

tonnage would still result in lower flame lengths and fireline intensities, allowing for direct attack of 

future wildfires. Reducing fuel loading and then maintaining these fuel loads with prescribed fire has 

less potential for erosion and sedimentation than allowing fuel loading to increase as snags fall and 

having another large stand-replacing wildfire in the future.

Riparian Vegetation

The effects of Alternative 3 on riparian vegetation are similar to that described for Alternative 1. 

Management requirements require retention of remaining post-fire obligate riparian shrubs and trees 

that have live crown foliage or are resprouting. Riparian vegetation may be beneficially affected by 

Alternative 3 where burned overstory trees are removed. 

One fen exists within the roadside hazard tree removal area. No fens are within salvage treatment 

units. Removal of hazard trees near the fen is not anticipated to affect it, as management requirements 

such as equipment exclusion zones would be implemented.

Alternative 3 includes 63 acres of meadows within treatment units. Removal of trees along meadow 

edges is not expected to affect meadows, as management requirements would be implemented. 

Stream Condition

Stream Flow

The effects of Alternative 3 on stream flow are anticipated to be similar to those described for 

Alternative 1. Live trees would only be removed if they are a hazard tree and pose a risk to health and 

safety. Otherwise, all trees proposed for harvest would be dead and their removal would not affect 

soil water storage, interception, or evapotranspiration beyond the changes that already occurred as a 

result of the fire. Treatments that increase ground cover, such as mastication and drop and lop, or 

minimize compaction, such as subsoiling, promote infiltration and reduce overland flows, leading to 

reduced storm peak events and total flows. Therefore, measurable changes in stream flow are not 

anticipated to result under Alternative 3. 

Stream Morphology

The effects of Alternative 3 on stream morphology are anticipated to be similar to those described 

under Alternative 1. Channel incision is not expected as a result of Alternative 3, as measureable 

changes in stream flow are not anticipated. Management requirements and BMPs are expected to 

protect bank stability.

Large Woody Debris

Under Alternative 3, existing downed large woody debris (LWD) in the channel would be retained. In 

addition, a minimum of 5 large snags per acre would be retained within 100 feet of perennial streams 

to provide for future recruitment of LWD. As a result of this snag retention, large woody debris levels 

in streams would increase over time following project implementation. Levels would be lower, 

however, than if harvesting did not occur near stream channels and all snags were retained. The 

Aquatics Report (project record) provides more information on large woody debris. 

Water Quality (Beneficial Uses of Water)

The effects of Alternative 3 on water temperature, sediment-related parameters, and water quality as a 

result of pesticides (registered borate compound) are anticipated to be similar to those described 

under Alternative 1. There is a slight increase in total unit acreage under Alternative 3, due primarily 

to the addition of 3,000 acres of wildlife treatment units designed to allow for improved deer passage. 

However, management requirements and BMPs are designed to minimize impacts. Alternative 3 also 

identified watershed sensitive areas for additional ground cover treatments (mastication and drop and 

lop), which should further mitigate impacts under these alternatives. 

276
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERAs)

ERAs were calculated for twelve HUC 6 and five HUC 7 watersheds. Results of these analyses were 

similar to that found under Alternative 1. Table 3.14-13 shows the ERA values for Alternative 3. 

HUC 6 and 7 Watersheds

ERA values for twelve of the seventeen HUC 6 and HUC 7 watersheds were equal or slightly less for 

Alternative 3 than Alternative 1. These values decreased by up to 0.50 percent for Alternative 3 in 

2014. Five HUC 6 and HUC 7 watersheds had higher ERA values than Alternative 1. The largest 

increase in 2014 was 0.95 percent in the Corral Creek watershed. ERA increases were attributed 

primarily to the addition of wildlife treatment units to improve deer passage. The other substantial 

difference between Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 was the development of WSA treatments for 

increased ground cover under Alternative 3. This increased ground cover is anticipated to reduce the 

risk of cumulative watershed effects.

With slight differences in ERA values between Alternative 1 and Alternative 3, the watersheds that 

exceeded the TOC were the same. Therefore, cumulative effects for Alternative 3 are anticipated to 

be the same as described for Alternative 1.

Grazing

Same as Alternative 1. 

Table 3.14-13 Alternative 3: Annual Percent ERA for each HUC 6 and HUC 7 Analysis Watershed

HUC Level and Name 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

6 - Grapevine Creek-Tuolumne River 4.31 3.50 2.51 2.36 2.18 2.00 1.83 1.69 1.56 1.43

6 - Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River 16.561 16.081 12.961 11.41 9.78 7.91 6.15 5.05 3.96 2.87

 7 - Corral Creek 21.081 25.401 21.841 19.431 16.861 13.551 10.24 8.42 6.60 4.79

 7 - Lower Jawbone Creek 14.171 13.271 9.95 9.01 7.94 6.59 5.25 4.41 3.59 2.77

6 - Lower Clavey River 9.62 9.80 8.20 7.40 6.57 5.59 4.61 3.82 3.04 2.30

 7 - Bear Springs Creek 12.911 12.781 10.76 9.58 8.40 7.02 5.66 4.61 3.56 2.62

6 - Middle Clavey River 4.76 5.15 4.65 5.07 5.39 5.58 4.90 4.31 3.73 3.17

6 - Reed Creek 8.20 9.40 8.40 7.96 7.06 6.02 4.94 4.22 3.51 2.79

 7 - Lower Reed Creek 17.381 17.991 15.261 13.201 11.25 8.99 6.86 5.70 4.55 3.40

6 - Lower Cherry Creek 11.27 9.96 7.77 6.80 5.79 4.70 3.64 3.07 2.49 1.92

 7 - Granite Creek 26.021 23.021 18.471 15.931 13.291 10.41 7.65 6.30 4.96 3.63

6 - Miguel Creek-Eleanor Creek 3.68 2.61 1.34 1.09 0.86 0.61 0.36 0.31 0.27 0.22

6 - Poopenaut Valley-Tuolumne River 4.56 3.29 1.89 1.61 1.30 0.97 0.64 0.59 0.53 0.48

6 - Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River 12.771 15.171 13.261 12.161 10.87 9.28 7.77 6.56 5.38 4.21

6 - Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River 3.74 2.78 1.74 1.36 0.99 0.60 0.22 0.20 0.17 0.15

6 - Lower South Fork Tuolumne River 9.12 9.83 8.50 7.87 7.42 6.44 5.52 4.81 4.10 3.40

6 - Upper South Fork Tuolumne River 3.18 2.42 1.50 1.28 1.06 0.84 0.62 0.57 0.51 0.46

1 Denotes watersheds over the TOC

Alternative 4

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 4 are the same as those for Alternative 3 with the 

exception of those described below. 

Erosion and Sedimentation

Factors Affecting Erosion and Sedimentation

Drop and lop is proposed on an additional 1,309 under Alternative 4 compared to an additional 2,228 

acres of WSAs under Alternative 3. This treatment would involve felling non-merchantable trees less 

277
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

than 10 inches dbh and lopping them into pieces in lengths short enough such that the dropped 

material is not stacked and has as much ground contact as practical. A minimum 50 percent effective 

ground cover is desired. A maximum of 10-20 tons/acre of fuel loading is allowed. Under Alternative 

4, research would be conducted to determine the effectiveness of these ground cover treatments at 

reducing erosion and sedimentation. 

Erosion and Sedimentation from Treatment Activities

Salvage of Merchantable and Non-Merchantable Trees

As described under Alternative 1, erosion modeling using Disturbed WEPP (Water Erosion 

Prediction Project) was conducted within the fire perimeter to determine both post-fire (preimplementation) and post-implementation erosion rates. Table 3.14-14 models erosion rates in each 

watershed. 

Seven of the fifteen HUC 6 watersheds are anticipated to have negligible changes in erosion at the 

watershed scale (Table 3.14-14). The eight HUC 6 watersheds with projected changes in erosion had 

lower erosion rates post-implementation than post-fire. This is attributed to increased ground cover in 

high vegetation burn severity areas due to mastication, drop and lop, and the addition of activity fuels. 

The modeling also indicated that all five HUC 7 watersheds would have decreased erosion rates 

following project implementation. The largest erosion rate change was a reduction of 1.2 tons/acre (-

25.5 percent) in the Corral Creek watershed.

Table 3.14-14 Alternative 4: Post-Fire and Post-Implementation Erosion Rates and Percent Change for Each 

Watershed

HUC Level and Name

Post-Fire

Erosion Rate

(tons/acre)

Post-Implementation

Erosion Rate

(tons/acre)

Erosion Rate1 

Change (%)

6 - Grapevine Creek-Tuolumne River 2.0 1.9 -5.0

6 - Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River 3.6 3.3 -8.3

 7 - Corral Creek 4.7 3.5 -25.5

 7 - Lower Jawbone Creek 4.9 4.4 -10.2

6 - Lower North Fork Tuolumne River 0.9 0.9 0.0

6 - Lower Clavey River 2.9 2.7 -6.9

 7 - Bear Springs Creek 3.1 2.7 -12.9

6 - Middle Clavey River 1.2 1.1 -8.3

6 - Reed Creek 1.4 1.2 -14.3

 7 - Lower Reed Creek 3.2 2.7 -15.6

6 - Lower Cherry Creek 2.4 2.3 -4.2

 7 - Granite Creek 3.6 3.4 -5.6

6 - Miguel Creek-Eleanor Creek 1.1 1.1 0.0

6 - Poopenaut Valley-Tuolumne River 1.4 1.4 0.0

6 - Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River 2.8 2.4 -14.3

6 - Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River 0.9 0.9 0.0

6 - Lower South Fork Tuolumne River 3.1 2.8 -9.7

6 - Upper South Fork Tuolumne River 0.9 0.9 0.0

6 - Bull Creek 0.6 0.6 0.0

6 - Bean Creek-North Fork Merced River 0.7 0.7 0.0

1 Negative percent change indicates reduced erosion. Positive percent change indicates increased erosion.

Although modeling results indicate that erosion rates either would not measurably change or would 

decrease as a result of Alternative 4, stream sedimentation still has the potential to occur as a result of 

this alternative, particularly in areas where logging activities create more effective sediment transport 

networks to stream channels. Table 3.14-15 shows salvage logging acres (combined salvage units and 

hazard tree removal) within 100 feet of perennial or intermittent streams and SAFs by soil burn 

severity. All system types (ground-based, skyline, and helicopter) are included in that table.

278
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Roads

Alternative 4 includes about 315 miles of road reconstruction, 209 miles of road maintenance, 3.3 

miles of temporary use-revert, and 34 miles of temporary road construction. No road construction, 

with associated stream crossings, is planned. 

Road Construction

The increased overland flow rates and sediment yields associated with road construction would not 

occur under Alternative 4, as no road construction is proposed. 

Temporary Road Construction

Of the 30.5 miles of temporary roads identified for use under Alternative 4, 22.1 miles (72 percent) 

already exist on the ground as non-system routes. While additional traffic on these routes would cause 

soil disturbance and has the potential for increased erosion and sedimentation, these routes would be 

decommissioned following use, resulting in a net decrease of 22.1 miles of road on the landscape. The 

construction of new temporary roads would reduce infiltration and lead to potential increases in 

erosion and sedimentation. However, decommissioning these roads after use would reduce these 

impacts in the long term. 

Water Quality (Beneficial Uses of Water)

Alternative 4 includes a slight decrease (500 acres) in total unit acreage under as compared to 

Alternative 1. 

Table 3.14-15 Alternative 4: Salvage Logging by Soil Burn Severity Within 100 feet of a Perennial Stream, 

Intermittent Stream, or Special Aquatic Feature

HUC Level and Name

Salvage Logging Within 100 Feet of a Perennial Stream,

Intermittent Stream, or Special Aquatic Feature (acres)

High Soil

Burn Severity

Moderate Soil

Burn Severity

Low Soil

Burn Severity

6 - Grapevine Creek-Tuolumne River 0 23 34

6 - Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River 76 234 78

 7 - Corral Creek 45 92 23

 7 - Lower Jawbone Creek 8 53 3

6 - Lower North Fork Tuolumne River 1 14 24

6 - Lower Clavey River 6 56 78

 7 - Bear Springs Creek 6 26 31

6 - Middle Clavey River 5 35 125

6 - Reed Creek 30 91 81

 7 - Lower Reed Creek 29 80 25

6 - Lower Cherry Creek 49 113 38

 7 - Granite Creek 37 55 3

6 - Miguel Creek-Eleanor Creek 0 4 12

6 - Poopenaut Valley-Tuolumne River 4 4 1

6 - Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River 47 327 137

6 - Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River 0 12 8

6 - Lower South Fork Tuolumne River 11 168 259

6 - Upper South Fork Tuolumne River 0 3 23

6 - Bull Creek 0 7 11

6 - Bean Creek-North Fork Merced River 0 17 28

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERAs)

ERAs were calculated for twelve HUC 6 and five HUC 7 watersheds. Results of these analyses were 

similar to that found under Alternative 1. Table 3.14-16 shows the ERA values for Alternative 4. 

279
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

Table 3.14-16 Alternative 4: Annual Percent ERA for each HUC 6 and HUC 7 Analysis Watershed

HUC Level and Name 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

6 - Grapevine Creek-Tuolumne River 4.31 3.50 2.51 2.36 2.18 2.00 1.83 1.69 1.56 1.43

6 - Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River 16.561 16.081 12.961 11.41 9.78 7.91 6.15 5.05 3.96 2.87

 7 - Corral Creek 21.081 25.401 21.841 19.431 16.861 13.551 10.24 8.42 6.60 4.79

 7 - Lower Jawbone Creek 14.171 13.271 9.95 9.01 7.94 6.59 5.25 4.41 3.59 2.77

6 - Lower Clavey River 9.62 9.80 8.20 7.40 6.57 5.59 4.61 3.82 3.04 2.30

 7 - Bear Springs Creek 12.911 12.781 10.76 9.58 8.40 7.02 5.66 4.61 3.56 2.62

6 - Middle Clavey River 4.66 5.02 4.54 4.98 5.30 5.50 4.83 4.26 3.69 3.14

6 - Reed Creek 8.01 8.70 7.58 7.19 6.34 5.41 4.43 3.81 3.19 2.57

 7 - Lower Reed Creek 16.771 15.931 12.931 10.99 9.19 7.22 5.37 4.50 3.64 2.77

6 - Lower Cherry Creek 11.22 9.71 7.49 6.54 5.54 4.49 3.46 2.92 2.38 1.84

 7 - Granite Creek 26.021 22.931 18.291 15.691 12.981 10.14 7.41 6.10 4.79 3.50

6 - Miguel Creek-Eleanor Creek 3.66 2.54 1.26 1.02 0.79 0.55 0.30 0.27 0.23 0.20

6 - Poopenaut Valley-Tuolumne River 4.56 3.29 1.89 1.61 1.30 0.97 0.64 0.59 0.53 0.48

6 - Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River 12.771 15.171 13.261 12.161 10.87 9.28 7.77 6.56 5.38 4.21

6 - Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River 3.74 2.78 1.74 1.36 0.99 0.60 0.22 0.20 0.17 0.15

6 - Lower South Fork Tuolumne River 9.11 9.76 8.41 7.79 7.35 6.38 5.47 4.77 4.07 3.38

6 - Upper South Fork Tuolumne River 3.18 2.41 1.48 1.27 1.04 0.83 0.61 0.56 0.51 0.45

1 Denotes watersheds over the TOC

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

Erosion and Sedimentation

Under Alternative 1, erosion rates as a result of salvage harvest are anticipated to have negligible 

change in most HUC 6 watersheds. Two HUC 6 watersheds are projected to have decreased erosion 

and one watershed is projected to have increased erosion. Sedimentation increases due to salvage 

harvest are anticipated to be highest in HUC 6 watersheds with treatments proposed within 100 feet 

of streams in high soil burn severity areas (Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River, Reed Creek, Lower 

Cherry Creek, and Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River). Of the piling and burning activities, dozer 

piling has the highest potential for sedimentation and could occur in any of the treatment units. This 

alternative has the highest mileage of road construction, leading to the largest potential for road 

related erosion and sedimentation. Alternative 1 proposed 6 perennial and intermittent stream 

crossings, while Alternative 3 proposes only 1 intermittent stream crossing and Alternative 4 has no 

road construction nor proposed stream crossings. While road reconstruction and maintenance cause 

disturbance, improving and maintaining drainage features can reduce erosion from current levels. 

Temporary road construction would involve the construction of new temporary roads and the use of 

existing non-system roads, all of which would be decommissioned following use. This 

decommissioning would result in fewer roads on the landscape post-project than pre-project. Some 

sedimentation could occur as a result of material source and water source development. 

Under Alternative 2, erosion rates in HUC 6 watersheds are anticipated to be similar to those 

watersheds under Alternative 1 and similar to or higher than those watersheds under Alternatives 3 

and 4 due to a lack of ground cover. New sediment transport networks would not be created. 

However, reductions in soil compaction on existing skid trails would not occur, so these sediment 

transport networks would remain in place. There is no risk of erosion and sedimentation from piling 

and burning, road construction, material source development, or water source development. Road 

reconstruction and maintenance would not occur, so hydrologic connectivity of roads and streams 

would remain. Temporary road construction would not occur, so temporary roads already existing on 

the landscape would not be decommissioned.

Under Alternatives 3 and 4, erosion rates for HUC 6 watersheds are anticipated to have either 

negligible change or reduced erosion rates. Sedimentation increases due to salvage harvest are 

anticipated to be highest in HUC 6 watersheds with treatments proposed within 100 feet of streams in 

280
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

high soil burn severity areas (Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River, Reed Creek, Lower Cherry Creek, and 

Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River). Watershed sensitive areas (WSAs) were delineated for these 

alternatives and ground cover treatments were prescribed (mastication and drop and lop) to reduce the 

risk of sedimentation. Of the piling and burning activities, dozer piling has the highest potential for 

sedimentation. These alternatives have restrictions that prohibit dozer piling in WSAs. Alternative 3

has only 1 mile of permanent road construction with 1 associated stream crossing and Alternative 4

has no permanent road construction. While road reconstruction and maintenance cause disturbance, 

improving and maintaining drainage features can reduce erosion from current levels as described in 

Alternative 2. Temporary road construction would involve the construction of new temporary roads 

and the use of existing non-system roads, all of which would be decommissioned following use. This 

decommissioning would result in fewer roads on the landscape post-project than pre-project. Some 

sedimentation could occur as a result of material source and water source development. 

Fuel Loading

Under Alternative 1, fuel loading would be reduced to 10 tons/acre of surface fuels, allowing for 

direct attack of future wildfires and maintenance of reduced fuel loading with prescribed fire. 

Under Alternative 2, fuel loading would increase over time, to an estimated 98 tons/acre of surface 

fuels in 30 years. This would not allow for direct attack of wildfires or use of prescribed fire. A future 

reburn under such extreme fuel loading conditions would likely lead to soil erosion and sedimentation 

more severe than that caused by fuel reduction treatments.

Under Alternatives 3 and 4, fuel loading would be reduced to 10-20 tons/acre of surface fuels, 

allowing for direct attack of future wildfires and maintenance of reduced fuel loading with prescribed 

fire. 

Riparian Vegetation

Under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, removal of burned overstory trees may provide slight increases in 

sunlight, benefitting regrowth of riparian obligate trees and shrubs. Management requirements would 

prevent disturbance to riparian vegetation, including at a fen and numerous meadows. 

Under Alternative 2, no removal of burned overstory trees would occur, so no benefits of slight 

increase in sunlight would occur. There would be no disturbance to riparian vegetation. 

Stream Condition

Under Alternative 1, measurable changes in stream flow or channel incision are not anticipated. 

Stream banks in high soil burn severity areas may receive increased cover as part of ground cover 

treatments, resulting in improved bank stability. Snags would be felled into stream channels for 

increased LWD. 

Under Alternative 2, no changes in stream flow or channel incision are anticipated. There would 

initially be less ground cover along stream banks than the action alternatives because no ground cover 

would be added. Over time, near-stream snags would fall into streams, leading to large levels of 

LWD. 

Under Alternatives 3 and 4, measurable changes in stream flow or channel incision are not 

anticipated. Stream banks in high soil burn severity areas may receive increased cover as part of 

ground cover treatments, resulting in improved bank stability. Snags would be left adjacent to stream 

channels, allowing for natural recruitment of LWD, but at levels much less than Alternative 2. 

Water Quality (Beneficial Uses of Water)

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, water temperature is not expected to be affected. Some sedimentation 

would likely occur, particularly in areas which have high soil burn severity adjacent to streams. The 

281
Chapter 3.14 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

potential for the registered borate compound to contaminate surface water is limited. Effects to 

beneficial uses are not anticipated.

Under Alternative 2, no changes to water temperature, stream sedimentation, or water quality related 

to pesticide applications are anticipated. Effects to beneficial uses are not anticipated. 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

Standards and Guidelines

The Watershed Report and Forest Plan Compliance Checklist (project record) describe the S&Gs

applicable to watershed resources, as well as how the S&Gs would be met under the action 

alternatives. 

Beneficial Uses of Water

All alternatives are expected to result in maintenance of the applicable beneficial uses of water in the 

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Central Valley Water Quality Control 

Board (CVRWQCB 2011). Water temperature, sediment, and water quality following pesticide use 

are not expected to be adversely altered. Domestic and municipal water supplies and power are not 

adversely affected by the proposed action or alternatives. Recreational contact and non-contact waters 

are suitable for human use. Warm and cold freshwater habitat and wildlife habitat are not adversely 

affected by the proposed action or alternatives.

Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 comply with the intent and procedural requirements of BMPs (USDA 2011, 

USDA 2012). If any of the action alternatives are implemented, or a combination thereof, applicable 

BMPs would be followed. BMPs would not be implemented under Alternative 2 (No Action), as no 

recovery activities would occur under this alternative.

282
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

3.15 WILDLIFE

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction

The purpose of this section is to evaluate and disclose the effects of the Rim Recovery project to 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive wildlife species; pursuant to:

 The National Forest Management Act (1976) 

 Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM and FSH 2670) 

 Threatened and Endangered Species: Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973: 

- Review, through the biological evaluation process, actions and programs authorized, funded, 

or carried out by the Forest Service to determine their potential for effect on Threatened and 

Endangered species and species proposed for listing.

- Avoid all adverse impacts on Threatened and Endangered species and their habitats, except in 

the following situations: when it is possible to compensate adverse effects totally through 

alternatives identified in a biological opinion rendered by USFWS; when an exemption has 

been granted under the Endangered Species Act; or when USFWS biological opinion 

recognizes an incidental taking. 

- Initiate consultation or conference with USFWS when the Forest Service determines that 

proposed activities may have an effect on Threatened or Endangered species; are likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species; or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical or proposed critical habitat. 

 Sensitive Species: 

- As part of the National Environmental Policy Act process, review programs and activities, 

through a biological evaluation, to determine their potential effect on sensitive species. 

- Avoid or minimize impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern.

- If impacts cannot be avoided, analyze the significance of potential adverse effects on the 

population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a whole. 

 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and implementing regulations (CFR 219.19).

 Other species of conservation concern: 

- Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native 

and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area.

The Forest Plan Compliance (project record) document identifies the Forest Plan S&Gs that 

specifically apply to this project and related information about compliance with the Forest Plan.

Threatened and Endangered species are those federally listed by the USFWS; Candidate species are 

candidates to become Proposed species but issuance of a proposed rule is currently precluded by 

higher priority listing actions (USFWS 1998). Sensitive species are those designated by the Regional 

Forester with the goal of proactively developing and implementing management practices to ensure 

that those species do not become Threatened or Endangered, and therefore require protection under 

the Endangered Species Act because of Forest Service actions (FSM 2670). Sensitive species are 

species identified where population viability is a concern because of 1) downward population trends 

and per or 2) diminished habitat capacity that would reduce species distribution. Habitat descriptions, 

species population trends, and the status of known or suspected limiting factors are summarized by 

USDA 2001, 2004, the R5 Sensitive species evaluation form 2012, and Keane 2013 and are 

incorporated here by reference. Table 3.15-1 shows the wildlife species addressed in the first portion 

of section 3.15. Rational for why a species is not addressed in this section is in the Wildlife BE.

283
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Table 3.15-1 Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Candidate (C), Sensitive species (S), and other species of 

conservation concern considered in this analysis. Some species may also be identified as 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) or Neotropical Birds further on in this section

Common Name Scientific Name Status Detailed in

this section

Threatened and Endangered

Invertebrates

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus T yes

Sensitive

Birds

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus S yes

California Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis S, MIS yes

Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa S yes

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis S yes

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii S no

Mammals

American Marten Martes americana sierrae S, MIS yes

Pacific Fisher Martes pennanti pacifica S, C yes

California Wolverine Gulo gulo luteus S no

Sierra Nevada Red Fox Vulpes vulpes necator S no

Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes S yes

Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus S yes

Townsend's Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii S no

Other species of conservation concern

Other Species of particular conservation concern for this project 

Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus MIS, SCC yes

Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus MIS, SCC yes

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Wildlife

While some of these assumptions may be debatable, the comparison of alternatives using these 

assumptions is valid because the same assumptions are applied to all alternatives.

 For the snag retention management requirement in Old Forest Emphasis Area (OFEA), Home 

Range Core Area (HRCA), and Forest Carnivore Connectivity Corridor (FCCC) units, intent is to 

retain legacy structure where it exists for long-term resource recovery needs (i.e. the development 

of future old forest habitat with higher than average levels of large conifer snags and down woody 

material). This management requirement will retain all hardwood snags greater than or equal to 

12 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) and in addition, retain 30 square feet basal area of

conifer snags per acre by starting at the largest snag and working down, with a minimum of four 

and a maximum of six per acre (the maximum number was identified to meet economic and fuel 

reduction objectives in the purpose and need). We assume based on pre-fire stand exam data that 

on average this will result in retention of six 30 inch dbh snags per acre on a unit basis (six 30 

inch dbh trees equal to 30 square feet basal area per acre). This requirement applies to 

Alternatives 3 and 4. 

 For the snag retention management requirements in General Forest and other land allocations not 

managed for old forest emphasis objectives, intent is to retain snags in patches, avoiding 

uniformity across large areas. This management requirement will retain all hardwood snags 

greater than 12 inches dbh and in addition, retain the largest conifer snags greater than 15 inches

284
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

dbh at the rate of 4 per acre on a unit basis in mixed conifer (6 per acre in red fir). We assume 

based on pre-fire stand exam data that this is equivalent to an approximate basal area retention 

rate of 12 square feet per acre (four 24 inch dbh trees equal to 12 square feet basal area per acre).

This requirement applies to all action alternatives. In Alternative 1, this requirement applies to all 

units. 

 Snag retention along range fence units is a best estimate but is dependent on hazard tree criteria 

developed in cooperation with Yosemite National Park. On FR6469 in great gray owl PAC 16, 

hazards to the range fence may be felled but will be left in place. 

 For the down woody material retention management requirement, emphasis is for retention at a 

rate of 15 to 20 tons per acre on a unit basis in OFEA, HRCA, FCCC, and roadside hazard units 

within Protected Activity Centers (PACs) while retention in general forest units is within the 

broader range of 10 to 20 tons per acre. “Of the largest” is defined as greater than 12 inches in 

diameter at midpoint and first retaining greater than 45 inches at midpoint if available, then

greater than 24 to 45 inches at midpoint if available, then greater than 12 inches to 24 inches at 

midpoint if available.

 Pile and burn treatments will only take place where fuel loading exceeds 20 tons per acre and 

burning will not reduce large coarse woody debris below the 10 tons per acre standard.

 Hazard tree abatement would include the removal of all dead trees that have the potential to hit a 

target. A target is defined as the road prism or facilities such as fences or structures. Live trees 

may qualify as hazards if they are expected to fall and hit a target within the next two years. Very 

few green trees are expected to be removed based on the criteria, and all green trees would be 

identified and marked by qualified Forest Service personnel. We assume the amount of green tree 

removal as hazards will be conservative and that strict guidelines for marking, developed by 

Forest Health Protection (FHP) staff, will be followed. 

 Dead trees have been defined for this project as trees with no visible green needles. Salvage of 

fire-killed trees would result in the removal of dead trees only, not trees that are declining or may 

die in the near future. 

 The proposed application of a borax-based fungicide (Sporax) on cut stumps is considered very 

low risk and is not expected to result in adverse effects to terrestrial wildlife. The risk of exposure 

or ingestion is far below the level of concern (USDA 2006b).

 Unit boundaries were developed using GIS data at various scales. The level of inaccuracy of a 

line on a map at most scales used was approximately 20 feet. When utilizing these data on the 

ground, some variation in unit boundaries may occur. The scope of these variations were 

considered in our effects analysis.

Data Sources

 California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR, Ahlborn 2006).

 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, CDFW 2014a).

 Natural Resource Information System (NRIS Wildlife, USDA 2014b).

 Deer telemetry data (CDFW).

 Black-backed woodpecker occupancy model by Tingley et al. 2014. 

 GIS layers including: RAVG database, Worldview Imagery, Stanislaus vegetation database, land 

allocations, project unit boundaries and road treatments.

 Project survey reports and incidental detection records.

 Scientific literature and internal reports.

 Wildlife BE Appendix. 

Wildlife Indicators

Wildlife indicators vary by species and are stated under the environmental consequences for each 

species.

285
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Wildlife Methodology by Action

PROJECT ACTION AREA

Unless otherwise specified, the analysis area used to analyze the direct and indirect effects on wildlife 

and wildlife habitat is approximately 155,000 acres and includes Stanislaus National Forest System 

lands within the Rim Fire perimeter. The analysis area is based on 1) acres burned in a distinct 

geographic area and administrative setting that influences the purpose and need of proposed 

activities, 2) area of impact to forest vegetation from the wildfire and subsequent proposed project 

activities, 3) furthest measurable extent of changes to disturbance levels and habitat modification that 

would occur as a result of implementing any of the proposed alternatives, and 4) consistency with the 

analysis area described in the Rim Recovery EIS reports for fire and fuels, soils, and vegetation 

because ecologically, the dynamics among these elements are inherently linked with terrestrial 

wildlife habitat.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, “cumulative impact” 

is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or

non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). 

The Rim Fire perimeter (257,314 acres) was chosen as the cumulative effects analysis area for several 

reasons. Treatments are proposed in and would modify burned areas within the Rim Fire area only. 

Selection of the Rim Fire area for analysis provides an appropriate context for the reasonable 

determination of effects to species considered herein and their habitat. Relevant cumulative effects, 

particularly other projects that have or will treat areas within the fire perimeter are effectively 

addressed. This analysis is bounded in time for short-term effects (up to 20 years) and long-term

effects (20 to 50 years). Past activities are considered part of the existing condition. Appendix B 

provides a list and description of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered 

for the Rim Recovery project. All activities listed and described are not expected to affect all species 

considered in this document. See individual species analysis sections for further discussion of 

relevant present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle: Affected Environment

Species Account

The valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) is listed as Threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act. There is no Designated Critical Habitat on the Stanislaus National 

Forest. The valley elderberry beetle (VELB) is thought to range from the Central Valley into the 

eastern portion of the Coast Range and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada up to approximately 3,000 

feet (USFWS 1999). This species is most often found along the margins of rivers and streams in the 

lower Sacramento River and upper San Joaquin Valley. The current known range of the VELB 

extends from southern Shasta County south to Fresno County (Barr 1991). When the VELB was 

originally listed as Threatened, it was only known from 10 populations; however, after extensive 

surveys it is known from almost 200 locations. USFWS has proposed to delist the VELB, based on 

the ongoing protection and restoration of habitat and because of the many populations of VELB 

discovered after the species was listed (USFWS 2006). At the time of listing, the main risk to VELB 

was the loss of valley riparian habitat; from 80 to over 90 percent of this habitat had been lost in the 

Central Valley. In recent years, this loss has been somewhat mitigated through regulatory protection, 

reserves, and restoration efforts. However, the primary habitat in the Central Valley remains limited 

due to levee and river maintenance projects (USFWS 2006). 

Although surveys confirmed similar occupancy between 1991 and 2001, Collinge (2001) documented 

a 10 percent decline in the number of sites with elderberry shrubs. This decline resulted in a reduction 

286
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

in total numbers of occupied sites and shrub groups. Loss of riparian habitat and resulting 

fragmentation in the VELBs range may have resulted in a loss of populations and reduced occupancy 

rates (Ibid). 

Surveys focus on suitable habitat in project areas below 3,000 feet in elevation. Low suitability areas 

(i.e., dense shrubs and forested stands) are not typically surveyed but it is likely mature plants would 

have been detected if present. Elderberry plants with the distinctive exit holes VELB create have been 

documented in the Tuolumne and Clavey River canyons. Most documented sites are alongside roads, 

due to the limited access and management in much of the river canyons. While several elderberry 

plants with exit holes have been documented within the analysis area, no VELB detections were made 

as a result of surveys. 

The project is located within the potential elevation and geographic range of the species. The nearest 

documented occurrence was one beetle on an elderberry shrub almost 24 miles to the west of the fire 

near Jamestown in 2002. Their presence within the analysis area is unknown. However, presence is 

assumed where elderberry plants of adequate size occur below 3,000 feet in elevation. Adequate size 

is defined as stems greater than one inch in diameter at the base (Barr 1991). 

Habitat Account

Habitat for the VELB consists of elderberry shrubs and trees in a variety of habitats and plant 

communities, but most often in riparian, elderberry savannah or moist valley oak woodlands. 

Common associated plants include Populus spp., Salix spp., Fraxinus spp., Quercus spp., Juglans

spp., Acer negundo, Rubus spp., Toxicodendron diversiloba, Vitis californica, Rosa spp., and 

Bacrecharis spp. (USFWS 2006). VELB appear to favor sites with high elderberry densities and are 

limited in dispersal and colonization of new sites (Collinge et al. 2001). 

The Rim Fire may have eliminated much of the suitable habitat for VELB in the Tuolumne and 

Clavey River canyons in the short-term. Elderberry plants damaged by fire are expected to resprout 

and new plants typically appear the season following fire (Crane 1989). Nonetheless, resprouting 

plants and new sprouts will likely take several seasons to reach suitable size for VELB. Several 

recorded plants on the Lumsden Road (1N10), on Road 1S01along Highway 120, and the Cherry 

Lake Road were severely damaged by the fire. Any beetles or larvae in these areas would likely have 

perished with the plants, and would be unlikely to recolonize from other locations because of the 

extent of fire in the Tuolumne River Canyon. The burn severity of known plants along the Tuolumne 

River is not known, but they may have burned with lower intensity.

There are about 24,713 acres of potential habitat within the analysis area. There are about 24,817 

acres of potential habitat area within the cumulative analysis area. This is mainly in the river canyons 

where treatments are not proposed. 

Eggs are laid in late spring on elderberry stems greater than 1 inch in diameter, as measured at the 

base, on healthy and unstressed plants. Larvae excavate passages into the elderberry shrub where they 

may remain in larval form for as long as two years before they emerge as adults. Exit holes are 

usually on stems greater than 0.5 inches in diameter, with 70 percent of the exit holes at heights of 4 

feet or greater; these holes are circular to slightly oval, with a diameter of 7 to 10 mm (Barr 1991). 

VELB has been found only in association with its host plant, elderberry. Adults feed on the foliage 

and perhaps flowers, and are present from March through early June (Barr 1991). 

Risk Factors

Risk factors for VELB include: 

 Loss or alteration of habitat. The primary threat to VELB survival is the loss or alteration of 

habitat. Stream development and urbanization have resulted in the removal of significant amounts 

287
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

of suitable habitat. On NFS lands, cattle grazing has heavily damaged elderberry in some areas 

and may have reduced the quantity and quality of available habitat. 

 Pesticides and Herbicides. Individual beetles, localized beetle populations, and plants are subject 

to injury or loss from pesticide applications. Pesticides pose a risk to the VELB and its host plant.

Some chemicals from the valley are known to drift upslope and into the Sierra on prevailing wind 

currents (McConnell et al. 1998, Bradford et al. 2010). Smaller amounts of pesticides and 

herbicides are used in the local area by the Forest Service to control shrubs and noxious weeds, 

and lesser amounts are used by surrounding local landowners. 

 Predation. Predation by birds, other insects, and small mammals may have negative effects on 

localized populations. 

 Argentine Ant. The widely established non-native Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) also poses 

a threat to VELB. While Argentine ants are common in the core valley habitat of the VELB, it 

does not appear to be widely established in the Sierra foothills, likely due to summer drought or 

winter cold. 

Management Direction

Conservation Guidelines for VELB are provided in USFWS (1999). The proposed management 

requirements would mitigate adverse effects to this species under the proposed action and are 

consistent with the VELB Conservation Measures.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle: Environmental Consequences

The action alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the VELB through the following 

activities:

 Salvage of fire-killed trees, including roadside hazard trees. 

 Fuel treatments (e.g., pile burning).

These activities may have direct and indirect effects on VELB through the following: 

 Project related death, injury, or disturbance.

 Project related modifications to habitat quality. 

Death, injury, or displacement

Death or injury from project related activities would be unlikely to occur given the mechanical 

activity buffers around suitable habitat (elderberry plants with stems greater than one inch) and 

Limited Operating Periods (LOPs) which would eliminate the potential for dust and smoke impacts. 

Larvae and the elderberry plants would be protected by buffers from mechanical operations.

However, there is the potential for death or injury if a tree were felled and it crushed an elderberry 

plant or beetle. 

Habitat modification

Because all identified elderberry plants with stems greater than one inch in diameter would be flagged 

and a buffer applied restricting mechanical activities, no modifications to habitat quality are expected. 

Indicators

The following indicators were chosen to provide a relative measure of the direct and indirect effects 

to the VELB and to determine how well project alternatives comply with Forest Plan Direction and 

the species’ conservation strategies.

1. Disturbance potential

2. Habitat alteration potential

288
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Because there is a small difference in the amount of treatment areas proposed under the action 

alternatives, the effects are expected to be the same and are therefore analyzed together. 

Indicator 1. Because virtually all of the VELB lifecycle is spent on elderberry shrubs, either inside the 

stems as larvae or on the foliage or flowers as adults, the greatest risk to individuals would come from 

activities in the immediate vicinity of elderberry plants. 

Buffers applied to individual plants where no mechanical activity would occur and LOPs in place

during the adult flight period restricting mechanical activities and pile burning would eliminate 

almost all risk to individuals associated with implementation of the action alternatives.

Indicator 2. Table 3.15-2 displays the proposed activities within the potential elderberry habitat area 

for the action alternatives.

Table 3.15-2 Proposed treatments within potential elderberry habitat area

Alternative 

Removal of 

Fire-Killed Trees: 

Salvage and Hazard tree

(acres)

Road Treatments:

(temporary road construction, 

reconstruction, maintenance)

(miles)

Percent of Potential

Habitat Area Treated

1 1,055 13 4

3 573 13 2

4 573 13 2

Under Alternative 1, the additional 482 acres of proposed treatment is associated with hazard tree 

removal along Lumsden Road where there are documented occurrences of elderberry plants. Very 

few, if any hazard trees remain along this route so any additional effects associated with these acres 

are considered negligible. 

Most of the documented plants in the project area were burned at varying levels of intensity in the 

Rim Fire. Because of the current open condition in burned areas where trees would be removed, it is 

expected that any plants sufficiently large enough to support VELB will be found. It is likely that if 

plants are not detected during surveys, they are small and isolated, and would not provide suitable 

habitat value for VELB. If new plants are detected prior to or during project implementation, all 

mitigation measures would be applied.

The protective measures proposed for this project have been applied repeatedly on the Stanislaus 

National Forest, for road improvements, noxious weed control, vegetation management, and 

prescribed burning, and have been successful in preventing damage to individual plants. 

While there is some risk of disturbance or damage during implementation from vehicles using 

adjacent roads or people on foot, this risk is considered negligible and not beyond risks associated 

with ongoing activities and uses on public lands. Operating heavy equipment may result in excess 

deposition of dust and other particulate matter on individual plants; however, a study of proximity to 

roads and dust impacts to elderberry plants found no evidence of negative effects (Talley et al. 2006). 

Elderberry plants in the project area may benefit from mechanical removal of dead trees because it 

would reduce the risk of direct impacts when the trees fall. Elderberry plants burned by the fire are 

expected to resprout vigorously and benefit from the more open, post-fire habitat, along with the 

greater availability of water, light, and minerals. 

289
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Thus, based on the above analysis, the potential for disturbance or habitat alteration with respect to 

VELB is either insignificant (cannot be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated) or 

discountable (extremely unlikely to occur). 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

In making the determination for Alternative 1, the impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions was considered. A list of the actions considered can be found in Appendix B. 

Habitat modification was used as a relative measure of cumulative effects of the action alternatives. 

Habitat Modification

The potential habitat area below 3,000 feet elevation is almost entirely within the Tuolumne River 

Canyon and its tributaries, which is managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management. Much of the Tuolumne River are designated and managed as Wild and Scenic River. 

Federal Lands

The Rim Hazard Tree Removal project is the only present action on public lands within the potential 

habitat area. This project is not likely to affect habitat suitability for VELB because management 

requirements in place will protect elderberry plants and the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. 

There are no foreseeable future actions on federal lands within the potential habitat area below 3,000 

feet. 

Private Lands

The cumulative effects analysis area contains private timberland, residential areas, and rangeland. 

Some of the private inholdings include meadows and associated riparian habitat that may support 

elderberry shrubs. There are also power plants, dams, powerlines, and other facilities associated with 

Hetch-Hetchy in the Tuolumne River Canyon and Cherry Creek within the elevation range of VELB. 

There are 58 acres of private land where emergency fire salvage plans have been submitted to Cal 

Fire.

Headwater disturbances, which result in downstream flooding or mudslides, could result in the 

destruction of elderberry plants (USFWS 1984). Activities on private lands that may result in the 

incidental take of elderberry plants include removal of fuels around residences and infrastructure, 

grazing, introduction of noxious weeds, irrigation and landscaping, or habitat conversion such as 

recreation buildings or paved areas. 

Alternative 1 Contribution/Summary

Because the Rim Recovery project is not expected to result in any measurable effects to VELB, it is 

not expected to contribute to cumulative effects. 

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Under Alternative 2, death, injury or disturbance would not be an issue because no active 

management would occur. Under Alternative 2, no indirect effects are expected because no active 

management would occur; however, there may be consequences under this alternative primarily 

related to the influence no action may have on future wildfires and how future wildfires may impact

VELB habitat. 

Indicator 1. Because no management activities would occur under this alternative, there would be no 

project related direct effects to individual valley elderberry longhorn beetles or larvae.

290
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Indicator 2. Within the areas that burned at high severity, elderberry shrubs and other herbaceous and 

shrub vegetation is expected to be established within 3 to 5 years. Elderberry shrubs that are of 

appropriate size for beetle and larvae occupancy would provide additional suitable habitat for VELB. 

These benefits are expected in the short-term (10 to 20 years).

When wildfire returns to this landscape, the elderberry shrubs providing suitable habitat for VELB in 

or near areas that burned at high severity may be at increased risk of loss. One of the greatest risks to 

VELB is habitat loss. Within 10 years, the fuel loading is predicted to be four to eight times higher 

(78 tons per acre) than the desired condition (Rim EIS Fuels Report). However, predicting the effect 

no action would have on future wildfires and VELB habitat is largely speculative given the numerous 

factors involved over time. As fire-killed trees fall and contribute to surface fuel pools, potential fire 

behavior may be expected to increase (Rim EIS Fuels Report). However, potential fire behavior in the 

future may be dependent on how future management actions, especially prescribed fire, are planned 

and implemented (Stephens and Moghaddas 2005, Stephens et al. 2009, Roberts et al. 2011, Crook et 

al. 2013). 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative effects discussion under Alternative 1 outlines those present and foreseeable future 

activities scheduled on public and private lands and listed in Appendix B. 

Alternative 2 Contribution/Summary

The cumulative contribution of Alternative 2 is attributed to the influence no action may have on how 

future wildfires may adversely impact elderberry habitat. Since no fire killed trees would be 

removed, fuel loading would increase over time, resulting in increased fire intensity and a greater 

potential for loss of suitable habitat when wildfire returns to this landscape.

Alternative 3 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1 except Alternative 3 does not treat the 482 acres along Lumsden Road. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 3. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle: Summary of Effects 

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 would be unlikely to have any adverse direct or indirect effects to the VELB. 

All elderberry plants capable of supporting VELB would be flagged and avoided. LOPs would be in 

place under all action alternatives to eliminate negative impacts from dust or smoke. Since there 

would be no removal of dead trees under Alternative 2, there would be no potential direct and indirect 

effects such as death or injury of individuals, or loss of potential habitat if a tree fell onto an 

elderberry shrub that is occupied by individuals. 

Determinations 

Implementing the Rim Recovery Project action alternatives has a very small potential to impact

individual valley elderberry longhorn beetles and the elderberry habitat required by the species. The 

291
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

planned surveys and buffers established around individual plants and project management 

requirements would greatly reduce the potential risk associated with potential direct and indirect 

effects to individual VELB or associated elderberry plants. The project does not occur within 

Designated Critical Habitat for the species and would have no effect on critical habitat; however, the 

primary constituent elements occur within and adjacent to the planning area indicating suitable habitat 

is present. Therefore, the following determinations are supported by the analysis contained herein. 

Specifically, the potential for effects to VELB from implementation of the alternatives are either 

discountable (i.e. extremely unlikely to occur) or insignificant (i.e. cannot be meaningfully measured, 

detected, or evaluated). 

Alternative 1 may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the valley elderberry longhorn beetle or 

its Designated Critical Habitat. 

Alternative 2 will not affect the valley elderberry longhorn beetle or its Designated Critical Habitat. 

Alternative 3 may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the valley elderberry longhorn beetle or 

its Designated Critical Habitat. 

Alternative 4 may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the valley elderberry longhorn beetle or 

its Designated Critical Habitat. 

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle: Compliance

On August 8, 1980, VELB was listed as a Threatened species (45 FR 52803). Critical Habitat was 

also designated at this time, but does not occur on the Stanislaus National Forest. The action 

alternatives would not affect the recovery plan objectives for the VELB. The recovery plan objectives 

for VELB are to minimize further degradation, development, or environmental modification of VELB 

habitat, and to delist the VELB (USFWS 1984). 

VELB Conservation Strategy Guidelines 

The United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service issued Conservation 

Guidelines (USFWS 1999) to assist Federal agencies, during project planning, to avoid or minimize 

adverse effects on the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. The following guidelines and previous 

consultation recommendations from the Service were used when developing management 

requirements the Rim Recovery project:

Fence and flag all areas to be avoided during construction activities. In areas where encroachment on 

the 100 foot buffer has been approved by the Service, provide a minimum setback of 20 feet from the 

dripline of each elderberry plant.

Apply a limited operating period from April 1 through June 30 prohibiting pile burning and 

mechanical activities within 100 feet of elderberry plants to prevent smoke and dust impacts to 

beetles. 

Bald Eagle: Affected Environment

Species and Habitat Account

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is currently managed as a USDA Forest Service Sensitive 

species (Update to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list, July 3, 2013, USDA 2013g). In 

USFS Region 5 the bald eagle breeds primarily in specific and localized areas of large rivers and 

lakes of the northern third of California with scattered nesting throughout the state (R5 Sensitive 

species evaluation form of 2012, USDA 2012d).

Bald eagles typically nest in live trees, some with dead tops, and build a large (about 6 foot diameter), 

generally flat-topped and cone-shaped nest usually below the top with some cover above the nest 

(Jackman and Jenkins 2004). In general, bald eagles require a large tree to accommodate a large nest 

292
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

in a relatively secluded location within the range of their tolerance of human disturbance (Ibid). 

Diurnal perch habitat is characterized by the presence of tall, easily accessible; often predominate 

trees adjacent to shoreline foraging habitat (Buehler 2000). The entire breeding cycle, from initial 

activity at a nest through the period of fledgling dependency, is about 8 months (Ibid). 

In the Rim Fire area there is one bald eagle nest. The nest is at Cherry Lake. This site has been 

occupied for more than 15 years. Although nest trees have changed over this period, the nest site has 

consistently been in the same general stand on the Cherry Lake shoreline. The post-fire condition of 

the nest, nest tree, and nest stand all appear intact and suitable (Roy Bridgman, pers.comm.). After 

over 15 years of being occupied as a bald eagle territory, it appears the carrying capacity of Cherry 

Lake is limited to one pair of breeding bald eagles. Bald eagles also use the Cherry Lake area during 

migration and for overwintering (NRIS Wildlife database, USDA 2014b).

Risk Factors

Risk factors potentially affecting bald eagle abundance and distribution include nest site loss and 

disturbance, and loss of habitat and habitat elements such as potential nest or roost trees (USDA 

2001, R5 Sensitive species evaluation form 2012).

Management Direction 

Current management direction is to follow all law, regulation, and policy as it relates to bald eagle

because the species is still vulnerable to potential disturbance impacts and is still within the delisting 

monitoring period (R5 Sensitive species evaluation form of 2012). Forest Plan Direction (USDA 

2010a) p. 43 states: When nesting bald eagles are found, implement suitable restrictions on nearby 

activities based on the Regional habitat management guidelines and the habitat capability model for 

the species. Protect all historic and active nests, as required by the Eagle Protection Act and the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

The Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), enacted in 1940, and amended several times since 

then, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald 

eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The Act provides criminal and civil penalties for persons 

who disturb nest sites by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

behavior (USFWS 2007).

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703-712, prohibits the taking of any migratory 

bird or any part, nest, or egg, except as permitted by regulation. The MBTA was enacted in 1918; a 

1972 agreement supplementing one of the bilateral treaties underlying the MBTA had the effect of 

expanding the scope of the Act to cover bald eagles and other raptors. 

Habitat management guidelines to follow for bald eagle are provided by the National Bald Eagle 

Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007). 

Bald Eagle: Environmental Consequences

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the bald eagle through the 

following activities: 

 Salvage harvest of fire-killed trees. 

 Salvage harvest of roadside hazard trees.

 New permanent road construction, temporary road construction, and road reconstruction. 

 Landing construction and use. 

 Use of material sources and water sources.

 Biomass and similar fuel treatments. 

These actions may have direct and indirect effects on bald eagles through the following: 

 Project related death, injury, or disturbance.

293
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

 Project related modifications to habitat quantity and/or quality. 

Death, injury or disturbance

Death, injury, and disturbance are potential direct effects to consider for bald eagle (USDA 2004). 

Project activities have the potential to cause death or injury by tree-falling or by the use of heavy 

equipment. There is the potential for death or injury if nest trees are not protected and are felled while 

being used by nesting birds during the reproductive season. In addition, historic nest trees could be 

removed if not identified and protected. 

Loud noise from equipment such as chain saws or tractors is expected to occur in salvage units, 

project roads, and at landings, material sources, and water sources. Human presence in nest stands 

and loud noise in the vicinity of nest stands have the potential to change normal behavior and 

potentially impair essential behavior patterns of the bald eagle related to breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering. The potential for disturbance is minimized by following the National Bald Eagle 

Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007) and by the implementation of Limited Operating Periods 

(LOPs). Disturbance issues are expected to be most pronounced within a half-mile of nests (USFWS 

2007). 

Habitat modification 

Salvage harvest of fire-killed trees and salvage harvest of roadside hazard trees could remove snags or 

live trees that could potentially serve as bald eagle perch sites or nest trees. There is considerable 

uncertainty with regards to treatment intensity in roadside hazard salvage units because treatment 

intensity is subject to a wide range of environmental conditions (e.g. drought and moisture stress) 

related to tree status.

New permanent road construction, temporary (“temp”) road construction, road reconstruction, and 

landing construction, may also modify bald eagle habitat. If conducted in or too near bald eagle nest 

stands, project roads or landings could result in increased habitat fragmentation, disturbance, and 

lower habitat capability for bald eagle (USFWS 2007, Pyron et al. 2009). Biomass removal and other 

understory treatments outside of nest stands is generally not an issue and none are proposed in the 

nest stand.

As bald eagles focus nesting, roosting, and perching behaviors along lake shorelines, habitat 

modification effects are expected to be most pronounced within 500 feet of lake shorelines (Jackman 

and Jenkins 2004). 

Indicators

The following indicators were chosen to provide a relative measure of the direct and indirect effects 

to the bald eagle and to determine how well project alternatives comply with Forest Plan Direction 

and species conservation strategies:

1. Project activities within a half-mile of the known bald eagle nest.

2. Treatment units within 500 feet of lake shorelines. 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Indicator 1. Table 3.15-3 shows four salvage units occur within a half-mile of the known bald eagle 

nest. These units are subject to the bald eagle Limited Operating Period (LOP) management 

requirement. One roadside hazard tree salvage unit skirts the edge of the half-mile buffer but is 

basically outside the 1⁄2 mile buffer circle. No landings, water sources, or material sources occur in the 

half-mile buffer. As any tree removal is beyond the critical distance identified in USFWS 2007, and 

as LOPs are in place for all project activities within a half-mile of the bald eagle nest, the potential 

effect of this indicator is minimized and below identified concern thresholds.

294
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.15-3 Units within one-half mile of bald eagle nests

Project activity Distance to nest site (feet)

Unit O1A. Salvage harvest 1,284

Unit O1B. Salvage harvest 538

Unit O08. Salvage harvest 1,658

Unit O09. Salvage harvest 950

Indicator 2. Only one treatment unit occurs within 500 feet of the Cherry Lake shoreline, as noted in 

the Wildlife BE maps appendix. The unit is a roadside hazard salvage unit on route 1N15Y. Route 

1N15Y is gated closed to public access, but may be used for facility maintenance needs. There is 

considerable uncertainty with regards to treatment intensity in roadside hazard salvage units because 

treatment intensity is subject to a wide range of environmental conditions (e.g. drought and moisture 

stress) related to tree status. If conducted aggressively, hazard tree salvage could remove trees bald 

eagles are known to use within this unit (Rich, pers.obs.) and thus, lower habitat capability in 

approximately 25 acres of prime bald eagle habitat. However, because the road is gated closed to 

public use, and because it is unlikely that a target would be present within potential tree failure zones,

probably fewer than three and more likely no trees would be removed. Assuming the latter, no 

measurable effect to bald eagle would occur within the expected treatment scope of this unit. 

Cumulative Effects 

Relevant risk factors potentially affecting bald eagle abundance and distribution have been identified 

and primarily include nest site loss and disturbance, and loss of habitat and habitat elements such as 

potential nest or roost trees (USDA 2001, R5 Sensitive species evaluation form 2012). 

Based on relevant risk factors and location, the following present and reasonably foreseeable actions 

from Appendix B are the most relevant to bald eagle: Rim HT project, and recreation. As this project 

and the Rim HT project includes implementation of required LOPs, and as recreation is limited to 

existing and mostly quiet uses in this area (i.e. primarily trailhead parking and hiking), Alternative 1 

will not likely contribute cumulatively to other actions.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Under Alternative 2, death, injury or disturbance would not be an issue because no active 

management would occur. The indirect effects of no action are not an issue because the influence no 

action would have on fire risk to bald eagle habitat is highly speculative. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The effects of no action would be localized to the area surrounding Cherry Lake. The influence no 

action would have on bald eagle is largely speculative but probably not measurably significant. 

Alternative 3 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Same as Alternative 1. 

295
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 1. 

Bald Eagle: Summary of Effects 

Numerical values for both indicators are the same for all action alternatives. Thus, effects are the 

same for all action alternatives.

Determinations 

The action alternatives may affect individuals but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal 

listing or loss of viability for the bald eagle. The following logic check was considered (Robinson 

1996): project occurs in or affects suitable habitat but compliance with existing conservation 

strategies and forest plan direction is demonstrated. 

Alternative 2 will not affect the bald eagle. 

Bald Eagle: Compliance

Regional habitat management guidelines are provided by USFWS 2007. As per USFWS 2007, the 

proposed activities in the action alternatives fall under Category C. Timber Operations. Under 

Category C, the following is required: 

 Avoid removal of trees within 330 feet of the nest at any time. 

 Avoid timber harvest operations during the breeding season within specified buffers.

The action alternatives demonstrate compliance with USFWS 2007 as follows:

 No tree removal is proposed within 330 feet of the nest. 

 The following is a management requirement that avoids timber harvest operations during the 

breeding season:

Maintain a Limited Operating Period (LOP) prohibiting vegetation treatments, new road construction, 

blasting, landing construction, and helicopter flight paths within 0.5 miles of the known bald eagle 

nest (January 1 through August 31) unless surveys conducted by a Forest Service biologist confirm 

non-nesting status. 

This project complies with forest plan direction and the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines 

(USFWS 2007).

California Spotted Owl: Affected Environment

Species and Habitat Account

The California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) is currently managed as a USDA Forest 

Service Sensitive species (Update to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list, July 3, 2013).

California spotted owls are top trophic-level avian predators associated with heterogeneous forests 

characterized by areas with large trees, large snags, and large down woody material (North et al. 

2009, Roberts and North 2012, Keane 2013). California spotted owls show the strongest associations 

with mature forest conditions for nesting and roosting but will forage in a broader range of vegetation 

types (Keane 2013). Recent research indicates that California spotted owls will occupy landscapes 

that experience low-to moderate-severity wildfire, as well as areas with mixed-severity wildfire that 

includes some proportion of high-severity fire (Bond et al. 2009, Bond et al. 2010, Roberts et al. 

2011, Lee et al. 2012, Bond et al. 2013, Lee et al. 2013). Clark (2007) found that while spotted owls 

did roost and forage within high severity burn areas, the use was very low suggesting that this cover 

type was poor habitat for California spotted owls. Thus, uncertainties remain regarding long-term 

occupancy and demographic performance of spotted owls at burned sites (Keane, pers.comm.). 

296
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Specifically, uncertainty exists regarding how the amounts and patch sizes of high-severity fire will 

affect California spotted owl occupancy, demographics, and habitat over long time frames (Ibid). 

For the past two decades, California spotted owl management has been based on recommendations 

provided by the California Spotted Owl Technical Report (Verner et al. 1992) and incorporated into 

forest plan direction at a bioregional scale (USDA 1993, 2001, 2004). This direction uses a system of 

land allocations of protected activity centers (PACs) and home range core areas (HRCAs) that are 

specifically managed for owl habitat and heterogeneous old forest conditions. The management of 

owl habitat and heterogeneous old forest condition is specifically focused on large structures, with an 

emphasis on a forest mosaic infused with large trees, large snags, and large down logs (North et al. 

2009, Roberts and North 2012). Spotted owl sites are known as “activity centers” because the spotted 

owl is a central place forager, meaning activities are typically centered around a specific location 

(Verner et al. 1992). Sites are identified through the use of protocol surveys (USDA 1991a). Protocol 

surveys have been conducted throughout the Rim Fire area for the past two decades. These surveys 

are best described as opportunistic depending upon planned activities and funding levels but have 

occurred at a level such that inventory information for the analysis area is considered essentially 

complete (USDA, unpublished data, NRIS Wildlife database). 

California spotted owl PACs are delineated surrounding each territorial owl activity center detected 

on National Forest System lands since 1986 (USDA 2010a, p. 183). PACs are delineated to 

encompass the best available 300 acres of habitat in as compact a unit as possible. A home range core 

area (HRCA) includes the PAC and is established surrounding each territorial California spotted owl 

activity center detected after 1986. The core area amounts to 1,000 acres based on 20 percent of the 

area described by the sum of the average breeding pair home range plus one standard error (USDA 

2010a, p. 188).

Forest Plan direction requires that after a stand-replacing event such as the Rim Fire, specialists 

evaluate habitat conditions to determine if there is sufficient suitable habitat remaining, and if there 

are opportunities for re-mapping to better encompass suitable habitat. If there is insufficient suitable 

habitat for a PAC around the activity center, the PAC may be removed from the conservation network 

(USDA 2010a, p. 184). The post-fire PAC evaluation was completed with technical assistance from 

Pacific Southwest Region Research Station (PSW) owl scientists. For the analysis, each PAC was 

evaluated within the Rim Fire boundary using several criteria. The three main criteria used were 1) 

acres of post-fire suitable habitat defined as CWHR 4M, 4D, 5M, and 5D (including class 6) burned 

at less than 75 percent basal area mortality, 2) percent of PAC within a 496 acre (200 hectare) circle 

burned at high severity (defined as greater than 75 percent basal area mortality), and 3) percent of 

pre-fire suitable habitat burned at high severity. Forty-six California spotted owl sites are located 

within the Rim Fire perimeter. An additional four sites are located primarily outside of the Rim Fire 

perimeter. These four sites were not included in the larger analysis because 1) the activity center did 

not occur within the fire perimeter, 2) no PAC acres occurred within the fire perimeter, and 3) 

approximately 10 percent or less of the home range core area occurred within the fire perimeter.

Thus, these four sites were considered suitable and their boundaries were left as is. Of the 46 sites 

substantially within the Rim Fire perimeter, they clustered into three categories as shown in Figure

3.15-1 where Category 1 sites are shown in red, Category 2 sites in green, and Category 3 sites in 

orange: 

Ten sites cluster into Category 1 (red), 27 sites into Category 2 (green), and 9 sites into a Category 3 

(orange). Details on individual sites are provided in the Wildlife BE Appendix. 

Category 1 (red): These 10 sites burned primarily at high severity across the 200 ha analysis area, had 

nearly all pre-fire suitable habitat burn at high severity, and have small amounts of post-fire suitable 

habitat. It is clear that these sites have very low to no probability of continued occupancy. Thus, it is 

appropriate to remove these sites from the conservation network.

297
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Category 2 (green): These 27 sites have lower amounts of high severity fire within the 496 acre 

analysis area, lower amounts of suitable habitat loss, and high amounts of remaining suitable habitat.

Available literature suggests that these sites have high probabilities of continued occupancy. Thus, it 

is appropriate to consider these sites as suitable post-fire, and that it is appropriate to keep the 

boundaries intact as is.

Category 3 (orange): These 9 sites have intermediate high severity values. Based on the scientific 

literature, there is some uncertainty as to the probability of occupancy for sites within this range of 

values. The literature does document that individuals can persist in sites within these ranges of high 

severity burn, though this is an uncertainty requiring further research to identify where more specific 

thresholds might exist. Thus, in order to reduce uncertainty in occupancy, it is appropriate to re-map 

the boundaries of these sites to encompass habitat of better quality where possible and to consider the 

re-mapped sites as suitable. It would also be particularly important to research owls in these sites so 

more can be learned about occupancy thresholds.

Figure 3.15-1 Pin graph of post-fire California spotted owl PAC condition

Area of Concern 

The Rim Fire area is located in Spotted Owl Area of Concern 6. Area of Concern 6 was identified as 

an area with habitat fragmentation creating a potential bottleneck in the distribution of owls on the 

west slope of the Sierra Nevada. Areas of concern were identified in the California Spotted Owl 

Technical Report (Verner et al. 1992) and were defined as areas within the range of California spotted 

owl where potential gaps in habitat and the associated loss of forest connectivity were a potential 

298
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

issue. Thus, the Rim Fire area may be considered particularly important to the distribution of 

California spotted owl. An analysis of how changes to habitat in each alternative relates to the 

distribution of the California spotted owl can be found in MIS policy and the MIS report written for 

this project (USDA 2007 MIS FEIS, Rim Recovery MIS report 2013). Areas of Concern represent 

areas where management decisions may have a disproportionate potential to affect the California 

spotted owl population (USDA 2004). 

Risk Factors

Risk factors potentially affecting California spotted owl abundance and distribution have been 

identified and primarily include nest site loss and disturbance, and loss of habitat and habitat 

elements, especially large snags and large down woody material (USDA 2001, USDA 2012d).

Management Direction 

Current management direction is summarized by describing the desired future condition of land 

allocations (Robinson 1996). The California spotted owl is an at-risk species associated with old 

forest ecosystems (USDA 2004). The following land allocations pertain to California spotted owl and 

old forest ecosystems: Protected Activity Centers (PACs), Home Range Core area (HRCA), Old 

Forest Emphasis Area (OFEA), and proposed Forest Carnivore Connectivity Corridor (FCCC). 

The desired condition for California spotted owl PAC is to have 1) at least two tree canopy layers; 2) 

dominant and co-dominant trees with average diameters of at least 24 inches dbh; 3) at least 60 to70 

percent canopy cover; 4) some very large snags (greater than 45 inches dbh); and 5) snag and down 

woody material levels that are higher than average.

The desired condition for California spotted owl HRCA is to encompass the best available habitat in 

the closest proximity to the owl activity center (USDA 2004 ROD pp. 39-40). HRCAs consist of 

large habitat blocks that have: 1) at least two tree canopy layers; 2) at least 24 inches dbh in dominant 

and co-dominant trees; 3) a number of very large (greater than 45 inches dbh) old trees; 4) at least 50 

to 70 percent canopy cover; and 5) higher than average levels of snags and down woody material. 

The desired condition for Old Forest Emphasis Area (OFEA) is to provide habitat conditions for 

mature forest associates (spotted owl, northern goshawk, American marten, and Pacific fisher).

Specifically, forest structure and function across old forest emphasis areas generally resemble presettlement conditions. High levels of horizontal and vertical diversity exist at the landscape-scale 

(roughly 10,000 acres). Stands are composed of roughly even-aged vegetation groups, varying in size, 

species composition, and structure. Individual vegetation groups range from less than 0.5 to more 

than 5 acres in size. Tree sizes range from seedlings to very large diameter trees. Species composition 

varies by elevation, site productivity, and related environmental factors. Multi-tiered canopies, 

particularly in older forests, provide vertical heterogeneity. Dead trees, both standing and fallen, meet 

habitat needs of old-forest-associated species. Figure 3.15-2 shows forest structure and function 

generally resembling pre-settlement conditions (SNEP 1996, drawing by Robert Van Pelt). 

The desired future condition of FCCC is to provide habitat connectivity for fisher and marten, linking 

Yosemite National Park and the North Mountain inventoried roadless area west to the Clavey River.

For habitat connectivity, a future forested area is desired with a minimum of 50 percent of the 

forested area having at least 60 percent canopy cover. Higher than average levels of large snags and 

large down woody material is also desired (as in USDA 2004). Habitat structures are important to 

retain that may constitute rest sites as described in Lofroth et al. 2010 (plate 7.8). Desired conditions 

in FCCC for fisher and marten also provide suitable habitat conditions for California spotted owl. 

299
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Figure 3.15-2 Typical pre-settlement mixed conifer forest, western Sierra Nevada

California Spotted Owl: Environmental Consequences

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the California spotted owl through 

the following activities: 

 Salvage harvest of fire-killed trees. 

 Salvage harvest of roadside hazard trees.

 New permanent road construction, temporary road construction, and road reconstruction. 

 Landing construction and use. 

 Use of material sources and water sources.

 Biomass and similar fuels treatments. 

These actions may have direct and indirect effects on California spotted owls through the following: 

 Project related death, injury, or disturbance.

 Project related modifications to habitat quantity and/or quality. 

Death, injury or disturbance

Project activities have the potential to cause death or injury by tree-falling or by the use of heavy 

equipment. There is the potential for death or injury if nest trees are felled while being used by 

nesting birds during the reproductive season. In addition, historic nest trees could be removed. The 

mobility of the species in question and the management requirement of LOPs, make it highly 

improbable that death or injury would occur as a result of project activities. Flagging and avoiding 

current and historic nest trees provides a way to minimize nest tree loss or noncompliance with the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Project activities have the potential to cause disturbance mainly because of the use of loud 

macrehinery. Loud noise from equipment such as chain saws or tractors is expected to occur in 

salvage units, project roads, landings, material sources, and water sources. Loud noise has the 

potential to change normal behavior patterns during the period operations would take place and 

potentially impair essential behavior patterns of the spotted owl related to breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering. The potential for disturbance is minimized by the implementation of Limited Operating 

Periods (LOPs) as a management requirement. 

The location of nest sites or activity centers are more uncertain following large-scale disturbance 

events (Keane, pers. comm.); conducting surveys to establish or confirm any new locations of nests or 

activity centers is a way to address this movement uncertainty. Conducting protocol surveys is a 

management requirement common to all alternatives. 

300
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Habitat modification 

Salvage harvest of fire-killed trees and salvage harvest of roadside hazard trees primarily removes 

snags and existing down woody material. Salvage harvest of roadside hazard trees may also remove 

existing living trees meeting certain criteria for hazard definition. The removal of snags reduces 

future recruitment of down woody material.

Short-term, within the next ten years, snags and down woody material function as habitat elements 

important for owl prey. Snags also serve as potential hunting perch sites that may be utilized by 

foraging owls. Recent research indicates that prey species may be abundant and available in the postfire environment. Work by Bond et al. (2009, 2013) indicates that owls preferentially select highseverity fire areas for foraging and that foraging owls with burned forest within the home range 

appear to utilize a variety of prey, particularly gophers (Thomomys spp.) and flying squirrels 

(Glaucomys sabrinus). Bond et al. (2013) also found that wood rats (Neotoma spp.), sciurid squirrels 

(Family Sciuridae), and deer mice (Peromyscus spp.) were represented as important prey items for 

owls within a post-fire habitat mosaic. Results from studies of small mammal habitat associations 

demonstrate the species-specific importance of habitat elements such as shrubs, downed logs, snags, 

and truffles (Keane 2013). The time elapsed since fire is closely correlated with habitat elements and 

the composition of prey species. For example, post-fire habitats are typically rich in gophers and deer 

mice in the first decade following a fire, followed by wood rats when understory conditions are well 

developed in the following decades and finally by sciurid squirrels and flying squirrels when trees 

reach maturity (Ingles 1965, Quinn and Keeley 2006). A diversity of prey species within a habitat 

mosaic can be expected to benefit predators such as the spotted owl (Roberts and North 2012). Postfire salvage logging may adversely affect rates of owl occupancy (Lee et al. 2012).

Long-term over several decades, large snags and large down logs are considered biological legacies in 

the post-fire environment and play important roles in the structure of the future forest (Lindenmayer 

et al. 2008). For example, large snags and large down logs are fundamental to the definition of old 

forest and are important attributes for the development of the old forest ecosystem and associated 

species such as the spotted owl. Snags may stand for decades and in time, may become future nest 

trees for spotted owl as the regenerating forest nears maturity. Snag dynamics in the Sierra Nevada 

are complex and snags fall at different rates depending on many factors (Cluck and Smith 2007). 

Once recruited into the down woody material on the ground, this coarse woody debris again serves as 

an important element in owl habitat (Verner et al. 1992). Thus, decaying wood serves different 

functional roles overtime, first providing cover for spotted owl prey in the complex early seral stage 

of the forest, and ultimately decaying and playing a critical role in soil development of old forests. 

For example, logs in decay class five (i.e. highly decayed) are associated with hypogeous fungi (i.e. 

truffles), which in turn serve as a primary food source for spotted owl prey in old forests -- the flying 

squirrel in particular (Verner et al. 1992). 

New permanent road construction, temporary road construction, road reconstruction, and landing 

construction also modify habitat. In particular, road construction and continued use can result in 

increased habitat fragmentation, disturbance, and lower habitat capability for spotted owl (Pyron et al. 

2009). Basic road maintenance such as grading and cleaning culverts is generally not an issue for 

wildlife. Basic road maintenance protects water quality and soils by preventing degradation of road 

drainage structures and function (3.14 Watershed). The use of water sources may reduce water 

availability for spotted owls and their prey, especially in drought years. Landing construction results 

in habitat fragmentation. Helicopter landings are typically between 1 and 3 acre in size and tractor 

landings are typically .25 to 1 acre in size. 

The removal of snags and down woody material can be expected to reduce fuel loading. The 

reduction in fuel loading can be expected to promote the development of old forest habitat. However, 

the effectiveness of the various treatments proposed is difficult to predict and there is considerable 

uncertainty with how salvage logging influences future fire. A review of recent research on this topic 

301
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

and the associated controversy can be found in Long et al. (2013, Ch. 4.3 pp. 6-7). Salvage logging is 

controversial because few short-term positive ecological effects and many potential negative effects 

have been associated with post-fire logging (Ibid). 

The effect salvage logging has on the fire severity of a re-burn is likely to remain widely variable 

depending on numerous factors including how future prescribed fire management is planned and 

implemented. However, as stated in Chapter 3.05 (Fuels), there is general consensus that the removal 

of smaller diameter material (activity fuels and biomass) is likely to be the most effective in reducing 

flame lengths and fire line intensities. Piling and burning activity fuels is an effective method for 

disposal and is expected to promote development of mature forest (Stephens et al. 2009). Also, 

preventing high fuel loadings along roadsides can reasonably be expected to play an important role in 

reducing fire severity to developing mature forest habitat, especially where roads are identified as 

critical fire management features (Crook et al. 2013). Roadside hazard salvage treatments involve the 

removal of snags and live trees identified as hazards to public safety. There is considerable 

uncertainty with regards to treatment intensity in roadside hazard salvage units because treatment 

intensity is subject to a wide range of environmental conditions (e.g. drought and moisture stress) 

related to tree status. 

As spotted owls focus their activities in the best available habitat around roost and nest sites known as 

activity centers (Verner et al. 1992), habitat modification effects are expected to be most pronounced 

in PACs. 

Indicators

The following indicators were chosen to provide a relative measure of the direct and indirect effects 

to the spotted owl and to determine how well project alternatives comply with Forest Plan Direction 

and species conservation strategies:

1. Number of current and historic nest sites within PACs in treatment units or within .25 mile of 

potentially disturbing activities.

2. Acres of treatment unit overlap within PACs.

3. Acres of areas managed for old forest condition with higher than average levels of large snags 

and higher than average levels of large down woody material.

4. Miles of new permanent road construction and other project road miles in PACs by road type.

5. Number of material sources, water sources, and landings in owl habitat. 

6. Acres of fuels treatments by type (biomass, pile and burn) including deer forage units and 

watershed soil cover treatments (mastication, drop and lop).

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indicator 1. Potentially five known activity center nest trees intersect with roadside hazard tree units 

and 26 known activity center nest trees are within .25 mile of potentially disturbing activities. It is 

expected that the implementation of LOPs and protocol surveys will minimize disturbance potential 

to these sites. However, there is no provision in this alternative to flag and avoid current and historic 

nest trees or trigger special coordination measures designed to promote nest tree protection. 

Therefore, it is likely that approximately 14 percent of spotted owl territories could be negatively 

affected by nest tree loss. 

Indicator 2. Under Alternative 1, 2,017 acres of roadside hazard salvage treatments would occur 

within post-fire suitable PACs. Site-specifically, Table 3.15-4 shows California spotted owl sites 

would be potentially affected by habitat fragmentation at varying degrees ranging from 0 acres of 

overlap to approximately 40 percent of a PAC. There is no provision in this alternative to mitigate 

treatment overlap by adding equivalent acreage to the PAC. This would result in a potential net loss 

302
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

of 2,015 acres of owl habitat and possibly influence continued occupancy probabilities (Seamans and 

Gutierrez 2007) in approximately 50 percent of spotted owl territories. 

Indicator 3. Under Alternative 1, zero acres of salvage units managed for old forest condition would 

be managed for higher than average levels of large conifer snags and large down woody material.

Large down woody material would be retained at the average management rate of 10 to 20 tons per

acre for all units. Higher than average levels of large conifer snags and large down woody material is 

a management objective in areas managed for old forest condition (USDA 2010a p. 190). Table 3.15-

5 shows acres by snag retention levels in basal area (BA) in areas managed for old forest condition. 

Not leaving higher than average levels of large conifer snags and large down woody material would 

likely reduce habitat and would fall short of desired conditions described under management direction 

and habitat modification sections for this species.

Table 3.15-4 Treatment unit overlap within post-fire PACs, Alternative 1

PAC Number Roadside hazard tree 

treatment acres

MPA0019 - McCauley Ranch 65

TUO0010 - Soldier Creek 42

TUO0011 - Big Creek 116

TUO0012 - Ackerson Creek 46

TUO0024 - SF Tuolumne 101

TUO0026 - Rush Creek 57

TUO0027 - N Bear Mountain 93

TUO0032 - Reynold's Creek 17

TUO0034 - D54 Niagara Creek 30

TUO0039 - Ackerson Mountain 28

TUO0040 - MF Tuolumne 84

TUO0053 - Brushy Creek 128

TUO0054 - Thompson Peak 0

TUO0059 - L 13 Mile Creek 39

TUO0061 - D51 Bear Spring Creek 108

TUO0065 - L Reynold's Creek 43

TUO0078 – Crocker 28

TUO0085 - Harden Flat NW 98

TUO0129 - U 2 Mile Creek 72

TUO0130 - Camp Clavey 96

TUO0146 - Hunter Creek 18

TUO0148 - U 13 Mile Creek 89

TUO0149 - Cottonwood Creek 91

TUO0151 - L Cottonwood Creek 64

TUO0176 - Clavey-Wolfin 84

TUO0187 - Thompson Meadow 24

TUO0188 - Loney Creek 59

TUO0205 - N Niagara 59

TUO0210 – Buchanan 3

TUO0218 - L Skunk Creek 62

TUO0219 - U Cherry Lake 19

TUO0255 - Box Spring 30

TUO0256 - Clavey River 0

TUO0257 - Westside E 76

TUO0258 - Westside W 29

TUO0261 - U Camp 25 19

Total 2,017

303
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Table 3.15-5 Snag retention level in basal area per acre, Alternative 1

12 square feet BA/acre*

General Forest matrix 

management average 

(USDA 2010 p.44).

30 square feet BA/acre

OFEA, HRCA, FCCC above 

average level management 

objective (Verner et al. 1992).

100-120 square feet BA/acre

Low intensity salvage 

treatment units (PSW 

Research).

Unit acres 28,326 0 0

*converted from 4 snags per acre for comparison purposes; assuming retention of 24 inches dbh snags.

Indicator 4. Table 3.15-6 shows Alternative 1 has 0.9 miles of new permanent road construction, 31.3 

miles of road reconstruction, 0.6 miles of “skid zones”, and 2.2 miles of temporary road occurring in 

suitable PACs. A total of 35 project road miles intersect PACs. Of the road reconstruction miles, 2.2 

miles would occur in suitable PACs on routes currently decommissioned or not designated for motor 

vehicle travel. The remaining road reconstruction miles occur mainly on open Maintenance Level 2 

roads. 

Table 3.15-6 Project road miles in PACs by road type, Alternative 1

Spotted Owl PAC*

Miles

New 

permanent 

construction

Reconstruction Skid 

zone

Temporary 

Road

MPA0019 - McCauley Ranch 1.3

TUO0010 - Soldier Creek 0.4 0.1

TUO0011 - Big Creek 2.4 0.1

TUO0012 - Ackerson Creek 0.7 0.1 0.1

TUO0024 - SF Tuolumne 2.4

TUO0026 - Rush Creek 1.5

TUO0027 - N Bear Mountain 2.0

TUO0032 - Reynold's Creek 0.3

TUO0034 - D54 Niagara Creek 0.5

TUO0039 - Ackerson Mountain 0.3

TUO0040 - MF Tuolumne 1.5

TUO0053 - Brushy Creek 2.1 0.2

TUO0059 - L 13 Mile Creek 0.1

TUO0061 - D51 Bear Spring Creek 2.3

TUO0078 - Crocker 0.9

TUO0085 - Harden Flat NW 2.2

TUO0129 - U 2 Mile Creek 1.1 0.1

TUO0130 - Camp Clavey 0.4 1.6

TUO0148 - U 13 Mile Creek 0.8

TUO0149 - Cottonwood Creek 1.7 0.0

TUO0151 - L Cottonwood Creek 1.4

TUO0188 - Loney Creek 1.3

TUO0218 - L Skunk Creek 1.3

TUO0219 - U Cherry Lake 0.4

TUO0255 - Box Spring 0.7

TUO0257 - Westside E 0.7 0.2 0.8

TUO0258 - Westside W 0.5 0.0 0.0

TUO0261 - U Camp 25 0.4

Total 0.9 31.3 0.6 2.2

*PACs not shown did not have project roads in them

304
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

The management requirement of re-closing all routes post-project that are currently designated closed 

is expected to minimize long-term habitat fragmentation and disturbance potential. Under this 

alternative, 0.5 miles of new permanent road construction would occur in PAC# TUO0258 and 0.4 

miles of new permanent road construction would occur in PAC# TUO130. The management 

requirement of designating any new permanent road construction in PACs as blocked Maintenance 

Level 1 or Maintenance Level 2 gated year-round is expected to minimize long-term disturbance 

potential to affected sites. With the minimization of long-term disturbance potential, this disturbance 

effect is expected to be minor.

Table 3.15-7 Project road miles in HRCAs by road type, Alternative 1

Spotted 

Owl 

HRCA*

Miles

New 

permanent 

construction

Reconstruction Skid zone Temporary 

road

MPA0019 1.4

MPA0082 1.2 0.2

TUO0010 1.6 0.1

TUO0011 6.5 0.1

TUO0012 1.1 0.2 0.2

TUO0024 6.4 0.2

TUO0026 4.9

TUO0027 4.9

TUO0032 2.4 0.2

TUO0034 1.1

TUO0035 0.4

TUO0039 1.5 0.2 0.2

TUO0040 3.1

TUO0053 3.7 0.6 0.3

TUO0054 1.5

TUO0059 3.8

TUO0061 4.0

TUO0065 0.4 0.4

TUO0078 3.8

TUO0085 7.0 0.1

TUO0129 1.7 0.3 0.4

TUO0130 0.5 2.9 0.0

TUO0142 0.1

TUO0148 4.2

TUO0149 6.1 0.4

TUO0151 3.3

TUO0176 0.1

TUO0187 3.6

TUO0188 1.6 0.1

TUO0205 1.0 0.0

TUO0218 4.1

TUO0219 2.0

TUO0255 0.2 1.0

TUO0257 2.9 0.6 1.3

TUO0258 1.6 1.0 0.2

TUO0261 0.0 1.6

Total 2.1 95.3 3.4 6.2

*HRCAs not shown did not have project roads in them

305
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Table 3.15-7 for Alternative 1 shows a total of 107 miles of project road treatments would occur in 

HRCAs. The management requirement of re-closing all routes post-project that are currently 

designated closed pre-project, and the management requirement of designating any new permanent 

road construction in PACs as blocked Maintenance Level 1 or Maintenance Level 2 gated year-round 

are expected to minimize long-term habitat fragmentation and disturbance potential. The two HRCAs 

with new permanent road construction proposed are associated with the corresponding PAC and roads 

in the table.

Indicator 5. Alternative 1 has no material sources. Table 3.15-8 shows eight water sources and six 

landings in suitable PACs. Of the landings in suitable PACs, two are helicopter landings and four are 

tractor landings. One PAC contains two proposed landings, the remainder contain one each. The 

implementation of BMPs at project water sources is expected to minimize potential effects to spotted 

owls and their prey related to water availability. There is no provision in this alternative to mitigate 

habitat loss caused by landing construction by adding acreage to the PAC. This would result in a 

minimal amount of potential net loss of spotted owl habitat on 10 acres across 5 PACs. 

Table 3.15-8 Water sources and landings within PACs, Alternative 1

Spotted Owl PAC Water 

sources

Landings

Tractor Helicopter

TUO0011 – Big Creek 0 1 0

TUO0039 – Ackerson Mountain 1 0 1

TUO0053 – Brushy Creek 0 1 0

TUO0061 – D51 Bear Spring Creek 1 0 0

TUO0078 – Crocker 2 0 0

TUO0129 – Upper 2 Mile Creek 1 0 0

TUO0148 – Upper 13 Mile Creek 1 0 0

TUO0151 – L. Cottonwood Creek 0 1 1

TUO0187 – Thompson Meadow 1 0 0

TUO0218 – L. Skunk Creek 1 0 0

TUO0257 – Westside E 0 1 0

Total 8 4 2

*PACs not shown did not have these features

Table 3.15-9 Biomass in critical winter deer range units, Alternative 1

Unit Biomass

Acres

Total 

Unit Acres Percent

L03 31 30 100

L06 10 10 100

L07 5 5 100

L202 28 142 20

L203 265 265 100

L204 87 87 100

L205 140 140 100

L206 138 138 100

M201 35 50 70 

O201 140 299 27

P201 185 185 100

Total 1,064 1,352 79

Indicator 6. Alternative 1 proposes 7,626 acres of biomass fuel treatment. Table 3.15-9 shows 1,064 

biomass acres occur in critical winter deer range and have a cover/forage ratio emphasis for deer 

habitat. Treatments designed to achieve optimal deer cover/forage ratios would also break up fuel 

continuity within those units and contribute to fuels management goals. Fuels management goals are 

306
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

important components of the fire and fuels strategy (Crook et al. 2013) and would assist in moving 

toward the desired condition of old forest habitat development. 

Specifically, fuels management actions in the deer range units, which are located downslope of the 

old forest corridor and PAC TUO021, are likely to break up fuel continuity and prevent fire spread 

into the developing forest upslope, at least in the short-term. Based on location, these treatments 

would likely influence old forest development in at least three spotted owl territories. However, longterm effectiveness is highly speculative because future long-term management actions (e.g., 

prescribed burn schedules) are unknown at this time. This would likely play a critical role in 

contributing to the development of future old forest linking Yosemite National Park and the North 

Mountain Roadless Area to the Clavey River watershed. More details are in the Wildlife BE 

appendix). 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

In making the determination for this alternative, the impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions was considered, found in Appendix B, Cumulative Effects. Relevant risk factors potentially 

affecting California spotted owl abundance and distribution have been identified and primarily 

include nest site loss and disturbance, and loss of habitat and habitat elements, especially large snags 

and large down woody material (USDA 2001, R5 Sensitive species evaluation form 2012). 

Based on relevant risk factors, the following present and reasonably foreseeable actions from 

Appendix B are the most relevant to spotted owl: green thinning sales, emergency fire salvage on 

private land, and the Rim HT project.

The green thinning sales are designed to reduce ladder fuels and retain and improve key habitat 

components such as retention of large trees, defect trees, snags, downed wood, and hardwoods. 

Based on the biological evaluations for each, spotted owl habitat is expected to improve in the longterm with implementation of these projects. 

As a result of the Rim Fire, several private land owners have submitted emergency fire salvage 

notices to Cal Fire. A total of 18,407 acre is presently being salvage logged. These salvage activities 

generally remove all fire-killed and dying trees, important habitat elements to spotted owl habitat in 

the short and long-term. There is considerable uncertainty regarding the ecological effects of varying 

levels of salvage treatments to this species (Appendix D).

The Rim HT project removes snags along high-use, typically paved roads (Maintenance Level 3 to 5 

roads). The hazard tree removal along Maintenance Level 3, 4 and 5 roads was considered when 

remapping Category 3 PACs for Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. For Category 2 PACs, hazard tree removal 

was considered in Alternative 3 and 4, but not Alternative 1 (Spotted Owl PAC evaluation/remapping 

narratives in the Wildlife BE Appendix). 

Alternative 1 may contribute cumulatively to short and long-term effects on spotted owl. The 

combination of past Forest Service and private timber harvests has cumulatively reduced the amount 

of suitable habitat available across the analysis area, and the area has been identified as an area of 

concern (Verner et al. 1992). The cumulative contribution under this alternative may affect individual 

territories, but is not expected to affect the viability of this species.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Under Alternative 2, death, injury or disturbance would not be an issue because no active 

management would occur. The indirect effects of no action are primarily related to the influence no 

action may have on future wildfires and how future wildfires may impact spotted owl habitat. 

307
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Predicting the incremental effect no action would have on future wildfires and spotted owl habitat is 

largely speculative given the numerous factors involved over time. As fire-killed trees fall and 

contribute to surface fuel pools, potential fire behavior may be expected to increase (3.05 Fuels).

However, potential fire behavior may be dependent on how future management actions, especially 

prescribed fire, are planned and implemented (Stephens and Moghaddas 2005, Stephens et al. 2009, 

Roberts et al. 2011, Crook et al. 2013). Additionally, a growing body of evidence indicates that 

spotted owls persist within fire affected landscapes (Bond et al. 2002, Roberts et al. 2011, and Lee et 

al. 2012).

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative effects discussion under Alternative 1 outlines those present and foreseeable future 

activities scheduled on public and private lands. Under Alternative 2, no direct cumulative effect is 

expected because no active management would occur. The cumulative contribution under this 

alternative may not complement the fuel reduction treatments that have occurred in the past, thus 

increasing the risk of loss of remaining suitable habitat to wildfire in the long-term. The short-term 

beneficial impacts to spotted owl such as retention of snags may be outweighed by the increased risk 

of additional habitat loss in the next wildfire. Because the indirect effects of future fires is highly 

speculative and uncertain, cumulative effects cannot be predicted. Thus, no action is not expected to 

result in any definitive direct or indirect cumulative effects. 

Alternative 3 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indicator 1. Potentially five known activity center nest trees intersect with roadside hazard salvage 

treatment units and 26 known activity center nest trees are within .25 mile of potentially disturbing 

activities. It is expected that the implementation of LOPs and protocol surveys as management 

requirements will minimize disturbance potential to these sites. Under Alternative 3, the management 

requirement to flag and avoid current and historic nest trees is expected to protect nest trees and

ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The risk of nest tree loss is minimized and not 

expected to occur.

Indicator 2. Table 3.15-10 shows 2,015 acres of roadside hazard salvage treatments would occur 

within post-fire suitable PACs. Site-specifically, spotted owl sites would be potentially affected by 

habitat fragmentation at varying degrees ranging from 0 acres of overlap to approximately 40 percent 

of a PAC. The Alternative 3 overlap with roadside hazard treatments would be mitigated by adding 

acreage to the PAC equivalent to the treatment acres as per Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010a p. 

185). Under Alternative 3, 85 percent of affected PAC acres would be mitigated; six PACs would 

have unmitigated treatment overlap. For unmitigated acres, additional acres of suitable habitat were 

not available. PAC evaluation narratives and maps are in the Wildlife BE Appendix. Unmitigated 

habitat alteration and the potential influence on continued occupancy probabilities would be 

minimized to the greatest extent possible. Few studies are available for guidance on specific 

thresholds (Seamans and Gutierrez 2007). Although precise thresholds for the analysis area are not 

known, potential net loss is mitigated over the majority of acres in all but 2 PACs (Harden Flat and 

Hunter Creek).

308
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.15-10 Treatment unit overlap within post-fire PACs, Alternative 3

Spotted Owl PAC Number

Roadside

hazard salvage 

treatment acres

Percent 

mitigated 

MPA0019 - McCauley Ranch 65 100

TUO0010 - Soldier Creek 42 100

TUO0011 - Big Creek 119 100

TUO0012 - Ackerson Creek 46 100

TUO0024 - SF Tuolumne 104 100

TUO0026 - Rush Creek 82 61

TUO0027 - N Bear Mountain 93 72

TUO0032 - Reynold's Creek 16 100

TUO0034 - D54 Niagara Creek 30 100

TUO0039 - Ackerson Mountain 31 100

TUO0040 - MF Tuolumne 84 73

TUO0053 - Brushy Creek 127 100

TUO0054 - Thompson Peak 0 N/A

TUO0059 - L 13 Mile Creek 39 100

TUO0061 - D51 Bear Spring Creek 108 51

TUO0065 - L Reynold's Creek 43 100

TUO0078 – Crocker 26 100

TUO0085 - Harden Flat NW 98 1

TUO0129 - U 2 Mile Creek 74 100

TUO0130 - Camp Clavey 94 100

TUO0146 - Hunter Creek 18 0

TUO0148 - U 13 Mile Creek 76 100

TUO0149 - Cottonwood Creek 91 100

TUO0151 - L Cottonwood Creek 64 100

TUO0176 - Clavey-Wolfin 92 100

TUO0187 - Thompson Meadow 24 100

TUO0188 - Loney Creek 59 100

TUO0205 - N Niagara 65 100

TUO0210 – Buchanan 3 100

TUO0218 - L Skunk Creek 75 76

TUO0219 - U Cherry Lake 33 100

TUO0255 - Box Spring 2 100

TUO0256 - Clavey River 0 N/A

TUO0257 - Westside E 68 100

TUO0258 - Westside W 5 100

TUO0261 - U Camp 25 19 100

Total 2,015

Indicator 3. Table 3.15-11 shows Alternative 3 has 14,448 acres of salvage units managed for old 

forest condition would be managed for higher than average levels of large conifer snags and large 

down woody material. Large down woody material would be retained at the rate of 10 to 20 tons / 

acre with 20 tons per acre emphasized in units managed for old forest condition. Higher than average 

levels of large conifer snags and large down woody material is a management objective in areas 

managed for old forest condition. Areas managed for old forest condition include: OFEA, HRCA, and 

FCCC. Under Alternative 3, 2,089 acres would receive low intensity salvage treatment as part of a 

309
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

PSW research project. The PSW research project is designed to address questions related to salvage 

logging intensities and spotted owl occupancy and use of post-fire environments. This research will 

provide information to better understand the effects of wildfire and salvage-logging on California 

spotted owl and serve as an empirical basis for informing future management decisions (Keane, 

pers.comm.). Thus, the PSW research is expected to benefit California spotted owl conservation by 

addressing the uncertainty related to thresholds of effect. Retaining higher than average levels of large 

conifer snags and large down woody material in areas managed for old forest condition would be 

consistent with the desired condition of habitat for this and other old forest associated species. The 

importance of higher than average levels of large conifer snags and large down woody material to 

habitat quality is described in the “habitat modification” section above. Generally, habitat managed 

for higher than average levels may be best qualified as developing into highly suitable habitat, while 

habitat managed at average levels may be best qualified as developing into low to moderate 

suitability.

Table 3.15-11 Snag retention level in basal area per acre, Alternative 3

12 square feet BA per

acre* 

General Forest matrix 

management average 

(USDA 2010 p.44).

30 square feet BA per acre

OFEA, HRCA, FCCC above 

average level management 

objective (Verner et al. 1992).

100 to 120 square feet BA 

per acre

Low-intensity salvage 

treatment units (PSW 

Research).

Unit acres 15,955 12,359 2,089

*converted from 4 snags per acre for comparison purposes; assuming retention of 24 inches dbh snags.

Indicator 4. Table 3.15-12 shows Alternative 3 would have 0.2 miles of new permanent road 

construction, 29.1 miles of road reconstruction, 0.1 miles of “skid zones”, and 0.6 miles of temp road 

occurring in suitable PACs. A total of 30 project road miles intersect PACs. Of the road 

reconstruction miles, 2.8 miles would occur in suitable PACs on routes currently decommissioned or 

not designated for motor vehicle travel. The remaining road reconstruction miles occur mainly on 

open Maintenance Level 2 roads. The management requirement of re-closing all routes post-project 

that are currently designated closed pre-project is expected to minimize long-term habitat 

fragmentation and disturbance potential. Under this alternative, 0.2 miles of new permanent road 

construction would occur in PAC TUO130. The management requirement of designating any new 

permanent road construction in PACs as blocked Maintenance Level 1 or Maintenance Level 2 gated 

year-round is expected to minimize long-term disturbance potential of affected sites. 

Table 3.15-13 for Alternative 3 shows a total of 97.7 miles of project road treatments would occur in

HRCAs. The management requirement of re-closing all routes post-project that are currently 

designated closed, and the management requirement of designating any new permanent road 

construction as blocked Maintenance Level 1 or Maintenance Level 2 gated year-round are expected 

to minimize long-term habitat fragmentation and disturbance potential. The one HRCA with new 

permanent road construction proposed is associated with the corresponding PAC and road in the 

“Project road miles in PACs” table above.

310
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.15-12 Project road miles in PACs by road type, Alternative 3 

Spotted Owl PAC*

Miles

New 

permanent 

construction

Reconstruction Skid 

zone

Temporary 

road

MPA0019 - McCauley Ranch 1.4

TUO0010 - Soldier Creek 0.4 0.0

TUO0011 - Big Creek 2.5 0.1

TUO0012 - Ackerson Creek 0.8

TUO0024 - SF Tuolumne 2.4

TUO0026 - Rush Creek 1.8

TUO0027 - N Bear Mountain 2.0

TUO0032 - Reynold's Creek 0.0

TUO0034 - D54 Niagara Creek 0.6

TUO0039 - Ackerson Mountain 0.5

TUO0040 - MF Tuolumne 1.2

TUO0053 - Brushy Creek 1.5

TUO0059 - L 13 Mile Creek 0.1

TUO0061 - D51 Bear Spring 

Creek 2.3

TUO0078 - Crocker 0.9

TUO0085 - Harden Flat NW 2.1 0.1

TUO0129 - U 2 Mile Creek 1.2

TUO0130 - Camp Clavey 0.2 1.3

TUO0148 - U 13 Mile Creek 0.5

TUO0149 - Cottonwood Creek 1.3

TUO0151 - L Cottonwood Creek 1.1

TUO0205 - N Niagara 0.1

TUO0218 - L Skunk Creek 1.1 0.3

TUO0219 - U Cherry Lake 0.1

TUO0255 - Box Spring 0.1

TUO0257 - Westside E 1.2

TUO0258 - Westside W 0.0

TUO0261 - U Camp 25 0.4

Totals 0.2 29.1 0.1 0.6

*PACs not shown did not have project roads in them

311
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Table 3.15-13 Project road miles in HRCAs by road type, Alterative 3

Spotted Owl

HRCA* 

Miles

New 

permanent 

construction

Reconstruction Skid 

zone

Temporary 

Road

MPA0019 2.3

MPA0082 1.2 0.2

TUO0010 1.6 0.1

TUO0011 6.4 0.1

TUO0012 1.5 0.2

TUO0024 6.0 1.3

TUO0026 5.0

TUO0027 4.9 0.2

TUO0032 2.0

TUO0034 1.7 0.1

TUO0035 0.3 0.2

TUO0039 1.9 0.2

TUO0040 2.8 0.3

TUO0053 3.3 0.2

TUO0054 1.5

TUO0059 2.9

TUO0061 3.6

TUO0065 0.4 0.4

TUO0078 3.7 0.2

TUO0085 6.8 0.4

TUO0129 2.0 0.2 0.2

TUO0130 0.3 2.0

TUO0142 0.1 0.0

TUO0148 3.7

TUO0149 6.3 0.4

TUO0151 3.1

TUO0176 0.1

TUO0187 2.8

TUO0205 0.2

TUO0218 4.0 0.3

TUO0219 1.8 0.2

TUO0255 0.2 0.1

TUO0257 3.9

TUO0258 0.9 0.0

TUO0261 1.2

Total 0.3 91.7 1.8 3.9

*HRCAs not shown did not have project roads in them

Indicator 5. Table 3.15-14 shows Alternative 3 has zero material sources, eight water sources, and 

two landings in suitable PACs. Two PACs contain one tractor landing each. The implementation of 

BMPs at project water sources is expected to minimize potential effects to spotted owls and their prey 

related to water availability. Under this alternative, habitat loss caused by landing construction was 

mitigated by adding equivalent acreage to the PAC. No net habitat loss is expected for this indicator. 

312
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.15-14 Water sources and landings within PACs, Alternative 3 

Spotted Owl PAC* Water 

sources

Landings

Tractor Helicopter

TUO0011 - Big Creek 0 1 0

TUO0039 - Ackerson Mountain 1 0 0

TUO0061 - D51 Bear Spring Creek 1 0 0

TUO0078 - Crocker 2 0 0

TUO0129 - Upper 2 Mile Creek 1 0 0

TUO0148 - Upper 13 Mile Creek 1 0 0

TUO0151 - L. Cottonwood Creek 0 1 0

TUO0187 - Thompson Meadow 1 0 0

TUO0218 - L. Skunk Creek 1 0 0

Totals 8 2 0

*PACs not shown did not have these features

Table 3.15-15 Biomass in critical winter deer range units, Alternative 3

Unit Biomass

Acres

Total 

Unit Acres

Percent

L03 30 30 100

L04 25 79 32

L07 5 5 100

L201 92 92 100

L202 28 142 20

L203 250 695 36

L204 340 1519 22

L205 475 755 63

L206 15 81 19

M201 35 74 47

M202 20 138 14

M203 20 63 32

M204 79 282 28

O201A 80 156 51

O201B 60 121 50

P201 185 185 100

Total 1,739 4,416 39

Indicator 6. Alternative 3 has 8,379 acres of biomass fuels treatments. Table 3.15-15 shows 1,739 

biomass acres occur in critical winter deer range and have a cover/forage ratio emphasis for deer 

habitat. Treatments designed to achieve optimal deer cover/forage ratios would also break up fuel 

continuity within those units and contribute to fuels management goals. Fuels management goals are 

important components of the fire and fuels strategy (Crook et al. 2013) and would assist in moving 

toward the desired condition of old forest habitat development. In particular, for critical winter deer 

range units located downslope of forest carnivore connectivity corridor units and PAC TUO0218, 

breaking up fuel continuity within the deer range units is likely to influence the development of future 

old forest linking Yosemite National Park and the North Mountain Roadless Area to the Clavey River 

watershed as shown in the Wildlife BE Appendix). Additional fuels treatments include 22,036 acres 

of pile and burn. Pile and burn treatments may be machine piled or hand piled with the objective of 

disposing of activity fuels. The 3,537 acres of watershed treatments involving mastication or “drop

and lop” techniques would be used to provide soil cover in watershed sensitive areas would benefit 

313
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

vegetation establishment and spotted owl habitat development. Alternative 3 treats 675 more biomass 

acres than Alternative 1 in critical areas and may potentially be more effective in managing fuels and 

future fire behavior downslope of an estimated 4 owl territories. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The Cumulative effects discussion under Alternative 1 outlines those present and reasonably 

foreseeable future activities relevant to this alternative as well. The cumulative contribution of 

Alternative 3 would be less than Alternative 1 because management requirements minimize the 

potential for nest tree loss, habitat loss, and reduction in habitat quality of future old forest. In 

particular, snag retention would be higher within OFEA, HRCA, and FCCC units, and new 

permanent road construction would be greatly reduced. The cumulative contribution under this 

alternative may affect individual territories, but is not expected to affect the viability of this species.

Alternative 4 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 3 except that it drops all new permanent road construction 

and the following eighteen units from treatment: A01B, A03, A04, A05A, A05B, D01A, D02, E01A, 

E01B, E02, O01, O02A, O02B, O04, O05, O12, R01A, and R02. 

Indicator 1. Same as Alternative 3. 

Indicator 2. Same as Alternative 3. 

Table 3.15-16 Snag retention level in basal area per acre, Alternative 4

12 square feet BA per

acre* 

General Forest matrix 

management average 

(USDA 2010 p.44).

30 square feet BA per acre

OFEA, HRCA, FCCC above 

average level management 

objective (Verner et al. 1992).

100 to 120 square feet

BA per acre

Low intensity salvage 

treatment units (PSW 

Research).

Full 

retention 

Unit 

acres 13,427 12,315 2,089 2,571

*converted from 4 snags per acre for comparison purposes; assuming retention of 24 inches dbh snags.

Indicator 3. Similar to Alternative 3, except Alternative 4, would drop 2,571 acres from salvage 

treatment specifically for species associated with post-fire environments (black-backed woodpecker

section). Units designated for full snag retention incorporate 97 acres of retired PAC TUO030, 289 

acres of retired PAC TUO0145, 57 acres of re-mapped PAC TUO078, and 148 acres of re-mapped 

PAC TUO0257. Although it was determined that these areas have little to no probability of continued 

occupancy for nesting or roosting as discussed in the PAC evaluation narratives and maps in the 

Wildlife BE Appendix, recent research indicates that the proposed retention may provide foraging 

habitat for spotted owls at least over the next decade (Bond et al. 2009). Retaining higher than 

average levels of large conifer snags and large down woody material in areas managed for old forest 

condition would improve habitat quality in the majority of territories in this project. 

Indicator 4. Under Alternative 4, project road miles in PACs by road type would be the same as 

described in Alternative 3 above except that there would be no new permanent road construction 

within any PACs or HRCAs. Thus, in Alternative 4, long-term habitat fragmentation and disturbance 

potential from new permanent roads would not be an issue for the following two PACs and HRCAs:

PAC# TUO0258 and PAC# TUO130. 

Indicator 5. Same as Alternative 3. 

314
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Indicator 6. As in Alternative 3, Alternative 4 biomass and watershed treatments would occur except 

that biomass treatments and pile and burn treatments would not occur within the units dropped from 

salvage harvest. This totals 404 acres of dropped biomass treatments and 1,716 acres of dropped pile 

and burn treatments. As in Alternative 3, biomass treatments in critical winter deer range would still 

occur downslope of an estimated 4 owl territories. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 3, Alternative 4 would have the least habitat alteration with full retention of 

snags across 2,571 more acres than Alternative 3. Alternative 4 is not expected to affect the viability 

of spotted owl. 

California Spotted Owl: Summary of Effects 

Indicator 1. Table 3.15-17 shows the number of current and historic nest sites within suitable PACs in 

treatment units and the number of activity center nest sites within .25 mile of potentially disturbing 

activities are the same for all alternatives. LOPs are common to all action alternatives. However, 

Alternatives 3 and 4 include a management requirement to minimize the potential for effect and 

Alternative 1 does not. 

Indicator 2. Table 3.15-17 shows acres of treatment unit overlap within suitable PACs is mitigated 

wherever possible in Alternatives 3 and 4 but not mitigated in Alternative 1. 

Indicator 3. Table 3.15-17 shows Alternatives 3 and 4 have more acres managed for old forest 

objectives with higher than average levels of large snags and higher than average levels of large down 

woody material are highest in. In contrast, Alternative 1 manages no acres for higher than average 

levels of large snags. For retention of large down woody material, all action alternatives manage to a 

10 to 20 tons per acre standard but Alternatives 3 and 4 emphasize retention at the higher end (i.e. 20 

tons per acre) while Alternative 1 does not. Alternative 4 additionally manages 2,571 acres under full 

retention of snags and down woody material (1,414 acres from Alternative 3’s 12 square feet BA per 

acre category and 1,157 acres from Alternative 3’s 30 square feet BA per acre category are moved to 

the full retention category). 

Indicator 4. Table 3.15-17 shows miles of new permanent road construction and other project road 

miles in PACs and HRCAs is highest in Alternative 1. Alternatives 1 and 3 include new permanent 

road construction in PACs and HRCAs. Alternative 4 proposes no new permanent road construction. 

Indicator 5. Table 3.15-17 shows the number of water sources in PACs is the same in all action 

alternatives. Of the action alternatives, the number of landings in PACs is highest in Alternative 1 and 

lowest in Alternatives 3 and 4.

Indicator 6. Table 3.15-17 shows Alternatives 3 and 4 best address disposal of activity fuels and the 

need for soil cover treatments for watershed protection. Biomass treatments in critical areas are 

expected to be effective in managing fuels and future fire behavior downslope of developing owl 

habitat. 

Determinations 

Alternative 1 may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability for the California spotted owl. The following logic check was considered (Robinson 

1996): project occurs in or affects suitable habitat but compliance with existing forest plan direction is 

demonstrated. 

Alternative 2 will not affect the California spotted owl. In making this determination, Bond et al. 

2002, Roberts et al. 2011, and Lee et al. 2012 was considered. 

315
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Table 3.15-17 Summary of effects for California spotted owl

Indicator

Alternative

1 2 3 4

Indicator 1 – Nest sites

Number of nest sites in treatment units 5 0 5 5

Number of nest sites within .25 mile of potentially 

disturbing activities 26 0 26 26

Management requirement to flag and avoid nest 

trees no N/A Yes Yes

Indicator 2 – Acres of treatment unit overlap within PACs

Treatment overlap acres mitigated 0 N/A 1,715 1,715

Management requirement to add acreage to PAC No N/A Yes Yes

Indicator 3 – Old forest condition with large snags and large downed woody 

material

12 sq. ft. BA / acre* 

General Forest matrix management average 

(USDA 2010 p.44)

28,326 0 15,955 13,427

30 sq. ft. BA / acre

OFEA, HRCA, FCCC above average level 

management objective (Verner et al. 1992)

0 0 12,359 12,315

100 to 120 sq. ft. BA / acre

Low intensity salvage treatment units (PSW 

Research)

0 0 2,089 2,089

Full retention 0 30,402* 0 2,571

Indicator 4 – Road miles in PACs

New construction 0.9 0 0.2 0

Reconstruction 31.3 0 29.1 29.1

Skid zone 0.6 0 0.1 0.1

Temporary road 2.2 0 0.6 0.6

Total miles in PACS 35.0 0 30.0 28.8

Indicator 4 – Road miles in HRCAs

New construction 2.1 0 0.3 0

Reconstruction 95.3 0 91.7 91.7

Skid zone 3.4 0 1.8 1.8

Temporary road 6.2 0 3.9 3.9

Total miles in HRCAs 107.0 0 97.7 97.4

Indicator 5 – Number of water and material sources and landings in PACs

Water sources 8 0 8 8

Material (Rock) sources 0 0 0 0

Tractor landings 4 0 2 2

Helicopter landings 2 0 0 0

Indicator 6 – Acres of fuels treatments by type

Biomass 6,562 0 6,640 6,236

Biomass deer units 1,064 0 1,739 1,739

Pile and burn 0 0 22,036 20,320

Watershed soil cover treatments 0 0 3,537 3,537

*Represents the maximum number of potential unit acres.

316
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 3 may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability for the California spotted owl. The following logic check was considered (Robinson 

1996): project occurs in or affects suitable habitat but compliance with existing conservation 

strategies and forest plan direction is demonstrated. 

Alternative 4 may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability for the California spotted owl. The following logic check was considered (Robinson 

1996): project occurs in or affects suitable habitat but compliance with existing conservation 

strategies and forest plan direction is best demonstrated by this action alternative. Specifically, this 

alternative would remove the risk factor of new permanent road construction within a suitable PAC, 

and retain the most foraging habitat of any action alternative.

Great Gray Owl: Affected Environment

Species and Habitat Account

The great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) is currently managed as a USDA Forest Service Sensitive species 

(Update to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list, July 3, 2013). Habitat descriptions, species 

population trends, and the status of known or suspected limiting factors are summarized by Beck and 

Winter 2000, USDA 2001, 2004, and the R5 Sensitive species evaluation form of 2012 (USDA 

2012d), and are incorporated here by reference. 

Great gray owls are regarded as locally rare throughout their range in USFS Region 5 and no more 

than 100-200 individuals have been estimated in California since 1980, and only 80 were estimated in 

2006 (R5 Sensitive Species Evaluation Form 2012). Although the great gray owl population in 

California is small, the Stanislaus National Forest contains more great gray owl sites than any other 

National Forest in Region 5, or any area outside of Yosemite National Park (Siegel 2001, 2002, NRIS 

Wildlife database, CNDDB database). Of the great gray owl sites on the Stanislaus National Forest, 

most are concentrated within the Rim Fire perimeter in areas that border Yosemite National Park 

(Rich, pers.obs.).

Hull et al. 2010 and Hull et al. 2014 found that great gray owls in the Yosemite area (i.e. including 

the Rim Fire area), are a genetically-unique population warranting subspecies status as ssp. 

yosemitensis. The genetic analysis completed by Hull et al. 2010 indicates that the S.n. yosemitensis

population has experienced a recent genetic bottleneck and exhibits a small effective population size -

- both of these latter factors are a significant conservation concern. The limited genetic diversity in 

this population may contribute to population instability because of the already low population levels, 

the low census numbers, the limited migration potential, and the potential for inbreeding depression 

(Hull et al. 2010). 

Habitat requirements of great gray owls in the Sierra Nevada were summarized by Beck and Winter 

(2000), studied specifically by Greene (1995), Sears (2006), Powers et al. (2011), and Kalinowski et 

al. (in press), and are currently under additional investigations by PSW research (Keane, pers.comm.). 

Great gray owls in the Sierra Nevada inhabit coniferous forest surrounding wet meadows (USDA 

2001). Great gray owls typically breed in large flat-topped broken snags located in conifer stands with 

higher than average levels of large snags and woodland cover in the immediate vicinity of montane 

meadows (Bull and Duncan 1993, Beck and Winter 2000). Great gray owls may also utilize 

abandoned nests of other birds of prey, and mistletoe or other broom growths (Ibid). 

Recent burns, where they exist in the Sierras, provide some structural similarity to a meadow 

ecosystem for a few years before the trees or brush shade out the grasses and forbs (Beck and Winter 

2000). Such sites can provide foraging areas for nearby breeding great gray owls, but only on a shortterm basis (Greene 1995, Beck pers.comm.). Meadows or meadow complexes at least 25 acres in size 

appear to be necessary for persistent occupancy and reproduction but meadows as small as 10 acres 

317
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

will support infrequent breeding (Beck and Winter 2000). Reproductive sites are associated with high 

vole abundance and high vole abundance is associated with meadow vegetation height (Beck 1985; 

Greene 1995; Sears 2006, Kalinowski et al., in press). 

Mean home-range size in the Sierra Nevada during a radio-tagging study was estimated at 148 acres 

in females and 50 acres in males during the breeding season (generally March through August); great 

gray owls enlarge their home ranges substantially in winter (Van Riper and Van Wagtendonk 2006). 

Great gray owl sites are identified through the use of protocol surveys (Beck and Winter 2000, Keane 

et al. 2011). Protocol surveys for great gray owl have been conducted throughout the Rim Fire area 

for the past two decades. Together these efforts have occurred at a level such that inventory 

information for the analysis area is considered essentially complete (USDA unpublished data, NRIS 

Wildlife database). 

Great gray owl PACs are established and maintained to include the forested area and adjacent

meadow around all known great gray owl nest stands. The PAC encompasses at least 50 acres of the 

highest quality nesting habitat (CWHR types 6, 5D, and 5M) available in the forested area 

surrounding the nest. The PAC also includes the meadow or meadow complex that supports the prey 

base for nesting owls (USDA 2010a p.187). 

A post-fire PAC evaluation on NFS land in the Rim Fire area identified 13 historic great gray owl

sites. This represents half of all great gray owl sites on the Stanislaus National Forest and a significant 

proportion of the estimated population size of 80 to 100 individuals for this subspecies (R5 Sensitive 

species evaluation form 2012, USDA 2010d). All of the great gray owl PACs in the Rim Fire burned 

at mixed severity. Approximately half of all PAC acres burned at high severity (greater than 75 

percent basal area mortality) and although only preliminary ground assessment work has been 

completed, at least two known historic nest trees were lost in the fire. However, since great gray owls 

may nest in burned forest (Beck, pers.comm.), and since post-fire conditions may provide preferred 

foraging habitat in the short-term (Greene 1995), all great gray owl PAC boundaries were left intact

except along roads where hazard tree removal was identified as a public safety need. Acreage was 

added to these PAC boundaries to offset unavoidable treatment overlap. Details on individual sites 

can be found in the Wildlife BE Appendix and in the effects analysis below. Based on early survey 

results this season using an Automatic Recording Unit (ARU), continued great gray owl use has been 

confirmed in one Rim Fire great gray owl PAC (USFS unpubl. data). The vocalizations obtained at 

this site involve courtship calls of a pair, suggesting an imminent nesting attempt. Occupation of 

additional great gray owl PACs post-fire is highly likely.

Management Direction 

The Regional Forester for the Pacific Southwest Region has listed the great gray owl (GGOW) as a 

Sensitive Species. Current management direction is summarized by describing the desired future 

condition of land allocations (Robinson 1996). The desired condition for great gray owl PAC

described in the Forest Plan Direction focuses on protecting nest sites with a minimum 50-acre buffer 

and managing meadow habitat for sufficiently large vole populations to provide a food source for 

great gray owls through the reproductive period (USDA 2010a p. 187). 

Also, there is an emphasis to conduct additional surveys to established protocols to follow up reliable 

sightings of great gray owls (USDA 2010a p. 43).

Great Gray Owl: Environmental Consequences

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the great gray owl through the 

following activities: 

 Salvage harvest of fire-killed trees. 

 Salvage harvest of roadside hazard trees.

318
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

 New permanent road construction, temporary road construction, and road reconstruction. 

 Landing construction and use. 

 Use of material sources and water sources.

 Biomass and similar fuels treatments. 

These actions may have direct and indirect effects on great gray owls through the following: 

 Project related death, injury, or disturbance.

 Project related modifications to habitat quantity and/or quality. 

Death, injury or disturbance

Death, injury, and disturbance are potential direct effects to consider for great gray owl (USDA 

2004). Project activities have the potential to cause death or injury by tree-falling or by the use of 

heavy equipment. There is the potential for death or injury if nest trees are felled while being used by 

nesting birds during the reproductive season. In addition, historic nest trees could be removed. The 

great gray owl is also susceptible to getting “roadkilled”. Collision with vehicles is a major cause of 

mortality (Keane et al. 2011); great gray owls tend to fly low over the ground in open areas especially 

adjacent to meadows (Bull and Duncan 1993). The management requirement of LOPs, mitigates the 

probability that death or injury would occur as a result of project activities. Flagging and avoiding 

current and historic nest trees provides a way to minimize nest tree loss or noncompliance with the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Keeping screening vegetation intact within 500 feet of nests also helps to 

minimize disturbance potential and/or nest abandonment. Loud noise from equipment such as chain 

saws or tractors is expected to occur in salvage units, along project roads, and at landings, material 

sources, and water sources. Human presence in nest stands and loud noise in the vicinity of nest 

stands have the potential to change normal behavior and potentially impair essential behavior patterns 

of the great gray owl related to breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The potential for disturbance is 

minimized by the implementation of Limited Operating Periods (LOPs) as a management 

requirement.

The location of nest sites or activity centers are more uncertain following large-scale disturbance 

events (Keane, pers. comm.); conducting surveys to establish or confirm any new locations of nests or 

activity centers is a way to address this movement uncertainty (USDA 2004). Conducting protocol 

surveys is a management requirement common to all action alternatives.

Habitat modification 

Post-fire salvage harvest is identified as a risk factor for great gray owl (Hull et al. 2010). Salvage 

harvest of fire-killed trees and salvage harvest of roadside hazard trees primarily removes snags and 

existing down woody material. Salvage harvest of roadside hazard trees may also remove existing 

living trees meeting certain criteria for hazard definition. There is considerable uncertainty with 

regards to treatment intensity in roadside hazard salvage units because treatment intensity is subject to 

a wide range of environmental conditions (e.g. drought and moisture stress) related to tree status. The 

removal of snags reduces future recruitment of down woody material. Snags and down logs are 

important habitat elements for great gray owls and their prey (USDA 2001, Bull and Henjum 1990). 

Sears (2006) found that sites with a higher density of large snags were more likely to be occupied by 

great gray owl. Salvage logging typically reduces snag densities especially large-diameter snags used 

for nesting, leaning trees used by juveniles for roosting before they can fly, and high stem density in 

stands used by juveniles for cover and protection (Bull and Henjum 1990). Bull and Henjum (1990) 

noted that roosts accessible to flightless young, such as leaning and deformed trees and perches high 

enough to avoid terrestrial predators, may increase reproductive success. Additionally, if perches are 

not left, great gray owls cannot readily hunt in those areas (Ibid). Because fledglings leave the nest 

before they can fly, screening cover around the nest is considered important for their survival 

(Hayward and Verner 1994). 

319
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

New permanent road construction, temp road construction, road reconstruction, landing construction, 

and biomass removal also modify habitat. In particular, road construction and continued use can 

result in increased habitat fragmentation, disturbance, and lower habitat capability for great gray owl 

(Pyron et al. 2009). Basic road maintenance such as grading and cleaning culverts is probably not an 

issue provided vehicles are slow moving. In this project, landings and biomass removal are not 

proposed in great gray owl PACs. The use of water sources is probably not an issue given that great 

gray owls typically nest adjacent to wet meadow sites and wet meadow sites typically have high 

water availability. Further, the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) at project 

water sources is expected to minimize potential effects to great gray owls and their prey related to 

water availability. 

As great gray owls concentrate foraging around wet meadows and have relatively small breeding 

home ranges, the potential for habitat modification effects are expected to be most pronounced in the 

nesting habitat within PACs. 

Indicators

The following indicators were chosen to provide a relative measure of the direct and indirect effects 

to the great gray owl and to determine how well project alternatives comply with Forest Plan 

Direction and species conservation strategies:

1. Number of current and historic nest sites within PACs in treatment units or within .25 mile of 

potentially disturbing activities.

2. Acres of treatment unit overlap within suitable PACs.

3. Miles of new permanent road construction and other project road miles in PACs by road type.

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indicator 1. Potentially two known historic nest trees intersect with roadside hazard salvage treatment 

units and 22 known historic nest trees are within .25 mile of potentially disturbing activities. This 

represents approximately 70 percent of all known great gray owl nest trees on the Stanislaus National 

Forest. It is expected that the implementation of LOPs and protocol surveys as management 

requirements will minimize disturbance potential to these sites. However, there is no provision in 

Alternative 1 to flag and avoid current and historic nest trees and specify coordination triggers.

Table 3.15-18 Treatment unit overlap within great gray owl PACs, Alternative 1

Great gray owl PAC

number

Roadside hazard tree 

treatment acres 

overlapping PAC

Percent of 

PAC affected*

Ackerson 11-15 0 0

Ackerson 16 17 23

Ackerson 1ABC 25 28

Ackerson 3 20 43

Ackerson 4 38 51

Ackerson 6 2 3

Ackerson South 0 0

Crocker Meadow 3 5

Drew Meadow 42 23

North Stone Meadow 2 4

Spinning Wheel 46 52

Wilson Meadow Lower 15 22

Wilson Meadow Upper 15 33

* Total great gray owl PAC acres vary. The Wildlife BE Appendix has narratives and maps of individual PACs.

320
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Indicator 2. Under Alternative 1, 201 acres of roadside hazard salvage treatments within great gray 

owl PACs. Table 3.15-18 shows site-specifically, great gray owl sites would be potentially affected 

by habitat fragmentation at varying degrees ranging from 0 acres of overlap to approximately 50 

percent overlap of a PAC. No provision in this alternative mitigates treatment overlap by adding 

equivalent acreage to the PAC. 

Indicator 3. Table 3.15-19 shows the proposed activities within great gray owl PACs. The 

management requirement of re-closing all routes post-project, that are currently designated closed is 

expected to minimize long-term habitat fragmentation and disturbance potential. The management 

requirement of designating any new permanent road construction in PACs as blocked Maintenance 

Level 1 or Maintenance Level 2 gated year-round is expected to minimize long-term disturbance 

potential of affected sites, but not habitat fragmentation effects. For example, although locations are 

approximate, it appears that the placement of the new permanent road in the Drew Meadow PAC

would partially go through a surviving group of green trees, potentially lowering capability of suitable 

roosting and nesting habitat for great gray owl. 

Table 3.15-19 Project road miles in great gray owl PACs by road type, Alternative 1

Great gray owl

PAC number*

New permanent 

road construction Reconstruction Temporary Roads

Total

Ackerson 16 0.09 0.09

Ackerson 3 0.17 0.17

Ackerson 4 0.39 0.39

Ackerson 6 0.03 0.03

Crocker Meadow 0.02 0.02

Drew Meadow 0.1 1.01 0.6 1.67

Spinning Wheel 0.89 0.89

Wilson Meadow Lower 0.10 0.10

Wilson Meadow Upper 0.40 0.40

Total 0.1 3.1 0.6 3.8

*PACs not shown did not have project roads in them

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

In making the determination for this alternative, the impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions was considered. A list of the actions considered can be found in Appendix B, Cumulative 

Effects. 

Relevant risk factors potentially affecting great gray owl abundance and distribution have been 

identified and primarily include nest site loss and disturbance, roadkill, livestock grazing, and loss of 

habitat and habitat elements, especially large snags and large down woody material adjacent to wet 

meadows (USDA 2001, R5 Sensitive species evaluation form 2012, USDA 2012d).

Based on relevant risk factors and location, the following present and reasonably foreseeable actions 

from Appendix B are the most relevant to great gray owl: livestock grazing, meadow restoration, and 

the Rim HT project.

There are 13 grazing allotments either wholly or partially within the analysis area, resulting in a 

maximum number of 1,632 cow/calf pairs across the landscape. Livestock grazing may influence the 

abundance and availability of prey in wet meadows great gray owls use for foraging (Kalinowski et 

al., in press). Livestock grazing is subject to utilization and forest plan standards that are specifically 

designed to minimize grazing impacts on great gray owl prey. Meadow restoration projects are 

expected to improve foraging habitat for great gray owl. Based on the biological evaluations for each 

321
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

of these projects, short-term impacts are minimized and great gray owl habitat is expected to improve 

in the long-term with implementation of these projects. 

Hazard tree removal along Maintenance Levels 3, 4 and 5 roads (i.e. typically paved) is occurring 

within great gray owl PAC, as shown in Table 3.15-20. 

Cumulative effects of roadside hazard salvage treatments were mitigated in five PACs, partially 

mitigated in the Drew Meadow PAC, and could not be mitigated in two PACs. This would result in a 

net loss of habitat for three great gray owl territories, although precise thresholds of significance are 

unknown. 

Alternative 1 may contribute cumulatively to short and long-term effects on great gray owl and there 

is at least a moderate level of uncertainty with thresholds of significance. The cumulative contribution 

under this alternative may affect individual territories, but is not expected to affect the viability of this 

species.

Table 3.15-20 Overlap acres of PACs with activities and acres mitigated

PAC Acres of overlap Acres mitigated*

Ackerson 11-15 0 N/A

Ackerson 16 13 13

Ackerson 1ABC 0 N/A

Ackerson 3 0 N/A

Ackerson 4 14 0**

Ackerson 6 28 28

Ackerson South 0 N/A

Crocker Meadow 17 17 

Drew Meadow 93 55**

North Stone Meadow 4 4

Spinning Wheel 30 30

Wilson Meadow Lower 0 N/A

Wilson Meadow Upper 10 0**

*acres were mitigated by adding acreage to the PAC equivalent to the treated acres using adjacent acres of comparable quality wherever 

possible. 

**no additional comparable habitat was available to offset total overlapping treatment acres.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Under Alternative 2, death, injury or disturbance would not be an issue because no active 

management would occur. The indirect effects of no action are primarily related to the influence no 

action may have on future wildfires and how future wildfires may impact great gray owl habitat. 

Predicting the incremental effect no action would have on future wildfires and great gray owl habitat 

is largely speculative given the numerous factors involved over time. As fire-killed trees fall and 

contribute to surface fuel pools, fire behavior may be expected to increase (3.05 Fuels). However, 

potential fire behavior in the future may be dependent on how future management actions, especially 

prescribed fire, are planned and implemented (Stephens and Moghaddas 2005, Stephens et al. 2009, 

Roberts et al. 2011, Crook et al. 2013). 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative effects discussion under Alternative 1 outlines those present and foreseeable future 

activities scheduled on public and private lands. Under Alternative 2, no direct cumulative effect is 

expected because no active management would occur. Because the indirect effects of future fires is 

322
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

highly speculative and uncertain, cumulative effects cannot be predicted. Thus, no action is not 

expected to result in any definitive direct or indirect cumulative effects. 

Alternative 3 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Indicator 1. Similar to Alternative 1, but under Alternative 3, the management requirement to flag and 

avoid current and historic nest trees and screening vegetation is a mitigation measure expected to 

protect nest trees and ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Indicator 2. Table 3.15-21 shows acres of roadside hazard salvage treatments overlapping great gray 

owl PAC. This indicator is similar to Alternative 1, but Alternative 3 has a management requirement

that adds acreage to the PAC, equivalent to the treated acres using adjacent acres of comparable 

quality wherever possible. Two PACs would not be affected by overlapping treatment units. 

Treatments overlapping great gray owl PAC were almost entirely mitigated in four out of 11 cases. 

Treatments overlapping great gray owl PAC were partially mitigated in one case. The remaining six 

cases had no additional comparable habitat available to offset treatment acres proposed inside the 

respective PAC. Details on individual sites are in the Wildlife BE Appendix).

Indicator 3. Same as Alternative 1. 

Table 3.15-21 Treatment unit overlap within great gray owl PACs, Alternative 3

Great gray owl PAC

number

Roadside hazard tree 

treatment acres 

overlapping PAC

Percent of PAC

affected* Percent mitigated**

Ackerson 11-15 0 0 N/A

Ackerson 16 17 23 95

Ackerson 1ABC 25 28 100

Ackerson 3 20 43 100

Ackerson 4 38 51 0***

Ackerson 6 2 3 100

Ackerson South 0 0 N/A

Crocker Meadow 3 5 0***

Drew Meadow 42 23 0***

North Stone Meadow 2 4 100

Spinning Wheel 46 52 0***

Wilson Meadow Lower 15 22 0***

Wilson Meadow Upper 15 33 0***

* Total great gray owl PAC acres vary. The Wildlife BE Appendix has narratives and maps of individual PACs.

**Acres of roadside hazard salvage treatments overlapping great gray owl PAC were mitigated by adding acreage to the PAC equivalent 

to the treated acres using adjacent acres of comparable quality wherever possible. Maintenance Levels 3, 4, and 5 roadside hazard 

salvage were mitigated first as shown in the cumulative effects section followed by Maintenance Level 2 roadside hazard salvage.

*** No additional comparable habitat was available to offset treatment acres proposed inside this PAC. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The Cumulative effects discussion under Alternative 1 outlines those present and reasonably 

foreseeable future activities relevant to this alternative as well. The cumulative contribution of 

Alternative 3 would be less than Alternative 1 because management requirements minimize the 

potential for nest tree and net habitat loss, and new permanent road construction would be greatly 

reduced. Alternative 3 is not expected to affect the viability of great gray owl. 

323
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Table 3.15-22 Project road miles in great gray owl PACs by road type, Alternative 3

PAC Reconstruction Temporary Road Total

Ackerson 16 0.09 0 0.09

Ackerson 3 0.17 0 0.17

Ackerson 4 0.39 0 0.39

Ackerson 6 0.03 0 0.03

Crocker Meadow 0.02 0 0.02

Drew Meadow 1.37 0.30 1.67

Spinning Wheel 0.89 0 0.89

Wilson Meadow Lower 0.10 0 0.10

Wilson Meadow Upper 0.40 0 0.40

Total 3.5 0.3 3.8

*PACs not shown did not have project roads in them

Alternative 4 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 3 except that it drops the following eighteen units from 

treatment: A01B, A03, A04, A05A, A05B, D01A, D02, E01A, E01B, E02, O01, O02A, O02B, O04, 

O05, O12, R01A, and R02. Numerical values for indicators 1, 2, and 3 are the same in Alternative 4 

as in Alternative 3. Under Alternative 4, the group O units are adjacent to great gray owl PACs 

Wilson Meadow Lower and Wilson Meadow Upper. Full retention in the O units under Alternative 4 

would increase habitat capability for great gray owl in the Wilson Meadow area. Full retention would 

maintain the maximum number of snags for potential nests and hunting perches for great gray owl, 

reduce disturbance potential, and provide high stem densities great gray owls are likely to use for 

screening and cover. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The incremental impact of Alterative 4 is very similar to Alternative 3 but overall, Alternative 4

would have the least amount of habitat alteration. As in Alternative 3, Alternative 4 is not expected to 

affect the viability of great gray owl. 

Great Gray Owl: Summary of Effects

Indicator 1. Table 3.15-23 shows the number of current and historic nest sites within suitable PACs in 

treatment units and the number of activity center nest sites within .25 mile of potentially disturbing 

activities are the same for all alternatives. However, Alternatives 3 and 4 include a management 

requirement to minimize the potential for effect and Alternative 1 does not.

Indicator 2. Table 3.15-23 shows acres of treatment unit overlap within suitable PACs is mitigated 

wherever possible in Alternatives 3 and 4 but not mitigated in Alternative 1. For Alternatives 3 and 4, 

30 percent of treatment overlap acres were mitigated; no additional comparable habitat was available 

to offset the remaining 70 percent. In Alternative 4, full retention of units in Group O may reduce 

treatment effect magnitude to two PACs (Wilson Meadow Lower and Wilson Meadow Upper). 

Indicator 3. Table 3.15-23 shows miles of project road in great gray owl PACs is the same in all 

action alternatives. 

324
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.15-23 Summary of effects for great gray owl

Indicator Alternative

1 2 3 4

Indicator 1 – Nest sites

Number of nest sites in treatment units 2 0 2 2

Number of nest sites within .25 mile of potentially 

disturbing activities 22 0 22 22

Management requirement to flag and avoid nest trees no N/A Yes Yes

Indicator 2 – Acres of treatment unit overlap within PACs

Treatment overlap acres mitigated 0 N/A 61 61

Management requirement to add acreage to PAC No N/A Yes Yes

Indicator 3 – Road miles in PACs

New construction 0.1 0 0 0

Reconstruction 3.1 0 3.5 3.5

Temporary road 0.6 0 0.3 0.3

Total miles in PACS 3.8 0 3.8 3.8

Determinations 

Alternative 1 may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability for the great gray owl. The following logic check was considered (Robinson 1996): 

project occurs in or affects suitable habitat but compliance with existing forest plan direction is 

demonstrated. 

Alternative 2 will not affect the great gray owl. 

Alternative 3 may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability for the great gray owl. The following logic check was considered (Robinson 1996): 

project occurs in or affects suitable habitat but compliance with existing conservation strategies and 

forest plan direction is demonstrated. 

Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 3. 

Northern Goshawk: Affected Environment

Species and Habitat Account

The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is currently managed as a USDA Forest Service Sensitive 

species (Update to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list, July 3, 2013). Sensitive species are 

species identified by the Regional Forester where population viability is a concern because of 1) 

downward population trends and/or 2) diminished habitat capacity that would reduce species 

distribution. Habitat descriptions, species population trends, and the status of known or suspected 

limiting factors are summarized by USDA 2001 and the R5 Sensitive species evaluation form 2012, 

and are incorporated here by reference.

The northern goshawk has attracted substantial interest over the past two decades because 

management activities in forest environments have the potential to affect nesting habitat and, hence, 

population levels of this species (Woodbridge and Hargis 2006). Northern goshawks are associated 

with large trees, large snags, large downed logs, and use forests with a mix of dense tree cover 

interspersed with meadows, shrub patches, riparian areas, and other natural or artificial openings for 

foraging (Reynolds et al. 2008). In California, the occupancy rate of nest stands is positively 

correlated with stand size but smaller nest stands (less than 25 acre) are occasionally occupied 

(Woodbridge and Detrich 1994). Goshawk breeding area reoccupancy appears to be a function of the 

amount of potential nesting habitat available in the area surrounding the nest; goshawks tend to 

325
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

reoccupy breeding areas when greater than39 percent potential nesting habitat remains (Moser and 

Garton 2009). Stand replacing fire events have eliminated nesting territories but goshawks are known 

to nest in stands that have experienced understory fires that did not reduce canopy cover and numbers 

of large trees below suitable levels (USDA 2001). 

Northern goshawk sites are identified through the use of protocol surveys (USDA 2000a). Protocol 

surveys for goshawk have been conducted throughout the Rim Fire area for the past two decades.

These surveys are best described as opportunistic depending upon planned activities and funding 

levels but have occurred at a level such that inventory information for the analysis area is considered 

essentially complete (USDA, unpublished data, NRIS Wildlife database). 

Northern goshawk sites receive special management consideration with protected activity centers 

(PACs). Goshawk PACs are delineated surrounding all known and newly discovered breeding 

territories detected on NFS lands. Northern goshawk PACs are designated based upon the latest 

documented nest site and location(s) of alternate nests. If the actual nest site is not located, the PAC is 

designated based on the location of territorial adult birds or recently fledged juvenile goshawks 

during the fledgling dependency period. 

PACs are delineated to: (1) include known and suspected nest stands and (2) encompass the best 

available 200 acres of forested habitat in the largest contiguous patches possible, based on aerial 

photography. Where suitable nesting habitat occurs in small patches, PACs are defined as multiple 

blocks in the largest best available patches within 0.5 miles of one another. Best available forested 

stands for PACs have the following characteristics: (1) trees in the dominant and co-dominant crown 

classes average 24 inches dbh or greater; (2) in westside conifer and eastside mixed conifer forest 

types, stands have at least 70 percent tree canopy cover; and (3) in eastside pine forest types, stands 

have at least 60 percent tree canopy cover. Non-forest vegetation (such as brush and meadows) 

should not be counted as part of the 200 acres.

PACs may be removed from the network after a stand-replacing event if the habitat has been rendered 

unsuitable as a northern goshawk PAC and there are no opportunities for re-mapping the PAC in 

proximity to the affected PAC (USDA 2010a p. 184). 

The post-fire PAC evaluation was completed with technical assistance from PSW scientists. For the 

analysis, each PAC was evaluated within the Rim Fire boundary using several criteria. The three main 

criteria used were 1) acres of post-fire suitable habitat defined as CWHR 4M, 4D, 5M, and 5D 

(including class 6) burned at less than 75 percent basal area mortality, 2) percent of PAC within a 496 

acre circle burned at high severity (defined as greater than 75 percent basal area mortality), and 3) 

percent of pre-fire suitable habitat burned at high severity. Twenty-two northern goshawk sites are 

located within the Rim Fire perimeter. Figure 3.15-3 shows it is clear that sites cluster into three 

categories: 4 Category 1 (red), 15 Category 2 (green), and 3 Category 3 (orangeDetails on individual 

sites are provided in the Wildlife BE Appendix; categories may be summarized as follows:

Category 1 (red): These sites burned primarily at high severity across the 496-acre analysis area, had 

nearly all pre-fire suitable habitat burn at high severity, and have small amounts of post-fire suitable 

habitat. These sites lack attributes for suitable habitat (Laudenslayer and Parisi 2007). It is clear that 

these sites have very low to no probability of continued occupancy. Thus, we concluded that it is 

appropriate to remove these sites from the conservation network.

Category 2 (green): These are sites with lower amounts of high severity fire within the 200 ha 

analysis area, lower amounts of suitable habitat loss, and high amounts of remaining suitable habitat.

Available literature suggests that these sites have high probabilities of continued occupancy. Thus, it 

is appropriate to consider these sites as suitable post-fire, and that it is appropriate to keep the 

boundaries intact as is.

326
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Category 3 (orange): These are sites with intermediate values. There is some uncertainty as to the 

probability of occupancy for sites within this range of values. In order to reduce uncertainty in 

occupancy, it is appropriate to re-map the boundaries of these sites to encompass habitat of better 

quality where possible and to consider the re-mapped sites as suitable. It would be particularly 

important to monitor these sites so more can be learned about occupancy thresholds.

Figure 3.15-3 Pin graph showing post-fire northern goshawk PAC condition

Risk Factors

Risk factors potentially affecting northern goshawk abundance and distribution have been identified 

and primarily include nest site loss and disturbance, and loss of habitat and habitat elements, 

especially large snags and large down woody material (USDA 2001, R5 Sensitive species evaluation 

form 2012). 

Management Direction 

Current management direction is summarized by describing the desired future condition of land 

allocations (Robinson 1996). The northern goshawk is an at-risk species associated with old forest 

ecosystems (USDA 2004). The following land allocations pertain to goshawk and old forest 

ecosystems: Goshawk PACs, California spotted owl HRCA, OFEA, and FCCC). Although goshawks 

327
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

occupy a broad ecological niche and utilize a variety of habitats, the desired conditions in areas 

managed for old forest objectives provide suitable habitat for goshawk nesting, post-fledgling use, 

and are preferentially selected for foraging (USDA 2004).

The desired condition for a goshawk PAC is that stands in each PAC have: 1) at least two tree canopy 

layers; 2) dominant and co-dominant trees with average diameters of at least 24 inches dbh; 3) at least

60 to70 percent canopy cover; 4) some very large snags (greater than 45 inches dbh); and 5) snag and 

down woody material levels that are higher than average.

Desired conditions in Home Range Core Area (HRCA) for California spotted owls also provide 

suitable habitat conditions for goshawk. The desired condition for HRCA is for large habitat blocks 

that have: 1) at least two tree canopy layers; 2) at least 24 inches dbh in dominant and co-dominant 

trees; 3) a number of very large (greater than 45 inches dbh) old trees; 4) at least 50 to 70 percent 

canopy cover; and 5) higher than average levels of snags and down woody material.

The desired condition for OFEA is to provide habitat conditions for mature forest associates (northern 

goshawk, California spotted owl, American marten, and Pacific fisher). Specifically, forest structure 

and function across old forest emphasis areas generally resemble pre-settlement conditions. High 

levels of horizontal and vertical diversity exist at the landscape-scale (roughly 10,000 acres). Stands 

are composed of roughly even-aged vegetation groups, varying in size, species composition, and 

structure. Individual vegetation groups range from less than 0.5 to more than 5 acres in size. Tree 

sizes range from seedlings to very large diameter trees. Species composition varies by elevation, site 

productivity, and related environmental factors. Multi-tiered canopies, particularly in older forests, 

provide vertical heterogeneity. Dead trees, both standing and fallen, meet habitat needs of old-forestassociated species. Forest structure and function generally resemble pre-settlement conditions as 

shown in Figure 3.15-2. 

Desired conditions in FCCC for fisher and marten also provide suitable habitat conditions for 

goshawk. The desired future condition of FCCC is to provide habitat connectivity for fisher and 

marten, linking Yosemite National Park and the North Mountain inventoried roadless area west to the 

Clavey River. For habitat connectivity, a future forested area is desired with a minimum of 50 percent 

of the forested area having at least 60 percent canopy cover. Higher than average levels of large snags 

and large down woody material is also desired (as in USDA 2004). Habitat structures are important to 

retain that may constitute rest sites as described in Lofroth et al. 2010 (e.g. see plate 7.8). 

Northern Goshawk: Environmental Consequences

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the northern goshawk through the 

following activities: 

 Salvage harvest of fire-killed trees. 

 Salvage harvest of roadside hazard trees.

 New permanent road construction, temporary road construction, and road reconstruction. 

 Landing construction and use. 

 Use of material sources and water sources.

 Biomass and similar fuels treatments. 

These actions may have direct and indirect effects on northern goshawks through the following: 

 Project related death, injury, or disturbance.

 Project related modifications to habitat quantity and/or quality. 

Death, injury or disturbance

Death, injury, and disturbance are potential direct effects to consider for northern goshawk (USDA 

2004). Project activities have the potential to cause death or injury by tree-falling or by the use of 

heavy equipment. There is the potential for death or injury if nest trees are felled while being used by 

328
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

nesting birds during the reproductive season. In addition, historic nest trees could be removed. The 

mobility of the species in question and the management requirement of LOPs, make it highly 

improbable that death or injury would occur as a result of project activities. Flagging and avoiding 

current and historic nest trees provides a way to minimize nest tree loss or noncompliance with the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Keeping screening vegetation intact within 500 feet of nests also helps to 

minimize disturbance potential and/or nest abandonment. 

Goshawks are highly susceptible to human disturbance (Squires and Reynolds 1997). During 

courtship and nest building, goshawks have been recorded to abandon nest areas following human 

intrusion alone (USDA 2000). In addition, incubating or brooding females may interrupt incubation 

or nestling care for extended periods to defend a nest (Ibid). 

Logging activities near nests can cause failure, especially during incubation (Boal and Mannan 1994). 

Loading and skidding too close to active nests can cause abandonment, even with 20 day-old 

nestlings present (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Loud noise from equipment such as chain saws or 

tractors is expected to occur in salvage units, along project roads, and at landings, material sources, 

and water sources. Human presence, particularly loud noise, has the potential to change normal 

behavior and potentially impair essential behavior patterns of the northern goshawk related to 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The potential for disturbance is minimized by the implementation of 

Limited Operating Periods (LOPs) as a management requirement. 

The location of nest sites or activity centers are more uncertain following large-scale disturbance 

events (Keane, pers. comm.); conducting surveys to establish or confirm any new locations of nests or 

activity centers is a way to address this movement uncertainty (USDA 2000). Conducting protocol 

surveys is a management requirement common to all action alternatives.

Habitat modification 

Salvage harvest of fire-killed trees and salvage harvest of roadside hazard trees primarily removes 

snags and existing down woody material. Salvage harvest of roadside hazard trees may also remove 

existing living trees meeting certain criteria for hazard definition. The removal of snags reduces 

future recruitment of down woody material. Snags and down logs are important habitat elements for 

goshawks and their prey (USDA 2001). 

Short-term, within the next ten years, snags and down woody material function as habitat elements 

important for goshawk prey. Snags also serve as potential hunting perch sites that may be utilized by 

goshawks. Goshawks feed on a variety of prey present in post-fire habitat mosaics. Primary prey 

groups include tree and ground squirrels, cottontails, jackrabbits, hares, and medium and large sized 

birds (Squires and Reynolds 1997). In the Sierra Nevada primary prey species are Douglas squirrel, 

golden-mantled ground squirrel, chipmunks, Steller’s jay, northern flicker, and American robin 

(Keane 1999). 

Long-term over several decades, large snags and large down woody material are considered 

biological legacies in the post-fire environment and play important roles in the structure of the future 

forest (Lindenmayer et al. 2008). Snag dynamics in the Sierra Nevada are complex and snags fall at 

different rates depending on many factors (Cluck and Smith 2007). The time elapsed since fire is 

closely correlated with habitat elements present and the composition of prey species (Ingles 1965, 

Quinn and Keeley 2006). Ground squirrels, northern flickers, and the American robin use a variety of 

open forests and shrub habitats with abundant insects and fruits (USDA 2001). Douglas squirrels use 

intermediate and mature stands containing large trees capable of providing cones and fungi, and 

Steller’s jays prefer mature forest with open to moderate canopy cover and large, mature trees (Ibid). 

Thus, snags and down woody material serve different functional roles overtime for the goshawk, first 

providing cover for prey in the complex early seral stage of the forest, and ultimately decaying and 

playing a critical role in soil development of the future forest (Lindenmayer et al. 2008). 

329
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

New permanent road construction, temp road construction, road reconstruction, and landing 

construction also modify habitat. In particular, road construction and continued use can result in 

increased habitat fragmentation, disturbance, and lower habitat capability for northern goshawk 

(Pyron et al. 2009). Woodbridge and Detrich (1994) found that northern goshawk territories 

associated with large contiguous forest patches were more consistently occupied compared to highly 

fragmented stands. Basic road maintenance such as grading and cleaning culverts is generally not an 

issue. The use of water sources may reduce water availability for northern goshawks and their prey, 

especially in drought years. Free water is important to the goshawk and in California, permanent 

water was generally closer to nesting ranges than to the centers of random circles (Hargis et al. 1994). 

Landing construction results in habitat fragmentation. Helicopter landings are typically between 1 and 

3 acre in size and tractor landings are typically .25 to 1 acre in size. 

The removal of snags and down woody material can be expected to reduce fuel loadings. However, 

the effectiveness of the various treatments proposed is difficult to predict and there is considerable 

uncertainty with how salvage logging influences future fire. A review of recent research on this topic 

and the associated controversy can be found in Long et al. (2013) Ch. 4.3 pp. 6-7. 

The effect salvage logging has on the fire severity of a re-burn is likely to remain widely variable 

depending on numerous factors including how future prescribed fire management is planned and 

implemented. However, there is general consensus that the removal of smaller diameter material 

(activity fuels and biomass) is likely to be the most effective (3.05 Fuels) in reducing flame lengths 

and fire line intensities. Piling and burning activity fuels is an effective method for disposal and is 

expected to promote development of mature forest (Ibid). Also, preventing high fuel loadings along 

roadsides can reasonably be expected to play an important role in reducing fire severity to developing 

mature forest habitat, especially where roads are identified as critical fire management features Crook 

et al. 2013). Roadside hazard salvage treatments involve the removal of snags and live trees identified 

as hazards to public safety. There is considerable uncertainty with regards to treatment intensity in 

roadside hazard salvage units because treatment intensity is subject to a wide range of environmental 

conditions (e.g. drought and moisture stress) related to tree status. 

The management of goshawk habitat is typically thought of in three spatial scales (Reynolds et al. 

1992, Reynolds et al. 2008). The first is the nesting habitat scale, or the PAC which corresponds to 

200 acres. The second addresses the post-fledgling area which corresponds to about 420 acres (USDA 

2001), and the third addresses the whole foraging area or home range which corresponds to about 

5,000 acres (Ibid). Goshawks in the Sierra Nevada are year-round residents, and expand their 

breeding ranges in the winter (Keane 1999). As northern goshawks focus their breeding activities 

around roost and nest sites within PACs, habitat modification effects are expected to be most 

pronounced in PACs. 

Indicators

The following indicators were chosen to provide a relative measure of the direct and indirect effects 

to the northern goshawk and to determine how well project alternatives comply with Forest Plan 

Direction and species conservation strategies:

1. Number of current and historic nest sites within suitable PACs in treatment units or within .25 

mile of potentially disturbing activities.

2. Acres of treatment unit overlap within suitable PACs.

3. Acres of areas managed for old forest condition with higher than average levels of large snags 

and higher than average levels of large down woody material.

4. Miles of new permanent road construction and other project road miles in PACs by road type.

5. Number of material sources, water sources, and landings in PACs. 

6. Acres of fuels treatments by type (biomass, pile and burn) including deer forage units and 

watershed soil cover treatments (mastication, drop and lop).

330
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Indicator 1. Potentially ten known goshawk activity center nest trees intersect with roadside hazard

salvage treatment units and 39 known activity center nest trees are within .25 mile of potentially 

disturbing activities. It is expected that the required implementation of LOPs and protocol surveys 

will minimize disturbance potential to these sites; however, Alternative 1 does not have the provision 

to flag and avoid current and historic nest trees or trigger special coordination measures designed to 

promote nest tree protection. Therefore, it is likely that approximately 56 percent of goshawk 

territories would be negatively affected by nest tree loss. 

Indicator 2. Under Alternative 1, 653 acres of roadside hazard salvage treatments occurs within postfire suitable PACs. Site-specifically, Table 3.15-24 shows northern goshawk sites would be 

potentially affected by habitat fragmentation at varying degrees ranging from 0 acres of overlap to 

approximately 40 percent of a PAC. There is no provision in this alternative to mitigate treatment 

overlap by adding equivalent acreage to the PAC. Although thresholds of significance for individual 

PACs are unknown, Alternative 1 would result in a potential net loss of 653 acres of goshawk habitat 

and potentially affect occupancy or reproduction in the majority of goshawk territories. 

Table 3.15-24 Treatment unit overlap within post-fire goshawk PACs, Alternative 1

Goshawk PAC

number

Roadside hazard 

tree treatment acres

R05F16D51T02 0

R05F16D51T03 39

R05F16D51T10 51

R05F16D51T11 10

R05F16D51T16 19

R05F16D51T24 76

R05F16D51T25 34

R05F16D54T02 18

R05F16D54T07 27

R05F16D54T08 82

R05F16D54T13 43

R05F16D54T21 59

R05F16D54T25 23

R05F16D54T40 41

R05F16D54T41 44

R05F16D54T42 20

R05F16D54T43 52

R05F16D54T44 15

Total 653

Indicator 3. Under Alternative 1, Table 3.15-25 shows salvage units managed for old forest condition 

would not be managed for higher than average levels of large conifer snags and large down woody 

material. Large down woody material would be retained at the average management rate of 10 to 20 

tons per acre for all units. Higher than average levels of large conifer snags and large down woody 

material is a management objective in areas managed for old forest condition. Areas managed for old 

forest condition include OFEA, HRCA, and FCCC.

The importance of higher than average levels of large conifer snags and large down woody material 

to habitat quality is described in the “habitat modification” section above. Generally, habitat 

331
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

managed for higher than average levels may be best qualified as developing into highly suitable 

habitat, while habitat managed at average levels may be best qualified as developing into low to 

moderate suitability.

Table 3.15-25 Snag retention level in basal area per acre, Alternative 1

12 square feet BA per

acre* General Forest 

matrix management 

average (USDA 2010 

p.44).

30 square feet BA per acre

OFEA, HRCA, FCCC above 

average level management 

objective (Verner et al. 

1992).

100 to 120 square feet BA 

per acre

Low intensity salvage 

treatment units

(PSW Research).

Unit acres 28,326 0 0

*converted from 4 snags per acre for comparison purposes; assuming retention of 24 inches dbh snags.

Indicator 4. Under Alternative 1, Table 3.15-26 shows 10 road miles intersect goshawk PACs. There 

are no miles of new permanent road construction, 9.7 miles of road reconstruction, 0.1 miles of “skid 

zones”, and 0.05 miles of temporary road in PACs. Of the road reconstruction miles, 0.6 miles would 

occur in suitable PACs on routes currently decommissioned or not designated for motor vehicle 

travel. The remaining road reconstruction miles occur mainly on open Maintenance Level 2 roads.

The management requirement of re-closing all routes post-project that are currently designated closed 

pre-project is expected to minimize long-term habitat fragmentation and disturbance potential. 

Table 3.15-26 Project road miles in goshawk PACs by road type, Alternative 1

Goshawk PAC Reconstruct Skid Zone Temporary Road

R05F16D51T03 0.99

R05F16D51T10 1.09

R05F16D51T11 0.09

R05F16D51T24 0.45 0.11

R05F16D51T25 0.10

R05F16D54T08 1.12

R05F16D54T13 1.71

R05F16D54T21 1.14

R05F16D54T40 0.73

R05F16D54T41 0.96

R05F16D54T42 0.20

R05F16D54T43 1.07 0.05

R05F16D54T44 0.05

Grand Total 9.72 0.11 0.05

*PACs not shown did not have project roads in them

Indicator 5. Table 3.15-27 shows Alternative 1 has zero material sources, four water sources, and two 

landings in suitable PACs. Of the landings in suitable PACs, one is a helicopter landing in PAC

R05F16D54T13. The implementation of BMPs at project water sources is expected to minimize 

potential effects to northern goshawks and their prey related to water availability. There is no 

provision in this alternative to mitigate habitat loss caused by landing construction by adding acreage 

to the PAC. This would result in a potential net loss of four acres of goshawk habitat. 

332
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.15-27 Water sources and landings within goshawk PACs, Alternative 1

Goshawk PAC Water 

sources

Landings

Tractor Helicopter

R05F16D51T24 1

R05F16D54T13 1

R05F16D54T21 1

R05F16D54T40 2

R05F16D54T44 1

Totals 4 1 1

*PACs not shown did not have these features in them

Indicator 6. Under Alternative 1, 7,626 acres of fuels would be biomassed. Of the biomass acres, 

Table 3.15-28 shows 1,064 acres occur in critical winter deer range and have a cover/forage ratio 

emphasis for deer habitat. Treatments designed to achieve optimal deer cover/forage ratios would also 

break up fuel continuity within those units and contribute to fuels management goals. Fuels 

management goals are important components of the fire and fuels strategy (Crook et al. 2013) and 

would assist in moving toward the desired condition of old forest habitat development. In particular, 

for critical winter deer range units located downslope of forest carnivore connectivity corridor units 

and goshawk PAC R05F16D54T21, breaking up fuel continuity within the deer range units is likely 

to play a critical role in the development of future old forest, and goshawk nesting habitat, linking 

Yosemite National Park and the North Mountain Roadless Area to the Clavey River watershed. 

Specifically, fuels management actions in the deer range units, which are located downslope of the 

old forest corridor, are likely to prevent fire spread into the developing forest upslope, at least in the 

short-term. However, long-term effectiveness is highly speculative because future long-term 

management actions (e.g. prescribed burn schedules) are unknown at this time. The Wildlife BE 

Appendix has additional information. 

Table 3.15-28 Biomass in critical winter deer range units, Alternative 1

Unit Biomass

Acres

Total 

Unit Acres

Percent

L03 31 30 100

L06 10 10 100

L07 5 5 100

L202 28 142 20

L203 265 265 100

L204 87 87 100

L205 140 140 100

L206 138 138 100

M201 35 50 70 

O201 140 299 27

P201 185 185 100

Total 1,064 1,352 79

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

In making the determination for this alternative, the impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions was considered. A list of the actions considered can be found in Appendix B, Cumulative 

Effects. 

333
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Relevant risk factors potentially affecting northern goshawk abundance and distribution have been 

identified and primarily include nest site loss and disturbance, and loss of habitat and habitat 

elements, especially large snags and large down woody material (USDA 2001, R5 Sensitive species 

evaluation form 2012).

Based on relevant risk factors, the following present and reasonably foreseeable actions from 

Appendix B are the most relevant to northern goshawk: green thinning sales, emergency fire salvage 

on private land, and the Rim HT project. 

The green thinning sales are designed to reduce ladder fuels and retain and improve key habitat 

components such as retention of large trees, defect trees, snags, downed wood, and hardwoods. 

Based on the biological evaluations for each, desired conditions in goshawk habitat are expected to 

improve in the long-term with implementation of these projects. 

As a result of the Rim Fire, several private land owners have submitted emergency fire salvage 

notices to Cal Fire. A total of 18,407 acre is presently being salvage logged. These salvage activities 

generally remove all fire-killed and dying trees, important habitat elements to goshawk habitat in the 

short and long-term. There is considerable uncertainty regarding the ecological effects of varying 

levels of salvage treatments to this species (Appendix D).

The Rim HT project removes snags along high-use, typically paved roads (Maintenance Level 3 to 5 

roads). Hazard tree removal along Maintenance Level 3-5 roads was considered when remapping 

Category 3 PACs for Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. For Category 2 PACs, hazard tree removal along 

Maintenance Level 3-5 roads was considered in Alternative 3 and 4, but not Alternative 1 (northern 

goshawk PAC evaluation/remapping narratives in the Wildlife BE Appendix). 

Alternative 1 may contribute cumulatively to short and long-term effects on northern goshawk. The 

combination of past Forest Service and private timber harvests has cumulatively reduced the amount 

of suitable old forest habitat available across the analysis area. The cumulative contribution under this 

alternative may affect individual territories, but is not expected to affect the viability of this species.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Under Alternative 2, death, injury or disturbance would not be an issue because no active 

management would occur. The indirect effects of no action are primarily related to the influence no 

action may have on future wildfires and how future wildfires may impact northern goshawk habitat. 

Predicting the incremental effect no action would have on future wildfires and goshawk habitat is 

largely speculative given the numerous factors involved over time. As fire-killed trees fall and 

contribute to surface fuel pools, potential fire behavior may be expected to increase (3.05 Fuels).

However, potential fire behavior in the future may be dependent on how future management actions, 

especially prescribed fire, are planned and implemented (Stephens and Moghaddas 2005, Stephens et 

al. 2009, Roberts et al. 2011, Crook et al. 2013). Goshawks occupy forest mosaics with heterogeneous 

habitat types (Squires and Reynolds 1997) but the optimal mosaic or mix of habitat is largely 

unknown. Presumably, occupancy rates would be highest under conditions that most closely 

approximate the environment goshawks evolved with, such as those described in North et al. 2009 

and North 2012. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative effects discussion under Alternative 1 outlines those present and foreseeable future 

activities scheduled on public and private lands. Under Alternative 2, no direct cumulative effect is 

expected because no active management would occur. Because the indirect effects of future fires is 

highly speculative and uncertain, cumulative effects cannot be predicted. Thus, no action is not 

expected to result in any definitive direct or indirect cumulative effects. 

334
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 3 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Indicator 1. Potentially nine known activity center nest trees intersect with roadside hazard salvage 

treatment units and 37 known activity center nest trees are within .25 mile of potentially disturbing 

activities. It is expected that the implementation of LOPs and protocol surveys as management 

requirements will minimize disturbance potential to these sites. Under Alternative 3, the management

requirement to flag and avoid current and historic nest trees and screening vegetation is expected to 

protect nest trees and ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The risk of nest tree loss 

is minimized and not expected to occur. 

Indicator 2. Table 3.15-29 shows 653 acres of roadside hazard salvage treatments would occur within 

post-fire suitable PACs. Site-specifically, northern goshawk sites would be potentially affected by 

habitat fragmentation at varying degrees ranging from 0 acres of overlap to approximately 40 percent 

of a PAC. Under this alternative, overlap with roadside hazard treatments was mitigated by adding 

acreage to the PAC equivalent to the treatment acres as per Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010 p. 

185). Under Alternative 3, 83 percent of affected PAC acres would be mitigated; two PACs had 

unmitigated treatment overlap. For unmitigated acres, additional acres of suitable habitat were not 

available. Nevertheless, in this alternative, unmitigated habitat alteration would be minimized to the 

greatest extent possible. Although thresholds of significance for individual PACs are unknown, 

Alternative 1 would minimize potential net loss of goshawk habitat to 102 acres and reduce the risk of 

non-occupancy in the majority of goshawk territories. Information on the PAC evaluation narratives 

and maps is in the Wildlife BE Appendix. 

Table 3.15-29 Treatment unit overlap within post-fire goshawk PACs, Alternative 3

Goshawk PAC Roadside hazard 

salvage treatment acres

Percent 

mitigated

R05F16D51T02 0 N/A

R05F16D51T03 39 100

R05F16D51T10 51 100

R05F16D51T11 10 100

R05F16D51T16 19 100

R05F16D51T24 76 100

R05F16D51T25 34 100

R05F16D54T02 18 100

R05F16D54T07 27 100

R05F16D54T08 82 100

R05F16D54T13 43 0

R05F16D54T21 59 0

R05F16D54T25 23 100

R05F16D54T40 41 100

R05F16D54T41 44 100

R05F16D54T42 20 100

R05F16D54T43 52 100

R05F16D54T44 15 100

Total 653

Indicator 3. Table 3.15-30 shows under Alternative 3, 14,448 acres of salvage units managed for old 

forest condition would be managed for higher than average levels of large conifer snags and large 

down woody material. Large down woody material would be retained at the rate of 10 to 20 tons per 

335
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

acre with 20 tons per acre emphasized in units managed for old forest condition. Higher than average 

levels of large conifer snags and large down woody material is a management objective in areas 

managed for old forest condition. Areas managed for old forest condition include OFEA, HRCA, and 

FCCC. Under Alternative 3, 2,089 acres would receive low intensity salvage treatment as part of a 

PSW research project. Goshawk occupancy will be monitored and studied in the PSW research 

project. This research will provide information to better understand the effects of wildfire and 

salvage-logging on northern goshawk occupancy and use, and serve as an empirical basis for 

informing future management decisions (Keane, pers.comm.). Thus, the PSW research is expected to 

address important management questions and benefit northern goshawk conservation. Retaining 

higher than average levels of large conifer snags and large down woody material in areas managed for 

old forest condition would be consistent with forest plan direction and improve habitat quality for the 

majority of territories in this project.

Table 3.15-30 Snag retention level in basal area per acre, Alternative 3

12 square feet BA per acre* 

General Forest matrix 

management average (USDA 

2010 p.44).

30 square feet BA per acre

OFEA, HRCA, FCCC above average 

level management objective (Verner 

et al. 1992).

100 to 120 square feet

BA per acre

Low intensity salvage 

treatment units (PSW 

Research).

Unit 

acres 15,955 12,359 2,089

*converted from 4 snags per acre for comparison purposes; assuming retention of 24 inches dbh snags.

Indicator 4. Under Alternative 3, a total of 8.6 project road miles intersect goshawk PACs. Table 

3.15-31 shows no new permanent road construction, 8.3 miles of road reconstruction, 0.1 miles of 

“skid zones”, and 0.2 miles of temporary roads in suitable PACs. Of the road reconstruction miles, 

0.6 miles would occur in suitable PACs on routes currently decommissioned or not designated for 

motor vehicle travel. The remaining road reconstruction miles occur mainly on open Maintenance 

Level 2 roads. The management requirement of re-closing all routes post-project that are currently 

designated closed pre-project is a mitigation measure that is expected to minimize long-term habitat 

fragmentation and disturbance potential. 

Table 3.15-31 Road miles in PACs by road type, Alternative 3

Goshawk PAC Reconstruction Skid Zone Temporary Road

R05F16D51T03 0.79

R05F16D51T11 0.07

R05F16D51T24 0.45 0.11

R05F16D51T25 0.07

R05F16D54T08 1.46 0.09

R05F16D54T13 1.39

R05F16D54T21 1.14 0.07

R05F16D54T40 0.73

R05F16D54T41 0.96

R05F16D54T42 0.13

R05F16D54T43 1.07 0.05

R05F16D54T44 0.05

Grand Total 8.33 0.11 0.21

*PACs not shown did not have project roads in them

Indicator 5. Table 3.15-32 shows Alternative 3 has zero material sources, four water sources, and one 

landing in suitable PAC. Of the landings in suitable PACs, none are helicopter landings. The 

implementation of BMPs at project water sources is expected to minimize potential effects to 

336
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

northern goshawks and their prey related to water availability. Under this alternative, habitat loss 

caused by landing construction was mitigated by adding equivalent acreage to the PAC. No net 

habitat loss is expected for this indicator. 

Table 3.15-32 Water sources and landings within PACs, Alternative 3

Goshawk PAC Water 

sources

Landings

Tractor Helicopter

R05F16D51T24 1

R05F16D54T21 1

R05F16D54T40 2

R05F16D54T44 1

Total 4 1 0

*PACs not shown did not have these features

Table 3.15-33 Biomass in critical winter deer range units, Alternative 3

Unit 

number

Biomass

Acres

Total Unit 

Acres

Percent

L03 30 30 100

L04 25 79 32

L07 5 5 100

L201 92 92 100

L202 28 142 20

L203 250 695 36

L204 340 1519 22

L205 475 755 63

L206 15 81 19

M201 35 74 47

M202 20 138 14

M203 20 63 32

M204 79 282 28

O201A 80 156 51

O201B 60 121 50

P201 185 185 100

Total 1,739 4,416 39

Indicator 6. Under Alternative 3, there are 8,379 acres of biomass fuels treatments. Table 3.15-33 

shows 1,739 acres of biomass occur in critical winter deer range and have a cover to forage ratio 

emphasis for deer habitat. Alternative 3 treats 675 more biomass acres than Alternative 1 in critical 

areas and so is expected to be more effective in managing fuels and future fire behavior downslope of 

developing goshawk habitat. Treatments designed to achieve optimal deer cover/forage ratios would 

also break up fuel continuity within those units and contribute to fuels management goals. Fuels 

management goals are important components of the fire and fuels strategy (Crook et al. 2013) and 

would assist in moving toward the desired condition of old forest habitat development. In particular, 

for critical winter deer range units located downslope of forest carnivore connectivity corridor units 

and goshawk PAC R05F16D54T21, breaking up fuel continuity within the deer range units is likely 

to play a critical role in the development of future old forest, and goshawk nesting habitat, linking 

Yosemite National Park and the North Mountain Roadless Area to the Clavey River watershed

(illustrated in the Wildlife BE Appendix). The 22,036 acres of pile and burn fuels treatments and 

3,537 acres of watershed treatments involving mastication or “drop and lop” techniques in watershed 

337
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

sensitive areas are expected to benefit the establishment of vegetation and, thus, would benefit 

northern goshawk habitat development. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative effects discussion under Alternative 1 outlines those present and reasonably 

foreseeable future activities relevant to Alternative 3 as well. The cumulative contribution of 

Alternative 3 would be less than Alternative 1 because management requirements minimize the 

potential for nest tree loss, habitat loss, and reduction in habitat quality of future old forest. In 

particular, snag retention would be higher within OFEA, HRCA, and FCCC units, and new 

permanent road construction would be reduced. Potentially effects are minimized by specific 

Management requirements. The cumulative contribution under this alternative may affect individual 

territories, but is not expected to affect the viability of this species.

Alternative 4 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 3 except that it drops all new permanent road construction 

and the following eighteen units from treatment: A01B, A03, A04, A05A, A05B, D01A, D02, E01A, 

E01B, E02, O01, O02A, O02B, O04, O05, O12, R01A, and R02. 

Indicator 1. Same as Alternative 3. 

Indicator 2. Same as Alternative 3. 

Indicator 3. Table 3.15-34 shows Alternative 4 has 16,975 acres of salvage units that would be 

managed for old forest condition would be managed for higher than average levels of large conifer 

snags and large down woody material. Large down woody material would be retained at the rate of 10 

to 20 tons per acre with 20 tons per acre emphasized in units managed for old forest condition. Higher 

than average levels of large conifer snags and large down woody material is a management objective 

in areas managed for old forest condition. Areas managed for old forest condition include OFEA, 

HRCA, and FCCC. Low intensity salvage treatments would occur on 2,089 acres as part of a PSW 

research project as described in Alternative 3. Under Alternative 4, 2,571 acres would be dropped 

from salvage treatment specifically for species associated with post-fire environments (black-backed

woodpecker section), except for roadside hazard salvage. Goshawks forage over large areas and the 

proposed retention may provide a greater variety of goshawk prey and perch sites for goshawks but 

little is known about goshawk use of post-fire environments. 

Table 3.15-34 Snag retention level in basal area per acre, Alternative 4

12 square feet BA per

acre* 

General Forest matrix 

management average 

(USDA 2010 p.44).

30 square feet BA per acre

OFEA, HRCA, FCCC above 

average level management 

objective (Verner et al. 1992).

100 to 120 square 

feet BA per acre

Low intensity salvage 

treatment units (PSW 

Research).

Full 

retention 

Unit 

acres 13,427 12,315 2,089 2,571

*converted from 4 snags per acre for comparison purposes; assuming retention of 24 inches dbh snags.

Indicator 4. Under Alternative 4, project road miles in PACs by road type would be the same as 

described in Alternative 3 above except that there would be 0.8 miles less of road reconstruction in 

Alternative 4. 

Indicator 5. Same as Alternative 3. 

Indicator 6. As in Alternative 3 above, Alternative 4 treats 675 more biomass acres than Alternative 1

in critical areas and so is expected to be more effective in managing fuels and future fire behavior 

338
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

downslope of developing goshawk habitat. Biomass treatments and pile and burn treatments would 

not occur within the units dropped from salvage harvest. This totals 404 acres of dropped biomass 

treatments and 1,716 acres of dropped pile and burn treatments. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative contribution of Alternative 4 would be similar to Alternative 3. Alternative 4 would 

have the least habitat alteration with full retention of snags across 2,571 more acres than Alternative 

3. Alternative 4 is not expected to incrementally add to other actions and affect the viability of 

northern goshawk. 

Northern Goshawk: Summary of Effects

Indicator 1. Table 3.15-35 shows the number of current and historic nest sites within suitable PACs in 

treatment units and the number of activity center nest sites within .25 mile of potentially disturbing 

activities are the same for all alternatives. However, Alternatives 3 and 4 include a management 

requirement to minimize the potential for effect and Alternative 1 does not. 

Indicator 2. Table 3.15-35 shows acres of treatment unit overlap within suitable PACs is mitigated 

wherever possible in Alternatives 3 and 4 but not mitigated in Alternative 1. 

Indicator 3. Table 3.15-35 shows the acres of areas managed for old forest objectives with higher than 

average levels of large snags and higher than average levels of large down woody material are highest 

in Alternatives 3 and 4. In contrast, Alternative 1 manages no acres for higher than average levels of 

large snags. For retention of large down woody material, all action alternatives manage to a 10 to 20 

tons per acre standard but Alternatives 3 and 4 emphasize retention at the higher end (i.e. 20 tons per 

acre ) while Alternative 1 does not. Alternative 4 additionally manages 2,571 acres under full 

retention of snags and down woody material (1,414 acres from Alternative 3’s 12 square feet BA per 

acre category and 1,157 acres from Alternative 3’s 30 square feet BA per acre category are moved to 

the full retention category). 

Indicator 4. Table 3.15-35 shows miles of project road miles in goshawk PACs is highest in 

Alternative 1. There is 0.1 miles of additional temporary road under Alternatives 3 and 4 because the 

PACs are larger (following the Forest Plan Direction for mitigating treatment overlap) and one 

happens to incorporate a short piece of temporary road. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 4 has 

the least overall amount of project road activity overlapping suitable goshawk PAC. 

Indicator 5. Table 3.15-35 shows the number of water sources in PACs is the same in all action 

alternatives. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 1 has a helicopter landing in suitable goshawk 

PAC and Alternatives 3 and 4 do not. 

Indicator 6. Alternatives 3 and 4 best address disposal of activity fuels and the need for soil cover 

treatments for watershed protection. 

Determinations 

Alternative 1 may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability for the northern goshawk. The following logic check was considered (Robinson 1996): 

project occurs in or affects suitable habitat but compliance with existing forest plan direction is 

demonstrated. 

Alternative 2 will not affect the northern goshawk. 

Alternative 3 may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability for the northern goshawk. The following logic check was considered (Robinson 1996): 

project occurs in or affects suitable habitat but compliance with existing conservation strategies and 

forest plan direction is demonstrated. 

339
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Alternative 4 may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability for the northern goshawk. The following logic check was considered (Robinson 1996): 

project occurs in or affects suitable habitat but compliance with existing conservation strategies and 

forest plan direction is demonstrated. 

Table 3.15-35 Summary of effects for northern goshawk

Indicator

Alternative

1 2 3 4

Indicator 1 – Nest sites

Number of nest sites in treatment units 10 0 9 9

Number of nest sites within .25 mile of potentially 

disturbing activities 39 0 37 37

Management requirement to flag and avoid 

historic nest trees no N/A Yes Yes

Indicator 2 – Acres of treatment unit overlap within PACs

Treatment overlap acres mitigated 0 N/A 653 653

Management requirement to add acreage to PAC No N/A Yes Yes

Indicator 3 – Old forest condition with large snags and large downed woody 

material

12 sq. ft. BA / acre* 

General Forest matrix management average 

(USDA 2010 p.44)

28,326 0 15,955 13,427

30 sq. ft. BA / acre

OFEA, HRCA, FCCC above average level 

management objective (Verner et al. 1992)

0 0 12,359 12,315

100 to 120 sq. ft. BA / acre

Low intensity salvage treatment units (PSW 

Research)

0 0 2,089 2,089

Full retention 0 30,402 0 2,571

Indicator 4 – Road miles in PACs

New construction 0 0 0 0

Reconstruction 9.7 0 8.3 7.5

Skid zone 0.1 0 0.1 0.1

Temporary road 0.1 0 0.1 0.1

Indicator 5 – Number of water and material sources and landings in PACs

Water sources 4 0 4 4

Material (Rock) sources 0 0 0 0

Tractor landings 1 0 1 1

Helicopter landings 1 0 0 0

Indicator 6 – Acres of fuels treatments by type

Biomass 6,808 0 6,825 6,421

Biomass deer units 1,064 0 1,739 1,739

Pile and burn 0 0 22,036 20,320

Watershed soil cover treatments 0 0 3,537 3,537

340
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

American Marten: Affected Environment

Species and Habitat Account

The marten (Martes americana sierrae) is a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species and is also a 

Sierra Nevada Management Indicator Species (MIS), as described in the Rim Recovery MIS report 

available in the project record. Marten occur throughout much of their historic range from Trinity and 

Siskyou counties east to Mount Shasta, south through the Cascades and Sierra Nevada mountain 

ranges to Tulare county. They are considered rare when compared to other forest carnivore species 

(USDA 2001). Their core elevation range is 5,500 to 10,000 feet. Marten have been documented on 

the Stanislaus National Forest as low as 5,200 feet in elevation. 

Population estimates and trends are not available for marten in California. Although classified as a 

furbearer, there has been no open trapping season for this species since 1954 (USDA 2001). Declines 

in marten population size in the early twentieth century have been attributed to habitat modifications, 

trapping, and predator control. Based on surveys conducted from 1989-2002, the American marten 

appears to occupy much of its historic range in California (Zielinski et al. 1995, Slauson et al. 2007). 

Carnivore camera stations have been employed within suitable habitat in and near the project area in 

2005-2013 following the protocol designed by Zielinski and Kucera (1995a). No marten detections 

were made as a result of these survey efforts (NRIS Wildlife database). 

The project is within the current distribution of marten across the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. The 

nearest documented occurrence of marten was in 2006 less than two miles north of the project area 

near Reynolds Creek and south of the project area in Yosemite National Park. Their presence within 

the analysis area is unknown; however, presence is assumed where suitable habitat exists. Because 

there are no documented den sites, LOPs for this species are not required for this project. 

Marten are considered one of the most habitat-specific mammals in North America. Habitat quality is 

likened to the structural diversity consistent with late seral, mesic coniferous forests, interspersed with 

riparian areas and meadows. Preferred forest vegetation types include red fir, red fir/white fir mix, 

lodgepole pine, and Sierra mixed conifer (Freel 1991). Marten home ranges are very large relative to 

their body size. Mean home ranges in the central Sierra Nevada are 960 acres for males and 801 acres 

for females (USDA 2001). The analysis area still contains relatively high quality habitat for marten in 

areas that burned at low or low-moderate intensity such as Twomile, Bourland, and Reynolds Creek, 

Pilot Ridge and the Crocker Meadow area. Post-fire, the analysis area contains about 17,695 acres of 

moderate and high capability habitat on NFS lands only. Table 3.15-36 displays pre- and post-fire 

acres by CWHR vegetation type, size class, and density on NFS lands. There are about 46,135 acres 

of moderate and high capability habitat within the cumulative effects analysis area post-fire, including 

all ownerships. 

Moderate to High Capability habitat is defined as that in which a CWHR suitability rating is greater 

than or equal to 0.55. Two of three categories (reproduction, cover, food) must have a medium rating 

to achieve the minimum rating. See CWHR version 8.2 user’s manual for further explanation on 

suitability ratings. 

A road density of less than 1 mile of road per square mile has been recommended for high quality 

habitat for marten (USDA 1991). A road density of 1 to 2 miles of road per square mile is 

recommended for medium capability habitat (Ibid). The road density including all routes open to 

motor vehicles in the analysis area is 3.0 miles per square mile on NFS lands and is more than twice 

the acceptable density found in high quality habitat and more than 1 mile per square mile above that

found in moderate capability habitat. 

Marten natal dens are typically found in cavities in large trees, snags, stumps, logs, shrubs, burrows, 

caves, rocks, or crevices in rocky areas (USDA 1991 and Zielinski et al. 1997). Dens are lined with 

341
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

vegetation and are found in structurally complex, late succession forests (Buskirk and Powell 1994). 

Breeding occurs from late June to early August, followed by embryonic diapause, and birth in MarchApril (Ibid). 

Table 3.15-36 Pre- and post-fire moderate to high capability habitat for marten

CWHR Vegetation Type1 Size Class

and Density

Pre-Fire 

CWHR Veg Type

(acres)

Post-Fire 

CWHR Veg Type

(acres)

LPN, MHC, RFR, 4P 22 33

JPN, LPN, MHC, PPN, RFR, SMC, WFR 4M 4,040 2,705

JPN, LPN, MHC, PPN, RFR, SMC, WFR 4D 12,282 8,765

JPN, MHC, SMC, WFR 5M 177 147

JPN, MHC, PPN, RFR, SMC, WFR 5D 7,207 6,045

TOTAL 23,728 17,695 

1CWHR habitat types: JPN equals Jeffrey pine, LPN equals Lodgepole Pine, MHC equals montane hardwood conifer, PPN equals 

ponderosa pine, SMC equals sierra mixed conifer, WFR equals white fir. Acres include National Forest system lands only.

CWHR Size Classes: 4 equals 12-24 inches dbh, 5 equals 24-40 inches dbh and CWHR Density Classes (Canopy Closure): P equals 25-

39 percent, M equals 40-59 percent, D equals greater than 60 percent 

Freel (1991) and Spencer et al. (1983) characterized suitable habitat for denning and resting marten as 

follows: 

 Canopy cover ≥ 70 percent.

 Largest live conifers are ≥ 24 inches dbh and occur at a density of at least 9 per acre.

 Live tree basal area ranges from 163-326 square feet per acre.

 Largest snags average 5 per acre and are ≥ 24 inches dbh (16 square feet per acre). 

 Coarse woody debris is present at 5-10 tons per acre in decay classes 1-2. 

Marten diet varies geographically and seasonally with local prey availability. In the Central Sierra, 

marten diets are comprised primarily of voles, while in the southern Sierra it is squirrels and voles, 

insects, hypogeous fungi and secondarily (less than 20 percent of diet) reptiles and birds (Zielinski et 

al. 1983, Zielinski and Duncan 2004). Zielinski and others (1983) noted Douglas squirrels, snowshoe 

hare, northern flying squirrels and deer mice were the prey species used almost exclusively during the 

winter, while ground squirrels formed the largest component of the diet from late spring through fall. 

Coarse woody debris is an important component of marten habitat, especially in winter, when it 

provides structure that intercepts snowfall and creates subnivean (below snow) tunnels, interstitial 

spaces, and access holes. Zielinski and others (1983) suggested that marten activity varied to take 

advantage of subnivean dens utilized by their prey. Sherburne and Bissonette (1994) found that when 

coarse woody debris covered a greater percent of the ground, marten use also increased. Older growth 

forests appeared to provide accumulated coarse woody debris necessary to enable marten to forage 

effectively during the winter.

Freel (1991) and Spencer et al. (1983) characterized suitable habitat for travel and foraging marten as 

follows: 

 Canopy cover ≥ 40 percent.

 Largest live conifers are ≥ 24 inches dbh and occur at a density of at least 6 per acre.

 Largest snags average 2.5 per acre and are ≥ 24 inches dbh (8 square feet per acre). 

 Coarse woody debris is present at 5-10 tons per acre in decay classes 1-3. 

Reports of long-distance movements, likely representing dispersal, are largely anecdotal. Movement 

patterns in marten, dispersal and migration, have not been intensively studied for this species because 

of the difficulty and high cost of studying long-distance movements in small bodied mammals 

342
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

(Buskirk and Powell 1994, Ruggiero et al. 1994). Martens exhibit seasonal variation in habitat 

selection within stable home ranges, with little evidence to suggest shifts in home range boundaries. 

Risk Factors

Hargis et al. (1999) and USDA (2001) summarize several risk factors potentially influencing marten 

abundance and distribution: 

 Habitat fragmentation – Fragmentation can limit occupancy and dispersal of marten across the 

landscape. Marten were negatively associated with low levels of habitat fragmentation. When the 

average nearest neighbor distance between non-forested patches was less than 100 m, it created 

more edge and less interior forested habitat preferred by marten. 

 Meadow habitat degradation – Grazing can reduce the amount of shrub and herbaceous cover 

available and can increase soil compaction for prey species such as voles.

 Fire suppression – Fire suppression has contributed to degraded conditions in meadows and 

riparian habitats by allowing encroachment of trees which reduces the availability of understory 

vegetation required by prey. 

 Lack of, or removal of coarse woody debris – Removal of coarse woody debris (piles of several 

smaller logs, or single large logs) can also reduce access and abundance of prey during the 

important winter months, and may also reduce resting site availability for marten. 

Management Direction

Current management direction is summarized by describing the desired future condition of land 

allocations (Robinson 1996). The marten is a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species that is 

associated with old forest ecosystems (USDA 2004). The following land allocations pertain to marten 

and old forest ecosystems: PACs, HRCA, OFEA, and FCCC.

The desired condition for PAC is to have 1) at least two tree canopy layers; (2) dominant and codominant trees with average diameters of at least 24 inches dbh; (3) at least 60 to70 percent canopy 

cover; (4) some very large snags (greater than 45 inches dbh); and (5) snag and down woody material 

levels that are higher than average.

The desired condition for California spotted owl HRCA is to encompass the best available habitat in 

the closest proximity to the owl activity center (USFS 2004 ROD pp. 39-40). HRCAs consist of large 

habitat blocks that have: 1) at least two tree canopy layers; 2) at least 24 inches dbh in dominant and 

co-dominant trees; 3) a number of very large (greater than 45 inches dbh) old trees; 4) at least 50 to 

70 percent canopy cover; and 5) higher than average levels of snags and down woody material. 

The desired condition for OFEA is to provide habitat conditions for mature forest associates (spotted 

owl, northern goshawk, American marten, and Pacific fisher). Specifically, forest structure and 

function across old forest emphasis areas generally resemble pre-settlement conditions. High levels of 

horizontal and vertical diversity exist at the landscape-scale (roughly 10,000 acres). Stands are 

composed of roughly even-aged vegetation groups, varying in size, species composition, and 

structure. Individual vegetation groups range from less than 0.5 to more than 5 acres in size. Tree 

sizes range from seedlings to very large diameter trees. Species composition varies by elevation, site 

productivity, and related environmental factors. Multi-tiered canopies, particularly in older forests, 

provide vertical heterogeneity. Dead trees, both standing and fallen, meet habitat needs of old-forestassociated species. Forest structure and function generally resemble pre-settlement conditions. 

The desired future condition of forest carnivore connectivity corridor FCCC is to provide habitat 

connectivity for forest carnivores, linking Yosemite National Park and the North Mountain 

inventoried roadless area west to the Clavey River. For habitat connectivity, a future forested area is 

desired with a minimum of 50 percent of the forested area having at least 60 percent canopy cover. 

Higher than average levels of large snags and large down woody material is also desired (as in USDA 

343
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

2004). Habitat structures are important to retain that may constitute rest sites as described in Freel 

1991 and Lofroth et al. 2010 (plate 7.7). 

American Marten: Environmental Consequences

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the marten through the following 

activities:

 Salvage of fire-killed trees. 

 Salvage of roadside hazard trees. 

 New permanent and temporary road construction and road reconstruction. 

 Fuels treatments.

 Use of material sources and water sources.

These activities may have direct and indirect effects on marten through the following:

 Project related death, injury or disturbance. 

 Project related modifications to habitat quantity or quality. 

Death, injury, or disturbance

Death or injury from project related activities would be unlikely to occur given the mobility of this 

species. However, there is the potential for death or injury if a den or rest tree were felled while being 

used by martens.

Project activities, especially loud noise, could result in disturbance that may impair essential behavior 

patterns of the marten related to denning, resting, or foraging. Loud noise from equipment such as 

chain saws or tractors is expected to occur in salvage units, project roads, and at landings, material 

sources, and water sources. The location of marten within the analysis area is uncertain following the 

Rim Fire, a large-scale disturbance event; conducting surveys to identify areas being used is a way to 

address this uncertainty. Temporary avoidance of the project site or displacement of individuals is 

expected during project implementation. Any displacement or avoidance would be of short duration 

and would subside shortly after project implementation activities. LOPs in place for spotted owls, 

goshawks, great gray owls, and bald eagles would afford protection to individual marten in these 

areas during parturition, kit rearing, and subsequent breeding (March-August). The potential risk to 

individual marten is considered low because of the lack of documented marten occurrence within or 

near the analysis area and length of exposure expected given the accelerated timeframe of this project 

and implementation. 

Habitat Modification

Salvage logging and the removal of hazard trees along level 2 roads would modify suitable marten 

habitat by reducing its quality in both the short-term (10 to 20 years) and in the long-term (20 to 50 

years). 

Short-term retention of snags within and near suitable marten habitat would provide denning and 

resting sites, as well as habitat for prey species (Freel 1991). Marten are known to use a wide range of 

structures for denning and resting including cavities in large trees, snags, stumps, logs, burrows, 

caves, rocks, or crevices in rocky areas (USDA 1991, Zielinski et al. 1997). The number of snags and 

downed logs available across a marten’s home range affects the quality of that habitat for foraging 

and breeding. They require at least five snags per acre that are greater than 24 inches dbh (Freel

1991). In moderate and high capability traveling and foraging habitat, at least two to three snags 

greater than or equal to 24 inches dbh are required (Ibid). Marten may travel across small open areas, 

but generally avoid open areas. 

Prey species that tolerate disturbance or open conditions are known to be abundant in post fire 

environments, such as mice, rats, chipmunks, and squirrels (Amacher et al. 2008 and Diffendorfer et 

344
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

al. 2012). Structural elements such as snags and downed logs, when combined with the flush of 

shrubs, forbs and grasses expected post-fire, will provide habitat suitable for prey and foraging habitat 

for marten within a few years post fire. 

Long-term, large snags and large downed logs are considered biological legacies in a post fire 

environment and play important roles in the structure of future forest (Lindenmayer et al. 2008). 

Large snags and downed logs may take hundreds of years to develop, emphasizing the need to retain 

these elements across the landscape. Because large snags and large downed logs are important habitat 

elements found in high capability marten habitat, it is not only important to retain these structural 

elements during project implementation, but it is imperative that recruitment of snags and downed 

logs occur over time to maintain habitat suitability in the long-term. 

Snags remain standing for decades depending upon the species of tree and other environmental 

factors (Cluck and Smith 2007 and Ritchie et al. 2013). For example, Ritchie and others (2013) found 

that snag fall rates and decay rates vary considerably by species. When snags eventually fall, they are 

incorporated as large downed logs, another critical structural element important for marten and prey 

species (Freel 1991, Zielinski et al. 2004a). 

Roads can modify marten habitat by directly removing it or indirectly reducing its quality, resulting in 

both short and long-term effects. Gaines and others (2003) studied the response of several focal 

species, including marten, related to roads and trails. Martens in this study were displaced, shifting 

use of habitat away from human activities on or near roads or trails. Robitaille and Aubrey (2000), 

found that marten use of habitat within 984 and 1,312 feet meters of roads was significantly less than 

habitat use 2,296 or 2,624 feet distant; however, in a study conducted in northern California, Zielinski 

et al. (2008) found that marten occupancy or probability of detection did not change in relation to the 

presence or absence of motorized routes and OHV use when the routes (plus a 164-foot buffer) did 

not exceed about 20 percent of a 31 square mile area, and traffic did not exceed one vehicle every 2 

hours. Zielinski and others (2008) did not study or measure behavioral changes or changes in use 

patterns. Andren (1994) suggested that, as landscapes become fragmented, the combination of 

increasing isolation and decreasing patch size of suitable habitat is negatively synergistic, 

compounding the effects of simple habitat loss. In particular, species associated with old forest 

habitats may be impacted by such effects. Reductions in interior forest patch size results in loss of 

habitat and greater distances between suitable interior forest patches for sensitive species like the 

American marten. New construction, temporary road construction and reconstruction would result in 

increased habitat fragmentation as well as a reduction in potential resting and denning structures. 

Additional habitat modification occurs as an indirect effect new road construction, temporary road

construction, and reconstruction. Trees posing a potential safety hazard (“hazard trees”) are removed 

along these new, temporary, and reconstructed roads. These trees are typically snags that are within a 

tree-height distance from the road. This safety policy results in a “snag free” zone of about 200 feet 

from a road’s edge, also affecting the recruitment of large downed wood within this zone. Habitat 

quality is reduced within this corridor. 

Reducing fuel loads across the analysis area was identified as an essential first step in longer term fire 

and fuels management within the Rim Fire area (Crook et al. 2013). Removal of smaller material, less 

than 20 inches dbh, would not directly affect habitat suitability for marten. However, it may indirectly 

contribute to a more resilient landscape and less risk of further loss of remaining suitable habitat in 

the face of the next wildfire. 

Indicators

The following indicators were chosen to provide a relative measure of the direct and indirect effects 

to the marten and to determine how well project alternatives comply with Forest Plan Direction.

1. Amount of moderate and high capability habitat altered. 

345
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

2. Habitat connectivity 

3. Amount of large legacy snags and downed logs in OFEA, HRCA, and FCCC units. 

4. Road density (miles/square mile) in moderate and high capability and dispersal habitat

These criteria were chosen based on the best available scientific literature which focuses on various 

aspects of marten ecology and life history requirements. These criteria focus on those life history 

aspects, or habitat elements, considered most limiting to marten persistence across their range and 

where project effects are expected.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Indicator 1. Because there is small difference in the amount of acres proposed for treatment in 

moderate and high quality suitable habitat under all action alternatives, the effects are expected to be 

similar and are therefore analyzed together. Under the action alternatives, habitat quality would be 

reduced across a portion of the remaining moderate and high capability habitat within the analysis 

area as a result of removing snags and hazard trees. Between 76 percent and 78 percent of the 

remaining suitable habitat is not proposed for treatment. Proposed treatments would not result in 

creating barriers to movement based on the configuration of remaining suitable habitat. Snag 

retention requirements vary by alternative and would serve to mitigate some of the negative effects 

expected to result from implementation of the action alternatives and is discussed in more detail under 

each alternative. Table 3.15-37 displays the proposed types of treatments and the proportion of 

suitable habitat affected under each action alternative for comparison. 

Table 3.15-37 Proposed treatments in marten moderate and high capability habitat

Alternative Salvage

(acres)

Hazard Tree

Removal (acres)

Total 

(acres)

Percent of Suitable

Habitat Treated

1 1,557 2,667 4,224 24

3 1,576 2,634 4,210 24

4 1,215 2,677 3,892 22

Although a reduction in quality is expected, treated areas would continue to offer foraging habitat.

Trees that are in decline and not subject for removal under this project would, over time, be 

incorporated as potential resting or denning structures and habitat for prey species. Marten are known 

to reuse rest sites slightly more often than fisher and they also use downed logs, shrubs, and rocks and 

are not dependent solely on snags (Zielinski et al. 1997). Effects may result in impacts to an

individual’s fitness, but because there are no documented occurrences within the analysis area this 

risk is considered low. Furthermore, because no established populations occur in the analysis area, no 

population impacts are expected. 

Indicator 2. Habitat connectivity across the landscape is important to marten as it provides a means 

for dispersal, linkages between suitable habitat patches or core habitat areas, and genetic exchange.

Spencer and Rustigan-Romsos (2012) provide recommendations for the conservation of rare 

carnivores such as the marten in California. Marten use higher elevation habitats during the summer 

and snow free periods and may use lower elevation forested habitat during the winter. It is thought 

that the summer range is more restrictive and limiting for marten and their persistence within a given 

landscape. Thus, Spencer and Rustigan-Romsos (2012) used the higher elevation summer range to 

base this modeling effort. They used spatially explicit, empirical models to identify large areas of 

suitable habitat and dispersal corridors connecting those areas. Suitable marten habitat cores were 

identified as a part of this effort and occur in the north, east, southeast portions of the analysis area on 

the Stanislaus National Forest, at elevations above 7,000 feet. The forest carnivore connectivity 

corridor described in the analysis for Pacific fisher is at an elevation below 5,000 feet and it is 

346
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

unlikely that marten would venture this low during the summer. Since documented occurrences of 

marten on the Stanislaus National Forest are usually above 5,000 feet, it is unlikely that the corridor 

would be as critical for marten relative to fisher. Additionally, habitat connectivity is still largely 

intact at the preferred elevation of marten – the approximate elevation band at which the Rim Fire 

was contained. Thus, implementation of the action alternatives is not expected to create barriers to 

movement for marten.

Indicator 4. To analyze effects of road density, it is necessary to include more than the current 

suitable marten habitat because roads can be somewhat permanent features on the landscape and will 

affect the habitat suitability for marten not only in the short-term, but long-term as well. Thus, land 

allocations that are managed for old forest associated species (OFEA and HRCA) and suitable habitat 

at or above 5,000 feet elevation were used to calculate road density for marten within the analysis 

area. Small disjunct patches of habitat not contributing to this core area or connected to suitable 

habitat on adjacent ownerships such as Yosemite National Park were omitted. This area is about 

44,842 acres and can support marten in part today and into the future based on the desired conditions 

outlined in the Stanislaus National Forest Plan (USDA 2010). Therefore, this is considered a logical 

approach to analyze project related road density and effects to marten. This is discussed further under 

each alternative.

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Indicator 1. Discussed under effects common to all action alternatives. 

Indicator 2. Discussed under effects common to all action alternatives. 

Indicator 3. Under Alternative 1, the snag retention rate is considered the management standard or 

average snag retention. Table 3.15-38 displays the acres affected by the snag retention requirements 

within potential marten habitat proposed under Alternative 1. Potential marten habitat is defined as 

land allocations that are managed for old forest associated species (OFEA and HRCA) and potential 

suitable habitat at or above 5,000-foot elevation.

Table 3.15-38 Snags retained in salvage units within potential marten habitat, Alternative 1

12ft2 per acre*

General Forest 

Average

30ft2 per acre

(OFEA, HRCA, FCCC)

Above Average

100-120ft2 per acre

(PSW Research)

Above Average

6,060 0 0

* Converted from 4 snags per acre for comparison; assuming retention of 24 inches dbh snags. 

Retaining snags at a rate of 12 square feet per acre across the 6,060 acres proposed for treatment in 

moderate and high capability habitat would provide fewer snags than has been documented to occur 

in occupied marten habitats. Occupied marten habitat contains at least 16 square feet per acre of snags 

greater than or equal to 24 inches dbh (Freel 1991, Spencer 1983). Habitat quality would be reduced 

on 34 percent of moderate and high capability breeding habitat under Alternative 1; however, retained 

snags would provide some potential resting and denning sites for marten. The proposed retention rate 

would be adequate for foraging habitat utilized by marten. Although a reduction in breeding habitat 

quality is expected, the treated areas would continue to offer moderate and high capability foraging 

habitat for marten. 

Under Alternative 1, retaining snags at 12 square feet per acre would result in the lowest retention of 

snags to contribute to the structural complexity and diversity within recovering forested stands. 

Marten readily move through habitats with understory vegetation, snags, and downed woody debris 

within 100 meters of forested habitat (Koehler and Hornocker 1977). The units under this alternative 

would create some openings larger than those known to be traversed by marten. As vegetative cover 

347
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

returns, the edges of these units that occur adjacent to forested stands would provide habitat that 

marten would readily use for foraging. Minor beneficial effects on habitat quality for marten are 

expected in the short-term. Because so much of their home range contains older forest conditions, 

most treated areas aren’t expected to offer suitable breeding conditions for many decades (Freel 1991, 

Koehler and Hornocker 1977, Spencer 1983). 

Hardwoods occur irregularly across the analysis area and have not been mapped. Hardwoods are 

utilized by marten and they provide structure for many prey species sought by them (Freel 1991, 

Koehler and Hornocker 1977, Spencer 1983). Because all hardwood snags would be retained under 

Alternative 1, no change in the number of hardwood snags available is expected as a result of 

implementation. 

Considering that marten utilize habitat that contains higher rates of large snags and large downed 

woody debris, the rate of snag retention proposed under this alternative is not adequate to maintain 

habitat quality for breeding and resting within the treated areas. Snags retained are expected to 

contribute and provide suitable habitat, although of lower quality in the short-term. In the long-term

these snags would be incorporated as large downed woody material, critical structural elements 

needed within a recovering forest. 

Downed woody debris retention at 10 to 20 tons per acre, if available in larger size classes, would 

provide habitat important for marten and their prey. In most areas, sufficient large downed woody 

material is lacking, making snag retention and eventual recruitment as downed logs even more 

critical. Fuels treatments that result in the removal of smaller downed woody material may result in a 

more diverse understory including more herbaceous and shrub vegetation that would benefit marten 

and their prey. 

Table 3.15-39 Miles of road treatments, Alternative 1

New 

Permanent 

Road 

Construction

Road 

Reconstruction

(currently 

designated

for motor 

vehicle travel)

Road 

Reconstruction

(currently NOT 

designated

for motor 

vehicle travel)

Temporary 

Road 

Construction

Roads Added 

for Project use 

During 

Implementation

(mi/mi2)

Total Road 

Density 

Existing 

plus 

Additional 

for Project

(mi/mi2)

2.8 57.6 10.3 6.7 0.3 3.3

Indicator 4. Table 3.15-39 displays the miles of each type of road related treatment and the resulting 

miles per square mile under Alternative 1. The new road construction and temporary road 

construction proposed under this alternative would result in an increase of 0.3 miles per square mile 

of road, effectively increasing the road density from 3.0 miles per square mile to 3.3 miles per square 

mile during project implementation. Minor negative effects to habitat quality are expected under 

Alternative 1. This alternative may slightly increase the potential for road related mortality during 

project implementation while the roads are open and being used regularly. New permanent road 

construction would be designated as blocked Maintenance Level 1 or 2 gated year round. This would 

alleviate the risk of road related mortality after project implementation because the roads would only 

be used intermittently for management purposes. The new permanent road construction would result 

in habitat fragmentation in the long-term because habitat would be removed as a result of the road 

construction and the road would additionally be subject to hazard tree removal within 200 feet of the 

roads edge in the long-term reducing the quality of habitat adjacent to those new roads. All temporary 

roads would be obliterated and blocked and over time vegetation would become reestablished and all 

roads that were non-motorized before project implementation would be returned to the pre-project 

specifications. 

348
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

In making the determination for this alternative, the impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions was considered (found in Appendix B, Cumulative Effects). Some, but not all of these actions 

have or may contribute cumulatively to effects on martens. 

Risk factors potentially affecting marten abundance and distribution have been identified and include 

habitat fragmentation and lack of or removal of coarse woody debris. The following evaluation 

criterion was used as a relative measure of cumulative effects from this alternative to marten: habitat 

modification.

Habitat Modification 

Federal Lands

Past, present, and foreseeable future timber harvests and hazard tree removal sales on public lands 

have and will likely affect habitat suitability for marten through the removal of large trees, reduction 

in canopy cover, and potential loss of snags and downed woody debris from prescribed fire 

operations. Present actions within the analysis area include: The Twomile Ecological Restoration 

Vegetation Management Groovy and Funky timber sales and the Soldier Creek timber sale are 

scheduled to treat about 2,045 acres through commercial thinning, biomass removal, mastication, and 

prescribed fire treatments. GTR 220 was used as a guide when designing these projects including 

maintaining elements important to marten (large trees, snags, downed wood, areas of dense canopy 

cover). In addition, Yosemite National Park is currently removing hazard trees on about 816 acres, 

which would have negligible effects on marten and their habitat. 

Foreseeable future actions on federal lands include: Reynolds Creek Ecological Restoration involving 

meadow and aspen restoration. These types of projects generally include the removal of encroaching

trees and will improve habitat quality for marten. Twomile-Campy, Looney, and Thommy timber 

sales and Reynolds Creek timber sale are scheduled to occur over the next few years and will result in 

treatment of about 3,798 acres through commercial thinning, biomass removal, mastication, and 

prescribed fire. Additionally, the Rim HT removal project proposed to remove hazard trees along 

10,262 acres of level 3, 4, and 5 roads and is scheduled for implementation in the summer of 2014. 

The ecological restoration projects will reduce habitat quality in the short-term for marten, but are 

designed to have long-term benefits such as improved forest health and reduced future fire intensity. 

Hazard tree removal will reduce habitat quality in the short and long-term because the objective and 

priority in these areas, especially on Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads, is public safety. 

Roads and trails modify habitat suitability for marten by reducing habitat or degrading quality 

through fragmentation. Roads and trails also improve human access, and potentially result in the 

displacement of individuals. Twomile Transportation, a foreseeable future action, will result in a 

slight reduction in motorized routes, essentially removing 11.4 miles by gating, decommissioning, or 

closing to Maintenance Level 1 roads used only for administrative purposes. Reynolds Creek 

Motorized Routes project will decommission 3.5 miles of unauthorized routes in the near future as 

well. The Mi-Wok OHV Restoration project proposes to block and restore 11.6 miles of unauthorized 

OHV routes. This reduction of about 26.5 miles of motorized roads and trails across the analysis area 

would improve habitat quality by reducing fragmentation and human access while increasing the 

amount of interior habitat available. 

Private Lands

As a result of the Rim Fire, several private land owners have submitted emergency fire salvage 

notices to Cal Fire. A total of 18,407 acre is presently being salvage logged. These salvage activities 

tend to take more and larger snags and reduce more fuels than Forest Service projects. Post salvage, 

the areas may provide short-term foraging habitat for marten as understory vegetation becomes 

349
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

established; however, these benefits are expected to be limited in space and time based on typical 

reforestation efforts.

Wildfire

Wildfires can affect habitat in varying degrees, depending on the intensity of the fire. Wildfires can 

create snags, which may be used as den, rest, or forage structures by marten. Wildfires that burn at 

high severity such as the Rim Fire result in eliminating habitat. Treatments in green forest (past, 

present, future) are designed to reduce fire intensity and spread, thus reducing the risk of habitat loss.

It is expected that wildfire will continue to occur on the landscape.

Alternative 1 Contribution/Summary

Alternative 1 is expected to contribute cumulatively to short and long-term effects on marten. 

Disturbance and potential displacement of individuals may occur during project implementation and 

would likely be temporary. No recent occurrences of marten within the analysis area are documented; 

however, the analysis area is in close proximity to occupied habitat on both the Stanislaus National 

Forest and Yosemite National Park. Reduction in the quality of moderate and high capability habitat 

on about 4,224 acres (9 percent of the remaining suitable habitat within the analysis area) is expected 

from implementation of this alternative. Snag retention requirements under this alternative are less 

than under the other action alternatives. Habitat quality would be reduced based on the reduction of 

denning and resting sites. There are also 2.8 miles of new permanent road construction proposed 

within potential marten habitat under this alternative, which would have negative effects on marten 

and their habitat. Treatments would likely occur over the next two to three years and may coincide 

with other projects, particularly Groovy, Funky, and Soldier Creek. The combination of past Forest 

Service and private timber harvests, and wildfire has cumulatively reduced the amount of late 

succession habitat available across the analysis area. This and other Forest Service projects were and 

continue to be designed to prevent additional, large scale loss of mature forest from wildfires such as 

the Rim. These projects are designed to retain and improve key habitat components such as retention 

of large trees, defect trees, snags, downed wood, while focusing on releasing black oaks and pines. 

Habitat suitability within the analysis area is predicted to improve in the long-term for marten. The 

cumulative contribution under this alternative is not expected to affect the viability of this species. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Under Alternative 2, death, injury or disturbance would not be an issue because no active 

management would occur. 

Under Alternative 2, no indirect effects are expected because no active management would occur; 

however, there may be consequences under this alternative primarily related to the influence no action 

may have on future wildfires and how future wildfires may impact marten habitat. Predicting the 

effect no action would have on future wildfires and marten habitat is largely speculative given the 

numerous factors involved over time. As fire-killed trees fall and contribute to surface fuel pools, 

potential fire behavior may be expected to increase (Rim EIS Fuels Report). However, potential fire 

behavior in the future may be dependent on how future management actions, especially prescribed 

fire, are planned and implemented (Stephens and Moghaddas 2005, Stephens et al. 2009, Roberts et 

al. 2011, Crook et al. 2013). 

Indicator 1. Under the Alternative 2, habitat quality within currently suitable moderate and high 

capability habitat would not be altered. 

Within the areas that burned at high severity, herbaceous and shrub vegetation is expected to be 

established within 3 to 5 years (Gray et al. 2005 and Moghaddas et al. 2008) and would be suitable 

for marten movement and potentially as foraging habitat. These beneficial effects would be expected 

350
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

in the short-term. Because the ability of forests to regenerate after stand replacing fire is highly 

dependent on seed sources, forested conditions are likely to re-establish only within mixed severity 

burn patches and the edges of high severity patches. It is likely that areas that burned at high severity 

would be dominated by herbaceous and shrub vegetation and shade tolerant conifer species such as 

white fir and incense cedar in the future. A consequence of shrub dominance is the reduced likelihood 

that forested conditions would return naturally for many decades. Not removing fire-killed trees 

would result in additional difficulties related to future management, such as planting conifers that 

could help accelerate the establishment of forest conditions. Thus, suitable denning and resting habitat 

would be delayed under this alternative resulting in long-term negative effects to marten. 

When wildfire returns to this landscape, the remaining moderate and high capability habitat adjacent

to or near areas that burned at high severity may be at increased risk of loss. Within 10 years, the fuel

loading is predicted to be four to eight times higher (78 tons per acre) than the desired condition (3.05 

Fuels). This would significantly increase the risk of fire suppression activities when wildfire occurs in 

the future. The negative long-term effects on habitat for marten from this alternative outweigh the 

short-term beneficial effects. 

Indicator 2. Under the no action alternative, no forest carnivore connectivity corridor would be 

proposed. As discussed above under effects common to all action alternatives, since it is unlikely that 

the corridor is critical for marten relative to fisher based on preferred elevation range, no effects are 

expected under this alternative. 

Indicator 3. Under the Alternative 2, all snags and downed logs would be retained. In the short-term

marten and their prey would benefit from the availability of more snags and downed logs within an 

adjacent to remaining suitable habitat, as discussed under the action alternatives. Remaining suitable 

habitat would be at higher risk of loss in the long-term when wildfire returns to this landscape, see 

Indicator 1 above. The potential for recovery of forested conditions across areas that burned at high 

severity would also be delayed, see Indicator 1 above. 

Indicator 4. Under the no action alternative, no new permanent road construction, temporary road 

construction, reconstruction, or maintenance would occur. This alternative would provide the greatest 

benefit to marten because there would be no increase in road density across the analysis area and no 

potential increase of road related mortality in the short or long-term. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The Cumulative effects discussion under the Alternative 1 outlines those present and foreseeable 

future activities scheduled on public and private lands. Under the No Action alternative, there would 

be no direct cumulative effect expected because no active management would occur. 

No Action Alternative Contribution/Summary: The cumulative contribution under this alternative 

would not complement the treatments that have occurred in the past, thus increasing the risk of loss of 

remaining suitable habitat to wildfire in the long-term. The short-term beneficial impacts to marten 

such as retention of snags for denning and resting sites would be outweighed by the increased risk of 

additional habitat loss in the next wildfire. 

Alternative 3 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Indicator 1. Discussed under effects common to all action alternatives. 

Indicator 2. Under Alternative 3 the Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

would be amended to establish the connectivity corridor as a land allocation (old forest emphasis 

area) prioritizing future management objectives, not just those objectives associated with this project, 

within this connectivity corridor to benefit old forest associated species, particularly forest carnivores. 

The effects to marten under this alternative are the same as discussed for Indicator 2 under the effects 

351
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

common to all action alternatives, but would be realized in the long-term because the proposed 

corridor, approximately 10,000 acres, would be changed from General Forest to Old Forest Emphasis 

Area. This land allocation change would prioritize management emphasis in this corridor to benefit 

old forest associated species into the future. 

Indicator 3. Under Alternative 3, the snag retention rate in OFEA, HRCA, and FCCC is considered 

greater than the management standard and above average snag retention, while the snag retention rate 

in general forest is considered the management standard or average snag retention. 

Table 3.15-40 displays the acres affected by the snag retention requirements within potential marten 

habitat proposed under this alternative. Potential marten habitat is defined as land allocations that are 

managed for old forest associated species (OFEA and HRCA) and potential suitable habitat at or 

above 5,000 feet elevation. 

Table 3.15-40 Snags retained in salvage units within potential marten habitat, Alternative 3

12ft2 per acre*

General Forest

Average

30ft2 per acre

(OFEA, HRCA, FCCC)

Above Average

100-120ft2 per acre

(PSW Research)

Above Average

3,443 2,103 262

* Converted from 4snags per acre for comparison; assuming retention of 24 inches dbh snags. 

Retaining snags at a rate of 12 square feet per acre across the 3,443 acres proposed for treatment in 

moderate and high capability habitat would provide less than has been documented to occur in 

occupied marten habitats. Retaining snags at the rate of 30 square feet per acre would provide a 

supply of snags found in occupied marten habitat. Snags retained at the rate of 100 to 120 square feet 

per acre would provide several times the snags documented to occur in occupied marten habitat. 

Occupied marten habitat has at least 16 square feet per acre of snags greater than or equal to 24 inches

dbh (Freel 1991, Spencer 1983). Habitat quality would be reduced on 19 percent of moderate and 

high capability breeding habitat under this alternative; however, retained snags would provide some 

potential resting and denning sites for marten. Habitat quality would be maintained on 14 percent of 

moderate and high capability habitat where snag retention is 30 or 100 to 120 square feet per acre

under this alternative. Marten readily move through habitats with understory vegetation, snags, and 

downed woody debris within 328 feet of forested habitat (Koehler and Hornocker 1977). The units 

under Alternative 3 would create some openings larger than those known to be traversed by marten. 

Minor beneficial effects on habitat quality for marten are expected in the short-term. Because so 

much of their home range contains older forest conditions, most treated areas aren’t expected to offer 

suitable breeding conditions for many decades (Freel 1991, Koehler and Hornocker 1977, Spencer 

1983). 

Areas with above average snag retention would provide the most snags to contribute to structural 

complexity and diversity within recovering forested stands. As vegetative cover returns, the edges of 

these units that occur adjacent to forested stands would provide habitat that marten would readily use 

for foraging, while providing protection from predators. 

Hardwoods occur irregularly across the analysis area and have not been mapped. Hardwoods are 

utilized by marten and they provide structure for many prey species sought by them (Freel 1991, 

Koehler and Hornocker 1977, Spencer 1983). Because all hardwood snags would be retained under 

Alternative 3, no change in the number of hardwood snags available is expected as a result of 

implementation

Snag retention at the rate of 30 or 100-120 square feet per acre proposed under Alternative 3 is 

adequate to maintain moderate and high capability habitat that marten would likely occupy. These 

snags are expected to provide denning and resting structure in the short-term and also in the long-term

as large downed woody debris. 

352
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Downed woody debris retention at 15-20 tons per acre, if available in larger size classes, would 

provide habitat important for marten and their prey. In most areas, sufficient large downed woody 

material is lacking, making snag retention and eventual recruitment as downed logs even more 

critical. Fuels treatments that result in the removal of smaller downed woody material would have a 

minor effect on marten. 

Indicator 4. Table 3.15-41 displays the miles of each type of road related treatment and the resulting 

miles per square mile under Alternative 3. These effects would be similar to Alternative 1, although 

more minor because there are less miles of new permanent road proposed under Alternative 3. 

Table 3.15-41 Miles of road treatments, Alternative 3 

New 

Permanent 

Road 

Construction

Road 

Reconstruction 

(currently 

designated

for motor vehicle 

travel)

Road 

Reconstruction 

(currently NOT 

designated

for motor 

vehicle travel)

Temporary 

Road 

Construction

Roads Added for 

Project Use During 

Implementation

(mi/mi2)

Total Road 

DensityExisting 

Plus 

Additional 

for Project

(mi/mi2)

1.0 52.7 13.2 7.9 0.3 3.3

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The Cumulative effects discussion under the Alternative 1 outlines those present and foreseeable 

future activities scheduled on public and private lands, refer to this discussion. The cumulative 

contribution of Alternative 3 would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 because there 

is only a difference of 14 acres proposed for treatment within moderate and high capability habitat. 

However, effects under Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 1 regarding the following: snag 

retention would be higher within OFEA, HRCA, and FCCC units under this alternative and there 

would only be 1.0 miles of new permanent road construction under this alternative. The cumulative 

contribution under this alternative would affect marten and their habitat in the short and long-term but 

is not expected to affect the viability of this species. 

Alternative 4

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Indicator 1. Discussed under effects common to all action alternatives. 

Indicator 2. Same as Alternative 3. 

Indicator 3. Under Alternative 4, the snag retention guidelines are the same as outlined under 

Alternative 3; however, the spatial extent of proposed treatments is less under this alternative. Table 

3.15-42 displays the acres affected by the snag retention requirements within potential marten habitat 

proposed under this alternative. Potential marten habitat is defined as land allocations that are 

managed for old forest associated species (OFEA and HRCA) and potential suitable habitat at or 

above 5,000 feet elevation. Effects are very similar as those discussed under Alternative 3.

Alternative 4 is expected to have less severe effects due to the smaller spatial extent of treated area. 

Table 3.15-42 Snags retained in salvage units within potential marten habitat, Alternative 4

12ft2 per acre* 

General Forest

Average

30ft2 per acre

(OFEA, HRCA, 

FCCC)

Above Average

100-120ft2 per 

acre

(PSW Research)

Above Average

2,168 1,399 262

* Converted from 4snags per acre for comparison; assuming retention of 24 inches dbh snags. 

353
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Indicator 4. Table 3.15-43 displays the miles of each type of road related treatment and the resulting 

miles per square mile under Alternative 4. The temporary road construction proposed under this 

alternative would result in an increase of 0.3 miles per square mile of road, effectively increasing the 

road density from 3.0 miles per square mile to 3.3 miles per square mile during project 

implementation. Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3; however, because there is no new 

permanent road construction proposed under this alternative, long-term negative effects from road 

treatments such as fragmentation and hazard tree removal would not occur. 

Table 3.15-43 Miles of road treatments, Alternative 4

New 

Permanent 

Road 

Construction

Road 

Reconstruction 

(currently 

designated

for motor vehicle 

travel)

Road 

Reconstruction

(currently NOT 

designated

for motor vehicle 

travel)

Temporary 

Road 

Construction

Roads Added for 

Project Use During 

Implementation

(mi/mi2)

Total 

Road 

DensityExisting 

Plus 

Additional 

for Project

(mi/mi2)

0 46.1 13.8 6.1 + 0.3 3.3

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative effects discussion under the Alternative 1 outlines those present and foreseeable 

future activities scheduled on public and private lands, refer to this discussion. The cumulative 

contribution of Alternative 4 would be the least of all the action alternatives as described under 

Alternatives 1 and 3 because there are the least amount of acres proposed for treatment within 

moderate and high capability habitat, snag retention would be higher within OFEA, HRCA, and 

FCCC units, and there would be no new permanent road construction under this alternative. The 

cumulative contribution under Alternative 4 would affect marten and their habitat in the short and 

long-term, but is not expected to affect the viability of this species. 

American Marten: Summary of Effects

Indicator 1. Table 3.15-44 shows the amount of moderate and high capability marten habitat proposed 

for treatment is very similar for all alternatives. Alternative 1 would affect the most suitable habitat, 

while Alternative 4 would affect the least amount of habitat. Alternative 2 would not affect suitable 

habitat. 

Indicator 2. None of the alternatives would result in habitat fragmentation within potential marten 

habitat areas. All action alternatives incorporate the forest carnivore connectivity corridor; however, a 

Forest Plan Amendment is only proposed under Alternatives 3 and 4. Under Alternative 2, no 

connectivity corridor or Forest Plan Amendment would be proposed. 

Indicator 3. As shown in Table 3.15-44, the acres of areas managed for old forest objectives with 

higher than average levels of large snags and higher than average levels of large down woody 

material are highest in Alternatives 3 and 4. In contrast, Alternative 1 manages no acres for higher 

than average levels of large snags. For retention of large down woody material, all action alternatives 

manage to a 10 to 20 tons per acre standard, but Alternatives 3 and 4 emphasize retention at the 

higher end (i.e. 20 tons per acre ) while Alternative 1 does not. Alternative 4 manages for an 

additional 2,571 acres under full retention of snags and down woody material. 

Indicator 4. Of the action alternatives, proposed miles of new permanent road construction is highest 

under Alternative 1 and lowest under Alternative 4. Increases to road density are the same among all 

action alternatives, but long-term effects related to road density are greatest under Alternative 1 

because of the amount of new permanent road construction.

354
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.15-44 Summary of effects for marten

Indicator

Alternative

1 2 3 4

Indicator 1 – Moderate and high capability habitat treated

Salvage acres 1,557 0 1,576 1,215

Hazard Tree removal acres 2,667 0 2,634 2,677

Total acres 4,224 0 4,210 3,892

Percent of suitable habitat treated 24% 0% 24% 22%

Indicator 3 – Large snags and large downed woody material

12 sq. ft. BA / acre 

General Forest Average 6,060 0 3,443 2,168

30 sq. ft. BA / acre

OFEA, HRCA, FCCC, above average 0 0 2,103 1,399

100 to 120 sq. ft. BA / acre

PSW Research, above average 0 0 262 262

Full retention, no action 0 29,103* 0 2,571

Indicator 4 – Road treatments in miles

New construction 2.8 0 1.0 0

Reconstruction- currently designated for motor vehicle travel 57.6 0 52.7 46.1

Reconstruction- currently NOT designated for motor vehicle travel 10.3 0 13.2 13.8

Temporary road construction 6.7 0 7.9 6.1

Roads added for project use during implementation (mi/mi2) +0.3 0 +0.3 +0.3

Total road density existing plus additional for project (mi/mi2) 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.3

*Represents maximum number of potential unit acres in land allocations with old forest observations.

Determinations 

Alternative 1 may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability for the American marten. The following logic check was considered (Robinson 1996): 

project occurs in or affects suitable habitat but compliance with existing forest plan direction is 

demonstrated. 

Alternative 2 may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability for the American marten. In making this determination, I considered (Freel 1991 and 

Crook et al. 2013). 

Alternative 3 may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability for the American marten. The following logic check was considered (Robinson 1996): 

project occurs in or affects suitable habitat but compliance with existing forest plan direction is 

demonstrated. 

Alternative 4 may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability for the American marten. The following logic check was considered (Robinson 1996): 

project occurs in or affects suitable habitat but compliance with existing forest plan direction is best 

demonstrated under this alternative. Specifically, no new permanent road construction is proposed 

and the least amount of suitable habitat would be modified under this alternative. 

Pacific Fisher: Affected Environment 

Species and Habitat Account 

The Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) is a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species and a candidate 

for listing under the ESA. In 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) completed a 12-month 

355
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

status review of the fisher and determined that the West Coast Distinct Population Segment (DPS) 

warranted protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1976 et seq. but was precluded from 

listing by higher priority actions (Federal Register 2004), making this fisher DPS a Candidate for 

listing. The West Coast Fisher DPS (USDI 2004) includes all potential fisher habitats in Washington, 

Oregon and California from the east side of the Cascade Mountains and Sierra Nevada to the Pacific

coast. A status review was initiated as part of a multidistrict litigation settlement agreement under 

which the Service agreed to submit a proposed rule or a not-warranted finding to the Federal Register 

for the West Coast DPS of the fisher no later than the end of Fiscal Year 2014 (Federal Register 

2013a). If the USFWS pursues listing, they will concurrently designate critical habitat for that DPS.

The Forest Service has the option of requesting technical assistance from the USFWS due to 

Candidate for ESA listing status. 

Fishers have been listed with the State of California as a Species of Special Concern since at least 

1986 (Williams 1986). In March 2009, the California Fish and Game Commission recommended that 

the fisher be assessed for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the California State Endangered 

Species Act. Based on the recommendation CDFW conducted a 12-month review and concluded that 

the fisher did not merit protection under the State Endangered Species Act in March 2010. Although 

they accepted additional comments regarding the status of fisher, they did not change their finding.

Fishers historically occurred in the Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, Lake Tahoe Basin, Eldorado, Stanislaus, 

Sierra, and Sequoia National Forests. As of 1995, Zielinski et al. determined that fishers remain 

extant in just two areas comprising less than half of the historic distribution: northwestern California 

and the southern Sierra Nevada from Yosemite National Park southward, separated by a distance of 

approximately 250 miles. 

A number of southern Sierra Nevada population estimates and simulations have been conducted for 

fisher populations occurring across the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, Mountain Home State 

Park, tribal lands, Yosemite and Sequoia/Kings Canyon National Parks. These estimates range from 

100 to 600 adults (Lamberson et al. 2000, Spencer et al. 2008, and Self et al. 2008). 

Status and trend monitoring for fisher and American marten was initiated in 2002; the monitoring 

objective is to be able to detect a 20 percent decline in population abundance and habitat (USDA 

2006). This monitoring includes intensive sampling to detect population trends on the Sierra and 

Sequoia national forests, where the fisher currently occurs, and is supplemented by less intensive 

sampling in suitable habitat in the central and northern Sierra Nevada specifically designed to detect 

population expansion. From 2002 – 2008, 439 sites were surveyed throughout the Sierra Nevada on 

1,286 sampling occasions, with the bulk of the sampling effort occurring within the Southern Sierra 

fisher population monitoring study area (USDA 2009). 

Preliminary results indicate that fishers are well-distributed in portions of the Sequoia and Sierra 

National Forests; annual occupancy rates are consistently higher on the Sequoia (33.3 percent to 41.1 

percent) than the Sierra (14.5 percent to 22.7 percent) (USDA 2005). Comparisons to southern Sierra 

Nevada survey data from the 1990’s suggest that the areal extent of occurrence for fisher may have 

expanded during the past 10 years (USDA 2005). Thus there has been no conspicuous difference in 

occupancy rates among years, and no seasonal effects on detection probabilities within the June to 

October sampling periods (Truex et al. 2009). 

Carnivore camera stations have been employed within suitable habitat in and near the analysis area in 

2005-2013 following the protocol designed by Zielinski and Kucera (1995). No fisher detections were 

made as a result of these survey efforts (NRIS Wildlife database). 

From 2002 thru 2006, 916 primary sample units were completed, consisting of greater than 4,500 

individual survey stations for over 45,000 survey nights (USDA 2006). In the seven southern Sierra 

Nevada monitoring seasons to date (2002 – 2008), fishers were detected at a total of 112 of 251 

356
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

sample units, or 44.6 percent of sites (USDA 2009). These surveys have not resulted in detections of 

fishers on the Stanislaus National Forest. 

The project is within the historic distribution of fisher across the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. Fisher 

have been documented both in Yosemite National Park and south of the Merced River on the Sierra 

National Forest. Although their presence within the analysis area is undocumented, their presence is 

assumed where suitable habitat exists. Because there are no documented den sites, LOPs for this 

species are not required for this project. 

Habitat Account

In the Sierra Nevada, fishers occur in mid-elevation forests (Grinnell et at. 1937, Zielinski et al. 1997) 

largely on NFS lands, below the elevations of most national parks and wilderness areas. In the 

southern Sierra Nevada, fishers occur sympatrically with martens at elevations of 5,000 to 8,500 feet 

in mixed conifer forests (Zielinski et al. 1995). The Sierra Nevada status and trend monitoring project 

has detected fishers as low as 3,110 feet and as high as 9,000 feet in the southern Sierra Nevada, 

which are considered to be extremes of the elevation range for this species (USDA 2006). 

The following California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) types are considered important to 

fishers: generally structure classes 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D and 6 (stands with trees 11 inches diameter at 

breast height or greater and greater than 40 percent cover) in ponderosa pine, montane hardwoodconifer, Sierran mixed conifer, montane riparian, aspen, redwood, red fir, Jeffrey pine, lodgepole 

pine, subalpine conifer, and eastside pine (California Department of Fish and Game, California 

Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2008). CWHR assigns habitat values according to expert panel 

ratings. CWHR2 is a derivative of the CWHR fisher habitat relationship model constructed by Davis 

et al. (2007). They used best available science to revise the statewide model and eliminate some forest 

types that appeared to contribute little to fisher habitat: aspen, eastside pine, lodgepole pine, montane 

riparian, red fir, and subalpine conifer. As Table 3.15-45 shows, this can be further refined to reflect 

only those forest types present in the southern Sierra Nevada: Jeffrey pine, montane hardwoodconifer, ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed-conifer and white fir, terming it CWHR2.1.

Table 3.15-45 High and moderate capability habitat for pacific fisher 

Habitats* Canopy Cover and

Substrate Classes

Jeffrey pine 4P, 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D

Montane hardwood-conifer 4P, 4M, 4D, 5P, 5M, 5D, 6

Ponderosa pine 4P, 4M, 4D, 5P, 5M, 5D

Sierran mixed conifer 4P, 4M, 4D, 5P, 5M, 5D, 6

White fir 4P, 4M, 4D, 5P, 5M, 5D, 6

*CWHR 2008 as Modified by Davis et al. 2007 [CWHR2] and Applied to Southern Sierra Nevada Forest Types [CWHR2.1].

In addition to habitat fragmentation within the analysis area resulting from the Rim Fire, habitat 

connectivity across this landscape was compromised by the 1996 Ackerson and Rogge Fires, and the 

2003 Kibbie Fire. Prior to the Rim Fire, the analysis area contained about 73,081 acres of moderate 

and high capability habitat. The analysis area still contains relatively high quality habitat for fisher in 

areas that burned at low or low-moderate intensity such as Twomile, Bourland, Reynold’s Creek, 

Pilot Ridge and the Crocker Meadow area. Post-fire, the analysis area contains about 44,876 acres of 

moderate and high capability habitat on NFS lands only. Table 3.15-46 displays pre- and post-fire 

acres by CWHR vegetation type, size class, and density. Suitable habitat has been greatly reduced in 

the heart of the analysis area and connectivity between large tracts of habitat on the forest and 

currently occupied areas in Yosemite has been further reduced. This habitat fragmentation has 

reduced the likelihood of fisher moving through or dispersing into the area until natural vegetation 

recovery or forest management practices, such as planting, effectively re-establishes connectivity.

357
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

There are about 84,142 acres of moderate and high capability habitat within the cumulative effects 

analysis area post-fire, including all ownerships. 

Table 3.15-46 Pre- and post-fire high and moderate capability habitat for fisher

CWHR Vegetation Type* Size Class

and Density

Pre-Fire CWHR Veg Type*

(acres)

Post-Fire CWHR Veg Type*

(acres)

JPN, MHC, PPN, SMC, WFR 4P 1,107 4,128

JPN, MHC, PPN, SMC, WFR 4M 8,035 4,700

JPN, MHC, PPN, SMC, WFR 4D 44,872 21,898

JPN, MHC, PPN, SMC, WFR 5P 8 827

JPN, MHC, PPN, SMC, WFR 5M 200 251

JPN, MHC, PPN, SMC, WFR 5D 18,859 13,072

TOTAL 73,081 44,876

*CWHR vegetation types: JPN: Jeffrey pine, MHC: montane hardwood conifer, PPN: ponderosa pine, SMC: sierra mixed conifer, WFR: 

white fir. Acres include public lands only. 

CWHR Size Classes: 4 = 12-24 inches dbh, 5 = 24-40 inches dbh CWHR Density Classes (Canopy Closure): P = 25-39 percent, M = 40-

59 percent, D equal to or greater than 60 percent 

A road density of 0 to 0.5 miles per square mile is associated with high capability habitat for fishers 

USDA 1991). A road density of 0.5 to 2.0 miles per square mile is associated with medium capability 

habitat (Ibid). The road density including all routes open to motor vehicles in the analysis area is 3.0 

miles per square mile on NFS lands and is more than six times the acceptable density found in high 

quality habitat and more than 1 mile per square mile above that found in moderate capability habitat. 

Breeding occurs from late February through May, just a few days after parturition. Breeding is 

followed by embryonic diapause until late winter to early spring. Den site structural elements must 

exist in the proper juxtaposition within specific habitats in order to provide a secure environment for 

birth and rearing of fisher kits. Natal dens, where kits are born, are most commonly in tree cavities at 

heights of greater than 20 feet (Lewis and Stinson 1998). Maternal dens, where kits are raised, may be 

in cavities closer to the ground so active kits can avoid injury in the event of a fall from the den 

(Ibid). 

Truex et al. 1998, Zielinski et al. 2004, Purcell et al. 2009 characterize suitable habitat for 

denning/resting as follows: 

 Canopy cover greater than 60 percent.

 Large live and dead conifers and hardwoods 21-51 inches dbh; showing preference for largest 

tree or snag in area. 

 Live and snag tree basal area ranges from 100 to 500 square feet per acre.

Fishers are considered prey generalists and their diet varies widely with local prey available in the 

diverse habitats they occupy (Zielinski et al. 2006). Prey items include squirrels, voles, porcupine, 

snowshoe hares and reptiles (Zielinski and Duncan 2004a). They also readily consume hypogenous 

fungi, fruit and deer carrion (Ibid). While information is lacking regarding fishers use of meadows, 

they are known to eat meadow voles and it is likely that they forage along meadow edges as marten 

do. 

Freel 1991 characterized highly suitable habitat for foraging as follows:

 Canopy cover greater than 40 percent with a shrub component in the understory. 

 Largest snags average 4 to 5 per acre and are greater than 20 inches dbh. 

 Downed logs average 4 per acre and are greater than 30 inches dbh. 

358
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Dispersal ability is low in the western population and Arthur and others (1993) suggest that short 

dispersal distances (up to 6-12 miles from natal home range) may be problematic in the maintenance 

of fisher populations in areas where suitable habitat is fragmented. The current disjunct distribution 

pattern may also be partially attributed to movement and dispersal constraints imposed by the 

elongated and peninsular distribution of montane forests in the Pacific states (Wisely et al. 2004). The 

synergistic effect of road and rodenticide related mortalities documented in the southern Sierra 

populations, the apparent reluctance of fishers to cross open areas, and the more limited mobility of 

this terrestrial mammal relative to birds, it is more difficult for fishers to locate and occupy distant, 

but suitable, habitat. 

Risk Factors

 Climate Change. Climate change is a concern for fishers because of the widespread ecological 

effects. There is the potential that climate change could increase habitat quality for this species, 

but various models and studies appear to support the idea that the core habitat for fisher in the 

middle elevation would suffer from fires and disease. 

 Uncharacteristically Severe Wildfire. While wildfires are affected by climate change; fishers are 

also affected by historic and ongoing vegetation management, including timber harvesting and 

fire suppression, which have left the forests of the western Sierra Nevada un-naturally dense with 

understory vegetation, including shrubs and smaller trees. 

 Vegetation Manipulation to Reduce Risk of Uncharacteristically Severe Wildfire. Aggressive 

stand thinning for forest health and reduced fire risk may remove important cover, snags, and 

vegetative diversity for fisher. These treatments may prevent more adverse effects associated with 

drought and wildfire, but may nonetheless result in habitat with reduced value for fisher or even

render it unsuitable.

 Habitat Fragmentation or Loss of Connectivity. Habitat connectivity is a key to maintaining 

fishers within a landscape. Activities under Forest Service control that result in habitat 

fragmentation or population isolation pose a risk to the persistence of fishers. Timber harvest, 

fuels reduction treatments, road presence and construction, and recreational activities may result 

in the loss of habitat connectivity resulting in a negative impact on fisher distribution and 

abundance. 

Management Direction

Current management direction is summarized by describing the desired future condition of land 

allocations (Robinson 1996). The Pacific fisher is a candidate for listing under the ESA, is a Region 5 

Forest Service Sensitive species that is associated with old forest ecosystems (USDA 2004). The 

following land allocations pertain to fisher and old forest ecosystems: PACs, HRCA, OFEA, and 

FCCC. 

The desired condition for PAC is to have 1) at least two tree canopy layers; 2) dominant and codominant trees with average diameters of at least 24 inches dbh; 3) at least 60 to70 percent canopy 

cover; 4) some very large snags (greater than 45 inches dbh); and 5) snag and down woody material 

levels that are higher than average.

The desired condition for Spotted Owl HRCA is to encompass the best available habitat in the closest 

proximity to the owl activity center (USFS 2004 ROD pp. 39-40). HRCAs consist of large habitat 

blocks that have: 1) at least two tree canopy layers; 2) at least 24 inches dbh in dominant and codominant trees; 3) a number of very large (greater than 45 inches dbh) old trees; 4) at least 50 to 70 

percent canopy cover; and 5) higher than average levels of snags and down woody material. 

The desired condition for OFEA is to provide habitat conditions for mature forest associates (spotted 

owl, northern goshawk, American marten, and Pacific fisher). Specifically, forest structure and 

function across old forest emphasis areas generally resemble pre-settlement conditions. High levels of 

horizontal and vertical diversity exist at the landscape-scale (roughly 10,000 acres). Stands are 

359
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

composed of roughly even-aged vegetation groups, varying in size, species composition, and 

structure. Individual vegetation groups range from less than 0.5 to more than 5 acres in size. Tree 

sizes range from seedlings to very large diameter trees. Species composition varies by elevation, site 

productivity, and related environmental factors. Multi-tiered canopies, particularly in older forests, 

provide vertical heterogeneity. Dead trees, both standing and fallen, meet habitat needs of old-forestassociated species. Forest structure and function generally resemble pre-settlement conditions. 

The desired future condition of FCCC is to provide habitat connectivity for forest carnivores, linking 

Yosemite National Park and the North Mountain inventoried roadless area west to the Clavey River.

For habitat connectivity, a future forested area is desired with a minimum of 50 percent of the 

forested area having at least 60 percent canopy cover. Higher than average levels of large snags and 

large down woody material is also desired (as in USDA 2004). Habitat structures are important to 

retain that may constitute rest sites as described in Freel 1991 and Lofroth et al. 2010 (plate 7.7). 

Pacific Fisher: Environmental Consequences

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the fisher through the following 

activities:

 Salvage of fire-killed trees. 

 Salvage of roadside hazard trees. 

 New permanent and temporary road construction, road reconstruction and maintenance 

 Fuels treatments.

 Use of material sources and water sources.

These activities may have direct and indirect effects on fisher through the following: 

 Project related death, injury or disturbance. 

 Project related modifications to habitat quantity or quality. 

Death, injury, or disturbance

Death or injury from project related activities would be unlikely to occur given the mobility of this 

species. However, there is the potential for death or injury if a den or rest tree were felled while being 

used by fisher. 

Project activities, especially loud noise, could result in disturbance that may impair essential behavior 

patterns of the fisher related to denning, resting, or foraging. Loud noise from equipment such as 

chain saws or tractors is expected to occur in salvage units, project roads, and at landings, material 

sources, and water sources. The location of fisher within the analysis area is uncertain following the 

Rim Fire, a large-scale disturbance event; conducting surveys to identify areas being used is a way to 

address this uncertainty. Temporary avoidance of the project site or displacement of individuals 

during is expected during project implementation. Any displacement or avoidance would be of short 

duration and would subside shortly after project implementation activities. LOPs in place for spotted 

owls, goshawks, great gray owls, and bald eagles would afford protection to individual fisher in these 

areas during parturition, kit rearing, and subsequent breeding (March-August). The potential risk to 

individual fisher is considered low because of the lack of documented fisher occurrence within or 

near the analysis area and length of exposure expected given the accelerated timeframe of this project 

and implementation. 

Habitat Modification

Salvage logging and the removal of roadside hazard trees would modify suitable fisher habitat by 

reducing its quality in both the short-term (10 to 20 years) and in the long-term (20-50 years). 

Short-term, retaining snags within and near suitable fisher habitat would provide denning and resting 

sites (Freel 1991, Thompson et al. 2011, Zielinski et al. 2004). The number of snags and downed logs 

360
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

available across a fisher’s home range affects the quality of that habitat for foraging and breeding.

Resting and denning structures are likely the most limiting habitat elements within fisher home ranges 

(Zielinski et al. 2004). While there is no research available regarding fisher use of high severity burn 

areas in the first few years after fire, male fishers may venture several hundreds of yards into 

openings while female fishers would be much more cautious (Thompson pers. comm.). Therefore, 

snags retained away from forest cover are not likely to benefit fisher while vegetation becomes reestablished. 

Prey species that tolerate disturbance or open conditions are known to be abundant in post fire 

environments, such as mice, rats, chipmunks, and squirrels (Amacher et al. 2008 and Diffendorfer et 

al. 2012). Structural elements such as snags and downed logs, when combined with the flush of 

shrubs, forbs and grasses expected post-fire, will provide habitat suitable for prey and foraging habitat 

for fisher within a few years post-fire. 

Long-term, large snags and large downed logs are considered biological legacies in a post fire 

environment and play important roles in the structure of future forest (Lindenmayer et al. 2008).

Large snags and downed logs may take hundreds of years to develop, emphasizing the need to retain 

these elements across the landscape. Because large snags and large downed logs are regularly used by 

fisher it is not only important to retain these structural elements during project implementation, but it 

is imperative that recruitment of large snags and large downed logs occur over time to maintain 

habitat suitability in the long-term. 

Snags remain standing for decades depending upon the species of tree and other environmental 

factors (Cluck and Smith 2007 and Ritchie et al. 2013). For example, Ritchie and others (2013) found 

that snag fall rates and decay rates vary considerably by species. When snags eventually fall, they are 

incorporated as large downed logs, another critical structural element important for marten and prey 

species (Freel 1991, Zielinski et al. 2004a). 

Roads modify fisher habitat by directly removing it or indirectly reducing its quality, resulting in both 

short and long-term effects. Gaines and others (2003) studied the response of several focal species, 

including fisher, related to roads and trails. Fishers in this study were displaced, shifting use of habitat 

away from human activities on or near roads or trails. Andren (1994) suggested that, as landscapes 

become fragmented, the combination of increasing isolation and decreasing patch size of suitable 

habitat is negatively synergistic, compounding the effects of simple habitat loss. In particular, species 

associated with old forest habitats may be impacted by such effects. Reductions in interior forest 

patch size results in loss of habitat and greater distances between suitable interior forest patches for 

sensitive species like the Pacific fisher. New construction, temporary road construction and 

reconstruction would result in increased habitat fragmentation as well as a reduction in potential 

resting and denning structures. 

Additional habitat modification occurs as an indirect effect of new road construction, temporary road 

construction, and reconstruction. Trees posing a potential safety hazard (“hazard trees”) are removed 

along these new, temporary, and reconstructed roads. These trees are typically snags that are within a 

tree-height distance from the road. This safety policy results in a “snag free” zone of about 200 feet 

from each side of a road’s edge, also affecting the recruitment of large downed wood within this zone. 

Habitat quality is reduced within this corridor. 

Reducing fuel loads across the analysis area was identified as an essential first step in longer term fire 

and fuels management within the Rim Fire area (Crook et al. 2013). Removal of smaller material, less 

than 20 inches dbh, would not directly affect habitat suitability for fisher. However, it may indirectly 

contribute to a more resilient landscape and less risk of further loss of remaining suitable habitat in 

the face of the next wildfire. 

361
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Indicators

The following indicators were chosen to provide a relative measure of the direct and indirect effects 

to the fisher and to determine how well project alternatives comply with Forest Plan Direction and the 

species’ conservation strategies.

1. Amount of moderate and high capability habitat altered. 

2. Habitat connectivity 

3. Amount of large legacy snags and downed logs in OFEA, HRCA, and FCCC units. 

4. Road density (miles/square mile) in moderate and high capability and dispersal habitat

These criteria were chosen based on the best available scientific literature which focuses on various 

aspects of fisher ecology and life history requirements. These criteria focus on those life history 

aspects, or habitat elements, considered most limiting to fisher persistence across their range and 

where project effects are expected. 

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indicator 1. Because there are small differences in the amount of acres proposed for treatment in 

moderate and high quality suitable habitat under all action alternatives, the effects are expected to be 

similar and are therefore analyzed together. 

Under the action alternatives, habitat quality would be reduced across a portion of the remaining 

moderate and high capability habitat within the analysis area as a result of removing snags and hazard 

trees. Between 71 percent and 72 percent of the remaining suitable habitat is not proposed for 

treatment. Proposed treatments would not exacerbate the lack of connectivity between large 

contiguous blocks of suitable habitat in the analysis area already created by the fire. Snag retention 

requirements vary by alternative and would serve to mitigate some of the negative effects expected to 

result from implementation of the action alternatives and is discussed in more detail under each

alternative. Table 3.15-47 displays the proposed types of treatments and the proportion of moderate 

and high capability habitat affected under each action alternative for comparison. 

Table 3.15-47 Proposed treatments in fisher moderate and high capability habitat

Alternative Salvage

(acres)

Hazard Tree

Removal (acres)

Total 

(acres)

Percent of Suitable

Habitat Treated

1 6,221 6,677 12,898 29

3 6,266 6,562 12,828 29

4 5,724 6,632 12,356 28

Although a reduction in quality is expected, treated areas would continue to offer denning, resting, 

and foraging habitat. Trees that are in decline and not subject for removal under this project would, 

over time, be incorporated as potential resting or denning structures and habitat for prey species.

Effects may result in impacts to an individual’s fitness, but because there are no documented 

occurrences within the analysis area this risk is considered low. 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indicator 1. Discussed under effects common to all action alternatives. 

Indicator 2. Habitat connectivity across the landscape is important to fisher as it provides a means for 

dispersal, linkages between suitable habitat patches or core habitat areas, and genetic exchange.

Spencer and Rustigan-Romsos (2012) provide recommendations for the conservation of rare 

carnivores such as the fisher in California. They used spatially explicit, empirical models to identify 

362
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

large areas of suitable habitat and dispersal corridors connecting those areas. Suitable fisher habitat 

cores were identified as a part of this effort and occurred in the north, east, southeast portions of the 

analysis area on the Stanislaus National Forest before the Rim Fire in 2013. Because the fire resulted 

in the removal of some of the core habitats identified, connectivity between occupied habitat in 

Yosemite National Park and suitable habitat on the Stanislaus National Forest has been further 

reduced. 

Figure 3.15-4 Proposed Forest Carnivore Connectivity Corridor

A forest carnivore connectivity corridor is proposed to focus management activities associated with 

this project on re-establishing that connectivity so that fisher can disperse into and utilize the 

available suitable habitat on the Stanislaus National Forest. Portions of this corridor would also 

overlap important critical winter deer range. This corridor spans from Yosemite National Park and the 

North Mountain roadless area, encompassing the Tuolumne River canyon west toward the Clavey 

River canyon. The corridor, shown in Figure 3.15-4, includes the following proposed salvage units 

managed for old forest emphasis: L02, L05, M1 through M10, M12, M13, M15, M16, M18, M19, 

and N1. This corridor was identified based on the following: modeling and recommendations 

presented in Spencer and Rustigan-Romsos (2012), potential natural vegetation, on-the-ground 

knowledge of habitat suitable for fisher, ownership, and other management priorities. 

Objectives for this corridor include salvaging to provide for future management opportunities that 

may include re-establishing forested conditions suitable for fisher and other old forest associated 

363
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

species by planting. Management objectives in this corridor would complement OFEA and HRCAs 

management objectives at the larger landscape scale. 

Desired conditions for this area include managing this corridor for a range of vegetative conditions, 

including a minimum of 50 percent of forested areas having at least 60 percent canopy cover. This 

would allow for fisher movement through, and use of, this habitat. Because a portion of this corridor 

is within a designated fuels SPLAT, it is necessary to manage for heterogeneity, combining some 

denser forested conditions with less dense vegetation to allow for effective fuels and fire 

management. Additional biomass removal proposed in critical winter deer range would contribute to 

breaking up fuel continuity across the analysis area, increasing the defensibility of forest carnivore 

connectivity units in the long-term. This corridor would benefit fisher and other old forest associated 

species such as the California spotted owl and northern goshawk over the long-term as forested 

conditions return. 

Indicator 3. Under Alternative 1, Table 3.15-48 displays the acres affected by the snag retention 

requirements within potential fisher habitat proposed under this alternative. Potential fisher habitat is 

defined as land allocations that are managed for old forest associated species (OFEA, HRCA, and 

FCCC) and potential suitable habitat between 3,000 and 9,000 feet in elevation. 

Retaining snags at a rate of 12 square feet per acre across the 28,140 acres proposed for treatment 

would provide less than half of that documented to occur in occupied fisher habitat. For example, 

occupied fisher habitat within the Kings River Fisher Project area contains an average of 24 square 

feet per acre basal area of snags in a variety of size classes (Thompson pers.comm.). Zielinski et al. 

(2004) reports an average of 44square feet per acre basal area of snags present in the immediate 

vicinity of fisher resting sites. Although retaining snags at this level is not optimal for fisher, those 

retained would provide some potential resting and denning sites as well as habitat for prey sought by 

fishers. 

Table 3.15-48 Snags retained in salvage units within potential fisher habitat, Alternative 1 

12ft2 per acre*

General 

Forest

Average

30ft2 per acre

(OFEA, HRCA, FCCC)

Above Average

100-120ft2 per 

acre 

(PSW Research)

Above Average

28,140 0 0

* Converted from 4snags per acre for comparison; assuming retention of 24 inches dbh snags. 

Retaining snags at 12 square feet per acre would result in the lowest retention of snags to contribute 

to the structural complexity and diversity within recovering forested stands. As vegetative cover 

returns, only minor beneficial effects on habitat quality for fisher are expected. 

Hardwoods occur irregularly across the analysis area and have not been mapped. Hardwoods are 

critically important structures and are selected by fisher for resting and denning sites (R. Sweitzer 

unpublished data, Thompson et al. 2011, and Truex et al. 1998). Because all hardwood snags would 

be retained under Alternative 1, no change in the number of hardwood snags available is expected as 

a result of implementation. 

Over time, retained snags would decay and fall and become incorporated as large downed logs. Large 

downed woody debris provides important habitat elements utilized by fisher and their prey. 

Considering fisher utilize habitat that contains higher rates of large snags and large downed woody 

debris, the rate of snag retention proposed under Alternative 1 is not adequate to maintain the highest 

habitat capability within the treated areas. However, snags retained are expected to contribute and 

provide suitable habitat, although of lower quality in the short-term. In the long-term these snags 

would be incorporated as large downed woody material, critical structural elements needed within a 

recovering forest.

364
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Downed woody debris retention at 10 to 20 tons per acre, if available in larger size classes, would 

provide habitat structure important for fisher and their prey. In most areas, there is a lack of sufficient 

large downed woody material, making snag retention and eventual recruitment as downed logs even 

more critical. Fuels treatments that result in the removal of smaller downed woody material may 

result in a more diverse understory including more herbaceous and shrub vegetation that would 

benefit fisher and their prey. 

Indicator 4. To analyze effects of road density, it is necessary to include more than the current 

suitable fisher habitat because roads can be somewhat permanent features on the landscape and will 

affect the habitat suitability for fisher not only in the short-term, but long-term as well. Thus, land 

allocations that are managed for old forest associated species (OFEA and HRCA), the proposed forest 

carnivore connectivity corridor, and pre-fire moderate and high capability habitat were used to 

calculate road density for fisher within the analysis area. Small disjunct patches of habitat not 

contributing to the core area as defined here were omitted. This potential fisher habitat area is about 

88,000 acres and can support fisher, in part today and into the future, based on the desired conditions 

outlined in the Forest Plan (USDA 2010a). Therefore, this is considered a logical approacreh to 

analyze project related road density and effects to fisher. 

Under Alternative 1, new permanent road construction, temporary road construction, and road 

reconstruction are proposed as described in Chapter 2. Table 3.15-49 displays the miles of each type 

of road-related treatment and the resulting miles per square mile under this alternative. 

Table 3.15-49 Miles of road treatments within potential fisher habitat, Alternative 1

New 

Permanent 

Road 

Construction

Road 

Reconstruction

(currently 

designated

for motor 

vehicle travel)

Road 

Reconstruction

(currently NOT 

designated

for motor 

vehicle travel)

Temporary 

Road 

Construction

Roads Added for 

Project use During 

Implementation

(mi/mi2)

Total Road 

Density 

Existing 

plus 

Additional 

for Project

(mi/mi2)

5.4 215.8 30.9 18.2 0.3 1.9

The new road construction and temporary road construction proposed under this alternative would 

result in an increase of 0.3 miles per square mile of road, effectively increasing the road density from 

1.6 miles per square mile to 1.9 miles per square mile during project implementation. Minor negative 

effects to habitat quality are expected under Alternative 1. This may slightly increase the potential for 

road related mortality during project implementation while the roads are open and being used 

regularly. Because there are no documented occurrences within the analysis area this risk is 

considered low. The new permanent road designation as blocked maintenance Level 1 or Level 2 

gated year round would alleviate the risk of road related mortality after project implementation 

because the roads would only be used intermittently for management purposes. The new permanent 

road construction would result in habitat fragmentation in the long-term due to habitat removal as a 

result of the road construction and future hazard tree removal within 200 feet of the roads edge in the 

long-term. This would reduce the quality of habitat adjacent to those new roads. All temporary roads 

would be obliterated and blocked and over time. Vegetation would become reestablished and all roads 

that were non-motorized before project implementation would be returned to the pre-project 

specifications. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

In making the determination for Alternative 1, the cumulative impact on the environment resulting 

from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, was considered. A list of the actions considered can be found in Appendix 

365
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

B. Some, but not all of these foreseeable future actions have or may contribute cumulatively to effects 

on fishers. 

Risk factors potentially affecting fisher abundance and distribution have been identified and include 

habitat fragmentation and lack of or removal of coarse woody debris. The following evaluation 

criterion was used as a relative measure of cumulative effects from this alternative to fisher: habitat 

modification.

Habitat Modification 

Federal Land 

Past, present, and foreseeable future timber harvests and hazard tree removal sales on public lands 

have and will likely affect habitat suitability for fisher through the removal of large trees, reduction in 

canopy cover, and potential loss of snags and downed woody debris from prescribed fire operations. 

Truex and Zielinski (2005) suggest that a reduction in habitat suitability does not necessarily equate 

to loss of suitability. Present actions within the analysis area include: The Twomile Ecological 

Restoration Vegetation Management Groovy and Funky timber sales and the Soldier Creek timber 

sale are scheduled to treat about 2,045 acres through commercial thinning, biomass removal, 

mastication, and prescribed fire treatments. GTR 220 (North et al. 2009) was used as a guide when 

designing these projects including maintaining elements important to fisher (large trees, snags, 

downed wood, areas of dense canopy cover). In addition, Yosemite National Park is currently 

removing hazard trees on about 816 acres, which would have negligible effects on fisher and their 

habitat. 

Foreseeable future actions on federal lands include: Reynolds Creek Ecological Restoration involving 

meadow and aspen restoration. These types of projects generally include the removal of encroaching

trees. Two mile-Campy, Looney, and Thommy timber sales and Reynolds Creek timber sale are 

scheduled to occur over the next few years resulting in treatment of about 3,798 acres through 

commercial thinning, biomass removal, mastication, and prescribed fire. As a result of the Rim Fire, 

the Rim HT removal project proposed to remove hazard trees along 10,262 acres of Maintenance

Level 3, 4, and 5 roads is scheduled for implementation in the summer of 2014. The ecological 

restoration projects will reduce habitat quality in the short-term for fisher, but are designed to have 

long-term benefits. Hazard tree removal will reduce habitat quality in the short and long-term because 

the objective and priority on Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads is public safety. 

Roads and trails modify habitat suitability for fishers by reducing habitat or degrading quality through 

fragmentation. Roads and trails also improve human access, and potentially result in the displacement 

of individuals. Twomile Transportation, a foreseeable future action, will result in a slight reduction in 

motorized routes, essentially removing 11.4 miles by gating, decommissioning, or closing to 

Maintenance Level 1 roads used only for administrative purposes. Reynolds Creek Motorized Routes 

project will decommission 3.5 miles of unauthorized routes in the near future as well. The Mi-Wok 

OHV Restoration project proposes to block and restore 11.6 miles of unauthorized OHV routes. This 

reduction of about 26.5 miles of motorized roads and trails across the analysis area would improve 

habitat quality by reducing fragmentation and human access while increasing the amount of interior 

habitat available. 

Private Lands 

As a result of the Rim Fire, several private land owners have submitted emergency fire salvage 

notices to Cal Fire. A total of 18,407 acres is presently being salvage logged. Post salvage, the areas 

may provide short-term foraging habitat for fisher as understory vegetation becomes established; 

however, these benefits are expected to be limited in space and time based on typical reforestation 

efforts.

366
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Wildfire 

Wildfires can affect habitat in varying degrees, depending on the intensity of the fire. Wildfires can 

create snags, which may be used as den or rest sites by fisher. Wildfires that burn at high severity, 

such as the Rim Fire, result in eliminating habitat. Treatments in green forest (past, present, future) 

are designed to reduce fire intensity and spread, thus reducing the risk of habitat loss. It is expected 

that wildfire will continue to occur on the landscape.

Alternative 1 Contribution/Summary

The proposed action is expected to contribute cumulatively to short and long-term effects on fisher.

Disturbance and potential displacement of individuals may occur during project implementation and 

would likely be temporary. No recent occurrences of fishers within the analysis area are documented; 

however, the analysis area is in close proximity to the nearest known populations occurring on the 

Sierra National Forest and Yosemite National Park. Reduction in the quality of moderate and high 

capability habitat on about 12,898 acres (15 percent of the remaining suitable habitat within the 

analysis area) is expected from implementation of Alternative 1. Snag retention requirements under 

Alternative 1 are less than under the other action alternatives. Habitat quality would be reduced based 

on the reduction of denning and resting sites. There are also 5.4 miles of new permanent road 

construction proposed within potential fisher habitat under Alternative 1, which would have negative 

effects on fisher and their habitat. Treatments would likely occur over the next two to three years and 

may coincide with other projects, particularly Groovy, Funky, and Soldier Creek. The combination of 

past Forest Service and private timber harvests, and wildfire has cumulatively reduced the amount of 

late-succession habitat available across the analysis area. This and other Forest Service projects were 

and continue to be designed to prevent additional, large scale loss of mature forest from wildfires 

such as the Rim Fire. The Forest Service projects are designed to retain and improve key habitat 

components such as retention of large trees, defect trees, snags, downed wood, while focusing on 

releasing black oaks and pines. Habitat suitability within the analysis area is predicted to improve in 

the long-term for fisher. The cumulative contribution under Alternative 1 is not expected to affect the 

viability of this species. 

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Under Alternative 2, death, injury or disturbance would not be an issue because no active 

management would occur. 

Under Alternative 2, no indirect effects are expected because no active management would occur; 

however, there may be consequences under this alternative primarily related to the influence no action 

may have on future wildfires and how future wildfires may impact fisher habitat. Wildfire has been

documented as one of the biggest risks to fisher persistence across their range (USDA 2001). 

Predicting the effect no action would have on future wildfire and fisher habitat is largely speculative 

given the numerous factors involved over time. As fire-killed trees fall and contribute to surface fuel

pools, potential fire behavior may be expected to increase (3.05 Fuels). However, potential fire 

behavior in the future may be dependent on how future management actions, especially prescribed 

fire, are planned and implemented (Stephens and Moghaddas 2005, Stephens et al. 2009, Roberts et 

al. 2011, Crook et al. 2013). 

Indicator 1. Under Alternative 2, habitat quality within currently suitable moderate and high 

capability habitat would not be altered. 

Within the areas that burned at high severity, herbaceous and shrub vegetation is expected to be 

established within 3-5 years (Gray et al. 2005 and Moghaddas et al. 2008) and would be suitable for 

fisher movement and potentially as foraging habitat. These beneficial effects would be expected in the 

short-term. Because the ability of forests to regenerate after stand replacing fire is highly dependent 

367
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

on seed sources, forested conditions are likely to re-establish only within mixed severity burn patches 

and the edges of high severity patches (Rim EIS Vegetation Report). It is likely that areas that burned 

at high severity would be dominated by herbaceous and shrub vegetation and shade tolerant conifer 

species such as white fir and incense cedar in the future (Rim EIS Vegetation Report). A consequence 

of shrub dominance is the reduced likelihood that forested conditions would return naturally for many 

decades. Not removing fire-killed trees would result in additional difficulties related to future 

management, such as planting conifers that could help accelerate the establishment of forest 

conditions. Thus, suitable denning and resting habitat would be delayed under this alternative 

resulting in long-term negative effects to fishers. 

When wildfire returns to this landscape, the remaining moderate and high capability habitat adjacent

to or near areas that burned at high severity may be at increased risk of loss. Within 10 years, the fuel

loading is predicted to be four to eight times higher (78 tons per acre) than the desired condition (Rim 

EIS Fuels Report). This would significantly increase the risk of fire suppression activities when 

wildfire occurs in the future. The negative long-term effects on habitat for fisher from this alternative 

outweigh the short-term beneficial effects. 

Indicator 2. Under Alternative 2, no forest carnivore connectivity corridor would be proposed. The 

connectivity would not be re-established between large areas of suitable habitat lacking connectivity 

after the Rim Fire. Benefits described under the action alternatives would not be realized under this 

alternative. 

Indicator 3. Under Alternative 2, all snags and downed logs would be retained. In the short-term

fisher and their prey would benefit from the availability of more snags and downed logs within an 

adjacent to remaining suitable habitat, as discussed under the action alternatives. Remaining suitable 

habitat would be at higher risk of loss in the long-term when wildfire returns to this landscape, see 

Indicator 1 above. The potential for recovery of forested conditions across areas that burned at high 

severity would also be delayed, see Indicator 1 above. 

Indicator 4. Under the Alternative 2, no new permanent road construction, temporary road 

construction, reconstruction, or maintenance would occur. This alternative would provide the greatest 

benefit to fisher because there would be no increase in road density across the analysis area and no 

potential increase of road related mortality in the short or long-term. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Habitat modification

The Cumulative effects discussion under the Alternative 1 outlines those present and foreseeable 

future activities scheduled on public and private lands. Under Alternative 2, there would be no direct 

cumulative effect expected because no active management would occur. 

Alternative 2 Contribution/Summary 

The cumulative contribution under this alternative would not complement the treatments that have 

occurred in the past, thus increasing the risk of loss of remaining suitable habitat to wildfire in the 

long-term. The short-term beneficial impacts to fisher such as retention of snags for denning and 

resting sites would be outweighed by the increased risk of additional habitat loss in the next wildfire. 

Alternative 3

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Under Alternative 3, no cumulative effects are expected.

Indicator 1. Discussed under effects common to all action alternatives. 

Indicator 2. Under Alternative 3, the Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

would be amended to establish the connectivity corridor as a land allocation (old forest emphasis 

368
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

area) prioritizing future management objectives, not just those objectives associated with this project, 

within this connectivity corridor to benefit old forest associated species, particularly forest carnivores. 

The effects to fishers under Alternative 3 are the same as discussed under Alternative 1, but would be 

realized in the long-term because the proposed corridor, approximately 10,000 acres, would be 

changed from General Forest to Old Forest Emphasis Area. This land allocation change would 

prioritize management emphasis in this corridor to benefit old forest associated species into the 

future. 

Indicator 3. Under Alternative 3, the snag retention rate in OFEA, HRCA, and FCCC is considered 

greater than the management standard and above average snag retention, while the snag retention rate 

in general forest is considered the management standard or average snag retention. 

In addition, under this alternative in OFEA, HRCA, FCCC, and in roadside hazard units within 

Protected Activity Centers (PACs), retain the largest size classes of down woody material. Table 

3.15-50 displays the acres affected by the snag retention requirements within potential fisher habitat 

proposed under this alternative. Potential fisher habitat is defined as land allocations that are managed 

for old forest associated species (OFEA, HRCA, and FCCC) and potential suitable habitat between 

3,000 and 9,000 feet in elevation. 

Table 3.15-50 Snags retained in salvage units within potential fisher habitat, Alternative 3

12ft2 per acre* 

General Forest

Average

30ft2 per acre

(OFEA, HRCA, FCCC)

Above Average

100-120ft2 per 

acre

(PSW Research)

Above Average

14,691 13,436 2,089

* Converted from 4snags per acre for comparison; assuming retention of 24 inches dbh snags. 

Under Alternative 3, all snag retention areas occur within suitable or potential future fisher habitat.

Snags retained at a rate of 12 square feet per acre would provide less than half of the snags 

documented to occur in occupied fisher habitat. Snags retained at the rate of 100 to 120 square feet 

per acre would provide almost three times the snags documented to occur in occupied fisher habitat. 

Snag retention at the rate of 30 square feet per acre would provide a supply of snags within the range 

found in occupied fisher habitat. Occupied fisher habitats within the Kings River Fisher Project area 

contain an average of 24square feet per acre basal area of snags in a variety of size classes 

(Thompson pers. comm.). Zielinski et al (2004) reports an average of 44 square feet per acre basal 

area of snags present in the immediate vicinity of fisher rest sites. Units with snag retention at the rate 

of 30 or 100 to 120 square feet per acre would provide higher quality habitat for fisher post treatment 

than those with only 12 square feet per acre. 

Areas with above average snag retention would provide the most snags to contribute to structural 

complexity and diversity within recovering forested stands. Areas that occur within a few hundred 

yards from suitable fisher habitat not proposed for treatment are expected to be used by fisher in the 

near future as vegetative cover returns, providing fisher protection from predators. Areas with average 

snag retention would provide some elements to contribute to the structural complexity and diversity 

within recovering forested stands. 

As in Alternative 1, all hardwood snags would be retained under Alternative 3 and no change in 

habitat quality is expected as a result of implementation. 

The rate of snag retention proposed under this alternative is adequate to maintain the moderate and 

high capability habitat or fisher on about 50 percent of the area proposed for treatment under this 

alternative. The remaining 50 percent would have fewer snags than is documented in occupied fisher 

habitat; however, the snags retained are expected to provide some habitat elements for resting, 

denning and prey in the short-term, and in the long-term as large downed woody debris. 

369
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Downed woody debris retention at 15-20 tons per acre, if available in larger size classes, would 

provide habitat important for fisher and their prey. In most areas, there is a lack of sufficient large 

downed woody material, making snag retention and eventual recruitment as downed logs even more 

critical. Fuels treatments that result in the removal of smaller downed woody material may result in a 

more diverse understory including more herbaceous and shrub vegetation that would benefit fisher 

and their prey. 

Indicator 4. Under Alternative 3, new permanent road construction, temporary road construction, and 

road reconstruction are described in Chapter 2. Table 3.15-51 displays the miles of each type of roadrelated treatment and the resulting miles per square mile under this alternative. 

Table 3.15-51 Miles of road treatments within potential fisher habitat, Alternative 3

New 

Permanent 

Road 

Construction

(miles)

Road 

Reconstruction 

(currently 

designated

for motor vehicle 

travel)

Road 

Reconstruction 

(currently NOT 

designated

for motor 

vehicle travel)

Temporary 

Road 

Construction

Roads Added for 

Project Use 

During 

Implementation

(mi/mi2)

Total Road 

DensityExisting Plus 

Additional 

for Project

(mi/mi2)

1.0 216.6 31.0 28.9 0.4 2.0

The new road construction and temporary road construction proposed under this alternative would 

result in an increase of 0.4 miles per square mile of road, effectively increasing the road density from 

1.6 miles per square mile to 2.0 miles per square mile during project implementation. This would 

have a slightly greater negative effect on habitat quality in the short-term than under Alternative 1, 

but effects are still expected to be minor. This may slightly increase the potential for road related 

mortality during project implementation while the roads are open and being used regularly. Because 

there are no documented occurrences within the analysis area this risk is considered low. The new 

permanent road designation as blocked Maintenance Level 1 or Level 2 gated year round, would 

alleviate the risk of road related mortality because the roads would only be used intermittently for 

management purposes. They would however result in habitat fragmentation in the long-term due to 

habitat removal as a result of the road construction, and future hazard tree removal within 200 feet of 

the roads edge in the long-term. This would reduce the quality of habitat adjacent to those new roads.

All temporary roads would be obliterated and blocked and over time vegetation would become 

reestablished and all roads that were non-motorized before project implementation would be returned 

to the pre-project specifications. These effects would be less than under the proposed action because 

there are 4.4 fewer miles of new permanent road proposed under this alternative. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Refer to the cumulative effects discussion under Alternative 1 outlining those present and foreseeable 

future activities scheduled on public and private lands. The cumulative contribution of Alternative 3 

would be less than those described under Alternative 1, due to slightly fewer acres proposed for 

treatment within moderate and high capability habitat, higher snag retention within OFEA, HRCA, 

and FCCC units, and 4.4 miles less new permanent road construction. The cumulative contribution 

under Alternative 3 would affect fishers and their habitat in the short and long-term, but is not 

expected to affect the viability of this species. 

Alternative 4 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indicator 1. Discussed under effects common to all action alternatives. 

Indicator 2. Same as Alternative 3. 

370
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Indicator 3. Under Alternative 4, the snag retention guidelines are the same as outlined under 

Alternative 3, only the amount of area proposed for treatment has changed. Table 3.15-52 displays the 

acres affected by the snag retention requirements proposed under this alternative. While percentages 

vary slightly between Alternatives 3 and 4, effects from Alternative 4 are expected to be the same as

discussed under Alternative 3. 

Table 3.15-52 Snags retained in salvage units within potential fisher habitat, Alternative 4

12 feet2 per acre* 

General Forest

Average

30 feet2 per acre

(OFEA, HRCA, FCCC)

Above Average

100-120 feet2 per acre

(PSW Research)

Above Average

13,278 12,279 2,089

* Converted from 4snags per acre for comparison; assuming retention of 24 inches dbh snags. 

Indicator 4. Under Alternative 4, temporary road construction, and road reconstruction are described 

in Chapter 2. Table 3.15-53 displays the miles of each type of road-related treatment and the resulting 

miles per square mile under this alternative. 

The new road construction and temporary road construction proposed under Alternative 4 would 

result in an increase of 0.4 miles per square mile of road, effectively increasing the road density from 

1.6 miles per square mile to 2.0 miles per square mile during project implementation. Although the 

road density is slightly above Alternative 1, no new permanent road construction is proposed. Thus, 

no long-term habitat fragmentation is expected under Alternative 4. This may slightly increase the 

potential for road related mortality during project implementation while the roads are open and being 

used regularly. All temporary roads would be obliterated and blocked and over time vegetation would 

become reestablished and all roads that were non-motorized before project implementation would be 

returned to the pre-project specifications. Because there are no documented occurrences within the 

analysis area this risk is considered low. 

Table 3.15-53 Miles of road treatments within potential fisher habitat, Alternative 4

New 

Permanent 

Road 

Construction

(miles)

Road 

Reconstruction 

(currently 

designated

for motor 

vehicle travel)

Road 

Reconstruction 

(currently NOT 

designated

for motor 

vehicle travel)

Temporary 

Road 

Construction

Roads Added for 

Project Use During 

Implementation

(mi/mi2)

Total Road 

DensityExisting Plus 

Additional 

for Project

(mi/mi2)

0 211.2 30.9 27.3 0.4 2.0

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Refer to the cumulative effects discussion under the Alternative 1 outlining those present and 

foreseeable future activities scheduled on public and private lands. The cumulative contribution of 

Alternative 4 would be the least of all the action alternatives as described under Alternatives 1 and 3 

due to having the least amount of acres proposed for treatment within moderate and high capability 

habitat, highest snag retention within OFEA, HRCA, and FCCC units, and no new permanent road 

construction. The cumulative contribution under Alternative 4 would affect fishers and their habitat in 

the short and long-term but is not expected to affect the viability of this species. 

Pacific Fisher: Summary of Effects

Indicator 1. Table 3.15-54 shows the amount of moderate and high capability fisher habitat proposed 

for treatment is very similar for all alternatives. Alternative 1 would affect the most habitat and 

Alternative 4 would affect the least amount of habitat. Alternative 2 would not affect suitable habitat. 

371
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Table 3.15-54 Summary of effects for fisher

Indicator

Alternative

1 2 3 4

Indicator 1 – Moderate and high capability habitat treated

Salvage acres 6,221 0 6,266 5,724

Hazard Tree removal acres 6,677 0 6,562 6,632

Total acres 12,898 0 12,828 12,356

Percent of suitable habitat treated 29 0 29 28

Indicator 3 – Large snags and large downed woody material

12 sq. ft. BA / acre 

General Forest Average 28,140 0 14,691 13,278

30 sq. ft. BA / acre

OFEA, HRCA, FCCC, above average 0 0 13,436 12,279

100 to 120 sq. ft. BA / acre

PSW Research, above average 0 0 2,089 2,089

Full retention, no action 0 29,103* 0 2,571

Indicator 4 – Road treatments in miles

New construction 5.4 0 1.0 0

Reconstruction- currently designated for motor vehicle travel 215.8 0 216.6 211.2

Reconstruction- currently NOT designated for motor vehicle travel 30.9 0 31.0 30.9

Temporary road construction 18.2 0 28.9 27.3

Roads added for project use during implementation (mi/mi2) 0.3 0 0.4 0.4

Total road density existing plus additional for project (mi/mi2) 1.9 1.6 2.0 2.0

*Represents maximum number of potential unit acres in land allocations with old forest observations.

Indicator 2. All action alternatives incorporate the forest carnivore connectivity corridor; however, a 

Forest Plan Amendment is only proposed under Alternatives 3 and 4. Under Alternative 2, no 

connectivity corridor or Forest Plan Amendment would be proposed. 

Indicator 3. Table 3.15-54 shows the acres of areas managed for old forest objectives with higher than 

average levels of large snags and higher than average levels of large down woody material are highest 

in Alternatives 3 and 4. In contrast, Alternative 1 manages no acres for higher than average levels of 

large snags. For retention of large down woody material, all action alternatives manage to a standard 

of 10 to 20 tons per acre but Alternatives 3 and 4 emphasize retention at the higher end (i.e. 20 tons 

per acre) and Alternative 1 does not. Alternative 4 manages for an additional 2,571 acres under full 

retention of snags and down woody material. 

Indicator 4. Of the action alternatives, proposed miles of new permanent road construction is highest 

under Alternative 1 and lowest under Alternative 4. Increases to road density are similar among all 

action alternatives, but long-term effects related to road density are greatest under Alternative 1 

because of the amount of new permanent road construction.

Determinations 

Alternative 1 may affect individuals, but is not likely to contribute to the need for Federal listing or 

result in loss of viability for the Pacific fisher in the analysis area. The following logic check was 

considered (Robinson 1996): project occurs in or affects suitable habitat but compliance with existing 

forest plan direction is demonstrated. 

Alternative 2 may affect individuals, but is not likely to contribute to the need for Federal listing or 

result in loss of viability for the Pacific fisher in the analysis area. The Rim EIS Fuels Report 2014 

and Crook et al. 2013 were considered. 

372
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 3 may affect individuals, but is not likely to contribute to the need for Federal listing or 

result in loss of viability for the Pacific fisher in the analysis area. The following logic check was 

considered (Robinson 1996): project occurs in or affects suitable habitat but compliance with existing 

forest plan direction is demonstrated. 

Alternative 4 may affect individuals, but is not likely to contribute to the need for Federal listing or 

result in loss of viability for the Pacific fisher in the analysis area. The following logic check was 

considered (Robinson 1996): project occurs in or affects suitable habitat but compliance with existing 

forest plan direction is best demonstrated under this alternative. Specifically, no new permanent road 

construction is proposed and the least amount of suitable habitat would be modified under this 

alternative.

Pallid Bat and Fringed Myotis: Affected Environment

Species and Habitat Accounts

The pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) is a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species and is designated as 

a Species of Special Concern by CDFW. They occur in arid regions of western North America from 

British Columbia to Mexico and east to Wyoming (Hermanson and O’Shea 1983). They are usually 

found in low to mid elevation habitats below 6,000 feet; however, they have been documented up to 

10,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada (USDA 2001). Considered yearlong residents, they inhabit 

vegetation types such as Blue Oak Woodland, Mixed Chaparral, and coniferous forests (CDFG 2008, 

Stanislaus National Forest survey records). 

The fringed myotis bat (Myotis thysanodes) is a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species and is 

designated as a Species of Special Concern by CDFW. The fringed myotis bat occurs from southern 

British Columbia south through the western United States and most of Mexico (O’Shea and Bogan 

2003). In California, it occurs from near sea level at the coast to elevations of at least 6,400 feet in the 

Sierra Nevada and in a variety of habitats from low desert scrub to high-elevation conifer forest 

(Philpott 1997). The fringed myotis is a widely distributed species, but it is considered rare (Ibid). 

Although this species occurs in netting and night roost surveys in a number of localities, it is always 

one of the rarest taxa (Pierson et al. 1996). 

North American pallid bat populations have declined over the past 50 years (O’Shea and Bogan 

2003), and limited data from California suggest population declines associated with desert and oak 

woodland habitat loss due to urban expansion (USDA 2001). 

Population estimates and trends for fringed myotis are unavailable, but the limited available data 

suggests the population is declining (Macfarlane and Angerer draft). Not only have historic maternity 

colonies disappeared, but those remaining appear to contain fewer individuals. 

Bat surveys have been conducted in and near the analysis area. Pallid bats have been documented on 

the North Fork Merced River and along Cottonwood Creek (Gellman 1994, Stanislaus National 

Forest survey records). Fringed myotis have been documented at Fahey Pond and the Hetch Hetchy 

adit at the end of road 1N45 (Stanislaus National Forest survey records, CNDDB). They have also 

been documented just outside the analysis area in the lower Tuolumne River and a bridge over the 

South Fork Tuolumne River. Suitable roosting and foraging habitat is present for both species 

throughout the project area and their presence is assumed. 

Pallid bats are common in open, dry habitats including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and 

coniferous forests. They roost in a variety of locations such as bridges, buildings, caves, rock 

crevices, mines, and trees (Hermanson and O’Shea 1983). This species can be found singly, but it is 

gregarious and can often be found roosting in groups. They are sensitive to roost site disturbance 

which may lead to roost abandonment. Suitable habitat is present throughout the project area. There 

373
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

are no barriers precluding movement (dispersal, seasonal, etc.) of this species both within and in close 

proximity to the project area. 

In California, the fringed myotis occurs in valley foothill hardwood, hardwood conifer, and 

coniferous forested habitats. In mist netting surveys, they are found on secondary streams and ponds 

(Stanislaus National Forest survey records). They roost in caves, buildings, mineshafts, rock crevices 

and bridges (O’Farrell and Studier 1980). Studies conducted in California, Oregon, and Arizona, have 

documented that fringed myotis roosts in tree hollows, particularly in large conifer snags (ChungMacCoubrey 1996, Rabe et al. 1998, Weller and Zabel 2001, Pierson et al. 2006). Most of the tree 

roosts were located within the tallest or second tallest snags in the stand and were surrounded by 

reduced canopy closure (Ibid). They are gregarious and can be found roosting with other bat species, 

such as the long eared myotis (M. Baumbach pers. obs.). They exhibit high roost site fidelity, 

sometimes in different trees but within a small area (O’Farrell and Studier 1980, Weller and Zabel 

2001). Fringed myotis are highly sensitive to roost site disturbance (Ibid). 

Pallid bats breed in the fall with delayed implantation occurring in the spring. Females form maternity 

colonies in April that may contain up to 100 individuals (Zeiner et al. 1990b). Males sometimes roost 

in or near to maternity colonies. Horizontally-oriented rock crevices are preferred diurnal roost sites 

in the summer, which coincides with maternity colony selection and use (Hermanson and O’Shea 

1983). 

Fringed myotis also breed in the fall, with delayed implantation occurring in the spring. Females give 

birth to one young per year typically from May to July (Philpott 1997; Harvey et al 1999). Maternity 

colonies may contain up to several hundred individuals. In California in recent years smaller colonies 

of 25-50 are more typical.

 Pallid bats forage in open canopied woodlands, riparian areas, and grassland or meadow habitat. 

They are maneuverable on the ground and commonly forage between one and five feet above the 

ground for prey such as Jerusalem crickets, longhorn beetles, scorpions, and occasionally large moths 

and grasshoppers (USDA 2001, Zeiner et al. 1990). They readily use roads, meadows, oak woodlands 

and other open areas to hunt. 

Individual fringed myotis emerge from roost sites to forage approximately 1-2 hours after sunset. 

They forage in and among vegetation along forest edges and in the overstory canopy. They feed on a 

variety of insect prey, including small beetles, moths, and fly larvae caught in flight or gleened from 

vegetation (Ibid). Fringed myotis often forage in meadows and along secondary streams, in fairly 

cluttered habitat. (Pierson et al. 2001). They are known to fly during colder temperatures and 

precipitation (Hirshfeld and O’Farrell 1976). Even snow does not appear to affect emergence 

(O’Farrell and Studier 1975, M. Baumbach pers. obs.). Keinath (2004) found that travel distances 

from roosting to foraging areas may be up to five miles. 

Dispersal patterns in pallid bats aren’t known. Pallid bats are not known to migrate long distances. 

They are relatively inactive and either hibernate or enter extended periods of torpor during the winter 

(Hermanson and O’Shea 1983). 

Dispersal patterns are also unknown for fringed myotis. Although known to migrate, little is known 

regarding the species movement (O'Farrell and Studier 1980). Fringed myotis are year-round 

residents in California and are known to hibernate but are also capable of periodic winter activity 

(Philpott 1997). 

Risk Factors

 White Nose Syndrome. The largest emerging threat to all cave-roosting species is the fungal 

disease white-nose syndrome (WNS). Massive die-offs result once a colony is infected. Because 

pallid bats and fringed myotis readily uses caves for roosting, they are considered highly 

374
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

susceptible to contracting WNS. Although not yet documented in California, the disease is 

moving to the west. 

 Timber Harvest and loss of snags as roosting sites. The loss of large diameter snags and live trees 

for roosts due to fire or harvest activities can affect roost availability. In some forested settings, 

the fringed myotis appears to rely heavily on tree cavities and crevices as roost sites (Weller and 

Zable 2001), and may be threatened by certain timber harvest practices that result in the removal 

of snags. Retention of existing large trees and management of forested habitat will provide short 

and long-term habitat.

 Fire Suppression. Pallid bats are at risk from loss of open foraging habitat from fire suppression

and may reduce foraging habitat in the long-term.

 Mining. The resurgence of gold mining in the West potentially threatens mine dwelling bat 

species such as pallid bats and fringed myotis (Macfarlane and Angerer draft). Mining 

exploration has resulted in an increase in roost disturbance and abandonment. Closure of old 

mines for hazard abatement or safety can reduce habitat availability if mines aren’t closed using 

bat friendly gates. 

 Rangeland management. Pallid bats frequently forage in open areas such as oak woodlands. 

Fringed myotis frequently forage along riparian corridors or over meadows. Overgrazing and 

trampling may alter meadow hydrology or riparian ecosystems, resulting in reduced insect 

diversity, productivity, and reducing foraging success (Macfarlane and Angerer draft, Ferguson 

and Azerrad 2004). 

Management Direction

The pallid bat and fringed myotis are both Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species. The Forest Plan 

does not contain specific direction for the management of these species; however, it provides general 

guidance for management of Forest Service Sensitive species. This includes managing to ensure 

conservation or enhancement of these species’ populations and habitats to prevent a trend towards 

Federal listing or a loss of viability. In addition, general direction in the Forest Plan to retain dead 

trees (snags) protects potential roosting and breeding habitat components, particularly for bats. 

Pallid Bat and Fringed Myotis: Environmental Consequences

The project action alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the pallid bats or fringed 

myotis through the following activities:

 Salvage of fire-killed trees. 

 Salvage of roadside hazard trees. 

 Fuels treatments.

 Use of water sources.

These activities may have direct and indirect effects on pallid bats or fringed myotis through the 

following:

 Project related death, injury or disturbance. 

 Project related modifications to habitat quantity or quality. 

Death, injury, or disturbance

Death or injury from project related activities would be unlikely to occur given the mobility of this 

species. However, there is the potential for death or injury if a day roost tree were felled while being 

used by pallid bats or fringed myotis . 

Project activities, especially loud noise, could result in disturbance to day roosting pallid bats and 

fringed myotis. Loud noise from equipment such as chain saws or tractors is expected to occur in 

salvage units, project roads, and at landings, material sources, and water sources. Smoke from pile 

burning may also impact bats that are roosting in close proximity to burning activities. The location of 

375
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

pallid bats and fringed myotis within the analysis area is uncertain. While both species are susceptible 

to disturbance at roost sites that may lead to roost abandonment, it is unlikely that females would 

abandon their young due to their ability to carry pups from roost to roost during normal roostswitching behavior. The tendency for bats to switch roosts under normal circumstances would 

preclude this from causing negative effects to reproduction. If a maternity roost is discovered, an LOP

from April 1 through August 1 would be applied within 300 feet surrounding the site. LOPs in place

for spotted owls, goshawks, great gray owls, and bald eagles would afford protection to bats roosting 

in these areas during pup rearing in the spring and summer months. Foraging behavior would not be 

affected due to their nocturnal foraging behavior. 

Habitat Modification

Salvage logging and the removal of roadside hazard trees would result in reduced habitat quality for 

both pallid bats and fringed myotis. There would be a reduction in the number of potential roosting 

sites for pallid bats and fringed myotis in both the short-term (10 to 20 years) and in the long-term

(20-50 years). However, many snags including all hardwood snags would be retained across the 

treatment units and would continue to provide roosting sites. 

Indicators

The following indicator was chosen to provide a relative measure of the direct and indirect effects to 

the pallid bats and fringed myotis and to determine how well project alternatives comply with Forest 

Plan Direction. 

1. Amount of habitat altered.

This criterion was chosen based on the best available scientific literature focusing on various aspects 

of pallid and fringed myotis ecology and life history requirements. This criterion focuses on those life 

history aspects, or habitat elements, considered most limiting to pallid bats and fringed myotis 

persistence across their range and where project effects are expected. 

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indicator 1. Because there is a small difference in the amount of acres proposed for treatment within 

suitable habitat for pallid bats and fringed myotis under all action alternatives, the effects are 

expected to be similar and are therefore analyzed together. 

Trees or snags with existing cavities or furrowed bark provide roosting habitat for pallid bats and 

fringed myotis (Pierson 1996 and Pierson et al. 2006). Trees with existing cavities, that aren’t deemed 

hazardous, are less likely to be removed because there is little to no economic value associated with 

them. The large coniferous snags with deep furrowed bark preferred by fringed myotis may have 

economic value associated with them. The removal of snag and hazard trees within treatment units 

and along roads would result in a reduction in roost site availability. An estimated 8 snags per acre

greater than or equal to 24 inches dbh are within coniferous habitat that burned at low to moderate 

severity (less than 50 percent basal area mortality). An estimated 21 snags per acre greater than or 

equal to 24 inches dbh are within coniferous habitat that burned at moderate to high severity (greater 

than 50 percent basal area mortality). Most treatment units are within the higher-severity burned areas 

and these snags would have less value as roosting sites. Hazard tree removal would occur across all 

burn severities and would have a greater effect on suitable coniferous habitats that burned at lower 

severities. 

Table 3.15-55 displays the estimated number of snags per acre greater than or equal to 24 inches dbh 

and the minimum number of snags that would be retained within suitable forested conifer habitat 

under the action alternatives. 

376
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Snag densities were estimated using common stand exam data downloaded from the Natural 

Resources Management Natural Resource Information System (NRM NRIS) Field Sampled 

Vegetation Database (FSVeg). All data were collected between 2005 and 2013 (prior to the 2013 Rim 

Fire). A total of 1,183 plots were processed using the Western Sierras variant of the Forest Vegetation 

Simulator (FVS) (Dixon 2002). Plots are assumed to be representative of the CWHR classes within 

the Rim Fire perimeter. Post-fire information was achieved by simulating fire with the following 

basal area mortalities: 0 percent (representing pre-fire conditions and/or post-fire conditions with no 

mortality), 10 percent, 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, 90 percent, and 100 percent. Though 

models are never 100 percent accurate, the simulation results are the best available information for 

this project. Snag densities were averaged for each basal area loss category less than or equal to 50

percent basal area mortality. 

Table 3.15-55 Snags retained in treatment units and within suitable forest habitat

Alternative 

Total Acres Proposed 

For Treatment in

Suitable Habitat

(Salvage and Hazard 

Tree*)

Estimate of Snags per Acre

≥24 inches DBH in Low to 

Moderate 

Burn Severity Suitable Habitat

(Pre-Treatment)

Minimum Snags per Acre

Retained Within Treatment 

Units

Within Suitable Habitat**

(Post-Treatment)

1 10,732 35,624 17,812

3 10,690 36,464 18,232

4 10,346 33,344 16,672

* No snags would be retained within the roadside hazard tree removal area. 

**Based on the minimum requirement of 4 snags per acre retained across all treatment units and the assumption that snags retained 

would be at least 24 inches dbh. 

While there would be a short-term reduction in snags available within treated areas, many would be 

retained and would continue to offer potential roosting sites. Trees that are declining and not subject 

to removal under this project would provide for long-term snag recruitment, being most pronounced 

in areas that burned at low to moderate severity. Areas outside treatment units would also continue to 

offer potential roosting structures. It is unknown how many snags in a given area are used or required 

by pallid bats and fringed myotis, but it is assumed that the snags retained would maintain habitat 

quality for use by these species. About 77 percent of mid-to-late seral coniferous forest within the 

analysis area would remain untreated on NFS land. Because all hardwood snags would be retained 

under all alternatives unless deemed hazardous, no significant change in the number of hardwood 

snags available is expected as a result of implementation. 

The treatments would result in more open conditions within which herbaceous and shrub vegetation 

would regrow quickly providing more foraging habitat for pallid bats. Forest edges, where the low to 

moderate burned forest meets the high severity burned forest, may be modified by treatments but they 

would still be present throughout the analysis area and would continue to provide suitable foraging 

conditions for fringed myotis. The action alternatives would have negligible effects on foraging 

habitat and foraging success for these bats.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

In making the determination for the action alternatives, the cumulative effect on the environment, 

resulting from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions was considered. A list of the actions considered can be found in Appendix 

B. Some, but not all of these foreseeable future actions have or may contribute cumulatively to effects 

on pallid bats and fringed myotis. 

Risk factors potentially affecting the abundance and distribution of pallid bats and fringed myotis has 

been identified and include loss of snags as roosting sites and human disturbance at roost sites. The 

following evaluation criterion was used as a relative measure of cumulative effects from the action 

377
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

alternatives to pallid bats and fringed myotis: Habitat modification resulting in loss of roost sites and 

Human disturbance at roost sites.

Habitat Modification

Federal Lands 

Past, present, and foreseeable future timber harvests and hazard tree removal sales on public lands 

have and will result in a decrease in roosting habitat availability. Present actions within the analysis 

area include: The Twomile Ecological Restoration Vegetation Management Groovy and Funky 

timber sales and the Soldier Creek timber sale are scheduled to treat about 2,045 acres through 

commercial thinning, biomass removal, mastication, and prescribed fire treatments. While 

management requirements are in place to retain all or most snags greater than or equal to 15 inches 

dbh, some inevitably will be removed for safety and operability, reducing available roosting sites for 

bats. In addition, Yosemite National Park is currently removing hazard trees on 816 acres, which will 

result in a decrease in roosting sites for bats. 

Foreseeable future actions on federal lands include: Reynolds Creek Ecological Restoration involving 

meadow and aspen restoration. These types of projects generally include the removal of encroaching

trees. Twomile-Campy, Looney, and Thommy timber sales and Reynolds Creek timber sale are 

scheduled to occur over the next few years and will result in treatment of about 3,798 acres through 

commercial thinning, biomass removal, mastication, and prescribed fire. As a result of the Rim Fire, 

the Rim HT removal project proposed to remove hazard trees along 10,262 acres of level 3, 4, and 5 

roads and is scheduled for implementation beginning in the summer of 2014. These foreseeable future 

projects will reduce roosting site availability. 

Private Lands 

As a result of the Rim Fire, several private land owners have submitted emergency fire salvage 

notices to Cal Fire. A total of 18,407 acre is presently being salvage logged. These salvage activities 

will reduce roost site availability to bats. 

Human Disturbance

Federal Lands 

There are several sources of noise disturbance that occur throughout the forest and include activities 

such as timber harvest, mastication, prescribed fire operations, and recreation. These activities have 

occurred in the past and will continue into the future (Twomile, Reynolds, Rim HT) whether or not 

this project is implemented. Mechanized equipment such as feller-bunchers, skidders, and chippers 

are used to accomplish vegetation treatments, while more manpower in the form of lighters, holders 

and fire engines with hose lays are used to accomplish prescribed fire operations. Under normal 

winter weather years, access to a large portion of the project area is restricted until late spring or early 

summer. This past winter snow has barely restricted access into the Rim Fire area. Vegetation, 

salvage, hazard tree removal, and prescribed fire treatments could occur during the pup rearing 

period, potentially affecting maternity colonies. Recreation disturbance likely occurs as soon as 

access to an area is opened and continues to some degree until access to the area is restricted by snow 

in the fall or early winter. Recreation disturbance would consist of OHVs, camping, hiking, cycling, 

wood cutting, and passenger car driving. These effects vary in intensity, duration and scope with 

weekends typically being a higher use time than weekdays.

Private Lands 

Noise disturbance on private lands will primarily consist of salvage logging operations, involving 

feller bunchers, skidders, chippers, and logging trucks. This past winter, snow barely restricted access

378
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Action Alternatives Contribution/Summary

The action alternatives are expected to contribute cumulatively to effects on pallid bats and fringed 

myotis. Removal of large fire-killed trees and hazard trees would result in fewer roost sites. Removal 

of biomass-sized trees is expected to open up the understory. Because pallid bats forage in open areas, 

the treatments would likely improve foraging opportunities for this species. Disturbance at roost sites 

is possible and may result in displacement of individuals or groups of roosting bats, including roost 

abandonment. LOPs in place near day roosts would afford protection to roosting bats, as their pup 

rearing season overlaps with the breeding seasons for spotted owls, goshawks, great gray owls, and 

bald eagles. The action alternatives would result in cumulative effects on about 4 percent of the 

analysis area. Thus, the cumulative contribution to effects on pallid bats and fringed myotis is 

considered negligible and is not expected to affect the viability of this species. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Under Alternative 2, death, injury or disturbance would not be an issue because no active 

management would occur. 

The indirect effects of No Action are primarily related to the influence no action may have on future 

wildfires and how future wildfires may impact pallid bat and fringed myotis habitat. Predicting the 

effect no action would have on future wildfires and pallid bat and fringed myotis habitat is largely 

speculative given the numerous factors involved over time. As fire-killed trees fall and contribute to 

surface fuel pools, potential fire behavior may be expected to increase (Rim EIS Fuels Report). 

However, potential fire behavior in the future may be dependent on how future management actions, 

especially prescribed fire, are planned and implemented (Stephens and Moghaddas 2005, Stephens et 

al. 2009, Roberts et al. 2011, Crook et al. 2013). 

Indicator 1. Under Alternative 2, habitat quality would not be altered. Within the areas that burned at 

high severity, herbaceous and shrub vegetation is expected to be established within 3-5 years and 

would be suitable as foraging habitat for pallid bats. Edge habitat would also remain in the short-term, 

providing foraging habitat for fringed myotis. 

When wildfire returns to this landscape, the remaining suitable forested habitat adjacent to or near 

areas that burned at high severity may be at increased risk of loss. One of the greatest risks to these 

bats is the loss of snags as roosting habitat. Within 10 years, the fuel loading is predicted to be four to 

eight times higher (78 tons per acre) than the desired condition as described in the Stanislaus National 

Forest, Forest Plan (Rim EIS Fuels Report). This would significantly increase the risk of fire 

suppression activities when the next wildfire occurs. The negative long-term effects on forested 

habitat for pallid bats and fringed myotis from this alternative outweigh the short-term beneficial 

effects. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The Cumulative effects discussion under the action alternatives outlines those present and foreseeable 

future activities scheduled on public and private lands. Under Alternative 2, there would be no direct 

cumulative effect expected because no active management would occur. 

Alternative 2 Contribution/Summary

The cumulative contribution under Alternative 2 would not complement the treatments that have 

occurred in the past, thus increasing the risk of loss of remaining suitable habitat to wildfire in the 

long-term. The short-term beneficial impacts to pallid batsand fringed myotis such as retention of 

snags for roosting sites would be outweighed by the increased risk of additional habitat loss in the 

next wildfire. 

379
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Pallid Bat and Fringed Myotis: Summary of Effects: 

Indicator 1. Table 3.15-56 shows Alternative 3 would result in the highest level of snag retention 

within treatment units. While Alternative 1 has the second highest level of snag retention, followed by 

Alternative 4. Because Alternative 4 has the least amount of suitable habitat acres proposed for 

treatment it is expected to provide the greatest benefit to pallid bats and fringed myotis. 

Determinations 

Alternative 1 may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability for the pallid bat or the fringed myotis. The following logic check was considered

(Robinson 1996): project occurs in or affects suitable habitat but compliance with existing forest plan 

direction is demonstrated. 

Alternative 2 may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability for the pallid bat or the fringed myotis. Hermanson and O’Shea 1983 and O’Farrell and 

Studier 1980 were considered. 

Alternative 3 may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability for the pallid bat or the fringed myotis. The following logic check was considered

(Robinson 1996): project occurs in or affects suitable habitat but compliance with existing forest plan 

direction is demonstrated. 

Alternative 4 may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability for the pallid bat or fringed myotis. The following logic check was considered (Robinson 

1996): project occurs in or affects suitable habitat but compliance with existing forest plan direction is 

best demonstrated under this. Specifically, the least amount of suitable habitat would be modified 

across the analysis area would occur under this alternative.

Table 3.15-56 Summary of the minimum number of snags retained by alternative

Alternative 

Total Acres Proposed 

For Treatment in

Suitable Habitat

(salvage and hazard 

tree)

Estimate of Snags per Acre

≥24 inches DBH in Low to 

Moderate 

Burn Severity Suitable Habitat*

(Pre-Treatment)

Minimum Snags per Acre

Retained Within Treatment 

Units

Within Suitable Habitat**

(Post-Treatment)

1 10,732 35,624 17,812 

2 0 357,080 357,080 

3 10,690 36,464 18,232 

4 10,346 33,344 16,672 

* No snags would be retained within the hazard tree removal area. 

**Based on the minimum requirement of 4 snags per acre retained across all treatment units and the assumption that snags retained 

would be at least 24 inches dbh. Alternatives 3 and 4 would likely have more snags than is displayed. 

Black-backed Woodpecker: Affected Environment

Species and Habitat Account

The black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) is currently listed as a Management Indicator 

Species (MIS) representing the ecosystem component of snags in burned forests, as described in the 

Rim Recovery MIS report available in the project record. Black-backed woodpeckers are distributed 

in boreal regions from south-central Alaska across Canada to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, and 

south in the western United States in Montana and Washington through east-central California 

(Region 5 Sensitive species evaluation form for black-backed woodpecker 2012). The black-backed

woodpecker is a monotypic species that occurs at elevations of 4,000-10,000 feet in the Siskiyou, 

Warner, Cascade, and Sierra Nevada Mountains of California and Nevada south to the southern limits 

of Tulare County in Sequoia National Forest (Ibid). Black-backed woodpeckers are still distributed 

380
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

across their historical breeding range in California (Bond et al. 2012). They have been documented on 

the Stanislaus National Forest in burned forest resulting from previous wildfires such as the Kibbie 

Fire which is within the analysis area (Siegel et al. 2008, 2010). 

In December 2011, the California Fish and Game Commission accepted for consideration a petition 

submitted by the John Muir Project and the Center for Biological Diversity (Hanson and Cummings 

2010) to list the black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) as Threatened or Endangered under the 

California Endangered Species Act. The Commission’s December 15, 2011 action conferred on the 

species the interim designation of “candidate for listing”, effective January 6, 2012, and gave the 

California Department of Fish and Game (now California Department of Fish and Wildlife or CDFW) 

12 months from that date to review the petition, evaluate the available information, and report back to 

the Commission whether or not the petitioned action is warranted. In May 2013, the Commission 

found listing the black-backed woodpecker as Threatened or Endangered under CESA was not 

warranted. A consortium of environmental groups including the John Muir Project, the Center for 

Biological Diversity, the Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project, and the Biodiversity Conservation 

Alliance filed a petition (Hanson et al. 2012) to list the Oregon/California and Black Hills (South 

Dakota) populations of the black-backed woodpecker as Threatened or Endangered under the federal 

Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepared a 90-day finding indicating 

that the petitioned action may be warranted; therefore when funds become available, they will initiate 

a review of the status of the two populations to determine if listing either or both the Oregon 

Cascades-California population and the Black Hills population as either a subspecies or as a Distinct 

Population Segment is warranted (Federal Register 2013b). 

Trends in black-backed woodpecker populations according to Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data 

throughout the species range were non-significantly positive between 1966 and 2007 but significantly 

negative (a reduction of 7 percent per year) between 1980 and 2007. Within the Sierra Nevada 

Physiographic Province, including most of the species range in Region 5, trends were nonsignificantly negative during both 1966-2006 and 1980-2006, but these trend estimates were based on 

observations along only five BBS routes. Thus, black-backed woodpecker trends are not wellmonitored by the BBS methodology, due to its patchy distribution and low detection probability 

during passive point counts (Region 5 Sensitive species evaluation form for black-backed

woodpecker 2012). Recently initiated MIS monitoring will help address this issue (Siegel et al. 2008; 

2010, Rim EIS MIS Report). Population trends of black-backed woodpeckers are poorly known 

(Bond et al. 2012). Such analyses are especially difficult for this species due to the ephemeral nature 

of the woodpecker’s burned habitat, its tendency not to re-use nesting cavities in subsequent years, 

and the low density at which the species occurs in unburned forests (Ibid). Inclusion of black-backed

woodpecker monitoring in the Forest Service’s MIS program for 10 national forest units in California 

should yield trend information for the species in burned forests of the Sierra Nevada and southern 

Cascades in the coming years (Siegel et al. 2010, 2011, 2012b; Saracco et al. 2011). 

The number of black-backed woodpeckers occupying recent fire areas that burned from 2000 to 2010

in the Sierra Nevada appears not to exceed several hundred pairs. Population estimates in ‘green’ 

forests of the Sierra Nevada range from several hundred to several thousand pairs (Bond et al. 2012). 

As previously stated, recent inclusion of the black-backed woodpecker monitoring surveys for the 

Forest Service MIS program occurs on an annual basis and focuses on burned forests. Occupancy 

rates of burned forests during 2009 to 2011 suggest a relatively stable population at least during this 

time period (Siegel et al. 2012). Surveys on the Stanislaus in the past several years confirmed blackbacked woodpecker occupancy in wildfire areas such as the Kibbie, Knight, and Ramsey Fires. 

The analysis area is within the current distribution of black-backed woodpeckers across the Sierra 

Nevada Bioregion. Prior to the Rim Fire, there were very few acres of burned forest suitable for 

black-backed woodpeckers within the Rim Recovery analysis area. Exact acres could not be 

381 
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

calculated because snag retention from previous fires and the associated projects were based on 

numbers of snags, not acres of snag patches. However, only low snag densities were retained and 

many of those snags have likely fallen. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that there were very few 

acres, if any, of burned forest suitable for black-backed woodpeckers prior to the Rim Fire. The 

project contains suitable habitat for this species and presence has recently been documented near 

Ackerson Meadow (NRIS Wildlife database).

The black-backed woodpecker is strongly associated with burned forests, more closely than any other 

western bird species (Hutto1995, Hutto 2008, Bond et al. 2012). Although the black-backed

woodpecker is found in unburned forested stands throughout its range, population densities in

recently burned forest stands are substantially higher (Hutto 1995, Hoyt and Hannon 2002, Smucker 

et al. 2005, Hutto 2008, Fogg et al. 2012). During broadcast surveys for black-backed woodpeckers in 

burned forests throughout the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascades, and Warner mountains in 2009 and 

2010, 95 percent of detections were between 4,793 to 8,517 feet above sea level (R. Siegel 

unpublished data). Survey stations above 9,186 feet have not been established, so the upper boundary 

of the range of detection may be higher than currently documented. Black-backed woodpecker homeranges are highly variable and are shown to range from 59 to 751 acres (Siegel pers. comm.). Snag 

basal area alone best predicted home-range size, explaining 54 to 62 percent of observed variation 

(Ibid). As snag basal area increased, home-ranges exponentially decreased in size, strongly suggesting 

increased habitat quality. 

Suitable habitat is defined specifically for this project and includes the following (CWHR) habitat 

types, size classes, and densities: Douglas-fir (DFR), Jeffrey pine (JPN), lodgepole pine (LPN), 

ponderosa pine (PPN), red fir (RFR), subalpine conifer (SCN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), and 

white fir (WFR); size classes greater than or equal to 3; pre-fire canopy closures M and D; and basal 

area loss greater than or equal to 50 percent. Habitat criteria used in this analysis were determined 

from CWHR (CDFW 2014b), scientific literature (e.g., Russell et al. 2007, Hanson and North 2008, 

Vierling et al. 2008, Bond et al. 2012, Siegel et al. 2013) and Forest Service Region 5 Regional Office 

guidance. 

Table 3.15-57 Amount of suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat in the Rim Fire area

Suitable Habitat (acres) Proportion of habitat

Private Lands 6,061 12

Public Lands (STF and YNP) 45,121 88

Total 51,182 100

Burned forest habitat is most productive for black-backed woodpeckers during the first eight years 

following a fire. Burned habitat on private lands is assumed to be completely removed through 

salvage logging. Treatments are limited on National Park Service Lands, typically consisting of 

minimal removal of hazardous trees along roadways. NFS lands are treated to varying degrees 

following a fire. In California from 2006-2013, approximately 21 percent of NFS lands classified as 

burned forest have been treated or are proposed for salvage logging or hazardous tree removal. This 

percentage includes the treatments proposed for the American, Aspen, and Rim fires which occurred 

in 2013. When combined with suitable burned forest habitat on National Park Service and private 

lands within California for the same timeframe (2006-2013), approximately 31 percent of burned 

forest has been or is proposed for salvage logging or hazardous tree removal. Approximately 69 

percent of burned forest habitat remains or would remain untreated and available to black-backed 

woodpeckers. The Rim Fire burned primarily on public land in two administrative units: Stanislaus 

National Forest and Yosemite National Park. Most of the suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat 

within the Rim Fire perimeter occurs on Stanislaus National Forest. Table 3.15-57 shows the amount 

382
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

of suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat on both public and private lands. Table 3.15-58 shows 

the amount of suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat on public lands only. 

Table 3.15-58 Amount of suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat on public lands only

Suitable Habitat (acres) Proportion of habitat

Yosemite NP (incl. 17 acre) BLM 17,504 39

Habitat Stanislaus NF 27,617 61

Total 45,121 100

Black-backed woodpeckers are primary cavity excavators, creating holes in trees in which to lay their 

eggs and raise their young (Dixon and Saab 2000). Breeding typically occurs in April-May and both 

sexes incubate, brood, and feed young (Ibid). Nest cavities are usually excavated in snags but can be 

found in dead portions of live trees and in unburned forests. Nests are excavated in conifer trees and 

typically average 13-14 inches, which corresponds to CWHR size classes 4-5. Nest trees have 

occasionally been documented as small as 7 inches, which corresponds with CWHR size class 3 

(Bond et al. 2012 and Seavy et al. 2012). 

Black-backed woodpeckers readily forage on larvae of wood-boring beetles, engraver beetles, and 

mountain pine beetles found in the trunks of burned conifers (Dixon and Saab 2000). Hanson and 

North (2008) found preferential foraging on large snags greater than 20 inches dbh in a study of 3 fire 

areas in the Sierra Nevada, which corresponds to CWHR size classes 4-6. Preliminary data from an 

ongoing study at two recent fire areas on the Lassen National Forest suggests that black-backed

woodpeckers forage on all available size classes of snags (R. Siegel unpub. data). 

Black-backed woodpeckers in western North America are not known to be migratory, although 

limited down-slope dispersal in winter has been reported (Dixon and Saab 2000). Reliance on 

recently burned areas of coniferous forest for breeding necessitates some post-breeding and post-natal 

dispersal to colonize new burns, but dynamics of dispersal in this species are not well studied (Ibid.). 

Occasional irruptions of 100's of km or more have been documented in eastern North America in 

response to food-resource and breeding dynamics; similar irruptions in western North America have 

not been recorded. In the Sierra Nevada, black-backed woodpeckers frequently colonize burned forest 

patches and breed in them less than one year after fire; no information is available indicating how far 

such individuals have dispersed (Dixon and Saab 2000, Siegel et al. 2008). 

Risks factors to black-backed woodpeckers have been summarized in “A Conservation Strategy for 

the black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) in California – Version 1.0”:

 Salvage logging and other management involving post-fire snag removal. Management activities 

commonly employed following wildfire, including salvage logging and hazard tree removal, have 

resulted in negative impacts such as reduced abundance and reproductive success in black-backed 

woodpeckers (Saab and Dudley 1998, Hutto and Gallo 2006, Saab et al. 2007, Koivula and 

Schmiegelow 2007, Hutto 2008, Cahall and Hayes 2009, Saab et al. 2009). Saab and Dudley 

(1998) and Hutto and Gallo (2006) found that nest densities were much higher in unlogged postfire stands when compared with salvaged stands. 

 Thinning of unburned forests. Pre-fire forest thinning can decrease post-fire occupancy rates and 

nest densities of black-backed woodpeckers, and thinning or removal of medium and large snags 

may decrease habitat suitability in unburned forests. For example, black-backed woodpecker 

abundance in forests that were commercially thinned and then later burned in wildfire was lower 

than in burned forests that were not thinned before fire in the Rocky Mountains (Hutto 2008). 

 Firewood cutting for personal use in recent fire areas. Although systematic data on the effects of 

fuelwood cutting on nesting black-backed woodpeckers are not available, small scale harvesting 

383
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

of fuelwood by the public for personal use, from recent fire areas as well as unburned lodgepole 

pine forests, can destroy active black-backed woodpecker nests.

 Time since fire. Probability of occupancy and nesting by black-backed woodpeckers in burned 

forest is negatively correlated with years since fire during the decade after the fire. 

 Fire Suppression. If fire suppression reduces the amount of mid- and high-severity post-fire 

habitat available for black-backed woodpecker, it may be considered a threat to the species. 

 Climate change. Although uncertain, climate change may affect the black-backed woodpecker

through altered fire regimes and adjustments in distribution (e.g., occupying higher elevations and 

northern latitudes).

Management Direction

The Forest Plan does not contain management direction for black-backed woodpeckers (USDA 

2010a). Management direction for black-backed woodpecker populations and habitat, snags in burned 

forest, can be found in the Wildlife MIS Report. Management recommendations for black-backed 

woodpeckers can be found in the Conservation Strategy for the Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides 

arcticus) in California. Version 1.0. The Conservation Strategy for black-backed woodpecker 

includes the following recommendations: 

Recommendation 1.1. Within the range of the black-backed woodpecker, ensure that post-fire 

management occurring in new fires that burn 123 acres or more of conifer forest at moderate- to highseverity consider snag retention and other burned-forest habitat needs of the species. Where feasible, 

black-backed woodpeckers will likely benefit most from large patches of burned forest being retained 

in unharvested condition. 

Recommendation 1.4. Retain high tree density in the unburned forest periphery around fire areas, to 

provide foraging habitat in the later post-fire years (Saab et al. 2011).

Recommendation 1.5. Avoid harvesting fire-killed forest stands during the nesting season (generally 

May 1 through July 31). 

Black-backed Woodpecker: Environmental Consequences

This analysis is focused on the project effects related to management of burned forest, areas with 

documented basal area mortality greater than 50 percent. The project alternatives could result in direct 

and indirect effects to the black-backed woodpecker through the following activities:

 Salvage of fire-killed trees.

 Salvage of roadside hazard trees.

These activities may have direct and indirect effects on black-backed woodpeckers through the 

following: 

 Project related death, injury or disturbance. 

 Project related modifications to habitat quantity or quality. 

Death, injury, or disturbance

Death or injury from project related activities would be unlikely to occur given the mobility of this 

species. However, there is the potential for death or injury if a nest tree were felled while being used 

by black-backed woodpeckers.

Project activities, especially loud noise, could result in disturbance that may impair essential behavior 

patterns of the black-backed woodpeckers related to breeding or foraging. Loud noise from 

equipment such as chainsaws or tractors is expected to occur in salvage units, project roads, and at 

landings, material sources, and water sources. The location of black-backed woodpeckers within the 

analysis area is uncertain but expected given the increase in available suitable habitat following the 

Rim Fire. Temporary avoidance of the project site or displacement of individuals is expected during 

384
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

project implementation. Any displacement or avoidance related to noise disturbance would be of 

short duration and would subside shortly after project implementation activities. LOPs in place for 

spotted owls, goshawks, great gray owls, and bald eagles would afford protection to individual blackbacked woodpeckers in these areas during the nesting, nestling and fledgling periods. The potential 

risk to individual black-backed woodpeckers is uncertain because the presence of suitable habitat is a 

recent development and surveys have not yet been conducted. The length of exposure to these 

disturbances is expected for two to three years given the accelerated timeframe of this project and 

implementation. 

Habitat Modification

Salvage logging and the removal of roadside hazard trees would eliminate suitable black-backed

woodpecker habitat by removing the burned snags they require for breeding and foraging. Home 

ranges are known to average about 220 acres based on recent research (Siegel pers. comm.). The 

basal area of burned snags is correlated with the home range size of black-backed woodpeckers 

(Tingley et al. 2014). Retaining large patches of burned snags, preferably greater than 220 acres and 

at elevations above 4,793 feet would provide high quality habitat for black-backed woodpeckers, 

potentially increasing the predicted bird density across the analysis area (Bond et al. 2012, Tingley et 

al. 2014). 

In order to compare alternatives and potential effects to black-backed woodpeckers, a model 

developed by Tingley and others (2014) was designed and used specifically for the Rim Fire area.

This model presents a method for predicting black-backed woodpecker pair density that combines 

model-based estimates of occupancy with expected bird density given occupancy (Ibid). Some of the 

covariates used in the model include pre-fire canopy cover, burn severity, CWHR size class greater 

than 3, and CWHR forest class. This model allows us to compare alternatives, accounting for the 

expected effects to black-backed woodpeckers. The model predicts the probability that a single cell 

(98 feet by 98 feet) is occupied by a black-backed woodpecker. The developer’s intent for use of this 

model includes using density estimates to examine the relative effects of proposed alternatives to 

black-backed woodpeckers. Values are relative and should scale proportionally (Ibid). 

Tingley and others (2014) report a total of 42 predicted pairs of black-backed woodpeckers within the 

Rim Fire area on the Stanislaus National Forest, which includes the Rim Recovery Project and the 

Rim HT project. For analysis of direct and indirect effects associated with the Rim Recovery project 

only, 39 was used as the maximum predicted pair density possible. The cumulative effects analysis 

includes the predicted pairs associated with the Rim HT project and Yosemite National Park.

Indicators

The following indicators provide a relative measure of the direct and indirect effects to the blackbacked woodpecker and to determine how well project alternatives comply with this species’ 

conservation strategy recommendations. 

1. Amount of suitable habitat modified. 

2. Predicted pair density retained as a proportion of modeled pairs (Tingley et al. 2014). 

These criteria were chosen to supplement information provided in the MIS report by identifying and 

analyzing potential effects to the black-backed woodpecker related to expected densities within the 

project area. While the Rim Recovery MIS Report focuses on the relationship of project-level habitat 

impacts to bioregional scale trend, the effects analysis here focuses on the relative value of different 

proposed management units by alternative within the Rim Fire area based on habitat quantity and 

quality (Tingley et al. 2014). Acres in this analysis may vary slightly from those presented in the MIS 

report due to rounding error or to minor corrections made to continuously revised dynamic database 

sources.

385
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indicator 1. Table 3.15-59 shows 17,461 acres of suitable habitat would be removed under 

Alternative 1. 

Indicator 2. Table 3.15-59 shows the proportion of modeled pairs retained is 41 percent under 

Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, 10,156 acres (37 percent) of suitable habitat would be retained. 

The remaining suitable habitat is predicted to support a density of 16 pairs of black-backed

woodpeckers. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 1 results in the least amount of habitat retention 

for black-backed woodpeckers and the lowest predicted pair density. 

Table 3.15-59 Proposed treatments in suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat and corresponding predicted 

pairs retained, Alternative 1

Alternative Salvage

(acres)

Hazard 

Tree

Removal 

(acres)

Total 

Acres 

Treated

Percent of 

Habitat 

Removed

Modeled

Pairs 

Retained

Percent of 

Modeled Pairs 

Retained

1 16,099 1,362 17,461 63 16 41

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions was considered (found in Appendix B, 

Cumulative Effects). Some, but not all of these actions have or may contribute cumulatively to effects 

on black-backed woodpeckers. 

Risk factors potentially affecting black-backed woodpecker abundance and distribution have been 

identified and include habitat removal through salvage logging and other management involving postfire snag removal, such as hazard tree removal. The following evaluation criterion was used as a 

relative measure of cumulative effects of this alternative to black-backed woodpeckers: habitat 

modification.

Habitat Modification

Federal Lands 

Present and foreseeable future salvage and hazard tree removal projects on federal lands include: the 

Rim Fire Hazard Tree project, which would affect 2,370 acres of suitable habitat and Yosemite 

National Park hazard tree removal, which affected about 43 acres of suitable habitat.

Private Lands 

As a result of the Rim Fire, several private land owners have submitted emergency fire salvage 

notices to Cal Fire. A total of 6,060 acres of suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat is presently 

being salvage logged. These salvage activities generally result in the complete removal of suitable 

habitat. 

Alternative 1 Contribution/Summary 

Alternative 1 is expected to contribute cumulatively to effects on black-backed woodpeckers.

Removal of 17,461 acres (34 percent of the remaining suitable habitat within the analysis area) is 

expected from implementation of this alternative. The predicted pair density within the remaining 

suitable habitat on Stanislaus NFS lands within the fire perimeter is 16 pairs of black-backed

woodpeckers. When added to other private and federal salvage and hazard tree removal projects, a 

total of 51 percent of suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat would be removed from the analysis 

area. The remaining suitable habitat across the analysis area is predicted to support a total of 86 pairs 

386
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

of black-backed woodpeckers. Table 3.15-60 displays proposed treatments, suitable habitat retained, 

and the corresponding predicted black-backed woodpecker pair density across the cumulative analysis 

area under this alternative.

Table 3.15-60 Cumulative proposed treatments in suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat and corresponding 

predicted pairs retained, Alternative 1

Alternative

Salvage

and 

Hazard 

Tree 

Removal 

Within 

Suitable 

Habitat on 

STF*

(acres)

Rim HT 

Project 

STF 

(acres)

Suitable 

Habitat 

Remaining 

Post 

Treatment 

STF 

(acres)

Suitable 

Habitat 

YNP 

(acres)

Total 

Suitable 

Habitat Post 

Treatment** 

STF, YNP,

and Pvt 

(acres)

Percent of 

Habitat 

Removed

(STF, YNP,

and Pvt)

Modeled 

Pairs 

Retained

Percent of 

Modeled 

Pairs 

Retained

1 17,461 2,370 10,156 17,461 27,617 34 86 77

*STF equals Stanislaus National Forest

**private lands are assumed to have no suitable habitat retained after salvage operations; therefore, acres reported are on STF and YNP 

only. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Under Alternative 2, death, injury or disturbance would not be an issue because no active 

management would occur. 

The indirect effects of No Action are related to the amount of habitat retained across the Rim Fire 

area. Under this alternative, 27,617 acres of suitable habitat would be available to black-backed

woodpeckers. The predicted pair density associated with this alternative is 39. This alternative 

provides the most habitat and the highest predicted pair density when compared to the action 

alternatives. Black-backed woodpeckers would be expected to occupy the available suitable habitat 

for 8-10 years, which is typically the period of time burned habitat remains suitable for this species.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The Cumulative effects discussion under Alternative 1 outlines those present and reasonably 

foreseeable future activities scheduled on public and private lands. Under the No Action alternative, 

there would be no direct cumulative effect expected because no active management would occur. 

Table 3.15-61 Cumulative proposed treatments in suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat and corresponding 

predicted pairs retained, Alternative 2

Alternative

Salvage and 

Hazard Tree 

Removal 

Within 

Suitable 

Habitat on 

STF

(acres)

Rim HT 

Project 

STF 

(acres)

Suitable 

Habitat 

Remaining 

Post 

Treatment 

STF 

(acres)

Suitable 

Habitat 

YNP 

(acres)

Total 

Suitable 

Habitat 

Post 

Treatment* 

STF, YNP,

and Pvt 

(acres)

Percent of 

Habitat 

Removed

(STF, YNP,

and Pvt)

Modeled 

Pairs 

Retained

Percent of 

Modeled 

Pairs 

Retained

2 0 2,370 27,617 17,461 45,078 0 109 97

*private lands are assumed to have no suitable habitat retained after salvage operations; therefore, acres reported are on STF and YNP 

only. 

No Action Alternative Contribution/Summary: The cumulative contribution under this alternative 

would result in the highest retention of suitable habitat available for black-backed woodpeckers.

Retention of about 27,617 acres (54 percent of the suitable habitat within the analysis area) is 

expected from implementation of this alternative. The predicted pair density within the remaining 

387
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

suitable habitat on Stanislaus National Forest lands is 39 pairs of black-backed woodpeckers. When 

added to other private and federal salvage and hazard tree removal projects, a total of 45,078 acres 

(83 percent) of suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat would be retained across the analysis area.

This habitat is predicted to support a total of 109 pairs of black-backed woodpeckers. Table 3.15-61 

displays proposed treatments, suitable habitat retained, and the corresponding predicted black-backed

woodpecker pair density across the cumulative analysis area under this alternative.

Alternative 3 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indicator 1. Under Alternative 3, about 16,633 acres of suitable habitat would be removed (Table 

3.15-62). 

Indicator 2. Under Alternative 3, the proportion of modeled pairs retained is 46 percent (Table 3.15-

62).

Table 3.15-62 Proposed treatments in suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat and corresponding predicted 

pairs retained, Alternative 3

Alternative Salvage

(acres)

Hazard Tree

Removal 

(acres)

Total Acres 

Treated

Percent of Habitat 

Removed

Modeled Pairs 

Retained

Percent of Modeled 

Pairs Retained

3 15,311 1,322 16,633 60 18 46

Under Alternative 3, 10,984 acres (40 percent) of suitable habitat would be retained. The remaining 

suitable habitat is predicted to support a density of 18 pairs of black-backed woodpeckers. Alternative 

3 results in retention of an additional 800 acres of suitable habitat compared to Alternative 1 and is 

predicted to support an additional two pairs of black-backed woodpeckers. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Alternative 3 cumulative effects are similar to Alternative 1 discussed previously and which outlines 

those present and foreseeable future activities scheduled on public and private lands.

Habitat Modification

Alternative 3 Contribution/Summary 

Alternative 3 is expected to contribute cumulatively to effects on black-backed woodpeckers.

Removal of 16,633 acres (32 percent of the suitable habitat within the analysis area) is expected from 

implementation of this alternative. The predicted pair density within the remaining suitable habitat on 

Stanislaus NFS lands within the fire perimeter is 18 pairs of black-backed woodpeckers. When added 

to other private and federal salvage and hazard tree removal projects, a total of 49 percent of suitable 

black-backed woodpecker habitat would be removed from the analysis area. The remaining suitable 

habitat across the analysis area is predicted to support a total of 88 pairs of black-backed

woodpeckers. Table 3.15-63 displays proposed treatments, suitable habitat retained, and the 

corresponding predicted black-backed woodpecker pair density across the cumulative analysis area 

under this alternative. 

388
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.15-63 Cumulative proposed treatments in suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat and corresponding 

predicted pairs retained, Alternative 3

Alternative

Salvage 

and 

hazard 

tree 

removal

within 

suitable 

habitat on 

STF 

(acres)

Rim HT 

STF 

(acres)

Suitable 

habitat 

remaining 

post 

treatment 

STF (acres)

Suitable 

habitat 

YNP 

(acres)

Total 

suitable 

habitat 

post 

treatment* 

STF, YNP, 

and 

private 

(acres)

Percent

of habitat 

removed 

STF, 

YNP, and 

private 

(acres

Modeled 

pairs 

retained

Percent

of 

modeled 

pairs 

retained

3 16,633 2,370 10,984 17,461 28,445 32 88 79

*private lands are assumed to have no suitable habitat retained after salvage operations; therefore, acres reported are on STF and YNP 

only.

Alternative 4

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indicator 1. Under Alternative 4, Table 3.15-64 shows 15,261 acres of suitable habitat would be 

removed. 

Indicator 2. Under Alternative 4, Table 3.15-64 shows the proportion of modeled pairs retained is 54

percent. 

Table 3.15-64 Proposed treatments in suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat and corresponding predicted 

pairs retained, Alternative 4

Alternative Salvage

(acres)

Hazard 

Tree

Removal 

(acres)

Total 

Acres 

Treated

Percent of 

Habitat 

Removed

Modeled

Pairs 

Retained

Percent of 

Modeled Pairs 

Retained

4 13,640 1,621 15,261 55 21 54

Under Alternative 4, 45 percent of suitable habitat would be retained. The remaining suitable habitat 

is predicted to support a density of 21 pairs of black-backed woodpeckers. Of the action alternatives, 

Alternative 4 results in the greatest amount of habitat retained for black-backed woodpeckers and the 

highest predicted pair density. Alternative 4 predicted pair density is 21, which is three more than 

Alternative 3 and five more than Alternative 1. Alternative 4 is the only action alternative retaining at 

least half of modeled pairs on NFS lands. Table 3.15-65 shows the proposed specific black-backed

woodpecker habitat retention units. 

Table 3.15-65 Retention units for black-backed woodpecker habitat, Alternative 4

Units Retained for 

Black-backed Woodpecker Habitat Acres 

A01B, A03, A04, A05A, A05B 538

D01A, D02, E01A, E01B, E02 1,229

O01, O02A, O02B, O04, O05, O12 670

R01A, R02 136

Total Acres Retained for Black-backed Woodpeckers 2,571

Using the model created by Tingley and others (2014), patches of retention were selected that ranked 

among the highest predicted values per cell and associated predicted pair occupancy, shown in Figure 

3.15-5 below. The Wildlife Wildlife BE Appendix has more details. 

389
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Figure 3.15-5 Modeled black-backed woodpecker density

390
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Alternative 4 cumulative effects are similar to Alternative 1 discussed previously and which outlines 

those present and foreseeable future activities scheduled on public and private lands.

Habitat Modification

Alternative 4 Contribution/Summary 

Alternative 4 is expected to contribute cumulatively to effects on black-backed woodpeckers.

Removal of 15,261 acres (30 percent of the suitable habitat within the analysis area) is expected from 

implementation of this alternative. The predicted pair density within the remaining suitable habitat on 

Stanislaus NFS lands within the fire perimeter is 21 pairs of black-backed woodpeckers, the highest 

of the action alternatives. When added to other private and federal salvage and hazard tree removal

projects, a total of 46 percent of suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat would be removed from 

the analysis area. The remaining suitable habitat across the analysis area is predicted to support a total 

of 91 pairs of black-backed woodpeckers. Table 3.15-66 below displays proposed treatments, suitable 

habitat retention, and associated predicted black-backed woodpecker pair density across the 

cumulative analysis area under this alternative.

Table 3.15-66 Cumulative proposed treatments in suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat and corresponding 

predicted pairs retained, Alternative 4

Alternative

Salvage

and 

Hazard 

Tree 

Removal 

Within 

Suitable 

Habitat 

on STF

(acres)

Rim HT 

STF 

(acres)

Suitable 

Habitat 

Remaining 

Post 

Treatment 

STF (acres)

Suitable 

Habitat 

YNP 

(acres)

Total 

Suitable 

Habitat 

Post 

Treatment 

STF, YNP,

and Pvt 

(acres)

Percent of 

Habitat 

Removed

(STF, YNP,

and Pvt)

Modeled 

Pairs 

Retained

Percent of 

Modeled 

Pairs 

Retained

4 15,261 2,370 12,356 17,461 29,817 30 91 81

*private lands are assumed to have no suitable habitat retained after salvage operations; therefore, acres reported are on STF and YNP 

only. 

Black-backed Woodpecker: Summary of Effects

Indicator 1. The predicted pair density varies among the action alternatives, shown in Table 3.15-67. 

Alternative 1 would result in the lowest predicted pair density when compared with Alternatives 3 

and 4. Alternative 3 would result in the second lowest predicted pair density and Alternative 4 would 

result in the highest predicted pair density among the action alternatives. Alternative 4 would retain 

over half of modeled pairs on National Forest. 

Table 3.15-67 Summary of predicted pair density of black-backed woodpeckers 

Alternative Salvage

(acres)

Hazard 

Tree

Removal 

(acres)

Total Acres 

Treated

Percent of 

Habitat 

Removed

Modeled

Pairs 

Retained

Percent of 

Modeled Pairs 

Retained

1 16,099 1,362 17,461 63 16 41

2 0 0 0 0 39 100

3 15,311 1,322 16,633 60 18 46

4 13,640 1,621 15,261 55 21 54

391
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Black-backed Woodpecker: Compliance

The Conservation Strategy for the Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) in California 

version 1.0 includes the following recommendations: 

 Recommendation 1.1. Within the range of the black-backed woodpecker, ensure that post-fire

management occurring in new fires that burn 50 or more ha of conifer forest at moderate- to highseverity consider snag retention and other burned-forest habitat needs of the species. Where 

feasible, Black-backed Woodpeckers will likely benefit most from large patches of burned forest 

being retained in unharvested condition. 

 Recommendation 1.4. Retain high tree density in the unburned forest periphery around fire areas, 

to provide foraging habitat in the later post-fire years (Saab et al. 2011). 

 Recommendation 1.5. Avoid harvesting fire-killed forest stands during the nesting season 

(generally May 1 through July 31). 

Alternatives 1 and 3 do not consider snag retention specifically for black-backed woodpeckers.

Alternatives 1 and 3 do not propose to remove green trees in unburned forest unless deemed as 

hazardous along Maintenance Level 2 roads. Alternatives 1 and 3 do not incorporate a limited 

operating period to prohibit salvage harvest during the black-backed woodpecker nesting season. 

Alternative 4 considers full snag retention on 2,571 acres of high quality habitat specifically for 

black-backed woodpeckers. Alternative 4 does not propose to remove green trees in unburned forest 

unless deemed as hazardous along Maintenance Level 2 roads. Alternative 4 does not incorporate a 

limited operating period to prohibit salvage harvest during the black-backed woodpecker nesting 

season. 

Mule Deer: Affected Environment

Species and Habitat Account 

The mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) is an MIS species representing oak-associated hardwood and 

hardwood/conifer in the Sierra Nevada. The mule deer is also a species of conservation concern on 

the Stanislaus National Forest and is considered common to abundant with a wide distribution 

throughout the Sierra Nevada. They occur at elevations of 1,800 feet to 11,800 feet on the west slope 

of the Sierra Nevada. Summer range typically occurs above 6,500 feet elevation, transition range 

occurs between 4,500 feet to 6,500 feet elevation and winter range from 1,800 feet to 4,500 feet

elevation. Mule deer are an important game species that is hunted throughout its range in California.

Trends in the migratory deer populations on the Stanislaus National Forest have been declining since 

the 1970’s (Maddox 1980). The Tuolumne and Yosemite herds have experienced downward 

population trends over the past several decades (Graveline pers. comm.). 

Deer composition counts are conducted by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in 

the spring and fall of each year in order to assess population trends. In 2009, Greg Gerstenberg, 

Senior Environmental Scientist with CDFW, initiated a study of the Tuolumne Mule Deer Herd to 

investigate exotic louse infestation, and its effects on individuals, potential spread, and the resulting 

influence on deer populations. Very High Frequency (VHF) ear tag transmitters and GPS collars are 

being used to monitor deer and gather data on over-winter survival, habitat relationships such as 

migration routes, summer range extent, and winter range use (Gerstenberg 2012, unpub. report). 

Collared deer were monitored shortly after the Rim Fire burned through the critical winter range for 

the Tuolumne Deer herd. Several collared individuals were lost, which indicates loss of many deer 

during the fire (Gerstenberg pers. comm.). Because the fire hit prior to the winter migration, most 

migratory deer were still on their summer ranges at higher elevations. There is a resident herd that 

remains in the lower country year round and these deer were much more susceptible to mortality from 

392
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

the Rim Fire. Eighty percent of collared deer (with a sample size of 5) are thought to have perished in 

the fire (Graveline pers. comm.).

The Tuolumne and Yosemite deer herds have summer, transition, and winter range within the 

analysis area. The Jawbone Ridge area on the Stanislaus National Forest currently supports the 

highest concentration of wintering California mule deer from the Tuolumne Deer Herd and much of 

this area burned at high severity in the Rim Fire. 

Mule deer utilize a variety of vegetation types including oak woodlands, coniferous forest, meadows 

and grasslands, chaparral and riparian corridors. Favorable habitat conditions for deer include 

vegetation communities that occur in a mosaic pattern with multiple age classes represented, and 

where cover and forage are in close proximity to free water (Ahlborn 2006). 

During project development, CDFW was consulted. New telemetry data identified changes to the deer

critical winter range in the Jawbone Ridge area. During the winter months, deer were using additional 

critical areas. 

Mule deer are polygynous, bucks mate with multiple does. Rutting begins in the fall and dominant 

bucks mate with multiple does as they come into estrous. Bucks fight and displace each other 

establishing and re-establishing dominance throughout the season. Gestation is about six to seven 

months, with fawns born typically between the months of May and July.

Mule deer browse or graze, showing preferences for forbs and grasses, as well as tender new shoots 

on various shrub species including manzanita, ceanothus, mountain mahogany, and bitterbrush 

(Kufeld 1973). Forage patterns vary with season, forage quality, and availability. Acorns are a 

critically important fall and winter food. Fawns from the Tuolumne Herd have an average weight that 

is 10-15 percent greater with a heavy black oak acorn crop (Gerstenberg 2012, unpub. report). 

Mule deer are either resident or migratory. Migratory deer travel downslope in the winter where 

conditions are milder and snow PACk is minimal. The deer then migrate upslope in the spring and 

early summer after the snow melts to birth fawns and gain access to high elevation meadows and 

grasslands that offer herbaceous forage high in nutrients.

Risk Factors

Risks to mule deer on the Stanislaus National Forest have been summarized by CDFW (Maddox 

1980) and include:

 Range decadence. Areas where shrub communities become decadent from the lack of fire or 

active management results in forage providing less nutrients to deer, becoming inaccessible or 

unavailable and may impact individual fitness. 

 Grazing. On the summer range, cattle and deer compete for limited forage found in meadows and 

grasslands. Conflicts between cattle and deer on the winter range is not known as a limiting factor 

for deer.

 Oak and shrub removal in type conversions. Establishment of plantations in areas that would 

otherwise be dominated by shrub and oaks can reduce the amount of forage available to deer in a 

given area.

 Poaching. Poaching occurs most often on the winter range and has affected not only the number 

of deer, but the age distribution of bucks. Poachers typically target older bucks presumably for 

the extensive antlers sought by many hunters; however, does are taken as well.

 Loss of Acorn Producing Oaks due to Catastrophic or Stand Replacing Wildfire. Oaks take 

several decades to develop the capacity to produce acorns. Oaks that are lost to wildfire

effectively reduce the amount of forage available and this is a critical food source in both 

transition and winter ranges.

 Loss of Meadow Habitat. Meadows are an important component of deer habitat. Conifer 

encroachment threatens the viability and availability of meadows in the long-term. 

393
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Management Direction

Mule deer are a MIS species representing oak woodland and are also a species of conservation 

concern on the Stanislaus National Forest generally associated with early seral ecosystems (Damarais 

and Krausman 2000). Identifying areas within critical winter deer range for salvage and nonmerchantable material removal to achieve the desired forage/cover ratios was identified as one of the 

purpose and needs for the Rim Recovery project. 

The desired condition for units identified within critical winter range is to have forage to cover ratios 

of about 70 to 30 and to promote the protection and retention of hardwood (individual trees and 

aggregations), meadow, seep, and spring vegetation. 

Mule Deer: Environmental Consequences

The project alternatives could result in direct and indirect effects to the mule deer through the 

following activities:

 Salvage of fire-killed trees. 

 Fuels Treatments.

 New permanent and temporary road construction, road reconstruction, and maintenance.

These activities may have direct and indirect effects on mule deer through the following:

 Project related death, injury or disturbance. 

 Project related modifications to habitat quantity or quality. 

Death, injury, or disturbance

Death or injury from project related activities would be unlikely to occur given the mobility of this 

species. 

Project activities, especially loud noise, could result in disturbance that may impair essential behavior 

patterns of deer primarily on the winter range and transition or intermediate zones present within the 

analysis area. Loud noise from equipment such as chainsaws or tractors is expected to occur in 

salvage units, project roads, and at landings, material sources, and water sources. The location of deer 

within the analysis area is uncertain following the Rim Fire, a large-scale disturbance event.

Temporary avoidance of the project site or displacement of individuals is expected during project 

implementation. Any displacement or avoidance would be of short duration and would subside 

shortly after project implementation activities. LOPs in place for spotted owls, goshawks, great gray 

owls, and bald eagles would afford protection to individual deer in these areas. The potential risk to 

individual deer is considered low because of their natural avoidance behavior and length of exposure 

expected given the accelerated timeframe of this project and implementation. 

Habitat Modification

Salvage logging and the removal of roadside hazard trees would result in short and long-term benefits 

to mule deer. 

Short-term (10 to 20 years), removal of fire-killed trees (i.e., merchantable and non-merchantable) 

would open up areas for vegetation to reclaim the understory. Early seral vegetation, shrubs, grasses, 

and forbs are expected to be established within a few years and would benefit deer. Retaining large 

structural elements available such as snags and down woody material at small scales would provide 

cover for travelling or resting deer. Removing non-merchantable material within migration corridor 

pinch points would allow deer to continue to use traditional migration routes without obstruction. 

Deer would benefit by more easily traversing through the winter range due to removal of nonmerchantable material. Lyon and Jensen (1980) found that elk habitat use was altered when down 

woody debris occurred at depths greater than two feet. Because deer are smaller than elk, they may 

respond at depths less than those that affect elk. For example, Salwasser and others (1982) have 

394
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

suggested that optimal habitat structure for deer in areas of cover includes dense vegetation, but any 

vegetation under four feet should be sufficiently open to allow for deer movement. Removal of nonmerchantable material would also improve their ability to evade predators while on the winter range 

or while transitioning between summer and winter ranges with young fawns (Graveline pers. comm.). 

Removing non-merchantable material from critical winter range would result in the release of 

surviving oaks crowded by standing dead trees and increase light penetration to re-sprouting oaks that 

may have been burned severely in the fire.

Long-term benefits include: the ability to manage for the appropriate ratio of forage to cover, 

providing a more navigable landscape, and potentially reducing deer susceptibility to predation.

Roads modify deer habitat by directly removing it or indirectly reducing its quality, resulting in both 

short and long-term effects. Gaines et al. (2003) studied the response of several focal species, 

including ungulates related to roads and trails. Ungulates in this study were displaced, shifting use of 

habitat away from human activities on or near roads or trails. In addition, increased heart rate has 

been documented, which may decrease survivorship or productivity (Ibid). Rost and Bailey (1979) 

found deer avoid areas within 656 feet of a roads edge. New construction, temporary road 

construction, and reconstruction would result in increased habitat fragmentation and disturbance to 

deer. The potential for road related mortality may increase during project implementation because of 

the increase in the amount of motorized use, particularly logging trucks.

Indicators

The following indicators provide a relative measure of the direct and indirect effects to mule deer. 

1. Amount of critical winter deer range with target forage/cover ratio of 70 to 30. 

2. Road density (miles per square mile) in critical winter range.

3. Retention of hardwoods and hardwood aggregations, meadow and seep vegetation. 

These criteria were chosen based on the best available scientific literature which focuses on various 

aspects of deer ecology and life history requirements. These criteria focus on those life history 

aspects, or habitat elements, considered most limiting to deer persistence across their range and where 

project effects are expected. 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Indicator 1. Under Alternative 1, 1,064 acres were identified for removal of non-merchantable 

material. Table 3.15-68 displays units identified or created and associated non-merchantable material 

removal acres. 

Deer are expected to benefit in the short and long-term from the removal of non-merchantable 

material. Under Alternative 1, habitat quality would be improved on about 19 percent of the critical 

winter range as shown in the Wildlife BE Appendix. Non-merchantable material would be removed 

in a mosaic pattern such that patches of surviving shrubs and small patches of surviving trees would 

be retained to provide forage and cover. Non-merchantable material next to or near surviving or 

sprouting oaks would be removed to provide growing space and greater sunlight penetration to oaks. 

In addition, the removal of this material would allow for the uninhibited re-establishment of 

herbaceous vegetation important to deer in the fall and spring on the winter range. Treatments are 

designed to achieve optimal forage to cover ratios.

Deer would be able to navigate the winter range more effectively if this material were removed. With 

the dense vegetation conditions that currently exist, deer have limited movement corridors within the 

winter range and are more susceptible to predation; therefore by removing this material, habitat 

conditions would be improved. Proposed treatments would result in beneficial impacts on individual 

395
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

fitness through increased forage availability and quality, as well as the potential reduction in 

susceptibility to predation. 

Table 3.15-68 Non-merchantable material removal for mule deer, Alternative 1 

Unit Non-Merchantable 

Material Removal Acres

Total 

Unit Acres

L03 31 31

L06 10 10

L07 5 5

L202 28 142

L203 265 265

L204 87 87

L205 140 140

L206 138 138

M201 35 50

O201 140 299

P201 185 185

Total 1064 1352

Indicator 2. Table 3.15-69 displays the miles of each type of road related treatment in Alternative 1

and the resulting miles per square mile.

Table 3.15-69 Miles of road treatments proposed, Alternative 1

Alternative

New 

Permanent 

Road 

Construction

Road 

Reconstruction 

(currently 

designated

for motor 

vehicle travel)

Road 

Reconstruction 

(currently NOT 

designated

for motor 

vehicle travel)

Temporary 

Road 

Construction

Roads Added for 

Project use During 

Implementation

(mi/mi2)

Total Road 

Density 

Existing 

plus 

Additional 

for Project

(mi/mi2)

1 0.5 15.8 5.4 3.3 0.8 4.4

The road treatments under Alternative 1 would result in an increase of 0.8 miles per square mile of 

road utilized for motor vehicle traffic, effectively increasing the road density from 3.6 miles per 

square mile to 4.4 miles per square mile during implementation. This may increase the potential for 

road related mortality during implementation while the roads are open and regularly used. Most 

project activity would be accomplished during the non-winter season, and any road improved for 

project related activities would be blocked before the winter season. Therefore, negative effects to 

non-migratory deer are expected to be higher because these deer would be displaced. The effects are 

expected to be minor and of short duration. The new permanent road, designated as blocked 

Maintenance Level 1 or gated year round Level 2, would alleviate the risk of disturbance during the 

critical winter period due to intermittent management use. Obliterated temporary roads would provide 

deer browse over time. 

Indicator 3. Alternative 1 has no requirements for retention and protection of hardwood aggregates. 

This could result in the removal of newly sprouting hardwood aggregations of 1/10 to 1⁄2 acre if the 

trees are not large enough to be protected under the retention of all hardwoods greater than or equal to 

12 inches dbh management requirement. Although aggregations are not mapped, a few have been 

observed after the fire. Under Alternative 1, they would not be retained. 

Hardwood aggregations are important in holding areas, areas where deer “hole up” for a few days to 

several weeks until conditions (such as weather) cause them to continue on with their migration 

(Bertram 1977). Holding areas are often areas with a dominant hardwood component. Deer often put 

396
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

on significant fat reserves in these holding areas essential to help get them through the tough winter 

months. Hardwood aggregations on the winter range are important because the acorns provide the 

greatest potential to maintain fat reserves. The removal of any potential aggregations of hardwoods 

under this alternative would have a negative effect on deer. Because it is not known how many 

aggregations may be affected, the extent of adverse impacts is unknown. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions was considered (found in Appendix B, 

Cumulative Effects). Some, but not all of these actions have or may contribute cumulatively to 

effects on mule deer. 

Risk factors potentially affecting mule deer abundance and distribution has been identified and 

include range decadence, degradation, and loss of acorn producing oaks. The following evaluation 

criterion was used as a relative measure of cumulative effects from this alternative to mule deer: 

Habitat Modification. 

Habitat Modification 

Federal Lands

Past, present, and foreseeable future timber harvests and hazard tree removal sales on public lands 

have and will result in habitat modification to deer. Present actions within the analysis area, including 

the Twomile Ecological Restoration Vegetation Management Groovy and Funky timber sales and the 

Soldier Creek timber sale, are scheduled to treat about 2,045 acres through commercial thinning, 

biomass removal, mastication, and prescribed fire treatments. These types of treatments can benefit 

deer through opening up the understory reestablishing herbaceous and shrub vegetation and providing 

new and more palatable forage. These projects are located in general habitat areas and not critical 

winter or summer range. In addition, the Yosemite National Park hazard tree removal on 816 acres is 

expected to have a negligible effect on deer habitat and use. 

Foreseeable future actions on federal lands includes Reynolds Creek Ecological Restoration involving 

meadow and aspen restoration. These types of projects generally include the removal of encroaching

trees. These treatments are occurring in potential transition areas and would benefit deer by providing 

important forage during migration between summer and winter ranges. In addition, Twomile (Campy, 

Looney, and Thommy) and Reynolds Creek timber sales are scheduled to occur over the next few 

years and will result in treatment of about 3,798 acres through commercial thinning, biomass 

removal, mastication, and prescribed fire. These treatments will benefit deer as described under 

present actions above. As a result of the Rim Fire, the Rim HT project, scheduled for implementation 

beginning in the summer of 2014, is expected to have negligible effects on deer habitat and use. 

Thirteen grazing allotments are either wholly or partially within the analysis area, resulting in a 

maximum number of 1,632 cow/calf pairs across the landscape. Cattle are speculated to exclude deer

from important critical summer foraging areas, but this conflict does not occur on the winter range 

(Gerstenberg pers. comm.). Grazing practices may influence meadow hydrology and the quality of 

forage available for deer year round and throughout the analysis area.

Road density is known to affect deer through changes in behavior and habitat modification as 

discussed in this analysis. Twomile Transportation, a foreseeable future action, will result in a slight 

reduction in motorized routes, essentially removing 11.4 miles by gating, decommissioning, or 

closing to Maintenance Level 1. Reynolds Creek Motorized Routes project will decommission 3.5 

miles of unauthorized routes in the near future as well. The Mi-Wok OHV Restoration project 

proposes to block and restore 11.6 miles of unauthorized OHV routes. While these route segments are 

not in critical winter or summer range, there are year round resident deer and deer that travel through 

397
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

these areas that are expected to benefit from a reduction in about 26.5 miles of motorized roads and 

trails across the landscape.

Private Lands 

As a result of the Rim Fire, several private land owners have submitted emergency fire salvage 

notices to Cal Fire. A total of 18,407 acres is presently being salvage logged and are expected to have 

herbicide applied and to be replanted. While this may benefit deer with a flush of new and more 

palatable forage, benefits on private lands are expected to be limited in space and time based on 

typical reforestation efforts.

Alternative 1 Contribution/Summary 

Alternative 1 is expected to contribute cumulatively to effects on mule deer. Removal of nonmerchantable material is expected to open up the understory and provide new and more palatable 

forage for deer. The proposed 1,064 acres of biomass removal on the Tuolumne Deer Herds critical 

winter range and migration pinch points would improve habitat conditions on about 12 percent of the 

critical winter range. Biomass removal is expected to benefit deer in year round and transition habitat 

areas in the short-term. Alternative 1 would result in an increase in road density within critical winter 

range, including the addition of 0.5 miles of new permanent road construction. These effects are 

expected to impact deer in the short-term during project implementation. The cumulative contribution 

under Alternative 1 would provide minor benefits to deer in general habitat areas and would provide 

substantial benefits on the critical winter range near Jawbone Ridge. 

Alternative 2 (No Action) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Under Alternative 2, death, injury, or disturbance would not be an issue because no active 

management would occur. 

The indirect effects of No Action are related to the influence no action may have on future wildfires 

and how future wildfires may impact deer habitat. Predicting the effect no action would have on 

future wildfires and deer habitat is largely speculative given the numerous factors involved over time. 

As fire-killed trees fall and contribute to surface fuel pools, potential fire behavior may be expected to 

increase (Rim EIS Fuels Report). However, potential fire behavior in the future may be dependent on 

how future management actions, especially prescribed fire, are planned and implemented (Stephens 

and Moghaddas 2005, Stephens et al. 2009, Roberts et al. 2011, Crook et al. 2013). 

Indicator 1. Under Alternative 2, no removal of non-merchantable material would occur. Within areas 

that burned at high severity, herbaceous vegetation is expected to be established within 3-5 years 

(Gray et al. 2005 and Moghaddas et al. 2008) which would benefit deer in the short-term. When the 

smaller plantation trees fall, they would likely fall together creating several jackstraw piles over 

hundreds of acres covering a good portion of the ground and shading out herbaceous vegetation. Not 

only would there be a reduction in forage availability in these areas, the jackstraw trees on the ground 

would be difficult for deer to navigate, further reducing the effective habitat area available to them 

and potentially increasing their susceptibility to predation. 

Deer take the same migratory path every year (Bertram 1977). Because of this, migration pinch points 

that burned at high severity are at risk of becoming un-navigable by the deer that use them if the nonmerchantable material were left on site. Navigation of migration corridors and pinch points would be 

more difficult under this alternative, especially for does travelling with young fawns. They would be 

forced to find a new route through unfamiliar territory and may be more susceptible to predation as a 

result. 

When wildfire returns to this landscape, the remaining habitat adjacent to or near areas that burned at 

high severity may be at increased risk of loss. Within 10 years, the fuel loading is predicted to be four 

398
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

to eight times higher (78 tons per acre) than the desired condition as described in the Stanislaus 

National Forest, Forest Plan (Rim EIS Fuels Report). This would significantly increase the risk of fire 

suppression activities when wildfire occurs in the future. Oaks that survived the Rim Fire or those that 

are re-sprouting would be at increased risk of loss under these conditions. The synergistic effects over 

time to the forage and habitat availability to deer on the winter range in particular could be 

devastating to the population. The negative long-term effects on habitat for deer of this alternative 

outweigh the short-term beneficial effects. 

Indicator 2. Under Alternative 2, no new permanent road construction, temporary road construction, 

reconstruction, or maintenance would occur. This alternative would provide the greatest benefit to 

deer because there would be no increase in road density across the analysis area and no potential 

increase of road related mortality in the short or long-term. 

Indicator 3. Under Alternative 2, all hardwood aggregations, meadow and seep vegetation would be 

retained which may have short-term beneficial effects. As discussed under Indicator 1 under this 

alternative, the increased susceptibility to future wildfire would put these aggregations at higher risk 

than any of the action alternatives.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The Cumulative effects discussion under the Alternative 1 outlines those present and foreseeable 

future activities scheduled on public and private lands. Under Alternative 2, there would be no direct 

cumulative effect expected because no active management would occur. 

Alternative 2 Contribution/Summary: The cumulative contribution under Alternative 2 include: New 

understory vegetation would be expected to become established and provide new and more palatable 

forage that would benefit deer in the short-term. Existing conditions consisting of dense standing dead 

conifers throughout the critical winter range would remain. Over time, these snags will fall and 

contribute to fuel loads that would potentially increase fire behavior in the future. The remaining 

suitable habitat would be at greater risk of loss to the next wildfire under these conditions. The shortterm beneficial impacts to deer such as increased early successional habitat would be outweighed by 

the long-term negative impacts. 

Alternative 3

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECT

Indicator 1. Under Alternative 3, 1,739 acres were identified for removal of non-merchantable 

material. Table 3.15-70 displays units identified and associated non-merchantable material removal 

acres.

Under Alternative 3, additional units within the critical winter range were identified for biomass

removal. Deer are expected to benefit in the short and long-term from the removal of nonmerchantable material. Under Alternative 3, habitat quality would be improved on 63 percent of the 

critical winter range as shown in the Wildlife BE Appendix. 

Non-merchantable material would be removed in a mosaic pattern such that patches of surviving 

shrubs and small patches of surviving trees would be retained to provide forage and cover. Nonmerchantable material next to or near surviving or sprouting oaks would be removed to provide 

growing space and greater sunlight penetration to the oaks. In addition, the removal of this material 

would allow for the uninhibited re-establishment of herbaceous vegetation important to deer in the 

fall and spring on the winter range. Treatments are designed to achieve optimal forage to cover ratios.

Deer would be able to traverse the winter range more effectively if this material were removed. With 

the dense vegetation conditions that currently exist, deer have limited movement corridors within the 

winter range and are more susceptible to predation. Therefore, by removing this material, habitat 

conditions would be improved. These treatments would result in beneficial impacts on individual 

399
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

fitness through increased forage availability and quality, as well as the potential reduction in 

susceptibility to predation. 

Table 3.15-70 Non-merchantable material removal for mule deer, Alternatives 3 and 4 

Unit Non-Merchantable 

Material Removal Acres

Total 

Unit Acres

L03 30 30

L04 25 79

L07 5 5

L201 92 92

L202 28 142

L203 250 695

L204 340 1519

L205 475 755

L206 15 81

M201 35 74

M202 20 138

M203 20 63

M204 79 282

O201A 80 156

O201B 60 120

P201 185 185

Total 1,739 4,416

Indicator 2. Table 3.15-71 displays the miles of each type of road related treatment in Alternative 3

and the resulting miles per square mile.

Table 3.15-71 Miles of road treatments, Alternatives 3 and 4

Alternative

New 

Permanent 

Road 

Construction

Road 

Reconstruction 

(currently 

designated

for motor 

vehicle travel)

Road 

Reconstruction 

(currently NOT 

designated

for motor 

vehicle travel)

Temporary 

Road 

Construction

Roads Added for 

Project use During 

Implementation

(mi/mi2)

Total Road 

Density 

Existing 

plus 

Additional 

for Project

(mi/mi2)

3 0 22.6 4.0 6.4 0.9 4.5

4 0 22.6 4.0 6.4 0.9 4.5

Under Alternative 3, no new permanent road construction is proposed. The temporary road 

construction, reconstruction and maintenance proposed under these alternatives would result in an 

increase of 0.9 miles per square mile of road utilized for motor vehicle traffic, effectively increasing 

the road density from 3.6 miles per square mile to 4.5 miles per square mile during implementation. 

This may increase the potential for road related mortality project implementation while the roads are 

open and regularly used. Most project activity would be accomplished during the non-winter season, 

and any road improved for project related activities would be blocked before the winter season.

Therefore, adverse effects to non-migratory deer are expected to be higher because these deer would 

be displaced. The effects are expected to be minor and of short duration. 

Indicator 3. Under Alternative 3, all hardwood aggregations, meadow and seep vegetation within 

units would be flagged, avoided, and retained. Aggregations are 1/10 to 1/2 acre groups of sprouting 

hardwood or of meadow or seep vegetation. 

400
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

Although aggregations aren’t mapped, a few have been observed after the fire. Hardwood 

aggregations are important in holding areas, areas where deer “hold up” for a few days to several 

weeks until conditions (such as weather) cause them to continue on with their migration (Bertram 

1977). Holding areas are often areas with a dominant hardwood component. Deer often put on 

significant fat reserves in these holding areas essential to help get them through the tough winter 

months. Hardwood aggregations on the winter range are important because the acorns provide the 

greatest potential to maintain fat reserves. Retaining the aggregations of hardwoods under these 

alternatives would benefit deer. Because it is not known how many aggregations may be affected, the 

extent of beneficial impacts is unknown. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The Cumulative effects discussion under the Alternative 1 outlines those present and foreseeable 

future activities scheduled on public and private lands and are considered in Alternative 3. The 

cumulative contribution of Alternatives 3 would be greater than those described under Alternative 1 

because the Tuolumne Deer Herd critical winter range would have an additional 675 acres of nonmerchantable material removed, improving habitat conditions across 63 percent of the critical winter 

range. Fuels treatments, including biomass removal and pile and burning outside the critical winter 

range, would affect 6,640 acres within treatment units and are expected to benefit deer in year-round 

and transition habitat areas in the short-term. There would be no new permanent road construction 

under Alternative 3. The cumulative contribution under Alternatives 3 would provide minor benefits 

to deer in general habitat areas and would provide substantial benefits on the critical winter range 

near Jawbone Ridge. 

Alternative 4

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 3. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Same as Alternative 3. 

Mule Deer: Summary of Effects

Indicator 1. Table 3.15-72 shows Alternatives 3 and 4 would improve the greatest amount of habitat 

by removing non-merchantable material. Alternative 1 would improve the least amount of habitat. 

Table 3.15-72 Summary of non-merchantable material removal

Alternative Units with Non-Merchantable Material Removal Total Acres

1 L03, L06, L07, L202-206, M201, O201, P201 1,064

2 N/A 0

3 L03, L04, L07, L201-206, M201-204, O201, P201 1,739

4 L03, L04, L07, L201-206, M201-204, O201, P201 1,739

Indicator 2. Table 3.15-73 shows the amount of new permanent road construction is highest under 

Alternative 1. There is no new permanent road construction proposed under Alternatives 3 and 4. 

Increases to road density are similar among all action alternatives, but long-term effects related to 

road density are greatest under Alternative 1 because of the new permanent road construction.

401
Chapter 3.15 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

Table 3.15-73 Summary of road treatments 

Alternative

New 

Permanent 

Road 

Construction

Road 

Reconstruction 

(currently 

designated

for motor 

vehicle travel)

Road 

Reconstruction 

(currently NOT 

designated

for motor 

vehicle travel)

Temporary 

Road 

Construction

Roads Added 

for Project use 

During 

Implementation

(mi/mi2)

Total Road 

Density 

Existing plus 

Additional 

for Project

(mi/mi2)

1 0.5 15.8 5.4 3.3 0.8 4.4

2 0 0 0 0 0 3.6

3 0 22.6 4.0 6.4 0.9 4.5

4 0 22.6 4.0 6.4 0.9 4.5

Indicator 3. Hardwood aggregations, meadow and seep vegetation would be retained under 

Alternatives 3 and 4 and would provide the greatest beneficial effects to deer. No retention would 

occur under Alternative 1. 

402
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

3.16 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and 

the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by the 

Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical 

assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain 

conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, 

economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 

101). Alternatives 3, 1 then 4 respectively from most to least could potentially improve the long-term 

productivity by reducing the impacts of the existing fuel load of standing dead trees to protect 

multiple resources including soils and watersheds from future high-intensity fires; improving the 

hydrologic function of the road system and thereby reducing road sediment discharge and protecting 

watersheds, soils, and aquatic habitat; deep tilling of legacy skid trails and old roads improving soil 

productivity; and leaving additional ground cover through mastication or drop and lop to prevent 

erosion. Where not already impaired due to legacy impacts, resource conditions would be maintained 

or would show improvement towards desired conditions. 

3.17 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

Implementation of any of the alternatives would result in some unavoidable adverse environmental 

effects. Although formation of the alternatives included avoidance of some effects, other adverse 

effects could occur that cannot be completely mitigated. The environmental consequences section for 

each resource area discusses these effects.

3.18 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a 

species or the removal of a mined ore. No irreversible commitments of resources would result from 

implementation of any of the alternatives because no permanent, irreversible resource loss would 

occur. 

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. 

Irretrievable losses can be regained over time. Implementation of all action alternatives would not 

irretrievably commit resources, but help in the long-term recovery of the landscape.

3.19 OTHER REQUIRED DISCLOSURES

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest 

extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and 

integrated with ...other environmental review laws and executive orders.” This DEIS was prepared in 

accordance with the following regulations.

National Historic Preservation Act: The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 is the 

principle, guiding statute for the management of cultural resources on NFS lands. Section 106 of 

NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the potential effects of a Preferred Alternative on 

historic, architectural, or archaeological resources that are eligible for inclusion on the National 

Register of Historic Places and to afford the President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an 

opportunity to comment. The criteria for National Register eligibility and procedures for 

403
Chapter 3.19 Stanislaus

Other Required Disclosures National Forest

implementing Section 106 of NHPA are outlined in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 

Parts 60 and 800, respectively). Section 110 requires federal agencies to identify, evaluate, inventory, 

and protect National Register of Historic Places resources on properties they control. 

Potential impacts to archaeological and historic resources were evaluated in compliance with Section 

106. The Forest Service and the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) have agreed 

that the timber management program will be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions 

of a Programmatic Agreement (PA, FS No. 06-MU- 11040218-059, project record) to satisfy the 

Stanislaus NF’s NHPA Section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings of the program. 

The PA outlines procedures for the identification, evaluation, and resolution of adverse effects to 

historic properties in Allotment areas. The criteria for determining adverse effects are outlined in the 

PA. The resolution of adverse effects, if adverse effects are identified, is also established in the PA.

Public law protects the confidentiality of cultural resources information. The Archeological 

Resources Protection Act, as referenced in the Freedom of Information Act, protects from public 

disclosure the nature and location of archeological sites. For this reason, site locations in the project 

area are not displayed in the DEIS, nor are the contents of these sites discussed in detail.

Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice: EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (issued February 11, 

1994), requires that each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its 

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high or adverse human 

health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and 

low-income populations. None of the alternatives disproportionately affect minority and low-income 

populations. Social and economic effects of all alternatives were analyzed (Chapter 3.10, Society, 

Culture and Economy). 

Clean Water Act: regulates the dredging and filling of freshwater and coastal wetlands. Section 404 

(33 USC 1344) prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters (including wetlands) of 

the United States without first obtaining a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands 

are regulated in accordance with federal Non-Tidal Wetlands Regulations (Sections 401 and 404). No 

dredging or filling is part of this proposed action and no permits are required. 

Clean Air Act of 1970: provides for the protection and enhancement of the nation’s air resources. No 

exceeding of the federal and state ambient air quality standards is expected to result from any of the 

alternatives. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973: requires that any action authorized by a federal agency not 

be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. Section 

7 of the ESA (16 USC 1531 et seq.), as amended, requires the responsible federal agency to consult 

with the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning endangered and threatened 

species under their jurisdiction.

The USFWS was consulted during analysis, and project activities were assessed to determine their 

effects on threatened, endangered, and candidate plant and animal species. Two amphibian species 

(California red-legged frog and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog) and one terrestrial wildlife species 

(valley elderberry longhorn beetle) are found within the project analysis area in Tuolumne County, 

California (USFWS 2013). The Terrestrial Wildlife BA indicates that proposed activities are “Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect” the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. The Aquatics BA indicates that 

proposed activities “may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect” the California red-legged frog 

and the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. 

404
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976: amends the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 

Resources Planning Act of 1974 and sets forth the requirements for Land and Resource Management 

Plans (Forest Plans) for the National Forest System. The proposed action is consistent with the 

NFMA and the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan Compliance (project record) document identifies the 

Forest Plan S&Gs that specifically apply to this project and related information about compliance 

with the Forest Plan.

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management: Floodplains are found along stream channels 

throughout the project area. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would maintain or 

improve the existing condition of these floodplains by maintaining or improving meadow conditions. 

The intent of Executive Order 11988 would be met since this project would not affect floodplains in 

the Rim Recovery analysis area and thereby would not increase flood hazard.

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands: Wetlands within the project area include 

meadows, stream channels, springs, fens, and shorelines. This project is consistent with Executive 

Order 11990 since this project would maintain or improve the condition of wetlands in the Rim Fire 

Recovery project area. Chapter 3.03 (Aquatic Species) and the Watershed Report (project record) 

address wetlands.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act decreed that all migratory birds and 

their parts (including eggs, nests, and feathers) were fully protected. Under the Act, taking, killing or 

possessing migratory birds is unlawful. The original intent was to put an end to the commercial trade 

in birds and their feathers that had wreaked havoc on the populations of many native bird species. On 

January 17, 2001, President Clinton signed an executive order directing executive departments and 

agencies to take certain actions to further implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FR Vol. 66, 

No.11, January 17, 2001). 

The Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have entered into a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) to promote the conservation of migratory birds as a direct response to the 

executive order (USDA Forest Service and USFWS 2008). One of the steps outlined for the Forest 

Service is applicable to this analysis: “Within the NEPA process, evaluate the effects of agency 

actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern along with their priority 

habitats and key risk factors.” The Forest Service additionally agreed, to the extent practicable, to 

evaluate and balance benefits against adverse effects, to pursue opportunities to restore or enhance 

migratory bird habitat, and to consider approaches for minimizing take that is incidental to otherwise 

lawful activities.

All of the alternatives would comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act but may result in an 

“unintentional take” of individuals during proposed activities. However the project complies with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director’s Order #131 related to the applicability of the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act to Federal agencies and requirements for permits for “take”. In addition, this project 

complies with Executive Order 13186 because the analysis meets agency obligations as defined under 

the January 16,2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service designed to complement Executive Order 13186. If new requirements or direction 

result from subsequent interagency memorandums of understanding pursuant to Executive Order 

13186, this project would be reevaluated to ensure that it is consistent. 

405
Chapter 3.19 Stanislaus

Other Required Disclosures National Forest

406
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Consultation

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Coordination

4. Consultation and Coordination

This Chapter includes a section for Preparers and Contributors followed by a section for Distribution 

of the EIS.

4.01 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

The Forest Service worked with the following individuals; federal, state and local agencies; 

organizations; and, tribes during the development of this EIS. 

Interdisciplinary Team

Marcie Baumbach

Education: A.A. General Education, Chabot College, 2000; B.S. Wildlife Management, Humboldt 

State University, 2003 

Experience: Wildlife Biologist, Stanislaus National Forest 6 years; Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of 

Land Management 2 years; Wildlife Technician, Bureau of Land Management 3 years

Team Responsibility: Wildlife Biologist

Maria Benech

Education: A.A. General Education, Modesto Junior College, 1984; B.S. Natural Resources 

Management (Watershed Concentration), California Polytechnic State University San Luis 

Obispo, 1987 

Experience: Resource Management Program Area Leader, Stanislaus National Forest 15 years; 

Forester, Stanislaus National Forest 9 years; Forester, Shasta-Trinity National Forest 2 years

Team Responsibility: ID Team Leader

Chris Bielecki

Education: B.S. Forest Production, Humboldt State University, 2002; M.F. Forest Engineering, 

Oregon State University, 2004 

Experience: Logging Engineer, TEAMS Enterprise Unit, Forest Service 4 years; Assistant Forest 

Engineer, Lassen National Forest 3 years; Forest Transportation Planner, Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests 3 years; Research Engineering Technician, Southern Research Station, 

Forest Service 1 year; Trail Crew Leader, Sierra National Forest 4 years.

Team Responsibility: Transportation Engineer 

Matthew Bokach

Education: B.S., Biology and Chemistry, Adrian College, 1994; M.S. Interdisciplinary Ecology, 

University of Florida, 2005 

Experience: Ecologist, State and Private Forestry, Region 5 Forest Service 4 years; NRIS Technical 

Specialist, Region 5 Forest Service 5 years

Team Responsibility: Wild and Scenic Rivers

Kenneth C. Boucher Jr.

Education: Biological Sciences Certificate, University of Las Vegas, 2007

Experience: Fuels Planner, South Fork Management Unit Shasta-Trinity National Forest 23 years

Team Responsibility: Fire and Fuels 

407
Chapter 4.01 Stanislaus

Preparers and Contributors National Forest

Roger Brown

Education: B.S. Forestry, Humboldt State University, 2004

Experience: Forester, Eldorado National Forest 5 years 

Team Responsibility: Forester

Scott T. Cones

Experience: Assistant District Fire Management Officer (Fuels), Stanislaus National Forest 14 years

Team Responsibility: Fire and Fuels 

Laura Conway

Education: B.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of California, Davis, 1989 

Experience: Forest Biologist, Lewis and Clark National Forest 9 years; Wildlife, Fish and Botany 

Program Coordinator, Stanislaus National Forest 4 years; Forest Aquatic Biologist, Stanislaus 

National Forest 7 years; Assistant District Wildlife Biologist, Stanislaus National Forest 2 

years; Wildlife Biologist, Eldorado National Forest 1 year; Biological Technician, Modoc 

National Forest 2 years

Team Responsibility: Aquatic Biologist

Dawn Coultrap

Education: B.S. Rangeland Resource Science (Botany minor), CSU Humboldt, 2005; M.S. Natural 

Resources Sciences (Rangeland Resources and Wildland Soils emphasis), CSU Humboldt, 

2007 

Experience: Rangeland Management Specialist, Stanislaus National Forest 3 years; Staff Biologist, 

Integrated Environmental Services 1 year; Junior Specialist, UC Davis Plant Sciences 5 

years; Biological Technician, Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team 3 years

Team Responsibility: Rangeland Management Specialist

Lisa Dehart 

Education: B.A. Anthropology with a concentration in prehistoric archaeology, California State 

University, Stanislaus 1984 

Experience: District Archaeologist, Stanislaus National Forest 23 years; Archaeological 

Technician/Archaeologist, Stanislaus National Forest 1 year; Commissioner, Tuolumne 

County Historic Preservation Review Commission 21 years; Archaeologist survey and 

excavation crews in California, Nevada, Montana and Australia 8 years. 

Team Responsibility: Archaeologist

Anne Dumas

Education: A.A. Social Science, West Los Angeles Community College, 1977; B.A. English, 

California State University, Long Beach, 1989 

Experience: Library Clerk II, Long Beach Public Library 20 years; Visitor Information Specialist, 

Blackrock Ranger Station, Sequoia National Forest 5 years

Team Responsibility: Technical Editor

Brenda Ehmann

Education: A.S. Soil Conservation, Trinidad State Junior College

Experience: Deputy District Ranger, Sequoia National Forest 10 years; Public Service (Recreation) 

Program Management Leader, Stanislaus National Forest 8 years

Team Responsibility: Recreation and Wilderness

408
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Consultation

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Coordination

James W. Frazier

Education: B.A. Physical Geography, California State University Long Beach, 1968; M.S. 

Watershed Management, Humboldt State University, 1973 

Experience: Hydrologist, Stanislaus National Forest 32 years

Team Responsibility: Hydrologist 

Jennie Haas

Education: A.A. Natural Resources, Columbia College, 1979; B.A. Biology with Botany 

Concentration, California State University, Stanislaus, 1987

Experience: Botanist, Stanislaus National Forest 23 years; Biological Technician, Stanislaus National 

Forest 2 years; Surveying Technician, Stanislaus National Forest 9 years

Team Responsibility: Botanical Resources

Karen S. Harville

Education: B.S. Biology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 1973; M.S. Biology, emphasis in 

Ecology, 1978 

Experience: Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Lassen National Forest, 7 years; Wildlife Biologist, 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 3 years; Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management 

3 years; Seasonal Biological Technician, Shasta Trinity National Forest 10 years; Biological 

Technician, Joshua Tree National Monument 3 years

Team Responsibility: Wildlife Biologist

Steven J. Holdeman

Education: B.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Science, University of Tennessee 1988; M.S. Fisheries 

Science, University of Tennessee, 1995

Experience: Forest Aquatic Biologist, Stanislaus National Forest 12 years; Aquatic Biologist, Private 

Consulting 12 years 

Team Responsibility: Aquatic Biology

Rebecca H. Johnson

Education: B.S. Botany, Minor Afro-American Studies, University of Massachusetts, 1993

Experience: Assistant District Fire Management Officer (Fuels), Stanislaus National Forest 2 years; 

District Fuels Technician, Stanislaus National Forest 6 years; Forestry Technician (Squad 

Boss) 2 years; Forestry Technician, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station 1 year; 

Fire Monitor, Grand Teton National Park 3 seasons; Biological Technician, Indiana Dunes 

National Lakeshore 8 months 

Team Responsibility: Fire and Fuels

Ryan Kalinowski

Education: A.A. General Education, Orange Coast Community College, 2005; B.S. Wildlife 

Management and Conservation, Humboldt State University, 2008; M.S. Natural Resources, 

Emphasis in Wildlife, Humboldt State University, 2012 

Experience: Wildlife Biologist, Stanislaus National Forest, 2 years; Student Career Experience 

Program (Wildlife), Stanislaus National Forest 3 years; Wildlife Technician 4 seasons

Team Responsibility: Wildlife Biologist

Melanie Kerr

Education: B.A. Geography (Physical Geography Concentration), California State University, 

Sacramento, 2006

Experience: GIS Specialist, Eldorado National Forest 13 years 

Team Responsibility: GIS Specialist

409
Chapter 4.01 Stanislaus

Preparers and Contributors National Forest

John Maschi

Education: B.S. Landscape Architecture, Rutgers University, 1976; Master of Landscape 

Architecture, University of Illinois, 1978

Experience: Forest Planner, Stanislaus National Forest 17 years; Assistant Recreation Officer 6 

years; Landscape Architect 11 years

Team Responsibility: Land Management Planning and NEPA 

Eric S. Nicita

Education: B.S. Soil Science, California Polytechnic State University, 1995 

Experience: Soil Scientist, Eldorado National Forest 6 years; Soil Scientist, Fremont-Winema 

National Forest 10 years; Soil Scientist, Ochoco National Forest 3 years 

Team Responsibility: Soil Scientist 

Adam Rich

Education: B.S. Biology, Rutgers University, 1988; M.S. Biology, Rutgers University, 1993. 

Experience: Wildlife Biologist, Stanislaus National Forest 16 years; Wildlife Biologist, Deschutes 

National Forest 1 year; Research Biologist, US Fish and Wildlife Service 2 years

Team Responsibility: Wildlife Biologist

Steven Spickard

Education: B.A. Economics, University of California Berkeley, 1974; M.C.P. College of 

Environmental Design, University of California Berkeley, 1978. 

Experience: Consulting in Economics, Sole Proprietor of Land Economics Consultants 4 years; Sr. 

V.P., AECOM 3 years; Principal, Economics Research Associates 29 years; Research 

Analyst, Stanford Research Institute 2 years 

Team Responsibility: Social, Culture and Economy 

Katie VinZant

Education: B.A. Biology, Colorado College, 2002 

Experience: Botanist, Angeles National Forest 6 years; Natural Resource Specialist, Bureau of Land 

Management 1 year; Botanist, San Bernardino National Forest 3 years 

Team Responsibility: Invasive Plant Specialist 

Karen Walden

Education: B.S. Forest Resources Management, Humboldt State University, 1984 

Experience: Forester/Resource Management Planning, Tahoe National Forest 11 years

Team Responsibility: Writer/Editor

Dana Walsh

Education: B.S. Forestry, Humboldt State University, 2005 

Experience: Forester, Eldorado National Forest 9 years

Team Responsibility: Silviculturist

Sue Warren

Education: A.S. Forest Technology, Green River Community College, 1976; B.S. Wildlife Biology, 

University of California, Davis, 1990 

Experience: Travel Management Planning Specialist, Travel Management Interdisciplinary Team 

Leader, Stanislaus National Forest 7 years; Public Service Program Leader, Stanislaus 

National Forest 10 years; District Ranger, Sierra National Forest 7 years; Wildlife Biologist 3 

years

Team Responsibility: Wild and Scenic Rivers

410
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Consultation

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Coordination

Tracy L. Weddle

Education: B.S. Environmental Studies, UC Santa Barbara, 2000; M.S. Watershed Science, Colorado 

State University, 2003 

Experience: Hydrologist, Stanislaus National Forest 7 years; Hydrologist, White Mountain National 

Forest 3 years

Team Responsibility: Hydrologist

Kathryn Wilkinson

Education: B.S. Environmental Biology/Zoology, Michigan State University, 2000; M.S. Biology, 

University of Illinois, 2003 

Experience: Forest Ecologist, Stanislaus National Forest 4 years; Region 5 Sierra Nevada Amphibian 

Monitoring Crew Leader, Stanislaus National Forest 6 years.

Team Responsibility: Aquatic Biologist

Federal, State and Local Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

California Department of Transportation 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

Yosemite National Park

Organizations

American Forest Resource Council

American Motorcyclist Association, District 36

Blue Mountain Minerals

California Forestry Association

Central Sierra Audubon Society 

Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center

CT Bioenergy Consulting

Gold Rush News

James R. Dambacher Construction

Merced Dirt Riders/4x4 in Motion

Mule Deer Foundation 

Rim Fire Technical Workshop

Sierra Pacific Industries

Stanislaus Trail Bike Association

Tuolumne County 

Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources and the Environment (TuCARE)

Tuolumne County Farm Bureau 

Tuolumne County Sportsmen 

Tuolumne Group Sierra Club 

Tuolumne River Trust 

Yosemite Deer Herd Advisory Council

Yosemite Stanislaus Solutions (YSS)

Tribes

Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians

411
Chapter 4.02 Stanislaus

Distribution of the EIS National Forest

4.02 DISTRIBUTION OF THE EIS

The Forest Service is circulating either the EIS or a notice of the availability of the EIS to the 

following agencies, elected officials, tribes, organizations and individuals. 

Federal, State and Local Agencies

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Director, Planning and Review 

Army Corp of Engineers 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 EIS Review Coordinator 

Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Regional Administrator

Federal Highway Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservationists Division Southwest Region

Rural Utilities Service

USDA APHIS PPD/EAD

USDA National Agricultural Library Head Acquisitions and Serials Branch

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Environmental Coordinator 

USDA Office of Civil Rights

US Coast Guard, Environmental Management 

US Department of Energy, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

USDI Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Yosemite National Park

California State Agencies

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

California Department of Transportation 

California Water Resources Control Board

State of California Sierra Nevada Conservancy

State Clearing House (California)

Local Agencies

Modesto Irrigation District

Tuolumne County Fish and Game 

San Francisco, Hetch Hetchy Water and Power

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Turlock Irrigation District

Elected Officials

Federal Officials

Congressman Jeff Denham

Congressman Tom McClintock 

Senator Barbara Boxer

Senator Diane Feinstein

California State Officials

Kristen Olsen, California Assembly

Tom Berryhill, California Assembly

Local Officials

Connie Williams, City of Sonora Council 

Mariposa County Board of Supervisors 

Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors 

412
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Consultation

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Coordination

Tribes

Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians

Organizations

Associated California Loggers

American Forest Resource Council

California Forestry Association

California Native Plant Society

Center for Biological Diversity

Central Sierra Audubon Society 

Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center

CT Bioenergy Consulting

John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute 

Mule Deer Foundation 

North Coast Rivers Alliance

Sierra Forest Legacy

Sierra Pacific Industries

TuCARE

Tuolumne County Sportsman, Inc. 

Tuolumne Group of the Sierra Club 

Tuolumne River Trust 

Individuals

Adams, Margaret

Agnew, Joseph 

Amelang, Loren 

Ansley-Martin, Robin 

Arnold, Gary

Arnold, Loren 

Artley, Dick

Baker, Carl

Bohn, Diana 

Bond, Monica L 

Box, Ken 

Buxton, Cindy 

Catherine, John

Charles, Cindy

Chavez, Christa

Claunch, Alan 

Clayton, Ronald 

Cobb, Sandra 

Corzo, Martha

Cossutta, Renee 

Craig, Sarah

Crook, Shaun 

Crouse, Gerrit

Dahring, Karen 

Danielczyk, Matthew

Dann, Jonathan

DellaSala, Dominick

Denneen, Bill

Dietrich, Chris

Doherty, P 

Downing, Rosamund 

Edwards, Swanee 

Elton, Wallace

Elvert, Catherine

Enstrom, Oscar

Faith, Bonnie 

Farr, Gina

Ferron, Suzannah 

Francis, Thomas M. 

Frizzell, Julianne

Futrell, Sherrill

Gabet, Emmanuel

Gallimore, Paul

Gardner, Karen

Ghiotto, Beth

Giese, Robert

Gonzalves, Mark

Gorman, Elaine 

Gottlieb, Eric

Greenway, Lumina

Groshardt, Joanne

Gupta, Sanjay

Hall, Renee

Halsey, Richard

Hathaway, Cynthia 

Holmes, Tara

Hutto, Richard L

Izmirian, Richard

Jacobs, Shannon 

Keippel, Julian

Keitelman, Mary

Kesich, John 

Knightly, Nickolas 

Koch, Walter

Kramarz, Ken

Lackey, Mercedes

Litehiser, Joe

Little, Charles

Long, Marcie 

Martelli, Arnold

Martin, Joe 

Maykel, Ron 

McGinnis, Margaret

McKenzie, Leonard

McMullin, William

Miller, Susan

Montgomery, F. 

Morem, Judith 

Morris, Sharon

Nena, Amber

Nettles., Michael

Nitz, Jennifer

Ohlenkamp, Kris 

Parker, Debby

Phelan, James L

Pierson, James

Poehner, Mark

Ramos, Sigrid 

Re, Patricia

Reinertsen, Mary

Rhodes, Jon

Richardson, Matt 

Richmond, Lonna 

Riddle, Carolyn

Robbins, Mark 

Rougle, Wolfgang

Ruby, Kenneth

Ryther, David

Salazar, Veronica

Sayers, Lois

Scheuermann, Karen

Schochet, Joy 

Scott, Ingrid 

Selter, Carol

Shirley, Aida

Shubert, Lois E.

Silvers, Rod

Simpson, Sheila 

Smernoff, David

Sondgeroth, Casey 

Sperling, Ruth 

Stanley, Sandra 

Sugars, Marc

Tallal, Jimy

Tearson, P

Tek, Leon 

Thompson, Arnie

Thompson, Jeffrey

Thompson, Larry 

Toepke-Floyd, Marty

Toner, William

Tornieporth, Nadia

Trips, Arta

Vest, Lori

Vielma, Stacey

Wagner, Lara

Wallerstein, Beatrice

Walters, Patty

Wayland, Brian

Weberg, Melanie

Weinstein, Elyette

Weinstein, Joseph 

Westbrook, Janet

Winks, Matthew 

Wulff, Deanna 

Ycasas, Joyce

Zinn, Andrea 

413
Chapter 4.02 Stanislaus

Distribution of the EIS National Forest

414
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Index

Index

Affected Environment, 55, 58, 64, 74, 132, 140, 

152, 154, 159, 167, 176, 186, 194, 207, 223, 

226, 236, 240, 247, 286, 292, 296, 317, 325, 

341, 355, 373, 380, 392

Air Quality, 29, 59, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 146, 220, 

288, 291, 292, 404

Alternatives

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), 10, 13, 19, 25, 

26, 27, 28, 48, 49, 51, 65, 66, 67, 85, 86, 87, 

89, 90, 91, 92, 97, 101, 105, 107, 115, 116, 

117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 

127, 128, 129, 134, 135, 136, 143, 144, 145, 

148, 149, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 163, 

165, 166, 171, 172, 173, 174, 179, 180, 181, 

182, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 

202, 203, 211, 214, 216, 217, 218, 224, 225, 

229, 230, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 242, 

243, 244, 257, 259, 261, 265, 266, 272, 273, 

275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 285, 289, 

290, 291, 292, 294, 295, 296, 302, 303, 304, 

305, 306, 307, 308, 314, 315, 320, 321, 322, 

323, 324, 325, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 337, 

338, 339, 347, 348, 350, 351, 353, 354, 355, 

362, 364, 365, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 

380, 386, 387, 388, 389, 391, 395, 396, 398, 

399, 401, 402

Alternative 2 (No Action), 19, 25, 27, 48, 49, 51, 

63, 66, 67, 108, 109, 111, 128, 129, 135, 136, 

144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 154, 156, 157, 

162, 163, 164, 166, 172, 173, 174, 180, 181, 

182, 193, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 215, 216, 

218, 224, 225, 232, 237, 238, 243, 244, 269, 

270, 271, 272, 280, 281, 282, 290, 291, 292, 

295, 296, 307, 308, 315, 322, 325, 334, 339, 

350, 351, 354, 355, 367, 368, 371, 372, 379, 

380, 387, 398, 399

Alternative 3, 27, 28, 29, 33, 48, 49, 51, 56, 63, 

66, 67, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 

122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 135, 136, 

148, 149, 152, 154, 157, 164, 165, 166, 172, 

174, 181, 182, 196, 197, 199, 200, 202, 216, 

217, 218, 225, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 244, 

272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 280, 281, 291, 

292, 295, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 

314, 315, 317, 323, 324, 325, 334, 335, 336, 

337, 338, 339, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 368, 

369, 370, 371, 373, 380, 388, 389, 391, 399, 

400, 401

Alternative 4, 33, 43, 46, 48, 49, 51, 56, 66, 67, 

123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 135, 149, 

152, 154, 157, 165, 166, 172, 174, 181, 182, 

197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 217, 218, 225, 235, 

237, 244, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 291, 292, 

295, 314, 315, 317, 324, 325, 338, 339, 340, 

353, 354, 355, 370, 371, 372, 373, 380, 389, 

391, 392, 401

Aquatic Features

Critical Aquatic Refuge, 9, 35, 57

Fens, 262, 276, 281

Seeps, 30, 176, 394, 395, 399, 400, 402

Vernal Pools, 36, 176

Wet Meadows, 77, 79, 317, 320, 321

Wetlands, 253

Aquatic Wildlife

Aquatic Habitat, 8, 26, 34, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 

77, 79, 81, 84, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 94, 95, 96, 

98, 99, 101, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 

114, 116, 118, 121, 123, 124, 127, 129, 256, 

403

Aquatic Species, 26, 29, 34, 69, 70, 71, 75, 83, 

123

Aquatic Wildlife Sensitive

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog, 26, 34, 69, 71, 73, 

79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 

98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 105, 106, 107, 110, 

111, 113, 114, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 

125, 126, 129, 130

Hardhead, 71, 82, 100, 108, 111, 115, 130, 227

Western Pond Turtle, 26, 29, 69, 71, 73, 81, 82, 

85, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 105, 107, 108, 

111, 114, 119, 120, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127

Aquatic Wildlife T&E

California Red-legged Frog, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 

76, 78, 79, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 100, 101, 

102, 103, 104, 110, 111, 112, 115, 116, 127, 

128, 129

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, 26, 70, 71, 72, 

73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 87, 89, 90, 91, 100, 102, 

103, 104, 113, 116, 117, 120, 123, 124, 128, 

129

Climate Change, 59, 156, 157, 359, 384

Cultural Resources, 45, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 

136, 171, 173, 174, 221, 223, 224, 225, 403, 404

Economy, 4, 8, 15, 16, 19, 20, 45, 46, 47, 55, 61, 

162, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 

191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 

200, 239, 284, 376, 403, 404

Employment, 183, 185, 186, 188, 193, 194, 195, 

197, 198, 199, 200

Income, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 193, 194, 

195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 404

Environmental Consequences, 55, 65, 85, 134, 

143, 154, 162, 171, 179, 192, 210, 224, 229, 

236, 242, 257, 288, 293, 300, 318, 328, 344, 

360, 375, 384, 394

Cumulative Effects, 55, 56, 65, 66, 73, 100, 102, 

103, 111, 120, 127, 135, 136, 145, 148, 149, 

156, 157, 163, 164, 165, 166, 172, 173, 174, 

180, 181, 194, 195, 197, 199, 214, 216, 217, 

235, 243, 244, 264, 272, 277, 279, 286, 290, 

291, 295, 296, 307, 308, 314, 315, 321, 

322,323, 324, 333, 334, 338, 339, 349, 351, 

415
Stanislaus

Index National Forest

353, 354, 365, 368, 370, 371, 377, 379, 386, 

387, 388, 391, 397, 399, 401

Summary of Effects, 51, 66, 127, 136, 149, 151, 

157, 166, 174, 181, 182, 199, 218, 237, 244, 

280, 291, 296, 315, 324, 339, 354, 371, 380, 

391, 401

Fire and Fuels, 3, 7, 8, 9, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 

28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 

53, 63, 65, 66, 67, 96, 131, 134, 137, 138, 139, 

140, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 153, 155, 

156, 161, 163, 164, 171, 179, 180, 181, 184, 

185, 186, 190, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 203, 

208, 209, 211, 213, 215, 224, 229, 233, 235, 

240, 250, 253, 257, 260, 262, 271, 273, 275, 

276, 278, 281, 284, 285, 291, 293, 301, 302, 

306, 307, 308, 313, 322, 330, 333, 334, 337, 

345, 350, 351, 361, 364, 367, 368, 379, 398, 

399, 403

Prescribed Fire, 3, 63, 64, 65, 67, 144, 203, 211, 

262, 271, 276, 281, 291, 302, 308, 322, 330, 

334, 349, 350, 366, 367, 378, 379, 397, 398

Suppression, 7, 78, 137, 138, 143, 144, 148, 

151, 160, 173, 178, 265, 351, 359, 368, 375, 

379, 384, 399

Wildfire, 1, 6, 24, 35, 60, 63, 65, 66, 67, 74, 78,

83, 133, 135, 137, 138, 145, 146, 156, 171, 

173, 179, 180, 207, 215, 250, 256, 260, 262, 

263, 269, 276, 286, 291, 296, 308, 310, 336, 

345, 350, 351, 359, 361, 367, 368, 379, 381, 

383, 393, 398, 399

Forest Plan, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 56, 57, 60, 

63, 69, 131, 137, 151, 159, 167, 175, 183, 201, 

210, 219, 239, 245, 282, 283, 296, 297, 315, 

317, 321, 325, 336, 339, 340, 355, 372, 373, 

380, 405

Fuel Reduction

Biomass Removal, 10, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 

33, 45, 61, 63, 118, 143, 144, 148, 184, 185, 

190, 191, 193, 196, 197, 198, 206, 216, 232, 

240, 302, 306, 313, 315, 320, 330, 333, 337, 

338, 349, 364, 366, 378, 379, 397, 398, 399, 

401

Jackpot Burn, 25, 26, 28, 33, 66, 67, 143, 148, 

213

Machine Pile and Burn, 10, 20, 21, 25, 28, 33, 

60, 65, 66, 67, 99, 202, 260, 275, 313

Mastication, 21, 27, 28, 30, 33, 42, 63, 179, 181, 

184, 202, 240, 250, 251, 270, 273, 274, 276, 

278, 281, 302, 313, 330, 337, 349, 366, 378, 

397, 403

SPLAT, 148, 149, 364

Hazard Tree Removal, 7, 9, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 

29, 30, 34, 45, 46, 48, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 104, 

108, 117, 120, 126, 133, 134, 136, 145, 154, 

156, 159, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 170, 171, 

172, 173, 177, 179, 194, 195, 211, 220, 221, 

223, 224, 229, 230, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 

241, 242, 260, 262, 267, 274, 276, 278, 285, 

288, 289, 293, 294, 295, 300, 301, 302, 307, 

308, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 328, 329, 

330, 331, 334, 335, 338, 344, 348, 349, 354, 

360, 365, 366, 369, 370, 375, 376, 377, 378, 

380, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 388, 389, 391, 

394, 397

Indicators, 72, 95, 151, 203, 205, 206, 211, 215, 

249, 251, 255, 256, 294, 312, 323, 337, 376

Invasive Species, 27, 31, 39, 44, 151, 152, 153, 

154, 155, 156, 157, 178, 180, 288, 289, 290

Issues, 15, 17

Large Woody Debris, 26, 34, 53, 74, 82, 83, 86, 89, 

90, 91, 96, 99, 100, 101, 103, 108, 109, 110, 

111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 120, 123, 124, 

126, 127, 130, 263, 271, 276, 281

Limited Operating Period, 17, 43, 88, 127, 292, 

294, 296, 376, 392

Management Indicator Species, 58, 284, 299, 341, 

380, 381, 384, 385, 392, 394

Management Requirements, 17, 19, 25, 26, 29, 33, 

34, 35, 36, 43, 52, 53, 61, 65, 70, 87, 88, 89, 90, 

91, 93, 96, 98, 99, 102, 104, 115, 116, 117, 124, 

127, 129, 134, 135, 144, 156, 157, 162, 163, 

166, 172, 175, 180, 181, 202, 203, 213, 215, 

218, 229, 230, 231, 232, 239, 245, 260, 261, 

262, 264, 266, 267, 268, 269, 272, 274, 275, 

276, 284, 285, 288, 290, 292, 294, 296, 300, 

305, 306, 308, 310, 314, 315, 319, 320, 321, 

323, 324, 329, 332, 335, 336, 338, 339, 378, 396

Monitoring, 327, 392

Private Land, 1, 3, 19, 65, 74, 100, 101, 103, 104, 

112, 113, 145, 156, 177, 195, 261, 266, 267, 

290, 291, 307, 308, 322, 334, 349, 351, 353, 

354, 366, 368, 370, 371, 378, 379, 382, 386, 

387, 388, 389, 391, 398, 399, 401

Range, 47, 74, 78, 100, 133, 134, 140, 153, 155, 

156, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 

178, 184, 186, 193, 196, 198, 223, 236, 264, 

269, 288, 290, 321, 393, 397

Recreation, 30, 31, 52, 60, 72, 76, 78, 153, 156, 

157, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 

183, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 

220, 221, 222, 227, 228, 230, 231, 236, 241, 

247, 263, 264, 290, 295, 378

Motorized, 23, 29, 30, 31, 60, 168, 169, 170, 

171, 172, 173, 174, 180, 232, 239, 240, 241, 

345, 349, 366, 395, 397

Non-motorized, 23, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 

192, 227, 348, 365, 370, 371

Regulations

Endangered Species Act, 283, 355, 359, 404

Environmental Justice, 183, 187, 200, 404

National Historic Preservation Act, 13, 44, 45, 

131, 135, 224, 225, 403, 404

NEPA, 1, 13, 16, 25, 45, 55, 56, 57, 61, 286, 

403, 405

NFMA, 201, 283, 405

Riparian

Riparian Conservation Area, 34, 35, 37, 39, 42, 

253, 254, 266

Riparian Conservation Objectives, 37, 38, 39, 

40, 41, 42, 69

Riparian Vegetation, 35, 42, 75, 84, 96, 100, 

101, 263, 269, 271, 276, 281

Roadless Area, 17, 27, 28, 56, 59, 299, 328, 343, 

360, 363

416
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Index

Roads

Maintenance, 60, 88, 109, 151, 173, 210, 230, 

231, 234, 235, 241, 242, 261, 275, 279, 301, 

320, 330

New Construction, 17, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 37, 

39, 43, 95, 132, 136, 154, 157, 216, 229, 235, 

275, 296, 345, 348, 361, 365, 370, 371

Reconstruction, 9, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 37, 

65, 90, 95, 131, 136, 144, 151, 154, 155, 157, 

159, 162, 165, 166, 224, 230, 233, 234, 235, 

236, 243, 261, 272, 275, 279, 280, 281, 289, 

293, 294, 300, 301, 304, 310, 319, 320, 328, 

330, 332, 336, 338, 344, 345, 351, 360, 361, 

365, 368, 370, 371, 394, 395, 399, 400

Temporary Road, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 33, 42, 53, 

95, 116, 131, 136, 162, 210, 212, 213, 214, 

216, 218, 236, 261, 270, 272, 275, 279, 280, 

281, 289, 293, 300, 301, 304, 319, 328, 332, 

336, 339, 344, 345, 348, 351, 354, 360, 361, 

365, 368, 370, 371, 394, 395, 396, 399, 400

Rock Quarry, 9, 36, 41, 65, 132, 144, 151, 180, 210

Salvage, 4, 10, 17, 20, 24, 25, 28, 33, 74, 85, 88, 

89, 93, 97, 98, 99, 104, 108, 111, 118, 121, 137, 

138, 143, 144, 148, 149, 162, 164, 178, 186, 

191, 194, 195, 200, 202, 211, 213, 215, 229, 

231, 233, 234, 235, 254, 256, 257, 258, 260, 

264, 266, 267, 268, 274, 278, 280, 294, 301, 

302, 307, 310, 315, 319, 329, 330, 334, 339, 

349, 366, 378, 382, 383, 386, 392, 398

Ground Based, 9, 13, 20, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33, 

34, 42, 43, 48, 67, 86, 90, 213, 236

Helicopter, 9, 13, 20, 21, 25, 28, 30, 33, 43, 45, 

48, 67, 93, 131, 172, 184, 211, 212, 214, 220, 

221, 229, 233, 235, 236, 257, 258, 260, 274, 

278, 296, 306, 332, 336, 339

Skyline, 9, 13, 20, 21, 25, 28, 33, 40, 45, 48, 67, 

93, 184, 211, 212, 229, 236, 257, 260, 274, 

278

Society and Culture, 16, 19, 55, 183, 184, 186, 191, 

193, 195, 196, 198, 200, 403

Soil, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 17, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 

33, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 44, 52, 60, 63, 70, 72, 

81, 82, 83, 85, 88, 91, 94, 95, 98, 100, 108, 110, 

141, 143, 153, 154, 155, 156, 160, 163, 164, 

172, 173, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 

201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 

210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 

228, 229, 230, 231, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 

254, 256, 257, 258, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 

266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 274, 275, 

276, 278, 279, 280, 281, 301, 302, 313, 315, 

316, 329, 330, 339, 340, 343, 403

Special Areas

Special Interest Area, 51, 219, 220, 221, 222, 

223, 224, 225, 237

Wild and Scenic River, 219

Wilderness, 31, 357

Visual Resources, 60

Water Source, 31, 34, 36, 38, 40, 53, 88, 151, 173, 

174, 220, 239, 261, 262, 271, 275, 280, 281, 

293, 294, 300, 301, 302, 306, 312, 315, 319, 

320, 328, 329, 330, 332, 336, 339, 344, 360, 

375, 384, 394

Watershed, 4, 8, 20, 21, 24, 27, 33, 35, 42, 51, 53, 

60, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 

83, 84, 86, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 102, 

103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 

114, 118, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 

135, 138, 164, 180,181, 184, 185, 201, 204, 207, 

211, 216, 217, 218, 222, 226, 229, 230, 231, 

240, 245, 246, 247, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 

255, 256, 258, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 

267, 268, 269, 272, 273, 275, 276, 277, 278, 

280, 282, 302, 307, 313, 315, 330, 333, 337, 339

Best Management Practices, 37, 245, 262

Cumulative Watershed Effects, 36, 42, 73, 74, 

101, 104, 106, 222, 246, 264, 277

Drop and Lop, 21, 27, 28, 29, 33, 42, 117, 184, 

202, 240, 270, 273, 276, 278, 281, 302, 313,

330, 337, 403

Mastication, 21, 27, 28, 30, 33, 42, 63, 179, 181, 

184, 202, 240, 250, 251, 270, 273, 274, 276, 

278, 281, 302, 313, 330, 337, 349, 366, 378, 

397, 403

Wildlife

Black-backed Woodpecker, 4, 9, 17, 24, 33, 46, 

314, 338, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 

387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392

Mule Deer, 4, 8, 9, 17, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 43, 

54, 56, 91, 118, 179, 236, 276, 277, 301, 302, 

306, 307, 313, 315, 316, 330, 333, 337, 340, 

342, 358, 363, 364, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 

397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402

PACs, 4, 9, 25, 27, 28, 30, 46, 56, 57, 285, 297, 

298, 299, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 

309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 316, 317, 318, 

320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 

330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 339, 

340, 343, 359

Wildlife Sensitive

Bald Eagle, 43, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 344, 

360, 376, 379, 385, 394

California Spotted Owl, 24

Fringed Myotis, 54, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 

379, 380

Great Gray Owl, 43, 285, 317, 318, 319, 320, 

321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 344, 360, 376, 379, 

385, 394 

Northern Goshawk, 4, 43, 299, 325, 326, 327, 

328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 334, 335, 336, 337, 

338, 339, 340, 343, 359, 364

Pacific Fisher, 357

Pallid Bat, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 379, 380

Wildlife T&E

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle, 286, 287, 

288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 404

417
Stanislaus

Index National Forest

418
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

References

Literature Cited

Ahlborn, G. 2006. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR), Mule Deer Life History 

Account CDFG, Sacramento California.

Amacher, A.J., R.H. Barrett, J.J. Moghaddas, S.L. Stephens. 2008. Preliminary effects of fire and 

mechanical fuel treatments on the abundance of small mammals in the mixed-conifer forest 

of the Sierra Nevada. Forest Ecology and Management 255: pages 3193-3202. 

Andren, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different 

proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71: pages 355-366. 

Andrews, P. L. 2007. BehavePlus fire modeling system: past, present, and future. In: Proceedings of 

7th Symposium on Fire and Forest Meteorological Society. 2007 October 23-25; Bar Harbor, 

ME. 13 pages.

Andrews, Patricia L. and Rothermel, Richard C. 1982. Charts for interpreting wildland fire behavior 

characteristics. PMS-435-2, NFES#0274. National Wildfire Coordinating Group, Washington 

D.C. 21 pages. 

Andrews, Patricia L.; Heinsch, Faith Ann; Schelvan, Luke. 2011. How to generate and interpret fire 

characteristics charts for surface and crown fire behavior. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-253. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 40 pages.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act 1979. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/tribalrelations/documents/policy/statutes/ARPA_PL96-95.pdf

Arthur, S.M., T.F. Paragi, and W.B. Khron. 1993. Dispersal of juvenile fishers in Maine. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 57(4): pages 868-874. 

Baker, M.B. 1990. Hydrologic and Water Quality Effects of Fire. In: Krammes, J.S., Proceedings, 

Effects of Fire Management of Southwestern Natural Resources. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR191. Tucson, AZ: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station: pages 31-42. 

Barr, C.B. 1991. The distribution, habitat and status of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle 

Desmocerus californicus dimporphus Fisher (Insecta: Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, CA. 

Barrett, S.; Havlina, D.; Jones, J.; Hann, W.; Frame, C.; Hamilton, D.; Schon, K.; Demeo, T.; Hutter, 

L.; and Menakis, J. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Version 3.0 

(Homepage of the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class website, USDA Forest Service, 

US Department of the Interior, and The Nature Conservancy). (Online), Available: 

http://www.frcc.gov/ 

Barry, S. J., and G. M. Fellers. 2013. History and status of the California red-legged frog (Rana 

draytonii) in the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 

8(2): pages 456-502. 

Beck, T.W. 1985. Interim direction for management of Great Gray Owl, Stanislaus National Forest, 

October, 1985. Sonora, CA. 

419
Stanislaus

References National Forest

Beck, T.W. and J. Winter. 2000. Survey protocol for Great Gray Owl in the Sierra Nevada of 

California. Prepared for US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 

Bertram, R.C., and R.D. Rempel. 1977. Migration of the north kings deer herd. California Department 

of Fish and Game 63 (3): pages 157-179. 

Beschta, R.L., J.J. Rhodes, J.B. Kauffman, R.E. Gresswell, G.W. Minshall, J.R. Karr, D.A. Perry, 

F.R. Haeur, and C.A. Frissell. 2004. Postfire management on forested public lands of the 

western United States. Conservation Biology 18: pages 957-967. 

Bisson, P. A., and eight coauthors. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific 

Northwest: past, present and future. Pages 143- 190 IN E.O. Salo and T. Cundy, editors. 

Proceedings of the symposium Streamside Management: forestry and fishery interactions. 

Univ. of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 

Block, W.M., Morrison, M.L. and M.H. Reiser (eds.). 1994. The Northern goshawk: Ecology and 

Management. Studies in Avian Biology 16. Cooper Ornithological Society. Sacramento, CA. 

Boal, C. W. and R. W. Mannan. 1994. Northern goshawk diets in ponderosa pine forests on the 

Kaibab Plateau. Stud. Avian Biol. 16: pages 97-102. 

Bobzien, S. and J. E. DiDonato. 2007. The status of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma 

californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), foothill yellow-legged frog 

(Rana boylii), and other aquatic herpetofauna in the East Bay Regional Park District, 

California. Oakland, California. 87pages. 

Bond, M. L., D. E. Lee, and R. B. Siegel. 2010. Winter movements by California Spotted Owls in a 

burned landscape. Western Birds 41: pages 174-180 

Bond, M. L., D. E. Lee, R. B. Siegel, & J. P. Ward, Jr. 2009. Habitat use and selection by Bond, M. 

L., R. B. Siegel and, D. L. Craig, editors. 2012. A Conservation Strategy for the Blackbacked Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) in California. Version 1.0. The Institute for Bird 

Populations and California Partners in Flight. Point Reyes Station, California. 

Bond, M.L., Gutierrez, R.J., Franklin, A.B., LaHaye, W.S., May, C.A., 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: pages 1022-1028. 

Bond, M.L., Lee, D.E., Siegel, R.B., and M.W. Tingley. 2013. Diet and home-range size of California 

spotted owls in a burned forest. Western Birds 44: pages 114-126. 

Bossard, C.C.; Randall, J.M.; Hoshovsky, M.C., eds. 2000. Invasive plants of California’s wildlands.

Berkeley: University of California Press. 360 pages. 

Boudell, J.A., S.O. Link, and J.R. Johansen. 2002. “Effects of soil microtopography on seed bank 

distribution in the shrub-steppe.” Western North American Naturalist 62: pages 14-24. 

Bowyer, J.L., R. Shmulsky, J.G. Haygreen. “Forest Products and Wood Science: An Introduction, 

Fifth Edition.” Blackwell Publishing, Ames, IA. (2007): 558 pages. Print. 

Boyer, D.E., and J.D. Dell. 1980. “Fire effects on Pacific Northwest Soils”. U.S. Forest Service 

Report R6 WM 040. Pacific NW Forest Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 

Bradford, D. F., K. Stanley, L. L. McConnell, N. G. Tallent-Halsell, M. S. Nash, and S. M. Simonich. 

2010. Spatial patterns of atmospherically deposited organic contaminants at high elevation in 

the southern Sierra Nevada mountains, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 29(5): pages 1056-1066. 

420
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

Bradford, D.F., F. Tabatabai, and D.M. Graber. 1993.Isolation of remaining populations of the native 

frog, Rana muscosa, by introduced fishes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, 

California. Conservation Biology 7: pages 882-888. 

Briggs, C.J., J. Taylor, C. Moritz, and R.A. Knapp. 2002. Amphibian disease dynamics in a fragment 

landscape. Proposal to the National Institue of Health, Ecology of Infectious Disease 

Program. Submitted by the Regents of the University of California. University of California, 

Berkeley, California, Funded June 2002. 

Brooks, K.N., P.F. Ffolliott, H.M. Gregersen, and L.F DeBano. 1997. The role of fire in riparian, 

wetland, and aquatic systems. In: Hydrology and the Management of Watersheds. 2nd ed. 

Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press: pages 358-360. 

Brown, C., L.R. Wilkinson, and K.B. Kiehl. 2014. Comparing the Status of Two Sympatric 

Amphibians in the Sierra Nevada, California: Insights on Ecological Risk and Monitoring 

Common Species. Journal of Herpetology. Volume 48, Issue 1, pages 74-83. 

Brown, J.K., E.D. Reinhardt, and K.A. Kramer. 2003. Course woody debris: Managing benefits and 

fire hazards in recovering forest, General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-105. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, 16 pages. 

Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257 pages.

Buehler, David A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), The Birds of North America Online 

(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

Bull, E. L. and M. G. Henjum. 1990. Ecology of the great gray owl. USDA Forest Service, General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-265. 

Bull, Evelyn L. and James R. Duncan. 1993. Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa), The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pages 283-

296, in Buskirk, S. W., A. S. Harestad, M. G. Raphael, and R. A. Powell, eds. Martens, 

sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY. 484 pages. 

Cahall, R. E. and J. P. Hayes. 2009. Influences of post fire salvage logging on forest birds in the 

Eastern Cascades, Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 257: pages 1119–1128. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 2011. A Status Review of the Mountain Yellow-Legged 

Frog (Rana sierrae and Rana muscosa). Report to the Fish and Game Commission. California 

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento CA. 52 pages plus appendices. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 2014a. Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). RareFind, 

V.3.1.0, Government Version, data set March, 2014. California Department of Fish and 

Game.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2014b. Special 

vascular plants, bryophytes, and lichens list, January 2014. Quarterly publication. 73 pages. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/plants_and_animals.asp (March 14, 2014). 

California Spotted Owls in a post fire landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: pages 1116-

1124. 

CDFG 2005. California Department of Fish and Game and California Interagency Wildlife Task 

Group. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) version 8.1. personal computer 

421
Stanislaus

References National Forest

program. Sacramento, California. On-Line version.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.asp. (Accessed: January 3, 2008). 

CDFW 2008. California Department of Fish & Wildlife. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 

CWHR version 8.2, personal computer program. Sacramento, CA. 

CDFW 2014. Definition of Heritage and Wild Trout Waters.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/REsources/WildTrout/WT_WaterDef.asp 

CDFW 2014a. California Department of Fish & Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database 

(CNDDB). Current version and subscription. Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/. 

CDFW 2014b. California Department of Fish & Wildlife California Wildlife Habitat Relationships 

(CWHR) model. Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Sacramento, 

CA.http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/. 

Chase, E.H. 2006. Effects of Wildfire and Salvage Logging on Site Conditions and Hillslope 

Sediment Production: Placer County, California. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort 

Collins, CO. 72 pages. 

Chen, J., J.F. Franklin, T.A. Spies. 1995. Growing-season microclimatic gradients from clearcut 

edges into old-growth douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications. 5(1). Pages 74-86. 

Chou, Y. H., S. G. Conard, and P. M. Wohlgemuth. 1994. Analysis of postfire salvage logging, 

watershed characteristics, and sedimentation in the Stanislaus National Forest. In: 

Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ESRI User Conference, May 1994, Palm Springs, CA. 

Chung-MacCoubrey, A.L. 1996. Bat species composition and roost use in pinyon-juniper woodlands 

of New Mexico. pages 118-123, in R.M.R. Barclay and M.R. Brigham, Editors. Bats and 

Forests Symposium, October 19-21, 1995, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, Research 

Branch, Ministry of Forests, Victoria, British Columbia, Working Paper 23/1996. 

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. 

Clinton, W.,1999. U.S. Presidential Executive Order #13112 re: Invasive species February 3, 1999. 

Federal Daily Register. 64(25): 6183–6186. 

Cluck D.R. and S.L. Smith. 2007. Fall Rates of Snags: a summary of the literature for California 

conifer species. USDA Forest Service, Region 5, Forest Health Protection (NE-SPR-07-01). 

Coe, D. B. R. 2006. Sediment production and delivery from forest roads in the Sierra Nevada, 

California. Master’s Thesis, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO. 110 pages.

Collinge, S. K., M. Holyoak, C. B. Barr, and J. T. Marty. 2001. Riparian habitat fragmentation and 

population persistence of the Threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle in central 

California. Biological Conservation 100 (1): pages 103-113. 

Connaughton, J.L. 2005 (24 June). Memorandum to heads of federal agencies from the Council of 

Environmental Quality. Guidance on the consideration of past actions in cumulative effects 

analysis. 

Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH). 2014. Data provided by the participants of the 

Consortium of California Herbaria. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/ (accessed on 

various dates, 2013 and 2014). 

422
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

Crane, M. F. 1989. Sambucus nigra subsp. cerulea. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2010, April 

13]. 

CREP. 2008. Clavey River Watershed Assessment. Volume I (Assessment) and Volume II 

(Appendices). Clavey River Ecosystem Project. Sonora, CA. 

Crook, S., Newburn, B., Goolsby, L., Cones, S., Baran, S., Lane, A., Johnson, R., Estes, B., and C. 

Ewell. 2013. Rim Fire vegetation resiliency project for the Stanislaus National Forest. 

Sonora, CA. 

CVRWQCB, 2005. Central Valley Region Water Quality Control Board. Implementation, Forensic 

and Effectiveness Monitoring and Reporting Program. Order No. R5-2005-0052 for 

Individual Discharges Under Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges 

Related to Timber Harvest Activities. Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/waivers/r5-

2005-0052.pdf 

CVRWQCB, 2010. Central Valley Region Water Quality Control Board. The Integrated Report – 

303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments and 305(b) Surface Water Quality 

Assessment. 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/tmdl/impaired_waters_list/index.shtml 

CVRWQCB, 2011. Central Valley Region Water Quality Control Board. The water quality control 

plan (basin plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley 

Region: The Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin. 4th ed., rev. 

Sacramento, CA. 131 pages. 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/index.shtml

Damarais, S. and P.R. Krausman. 2000. Management of large mammals in North America. Prentice 

Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 778 pages.

Davis, F.W., C. Seo, and W.J. Zielinski. 2007. Regional variation in home-range scale habitat models 

for fisher (Martes pennanti) in California. Ecological Applications 17: pages 2195–2213. 

DeBano, Leonard F., Daniel G. Neary, and Peter F. Ffolliott. Fire effects on ecosystems. John Wiley 

& Sons, 1998 

Diffendorfer, J., G.M. Fleming, S. Tremor, W. Spencer, and J.L. Beyers. 2012. The role of fire 

severity, distance from fire perimeter and vegetation on post-fire recovery of small-mammal 

communities in chaparral. International Journal of Wildland Fire 21: pages 436-448. 

DiTomaso, J.M and E.A. Healy. 2007. Weeds of the California and Other Western States. University 

of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication. 

Dixon, Gary E. comp 2002. Essential FVS: A User’s Guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. 

Internal Rep. USDA Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO, 

Revised: January 8, 2014. 226 pages. 

Dixon, Rita D. and Victoria A. Saab. 2000. Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus), The Birds 

of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from 

the Birds of North America. 

Donato, D.C.; Fontaine, J.B.; Campbell, J.L.; Robinson, W.D.; Kauffman, J.B.; Law, B.E. 2006. 

“Post-wildfire logging hinders regeneration and increases fire risk”. Science. 311: page 352. 

423
Stanislaus

References National Forest

Dunham, J. B., M. K. Young, R. E. Gresswell, and B. E. Rieman. 2003. Effects of fire on fish 

populations: landscape perspectives on persistence of native fishes and nonnative fish 

invasions. Forest Ecology and Management 178: pages 183-196. 

Elliot, William J.; Hall, David E. 2010. Disturbed WEPP Model 2.0. Ver. 2013.07.01. Moscow, ID: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Online at 

<http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp>. 

Federal Aviation Administration, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Flight near Noise-Sensitive Areas.

Advisory Circular. September 17, 2004. http://www.faa.gov 

Federal Register 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding for a petition 

to list the west coast distinct population segment of the fisher (Martes pennanti ); proposed 

rule. 69(68): pages 18769-18792. 

Federal Register 2006. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat 

for the California red-legged frog, and special rule exemption associated with final listing for 

existing routine ranching activities. Federal Register, volume 71, number 71, pages 19244-

19346. 

Federal Register 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: revised designation of critical 

habitat for the California red-legged frog; final rule. Federal Register, volume 75, number 51, 

pages 12815 – 12959. 

Federal Register 2013. Endangered and Threatened wildlife and plants; 90 day finding on a petition to 

list two populations of black-backed woodpeckers as Endangered or Threatened. 78 (68): 

pages 21086-21097. 

Federal Register 2013a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; endangered status for the 

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, and the northern distinct population segment of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog, and threatened status for the Yosemite toad; proposed rule. 

Federal Register, volume 78, number 80, pages 24472 - 24514. 

Federal Register 2013a. Endangered and Threatened wildlife and plants; status review of the West 

coast distinct population segment of the fisher as endangered or threatened. 78(53): pages 

16828-16829. 

Federal Register 2013b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat 

for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the northern distinct population segment of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite toad; proposed rule. Federal Register, 

volume 78, number 80, pages 24516 - 24574. 

Fellers, G. M. 2005. California red-legged frog species account, in Amphibian declines: the 

conservation status of United States species, Michael Lannoo, ed. University of California 

Press, Berkeley, CA. 1094 pages. 

Fellers, G. M. and P. M. Kleeman. 2007. California red-legged frog Rana draytonii movement and 

habitat use: Implications for conservation. Journal of Herpetology 41(2): pages 276-286. 

Fellers, G. M., D. E. Green, and J. E. Longcore. 2001. Oral chytridiomycosis in the mountain yellowlegged frog (Rana muscosa). Copeia 2001: pages 945-953. 

Finney, Mark A. 2006. An Overview of FlamMap Fire Modeling Capabilities. In: Andrews, Patricia 

L.; Butler, Bret W., comps. 2006. Fuels Management-How to Measure Success: Conference 

Proceedings. 28-30 March 2006; Portland, OR. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. pages 

213-220 

424
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

Fites, J.A., M. Campbell, A. Reiner, T. Decker. 2007. Fire Behavior and Effects 

Flores, M., C. Kvamme, B. Rust, K. Takenaka, and D. Young. 2013. BAER Assessment Soils Report 

– Rim Fire. 34 pages. Unpublished document. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus 

National Forest, Resource Management Program Area, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 

95370. 

Fogg, A., R. D. Burnett, and L. Jay Roberts. 2012. Occurrence patterns of Black-backed woodpecker 

in unburned National Forest land in the Sierra Nevada. PRBO Conservation Science 

Contribution Number 1872. 

Ford, L.D., P.A. Van Horrn, D.R. Rao, N.J. Scott, P.C. Trenham, and J.W. Bartolome. 2013. 

Managing rangelands to benefit California red-legged frogs and California tiger salamanders. 

Livermore, California: Alameda County Resource Conservation district. 

Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center, http://www.fs.fed.us/fmsc/fvs.

Fox, T.R., Morris, L.A., Maimone, R.A., 1989. The impact of windrowing on the productivity of a 

rotation age loblolly pine plantation. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial Southern 

Silviculture Research Conference, New Orleans, LA. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report No. SO-74, pages 133-140. 

Franklin, J.F., and J.A. Agee. 2003. Forging a science-based national forest fire policy. Issues in

Fraver, S. T. Jain, J.B. Bradford, A.W. D’Amato, D. Kastendick, B. Palik, D. Shinneman, and J. 

Stanovick. 2011. “The Efficacy of salvage logging in reducing subsequent fire severity in 

conifer-dominated forests of Minnesota, USA”. Ecological Applications, 21(6). 1895-1901. 

Frazier J.W., K.B. Roby, J.A. Boberg, K. Kenfield, J.B. Reiner, D.L. Azuma, J.L. Furnish, B.P. 

Staab, and S.L. Grant. 2005. Stream Condition Inventory Technical Guide. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region - Ecosystem Conservation Staff. Vallejo, CA. 111 pages. 

Frazier, J. 2006. Mechanized Equipment Operations in Riparian Conservation Areas. Unpublished 

document . On file with: USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest Resource Program 

Area, Sonora, CA. 

Frazier, J.W., S.J. Holdeman, and S.L. Grant. 2008. StreamScape Inventory Technical Guide. Version 

3. USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Resource Management Program Area. 

Sonora, CA. 32 pages. 

Freel, M. 1991. A literature review for management of the marten and fisher on National Forests in 

California. Unpublished Document, USDA Forest Service, PSW Region, San Francisco, 

California USA. 22 pages. 

Furnish, J. 2010. Progress report on monitoring of aquatic management indicator species (MIS) in the 

Sierra Nevada Province: 2009-2010 Field Seasons. December 2010. 6 pages.

FVS, 1997. Forest Vegetation Simulator Version 4.0.100.1190 WESSIN variant, USDA 

Gaines, W.L., P.H. Singleton, and R.C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Linear 

Recreation Routes on Wildlife Habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests, 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-586. Portland, Oregon. USDA Forest Service. 

Gellman, S. 1994. Results of bat surveys conducted on Stanislaus National Forest. Unpublished 

report. USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus NF, Sonora, CA. 

Gorte, Ross W. Wilderness Laws: Statutory Provisions and Prohibited and Permitted Uses, 

Congressional Research Service. Congressional Research Service. February 22, 2011. Print. 

http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/documents.pdf 

425
Stanislaus

References National Forest

Gotvald, A.J., N.A. Barth, A.G. Veilleux, and C. Parrett. 2012. Methods for determining magnitude 

and frequency of floods in California, based on data through water year 2006: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5113, 38 pages, 1 plate., 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5113/ 

Gray, A.N., Zald, H.S.J., North, M., Kern, R.A., 2005. Stand conditions associated with tree 

regeneration in Sierran mixed conifer-forests. Forest Science 51, pages 198–210. 

Green, C. 1995. Habitat requirements of great gray owls in the Central Sierra Nevada. M.S.Thesis, 

School of Natural Resources and Environment. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI. 

Grinnell, J. and A.H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna 

27: pages 1–608. 

Grinnell, J., J.S. Dixon, and J.M. Linsdale. 1937. Fur-bearing mammals of California. University of 

California Press, Berkeley, CA. Vols. 1 and 2. 777 pages. 

Hanson, C. T. and M. P. North. 2008. Post-fire woodpecker foraging in salvage-logged and unlogged 

forests of the Sierra Nevada. The Condor 110: pages 777–782. 

Hanson, C. T., and B. Cummings. 2010. Petition to the state of California Fish and Game 

Commission to list the Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) as Threatened or 

Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. John Muir Project and Center for 

Biological Diversity. 

Hanson, C. T., K. Coulter, J. Augustine, and D. Short. 2012. Petition to list the Black-backed 

Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered 

Species Act.

Hargis, C. D., C. McCarthy, and R. D. Perloff. 1994. Home ranges and habitats of northern goshawks 

in eastern California. Stud. Avian Biol. 16: pages 66-74. 

Hargis, C.D., J.A. Bissonette and D.L. Turner. 1999. The influences of forest fragmentation and 

landscape pattern on American Martens. Journal of Applied Ecology 36: pages 157-172. 

Harrison, N.M. 2012. Understanding the Effects of Soil Exposure in Fuels Treatments that Balance 

Fuel Reduction and Erosion Control in the Tahoe Basin. Thesis, Humboldt State University, 

Arcata, CA. 116 pages.

Hawkins, C.P, R.H. Norris, J.N. Hogue, and J.W. Feminella. 2000. Development and evaluation of 

predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Biological Applications. 

10(5): pages 1456-1477. 

Hawkins, C.P. 2003. Development, evaluation, and application of a RIVPACS-type predictive model 

for assessing the biological condition of streams in Region 5 (California) national forests. 

Completion Report. Western center for Monitoring and Assessment of Fresh Water 

Ecosystems. Utah State University. Logan, Utah. 23 pages.

Hayward, G. D. and J. Verner, tech. editors. 1994. Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Gray Owls in the 

United States: A Technical Conservation Assessment. General Technical Report RM-253. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, 

CO.

Helms, J. A. and J. C. Tappeiner. 1996. Silviculture in the Sierra. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 

Project: final report to congress. Vol. II, Chapter 15. Assessments and scientific basis for 

management options. Center for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, 

Davis, California.

Hermanson, J.W. and T.J. O’Shea. 1983. Antrozous pallidus. Mammalian Species 213: pages 1-8. 

426
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

Hirshfeld, J.R., and M.J. O’Farrell. 1976. Comparisons of differential warming rates and tissue 

temperatures in some species of desert bats. Comp. Biochem. Physiol., 55A: pages 83-87. 

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California.

Unpubl. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division. 

Hood, S.M., Smith, S.L., and D.R. Cluck. 2007. Delayed Conifer Tree Mortality Following Fire in 

California. In: Powers, Robert F., tech. editor. Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems: 

proceedings of the 2005 national silviculture workshop. General Technical Report PSWGTR-203, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA, pages 

261-283. 

Hoyt, J. S. and S. J. Hannon. 2002. Habitat associations of black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers 

in the boreal forest of Alberta. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32: pages 1881–1888. 

http://leopold.wilderness.net/pubs/678.pdf 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06109.html. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.pdf 

Hughes, R.M. and D.P. Larsen. 1987. Ecoregions: an approach to surface water protection. Journal of 

the Water Pollution Control Federation 60: pages 486-493. 

Hull, J. M., J. J. Keane, W. K. Savage, S. A. Godwin, J. A. Shafer, E. P. Jepsen, R. Gerhardt, C. 

Stermer, and H. B. Ernest. 2010. 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(1): pages 212-221. 

Hull, J.M., Englis, A. Jr., Medley, J.R., Jepsen, E.P., Duncan, J.R., Ernest, H.B., and J.J. Keane. 2014. 

A new subspecies of great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) in the Sierra Nevada of California, 

U.S.A.

Hunter, W.C., M.E. Cartes, D.N. Pashley, and K.Barker. 1993. “The Partners in Flight species 

prioritization scheme.” In Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds, edited by 

D.M Finch and P.W. Stangel. Proceedings of Estes Park Workshop, Sep 21-25. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest & Range Experimental Station, Ft. Collins, CO (GTR RM229) 

Hutto, R. L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in Northern 

Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9: pages 1041–1058. 

Hutto, R. L. 2008. The ecological importance of severe wildfires: Some like it hot. Ecological 

Applications 18: pages 1827–1834. 

Hutto, R. L. and S. M. Gallo. 2006. The effects of post-fire salvage logging on cavity-nesting birds. 

The Condor 108: pages 817–831. 

Ingles, L.G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press. Stanford, CA. 

Jackman, R.E., and J.M. Jenkins. 2004. Protocol for evaluating Bald Eagle habitat and populations in 

California. Prepared for US Fish & Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Division, Forest 

and Foothill Ecosystems Branch, Sacramento, CA. 

 Janicki, A. 2010. Soil Quality Monitoring Report, Groveland Ranger District, Stanislaus National 

Forest, Long Shannahan Unit. 1page. Unpublished document. On file with: USDA Forest 

Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Resource Management Program Area, 19777 Greenley 

Road, Sonora, CA 95370. 

427
Stanislaus

References National Forest

Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in 

California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho 

Cordova, CA. 255 pages. 

Kalinowski, R.S., Johnson, M.D., and A. C. Rich. In press. Habitat relationships of great gray owl 

prey in meadows of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Wildlife Society Bulletin.

Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological 

integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special 

Publication 5, Champaign, IL. 

Karraker, N.E., H.H. Welsh Jr. 2006. Long-term impacts of even-aged timber management on 

abundance and body condition of terrestrial amphibians in Northwestern California. 

Biological Conservation. 131(2006). Pages 132-140. 

Keane, J. 2013. California spotted owl: scientific considerations for forest planning. Chapter 7.2 in 

Science Synthesis to support Forest Plan Revision in the Sierra Nevada and Southern 

Cascades. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. Albany, CA. 

Keane, J.J. 1999. Ecology of the Northern goshawk in the Sierra Nevada, California. Ph.D. 

Dissertation. Office of Graduate Studies, University of California. Davis, CA. 123 pages. 

Keane, J.J., Ernest, H.B., and J.M. Hull. 2011. Conservation and Management of the Great Gray Owl 

2007-2009: Assessment of Multiple Stressors and Ecological Limiting Factors. Interagency 

Report, Agreement Number F8813-07-0611. PSW Research Station. Davis, CA. 

Keeley, J.E., J. Franklin and C. D’Antonio. 2011. “Fire & Invasives Plants on California Landscapes” 

In McKenzie D., C.Miller, D.A. Falk (eds) Landscape Ecology of Fire. Springer, New York, 

pages 193-221. 

Keeley, J.E., T.W. McGinnis. 2007. Impact of prescribed fire and other factors on cheatgrass 

persistence in a Sierra Nevada ponderosa pine forest. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 

16: pages 96-106. 

Knapp R.A. 1996. Non-native trout in natural lakes of the Sierra Nevada: an analysis of their 

distribution and impacts on native aquatic biota. In: Sierra Nevada ecosystem project, final 

report to congress. Volume III, Chapter 8. Assessments and scientific basis for management 

options. Center for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis, 

California.

Knapp R.A. and R.K. Matthews. 2000. Non-native fish introductions and the decline of the mountain 

yellow-legged frog from within protected areas. Conservation Biology 14(2): pages 428–438. 

Knapp R.A., R.K. Matthews, and O. Sarnelle. 2001. Resistance and resilience of alpine lake fauna to 

fish introductions. Ecological Monographs 71(3): pages 401–421. 

Knapp, E. E., Weatherspoon, C. P., & Skinner, C. N. (2012). Shrub Seed Banks in Mixed Conifer 

Forests of Northern California and the Role of Fire in Regulating Abundance. Fire Ecology 8 

(1): pages 32-48. 

Knapp, R. A. 2005. Effects of Nonnative Fish and Habitat Characteristics on Lentic Herpetofauna in 

Yosemite National Park, USA. Biological Conservation 121: pages 265-279. 

Knapp, R. A., D. M. Boiano, V. T. Vredenburg, 2007. Removal of Non-native Fish Results in a 

Population Expansion of a Declining Amphibian (mountain yellow-legged frog, Rana 

muscosa). Biological Conservation 135: pages 11–20. 

428
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

Koehler, G.M. and M.G. Hornocker 1977. Fire effects on marten habitat in the Selway-Biterroot 

Wilderness. Journal of Wildlife Management, 41(3): pages 500-505. 

Koivula, M. J and F. K. A. Schmiegelow. 2007. Boreal woodpecker assemblages in recently burned 

forested landscapes in Alberta, Canada: Effects of post-fire harvesting and burn severity. 

Forest Ecology and Management 242: pages 606–618. 

Kufeld, R.C., O.C. Wallmo, C. Feddema. 1973. Foods of Rocky Mountain mule deer. USDA Forest 

Service Fort Collins, CO. 30 pages.

Kunze, M.D., Stednick, J.D., 2006. Streamflow and suspended sediment yield followingthe 2000 

Bobcat fire, Colorado. Hydrological Processes 20, 1661–1681. 

Lacey, S.T. 2000. Runoff and sediment attenuation by undisturbed and lightly disturbed forest 

buffers. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 122: pages 121-138. 

Lamberson, R.H., R.L. Truex, W.J. Zielinski, and D.C. Macfarlane. 2000. Preliminary analysis of 

fisher population viability in the southern Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service. Pacific 

Southwest Region. Unpublished manuscript. 20 pages.

Landres, Peter; Boutcher, Steve; Dean, Liese; Hall, Troy; Blett, Tamara; Carlson, Terry; Mebane, 

Ann; Hardy, Carol; Rinehart, Susan; Merigliano, Linda; Cole, David; Leach, Andy; Wright, 

Pam, and Bumpus, Dec. 2009. Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related 

to Wilderness Character. General Technical Report WO-80. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. June 2009. Print.

Landres, Peter; Boutcher, Steve; Merigliano, Linda; Barns, Chris; Davis, Denis; Hall, Troy; 

Henry,Steve; Hunter, Brad; Janiga, Patrice; Laker, Mark; McPherson, Al; Powell, Douglas 

S.; Rowan,Mike; Sater, Susan. 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. 

April 2005. Print. http://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/WC/wilderness

Larsen, I.J, MacDonald, L.H., Brown, E., Rough, D., and Welsh, M.J. 2009. “Causes of Post-Fire 

Runoff and Erosion: Water Repellency, Cover, or Soil Sealing?” Soil Science Society of 

America Journal 73: pages 1393-1407 

Laudenslayer, W.F. and M.D. Parisi. 2007. Species notes for northern goshawk. California Wildlife 

Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System Level II model prototype. California Department of 

Fish & Game. Sacramento, CA.

Lee, D.E., M.L. Bond, and R.B. Siegel. 2012. Dynamics of breeding-season site occupancy of the 

California spotted owl in burned forests. The Condor 114: pages 792-802. 

Lewis, J.C. and D.W. Stinson. 1998. Washington state status report for the fisher. Washington Dept. 

Fish and Wildlife. Olympia. 64 pages. 

Lindenmayer, D.B. and R.F. Noss. 2006. Salvage Logging, Ecosystem Processes, and Biodiversity 

Conservation. Conservation Biology. Volume 20. Issue 4. Pages 949-958. 

Lindenmayer, D.B., Burton, P.J., and J.F. Franklin. 2008. Salvage Logging and its Ecological 

Consequences. Island Press. Washington D.C. 

Litschert, S.E. and L.H. MacDonald. 2009. Frequency and characteristics of sediment delivery 

pathways from forest harvest units to streams. Forest Ecology and Management. 259 (2009): 

Pages 143–150. 

429
Stanislaus

References National Forest

Lofroth, E. C., C. M. Raley, J. M. Higley, R. L. Truex, J. S. Yaeger, J. C. Lewis, P. J. Happe, L. L. 

Finley, R. H. Naney, L. J. Hale, A. L. Krause, S. A. Livingston, A. M. Myers, and R. N. 

Brown. 2010. Conservation of Fishers (Martes pennanti) in South-Central British Columbia, 

Western Washington, Western Oregon, and California–Volume I: Conservation Assessment. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado, USA. 

Long, J., and L. Quinn-Davidson with contributions from C.Skinner, S. Charnley, K.Hubbert, and M. 

Meyer. 2013. Post-wildfire management. Chapter 4.3 in Science Synthesis to support Forest 

Plan Revision in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Albany, CA.

Lowell, Eini C.; Rapp, Valerie A.; Haynes, Richard W.; Cray, Caitlin. 2010. Effects of Fire, Insect, 

and Pathogen Damage on Wood Quality of Dead and Dying Western Conifers. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-816.: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR. 73 pages. 

Lyon, L.J. and C.E. Jensen 1980. Implications of elk and deer use of clear-cuts in Montana. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 44(2): pages 352-362. 

Macfarlane, D. and L.M. Angerer. Draft 2013. Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) species account.

13 pages. 

Maddox, J.P. 1980. The Tuolumne Deer Herd Management Plan. California Department of Fish and 

Game. 60 pages. 

Madej, M.A. 2001. Erosion and Sediment Delivery Following Removal of Forest Roads. Earth 

Surface Processes and Landforms. 26: pages 175-190. 

Main ,W.A., Paananen, D.M., Burgan, R.E., 1990. Fire Family Plus. USDA Forest Service Gen. 

Tech. Rep., NC-138. USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. 

Paul, MN

Matthews, K. R., and K. L. Pope. 1999. A telemetric study of the movement patterns and habitat use 

of Rana muscosa, the mountain yellow-legged frog, in a high-elevation basin in Kings 

Canyon National Park, California. Journal of Herpetology 33: pages 615–624. 

May, C. L. and R. E. Gresswell. 2003. Large wood recruitment and redistribution in headwater 

streams in the southern Oregon Coast Range, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research: 

pages 1352-1362. 

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, eds. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. 166 pages. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/wildlife_habitats.asp 

Mayor, A.G., Bautista, S., Llovet, J., Bellot, J., 2007. Post-fire hydrological and erosionalresponses of 

a Mediterranean landscape: seven years of catchment-scale dynamics.Catena 71, pages 68–

75. 

McBain, S. and B. Trush. 2004. Attributes of bedrock Sierra Nevada river ecosystems. Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Stream Systems Technology Center, Fort Collins, CO. Stream 

Notes: pages 1-4. 

McConnell, L. L., J. S. LeNoir, S. Datta, and J. Seiber. 1998. Wet deposition of current-use pesticides 

in the Sierra Nevada mountain range, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 17 (10): pages 1908-1916. 

430
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

McIver, J, R. Ottmar. 2007. “Fuel mass and stand structure after postfire logging of a severely burned 

ponderosa pine forest in northeastern Oregon”. Forest Ecology and Management. 238: pages 

268-279. 

McIver, J.D. 2003. Sediment Transport and Soil Disturbance After Postfire Logging. Hydrological 

Science and Technology 2002 AIH Annual Meeting, Hydrologic Extremes: Challenges for 

Science and Management, October 13-17, 2002, Portland, OR, Volume 19, No. 1-4: pages 

335-347 

McIver, J.D., and L. Starr. 2001. A Literature Review on the Environmental Effects of Postfire 

Logging. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 16 (4): pages 159-168. 

McKelvey, K.S., C.N. Skinner, C. Chang, D.C. Erman, S.J. Husari, D.J. Parsons, J.W. van 

Wagtendonk, C.P. Weatherspoon. 1996. An overview of fire in the Sierra Nevada. In: Sierra 

Nevada ecosystem project, final report to congress. Volume II, Chapter 37. Assessments and 

scientific basis for management options. Center for Water and Wildland Resources, 

University of California, Davis, California.

McKelvey, K.S., Copeland, J.B., Schwartz, M.K., Cushman, S.A., Gonzalez, P. and K.B. Aubry. 

2008. Wolverine range, climatic requirements, and the likely effect of climate change on 

wolverine distribution. Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Conference, Western Section of The 

Wildlife Society. February 6-9, 2008. Redding, CA. 

Mclver, J.D., and L. Starr. 2000. Environmental Effects of Postfire Logging: Literature Review and 

Annotated Bibliography. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-486. Portland, OR: USDA 

Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. 72 pages.

McNeal, D. W. and Ness, B. D. 2012. Trillium, wakerobin, trillium. In: The Jepson manual, vascular 

plants of California, second edition. Ed.: Baldwin, B. G., et. al. University of California 

Press, Berkeley. 1568 pages. 

MIG, Inc. (Minnesota IMPLAN Group), IMPLAN Professional Version 3.0, Copyright 2014. 

Stillwater, MN.

Miller J.D., and A.E. Thode. 2007. Quantifying burn severity in a heterogeneous landscape with a 

relative version of the delta Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR). Remote Sensing of Environment 

109 (2007) pages 66–80. 

Miller, Nicholas P., Menge, Christopher W. of Menge, Harris, Miller, and Hanson Inc. Armstrong 

Laboratory, Occupational and Environmental Health Directorate, Bioenvironmental 

Engineering Division, Noise Effects Branch. Technical Tools for Use in Cooperative 

Management of Airspace and Public Lands. 

Moghaddas, J.J., York, R.A., and S.L. Stephens. 2008. Initial response of conifer and California black 

oak seedlings following fuel reduction activities in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. 

Forest Ecology and Management 255: pages 3141-3150. 

Monsanto, P.G. and J.K. Agee 2008. Long-term post wildfire dynamics of course woody debris after 

salvage logging and implications for soil heating in dry forests of the eastern Cascades, 

Washington. Forest Ecology and Management. 255: pages 3952-3962. 

Montgomery, D. R., T. B. Abbe, J. M. Buffington, N. P. Peterson, K. M. Schmidt, and J. D. Stock. 

1996. Distribution of alluvial and bedrock channels in forested mountain drainage basins. 

Nature 381: pages 587-589. 

Moody, J.A. and D.A. Martin. 2001. Initial Hydrologic and Geomorphic Response Following a 

Wildfire in the Colorado Front Range. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 26: pages 

1049-1070. 

431
Stanislaus

References National Forest

Moser, B.W. and E.O. Garton. 2009. Short-term Effects of Timber Harvest and Weather on Northern 

Goshawk Reproduction in Northern Idaho. Journal of Raptor Research 43: pages 1-10. 

Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los 

Angeles, California. 502 pages.

Moyle, P.B. and P.J. Randall. 1996. Biotic Integrity of Watersheds. Pages 975-985 in Sierra Nevada 

Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Assessments and scientific basis for 

management options, Vol II, chp 34. University of California, Centers for Water and 

Wildland Resources, Davis, CA 95616. http://ceres.ca.gov/snep/pubs/web/PDF/VII_C34.PDF 

Mullally, D. P., and J. D. Cunningham. 1956. Ecological relations of Rana muscosa at high elevations 

in the Sierra Nevada. Herpetologica 12: pages 189-198. 

Neary et al. 1999. Fire Effects on Belowground Sustainability: a Review and Synthesis." Forest 

Ecology and Management,: pages 51-71. 

Neary, Daniel G.; Ryan, Kevin C.; DeBano, Leonard F., eds. 2005. (revised 2008). Wildland Fire in 

Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Soils and Water. General Technical Report RMRS GTR-42-

vol.4. 

NFP 2000, National Fire Plan 

North, M., Stine, P., O’Hara, K., Zielinski, W., and S. Stephens. 2009. An ecosystem management 

strategy for Sierran mixed-conifer forests. Gen.Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Albany, CA.

North, Malcolm, ed. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Albany, CA.

O’Farrell, M.J., and E.H. Studier. 1973. Reproduction, growth, and development in Myotis 

thysanodes and M. lucifugus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Ecology, 54 (1): pages 18-30. 

O’Farrell, M.J., and E.H. Studier. 1980. Myotis Thysanodes. Mammalian species 137: pages 1-5. 

O’Shea, T.J. and Bogan, M.A., Editors. 2003. Monitoring trends in bat populations of the United 

States and territories: problems and prospects. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources 

Discipline, Information and Technology Report, USGS/BRD/ITR--2003—0003. 274 pages. 

Ode, P.R. 2007. Standard operating procedure for collecting macroinvertebrate samples and 

associated physical and chemical data for ambient bioassessments in California. California 

State Water Resources Control Board Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program 

(SWAMP) Bioassessment SOP 001.

Ode. P.R., A.C. Rehn and J.T. May. 2005. A quantitative tool for assessing the integrity of southern 

coastal California streams. Environmental Management 35: pages 493-504. 

Oliver, W.W., Ferrell, G.T., and J.C. Tappeiner. 1996. Density Management of Sierra Forests. Chp. 

11 In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, vol. III. Assessments and 

Scientific Basis for Management Options. University of California, Centers for Water and 

Wildland Resources, Davis

Olson, B.E. “Grazing and Weeds.” Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Ed. R.L. 

Sheley and J.K. Petroff. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 1999. Pages 85-96. 

Pannkuk, C. D., and P. R. Robichaud, 2003. Effectiveness of needle cast at reducing erosion after 

forest fires, Water Resources Research, 39(12), page 1333,

432
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

Parsons, A, PR Robichaud, SA Lewis, C Napper, JT Clark, 2010. Field Guide for Mapping Post-Fire 

Soil Burn Severity. USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-243. 

Parsons, A, PR Robichaud, SA Lewis, C Napper, JT Clark, 2010. Field Guide for Mapping Post-Fire 

Soil Burn Severity. USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-243. 

Perrine, J.D., Campbell, L.A., and G.A. Green. 2010. Conservation Assessment for the Sierra Nevada 

Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes necator). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, 

CA.

Perrine, J.D., Pollinger, J.P., Sacks, B.N., Barrett, R.H., and R.K.Wayne. 2007. Genetic evidence for 

the persistence of the critically endangered Sierra Nevada red fox in California. Conservation 

Genetics 8: pages 1083-1095. 

Peterson, D. L., Agee, J. K., Aplet, G. H., Dykstra, D. P., Graham, R. T., Lehmkuhl, J. F., ... & Stuart, 

J. D. (2009). “Effects of timber harvest following wildfire in western North America”. USDA 

Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR776. (Portland, OR). 

Peterson, D.L., J.K. Agee, G.H. Aplet, D.P. Dykstra, R.T. Graham, J.F. Lehmkuhl, D.S. Pilliod, D.F. 

Potts, R.F. Powers, and J.D. Stuart. 2009. Effects of timber harvest following wildfire in 

western North America. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-776. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 pages.

Philpott, W. 1997. Summaries of the life history of California bat species. USDA Forest Service, 

Pineridge Ranger District, Sierra National Forest.

Pierson, E. D., W. E. Rainey, and L.S. Chow. 2006. Bat use of the giant sequoia groves in Yosemite 

National Park. Report to Yosemite Fund, San Francisco, CA and Yosemite National Park, El 

Portal, CA, 154 pages. 

Pierson, E.D., W.E. Rainey, and C. Corben. 2001. Seasonal patterns of bat distribution along an 

altitudinal gradient in the Sierra Nevada. Report to California State University at Sacramento 

Foundation, Yosemite Association, and Yosemite Fund, 70 pages. 

Pierson, E.D., W.E. Rainey, and R.M. Miller. 1996. Night roost sampling: a window on the forest bat 

community in northern California. Pages 151-163 in Bats and Forests Symposium, October 

19-21, 1995, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Research Branch, Ministry of Forests, 

Victoria, British Columbia, Working Paper 23/1996. 

Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act; http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/peg_caa/pegcaain.html) 

Poff, R. 1996. "Effects of Silvicultural Pratices and Wildfire on Productivity of Forest Soils." Status 

of the Sierra Nevada,: Vol. II (16): pages 477-493. 

Pope, K. 1999. Mountain yellow-legged frog habitat use and movement patterns in a high elevation 

basin in Kings Canyon National Park. Unpublished MS Thesis, California State Polytechnic 

University, San Luis Obispo, California. 64 pages. 

Powers et al. 1998. "Assessing soil quality: Practicable standards for sustainable forest productivity in 

the US." SSSA,: pages 53-80. 

Powers et al. 2005. "Long Term Soil Productivity." Forest Ecology and Management: pages 31-50. 

Powers, B., Johnson, M.D., LaManna, J.A. and A. Rich. 2011. The influence of cattle grazing on 

pocket gophers in the central Sierra Nevada Mountains, California: potential implications for 

Great Gray Owls. Northwestern Naturalist 92: pages 13-18. 

433
Stanislaus

References National Forest

Powers, R.F. 2002. Effects of Soil Disturbance on the Fundamental, Sustainable Productivity of 

Managed Forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. PSW-GTR-183. Pages 

63-81 

Powers, R.F.; Scott, D.A.; Sanchez, F.G.,; Voldseth, R.A.; Page-Dumroese, D.; Elioff, J.D.; Stone, 

D.M. 2005. “The North American long-term soil productivity experiment: findings from the 

first decade of research.” Forest Ecology and Management. 220:31-50/ UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 pages. 

PSW. 2008. Pacific Southwest Research Station, US Forest Service news release: Preliminary DNA 

analysis completed on California wolverine. Arcata, CA.

Purcell, K.L, A.K. Mazzoni, S.R. Mori, and B.B. Boroski. 2009. Resting structures and resting habitat 

of fishers in the southern Sierra Nevada, California. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 

pages 2696-2706. 

Pyron, J., Palmer, A., Holland, C. and S. Holdeman. 2009. Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife biological 

assessment/evaluation, motorized travel management plan, Stanislaus National Forest. 

Sonora, CA. 

Quinn, R.D. and S.C. Keeley. 2006. Introduction to California Chaparral. University of California 

Press. Berkeley, CA.

Rabe, M.J., T.E. Morrell, H. Green, J.C. DeVos, Jr., and C.R. Miller. 1998. Characteristics of 

ponderosa pine snag roosts used by reproductive bats in northern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife 

Management, 62: pages 612-621. 

Rebain, Stephanie A. comp. 2010 (revised October 29, 2013). The Fire and Fuels Extension to the 

Forest Vegetation Simulator: Updated Model Documentation. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 408p.

Reese, D. A. 1996. Comparative demography and habitat use of western pond turtles in northern 

California: the effects of damming and related alterations. Doctoral dissertation, University of 

California, Berkeley. 251pages. 

Reeves, G.H., P.A. Bisson, B.E. Rieman, and L.E. Benda. 2006. Postfire Logging in Riparian Areas. 

Conservation Biology: 20(4): pages 994-1004. 

Relating to Suppression, Fuel Treatments, and Protected Areas on the Antelope Complex Wheeler 

Fire. USDA Forest Service, AMSET Enterprise Team. August 2007. 

Resh, V.H. and D.G. Price. 1984. Sequential sampling: a cost-effective approach for monitoring 

benthic macroinvertebrates in environmental impact assessments. Environmental 

Management 8: pages 75-80. 

Resh, V.H. and D.M. Rosenberg. 1989. Spatial-temporal variability and the study of aquatic insects. 

Canadian Entomologist 121: pages 941-963. 

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, G. 

Goodwin, R. Smith, and E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern 

goshawk in the southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217. 

Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn. Fort Collins, CO. 

Reynolds, R.T., Graham, R.T., and D.A. Boyce. 2008. Northern goshawk habitat: an intersection of 

science, management, and conservation. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: pages 1047-

1055. 

434
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

Rich, A., Lisius, S.K., Statham, M.J., and B.N. Sacks. 2011. Discovery of a remnant population of 

Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) in the southern Sierra Nevada. Presented at: 

The Western Section of The Wildlife Society Annual Conference, 2011. Riverside, CA. 

Ritchie, Martin A., E. Knapp, 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: pages 113-122. 

Robataille, J.F. and K. Aubry. 2000. Occurrence and activity of American martens Martes Americana 

in relation to roads and other routes. Fragmenta Theriologica 45(1): pages 137-143. 

Roberts, S. and M. North. 2012. California Spotted Owls, pages 61-71 in Managing Sierra Nevada 

Forests. PSW-GTR-237. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Albany, 

CA.

Roberts, S.L., van Wagtendonk, J.W., Miles, A.K., and D.A. Kelt. 2011. Effects of fire on spotted 

owl site occupancy in a late-successional forest. Biological Conservation 144: pages 610-619. 

Robichaud, P.R., W.J. Elliot, L. MacDonald, R. Coats, J.W. Wagenbrenner, S.A. Lewis, L.E. 

Ashmun, and R.E. Brown. 2011. Evaluating Post-fire Salvage Logging Effects on Erosion. 

Final Report Joint Fire Science Program 06-3-4-21. 21 pages. 

Robinson, J.C. 1996. Biological Evaluation/Assessment and Impact Analysis Checklist, as revised 

1996, and revised draft 2010. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA. 

Rodriguez-Prieto, I. and E. Fernandez-Juricic. 2005. Effects of direct human disturbance on the 

endemic Iberian frog Rana iberica at individual and population levels. Biological 

Conservation 123: pages 1-9. 

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO. 

Rost, Gregory R., J.A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 43(3): pages 634-641. 

Ruediger, R. and J. Ward. 1996. Abundance and function of large woody debris in central Sierra 

Nevada streams. Fish Habitat Relationships Technical Bulletin, U. S. Department of 

Agriculture. FHR Currents 20: pages 1-13. 

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski, tech. eds. 1994. The 

scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and 

Wolverine in the United States. General Technical Report RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: U. S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 184 pages.

Russell, K.R., D.H. Van Lear, and D.C. Guynn. 1999. Prescribed fire effects on herpetofauna: review 

and management implications. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: pages 374–384. 

Russell, R. E., V. A. Saab, and J. G. Dudley. 2007. Habitat-suitability models for cavity-nesting birds 

in a post-fire landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: pages 2600–2611. 

Rust, Brad, D. Young, C. Kvamme, M. Flores, and K. Takenaka. 2013. “BAER Assessment Soils 

Report – Rim Fire”. USDA, Technical. Sonora, California. 

Rutherford, J.C., N.A. Marsh, P.M. Davies, and S.E. Bunn. 2004. Effects of Patchy Shade on Stream 

Water Temperature: How Quickly do Small Streams Heat and Cool? Marine and Freshwater 

Research 55: pages 737-748. 

435
Stanislaus

References National Forest

Rutten, L. and S.L. Grant. 2008. Cumulative Watershed Effects Excel Based Analysis Model. 

Version 2.0. USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Resource Management 

Program Area. Sonora, CA. 

Saab, V. A. and J. G. Dudley. 1998. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand-replacement fire and 

salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of southwestern Idaho. (Research Paper 

RMRS-RP-11). Fort Collins: USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Saab, V. A., R. E. Russell, and J. G. Dudley. 2007. Nest densities of cavity-nesting birds in relation to 

post-fire salvage logging and time since wildfire. The Condor 109: pages 97–108. 

Saab, V. A., R. E. Russell, J. Rotella, and J. G. Dudley. 2011. Modeling nest survival of cavity 

nesting birds in relation to post-fire salvage logging. Journal of Wildlife Management 75: 

pages 794–804. 

Salwasser, H., S.A. Holl, M. Ross. 1982. Deer Habitats in California, Deer ecology and habitat 

relationships models for inventory, planning, and management. Contributers include: CDFG, 

USDA Forest Service, BLM.

Saracco, J.F., Siegel, R.B., and R.L. Wilkerson. 2011. Occupancy modeling of black-backed 

woodpeckers on burned Sierra Nevada forests. Ecosphere 2(3): pages 1-17. 

Schlobohm, Paul and Brain, Jim. 2002. Gaining and understanding of the national fire danger rating 

system. PMS-932, NFES#2665. May, 2002. National Wildfire Coordinating Group, 

Washington D.C. 7 1 pages.

Schwab, F. E., N. P. P. Simon, S. W. Stryde, and G. J. Forbes. 2006. Effects of postfire snagremoval 

on breeding birds of Western Labrador. Journal of Wildlife Management 70: pages 1464–

1469. 

Science and Technology 20, pages 59–66. 

Scott, Joe H.; Burgan, Robert E. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for 

use with Rothermel's surface fire spread model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 72 pages.

Scott,T. and N. Pratini. 1995. Habitat Fragmentation: the sum of the pieces is less than the whole. 

California Agriculture 49(6): pages 56-56. 

Seamans, M.E., and R.J. Gutierrez. 2007. Habitat selection in a changing environment: The 

relationship between habitat alteration and spotted owl territory occupancy and breeding 

dispersal. The Condor 109(3): pages 566-576. 

Sears, C.L. 2006. Assessing distribution, habitat suitability, and site occupancy of Great Gray Owls 

(Strix nebulosa) in California. M.S. Thesis. UC Davis, Davis, CA.

Seavy, N.E., R.D. Burnett, P.J. Taille. 2012. Black-backed woodpecker nest-tree preference in burned 

forests of the Sierra Nevada, CA. Wildlife Society Bulletin 36(4): pages 722-728. 

Sedell, J. R., P. A. Bisson, F. J. Swanson, and S. V. Gregory. 1988. Chapter 3: What we know about 

large trees that fall into streams and rivers. In Maser, C., R. F. Tarrant, J. M. Trappe, and J. F. 

Franklin., tech. eds. 1988. From the forest to the sea: a story of fallen trees. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-229. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station.USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon. 

Self, S., E. Murphy, and S. Farber. 2008. Preliminary estimate of fisher populations in California and 

southern Oregon. Unpublished report. Submitted to California Department of Fish and Game. 

15 pages. 

436
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

Semlitsch, R.D., B.D. Todd, S.M. Blomquist, A.J.K. Calhoun, J.W. Gibbons, J.P. Gibbs, G.J. Graeter, 

E.B. Harper, D.J. Hocking, M.L. Hunter Jr., D.A. Patrick, T.A.G. Rittenhouse, B.B. 

Rothermel. 2009. Effects of Timber Harvest on Amphibian Popoulations: Understanding 

Mechanisms from Forest Experiments. BioScience. 59: pages 853-862. 

Shakesby, R.A., D.J. Boakes, C. Coelho, A.J. Bento Goncalves, and R.P.D. Walsh. 1996. Limiting 

the Soil Degradational Impacts of Wildfire in Pine and Eucalyptus Forests in Portugal. 

Applied Geography, 16 (4): pages 337-355. 

Sheley, Roger; Manoukian, Mark; Marks, Gerald. 1999. Preventing noxious weed invasion. In: 

Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland 

weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: pages 69-72. 

Sherburne, S.S. and J.A. Bissonette. 1994. Marten subnivean access point use: response to subnivean 

prey levels. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: pages 400-405. 

Siegel, R. B. 2001. Surveying Great Gray Owls on southern Sierra Nevada forests. Results from the 

2001 field season. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA. 

Siegel, R. B. 2002. Surveying Great Gray Owls on southern Sierra Nevada forests. Results from the 

2002 field season. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA. 

Siegel, R. B., J. F. Saracco, and R. L. Wilkerson. 2010. Management indicator species (MIS) surveys 

on Sierra Nevada national forests: Black-backed Woodpecker. 2009 annual report Report to 

USFS Pacific Southwest Region. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, 

California. 

Siegel, R. B., M. W. Tingley, and R. L. Wilkerson. 2011. Black-backed Woodpecker MIS surveys on 

Sierra Nevada National Forests: 2010 annual report. Report to USFS Pacific Southwest 

Region. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, California. 

www.birdpop.org. 

Siegel, R. B., M. W. Tingley, and R. L. Wilkerson. 2012. Black-backed Woodpecker MIS Surveys on 

Sierra Nevada National Forests: 2011 Annual Report. Report to USFS Pacific Southwest 

Region. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, California. 

Siegel, R. B., R. L. Wilkerson, and D. F. DeSante. 2008a. Extirpation of the Willow Flycatcher from 

Yosemite National Park. Western Birds 39: pages 8-21. 

Siegel, R. B., R. L. Wilkerson, and D. L. Mauer. 2008. Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) 

Surveys on Sierra Nevada National Forests: 2008 Pilot Study. Final Report in fulfillment of 

Forest Service Agreement No. 08-CS-11052005-201. The Institute for Bird Populations, 

Point Reyes Station, California. 

Silins, U., M. Stone, M.B. Emelko, and K.D. Bladon. 2009. Sediment Production Following Severe 

Wildfire and Post-Fire Salvage Logging in the Rocky Mountain Headwaters of the Oldman 

River Basin, Alberta. Catena 79: pages 189-197. 

Slauson, K.M.; Zielinski, W.J.; Hayes, J.P. 2007. Habitat selection by American martens in coastal 

California. Journal of Wildlife Management 71 (2): pages 458-468. 

Smith, H.G. G.J. Sheridan, P.N.J. Lane, and L.J. Bren. 2011. Wildfire and Salvage Harvesting Effects 

on Runoff Generation and Sediment Exports from Radiata Pine and Eucalypt Forest 

Catchments, South-Eastern Australia. Forest ecology and Management 261: pages 570-581. 

Smucker, K.M., R.L. Hutto, and B.M. Steele. 2005. Changes in bird abundance after wildfire: 

Importance of fire severity and time since fire. Ecological Applications 15 (5): pages 1535–

1549. 

437
Stanislaus

References National Forest

SNEP. 1996. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to 

Congress. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources of the University of California, Davis.

Soracco, J.F., R.B. Siegel, and R.L. Wilkerson. Occupancy modelling of black-backed woodpeckers 

on burned Sierra Nevada forests. Ecosphere 2 (3) pages 1-17. 

Spencer, W. and H.Rustigan-Romsos. 2012. Decision-support maps and recommendations for 

conserving rare carnivores in the interior mountains of California. Conservation Biology 

Institute, Corvallis OR. 49 pages. 

Spencer, W.D., H.L. Rustigian, R.M. Scheller, A. Syphard, J. Strittholt, and B. Ward. 2008. Baseline 

evaluation of fisher habitat and population status, and effects of fires and fuels management 

on fishers in the southern Sierra Nevada. Unpublished report prepared for USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region. June 2008. 133 pages plus appendices. 

Spencer, W.D., R.H. Barrett, and W.J. Zielinski. 1983. Marten habitat preferences in the northern 

Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management 47(4): pages 1181-1186. 

Squires, John R. and Richard T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), The Birds of 

North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

Stafford, A. K. 2011. Sediment production and delivery from hillslopes and forest roads in the 

southern Sierra Nevada, California. Master’s Thesis, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, 

CO. 190 pages. 

State of California, Department of Finance, 2012. P-1 Report Tables, Table 1 County by Decade. 

Sacramento, California.

State of California, Employment Development Department, 2014. Labor Market Information for 

Counties. 

http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/LMID/Employment_by_Industry_Data.html 

Statham, M.J., Rich, A.C., Lisius, S.K., and B.N. Sacks. 2012. Discovery of a remnant population of 

Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator). Northwest Science 86: pages 122-132. 

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: pages 21-36. 

Stephens, S.L., Moghaddas, J.J., Edminster, C., Fiedler, C.E., Haase, S., Harrington, M., Keeley, J.E., 

Knapp, E.E., McIver, J.D., Metlen, K., Skinner, C.N., and A. Youngblood. 2009. Fire 

treatment effects on vegetation structure, fuels, and potential fire severity in western U.S. 

forests. Ecological Applications 19: pages 305-320. 

Talley, T. S., M. Holyoak, and D.A. Piechnik 2006. The effects of dust on the Federally Threatened 

valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Environmental Management 37(5): pages 647-658. 

Tatarian, P. J. 2008. Movement patterns of the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) in 

an inland California environment. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(2): pages 155-

169. 

Temporary Forest Order (STF 2013-15) signed on November 18, 2013 by Forest Supervisor Susan 

Skalski

The Rules about Flying over Wilderness Areas/An Eclectic Mind. http://www.aneclecticmind.com 

Thompson, C., K. Purcell, J. Garner and R. Green. 2011. Kings River Fisher Project Progress report 

2007-2010. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, Fresno, California, 

USA 37 pages. 

438
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

Thompson, J.R., T.A. Spies, L.M. Ganio. 2007. Reburn Severity in Managed and Unmanaged 

Vegetation in a Large Wildfire. PNAS, 104 (25). Pages 10743-10748. 

Thompson, K. 2000. “The functional ecology of soil seed banks.” In: M. Fenner, editor. Seeds: The 

Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. pp. 215-235. 

Tingley, M.W., R.L. Wilkerson, and R.B. Siegel. 2014. Modelling expected density of black-backed 

woodpeckers at the Rim fire, California: a decision-support tool for post-fire management. 

Truex, R.L. W.J. Zielinski, R.T. Golightly, R.H. Barrett, and S.M. Wisely. 1998. A meta-analysis of 

regional variation in fisher morphology, demography, and habitat ecology in California. Draft 

report submitted to: California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management 

Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section. Sacramento, California, USA. 118 pages.

Truex, R.L., and W.J. Zielinski. 2005. Short-term effects of fire and fire surrogate treatments on 

fisher habitat in the Sierra Nevada. Final report to the Joint Fire Science Program, Project 

JFSP 01C-3-3-02. Unpublished. 25 pages. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA). 1981. Soil survey, USDA Forest Service, 

Stanislaus National Forest area, California. Unpublished., National Cooperative Soil Survey. 

U.S. Government. 2013. Code of Federal Regulations. Government Printing Office. Available at: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR, accessed 

January 31, 2012. 

University of California, Berkeley, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

http://ucanr.edu/sites/WoodyBiomass/Woody_Biomass_Utilization_2/California_Biomass_P

ower_Plants/ 

University of California, Berkeley, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Publication 8070, 

“Forestry, Forest Industry, and Forest Products Consumption in California.” 

University of California, Berkeley, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. William 

McKillop, Professor Emeritus, “Economic Impacts of Revised 2001 Ancient Trees 

Initiative.”

USCB 2011. Census 2010 State and County Quick Facts. United States Census Bureau. 

USDA 1981. Soil survey, Stanislaus National Forest area, California. Unpubl., National 

Cooperative Soil Survey.

USDA 1986. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Users Guide, USDA 1986. Print. 

USDA 1988. Cumulative Off-site Effects Analysis, Interim Directive No. 1. Soil and Water 

Conservation Handbook. FSH.2509.22, chapter 20. San Francisco: USDA Forest Service, 

USDA 1988a. Tuolumne Wild and Scenic Management Plan. Stanislaus National Forest. 

USDA 1990. Cumulative off-site watershed effects analysis. Soil and water conservation handbook. 

USDA Forest Service, R-5 FSH 2509.22 Amend. 2 7/88. San Francisco, CA. Chapter 20. 

USDA 1990a. Soil EHR, R5 Amendment No. 2. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. FSH 

2509.22, Ch. 50. R5 Handbook Amendment, San Francisco: USDA Forest Service. 

USDA 1991. Appendix E Wild and Scenic River Study Eligibility and Suitability. Stanislaus National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan pages E-46-51. 

USDA 1991a. Protocol for surveying for spotted owls in proposed management activity areas and 

habitat conservation areas. March 12, 1991 (revised February 1993). 

439
Stanislaus

References National Forest

USDA 1991b. Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest 

Service, Stanislaus National Forest, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370. 

USDA 1991c. Final Environmental Impact Statement; Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan; Appendix E Wild and Scenic River Study. October 1991. Forest Service, 

Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA. 

USDA 1992-1998. Water quality best management practices evaluation program, BMPEP V28 

monitoring data sheet. 6 pages. Unpublished document. On file with: Stanislaus National 

Forest, Resource Management Program Area, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370. 

USDA 1993. California Spotted Owl Sierran Province Interim Guidelines Environmental 

Assessment. Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Service.

USDA 1998. Eldorado National Forest Cumulative Off-Site Watershed Effects (CWE) Analysis 

Process. Eldorado National Forest, Placerville, CA. 

USDA 1999. Pacific Southwest Region Soil Interpretations. Technical, : USDA Forest Service 

Vallejo, CA.

USDA 2000. Pacific Southwest R5. Weed Management Plan, Southwest Region noxious weed 

management strategy. USDA Forest Service. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_045567.pdf 

USDA 2000a. Survey methodology for northern goshawks in the Pacific Southwest Region, US 

Forest Service. Vallejo, CA.

USDA 2000b. Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California: Best Management 

Practices. Technical. USDA Forest Service.Vallejo, CA

USDA 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD), Biological Opinion, Biological 

Assessment, and Biological Evaluation. Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Service. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/library/archives/feis/index.htm 

USDA 2002. Investigating water quality in the pacific southwest region: best management practices 

evaluation program user’s guide. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, 

California.

USDA 2002a. Stanislaus National Forest Emigrant Wilderness Management Direction. Stanislaus 

National Forest, Sonora, CA. 2002. Print. 

USDA 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (FSEIS) and Record of Decision, Biological Opinion, Assessment, and Evaluation.

Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Service. . http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/final-seis/

USDA 2004a. Water quality best management practices evaluation program, BMPEP. Brown Darby. 

59 pages. Unpublished document. On file with: Stanislaus National Forest, Resource 

Management Program Area, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370. 

USDA 2005. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2004. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-026. 8 pages. 

USDA 2006. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12-80. Wild and Scenic River Evaluation. 82.51-9 a and 

b. 

USDA 2006a. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2005. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-000. 12 pages. 

440
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

USDA 2006b. Borax (Sporax)- Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment- Final Report. 

Prepared by: Durkin, P.; Klotzbach, J.; submitted by: Syracuse Environmental Research 

Associates, Inc., USDA Purchase Order No.: AG-3187-P-05-0249, [SERA TR 04-43-21/06-

30-02b] Forest Health Protection. Arlington, VA. 136 pages.

USDA 2006c. Draft - MIS Analysis and Documentation in Project-Level NEPA, R5 Environmental 

Coordination, May 25, 2006. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Region. 3 pages. 

USDA 2006d. Timber Sale Contract Form 2400-6. National Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

USDA 2007. Record of Decision, Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December, 2007. 18 pages. 

USDA 2007a. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 Land Management Planning Handbook; Chapter 70, 

Wilderness Evaluation Amendment 1909.12-2007-1. January 31, 2007. Forest Service, 

Washington, DC. 25 pages. 

USDA 2007b. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2006. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-149. 12 pages. 

USDA 2007c. USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan: 2007-2012. USDA Forest Service. FS-880. 38 

pages.

USDA 2007d. Water quality best management practices evaluation program, report of BMPEP 

monitoring 2006. 4 pages. Unpublished document. On file with: Stanislaus National Forest, 

Resource Management Program Area, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370. 

USDA 2008. National Visitor Use Monitoring Visitor Use Report. Print.

USDA 2008a. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report: Life 

history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra Nevada National 

Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe 

National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. USDA Forest Service. Pacific 

Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. January 2008. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfmisa/pdfs/2008_Sierra_Nevada_Forests_MIS_Report_January_20

08.pdf 

USDA 2008b. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Stanislaus National Forest Area.

USDA National Resources Conservation Services (NRCS)

USDA 2008c. Water quality best management practices evaluation program, report of BMPEP 

monitoring 2007. 5 pages. Unpublished document. On file with: USDA Forest Service, 

Stanislaus National Forest, Resource Management Program Area, 19777 Greenley Road, 

Sonora, CA 95370. 

USDA 2009. 2008 SNFPA carnivore monitoring accomplishment report. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region, Draft Report. 12 pages. 

USDA 2009a. Forest Service Manual 2350 Recreation, Trails, Rivers and Similar Opportunities. 

2354.4, 2354.42d, 2354.62

USDA 2009b. Motorized Travel Management (17305) Environmental Impact Statement. Stanislaus 

National Forest, Sonora, CA. 2009. Print.

USDA 2009c. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2007. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region. On-line version.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/monitoringreport2007/ 

441
Stanislaus

References National Forest

USDA 2009d. Water quality best management practices evaluation program, report of BMPEP 

monitoring 2008. 5 pages. Unpublished document. On file with: USDA Forest Service, 

Stanislaus National Forest, Resource Management Program Area, 19777 Greenley Road, 

Sonora, CA 95370. 

USDA 2009e. Water Quality Protection on National Forests in the Pacific Southwest Region: Best 

Management Practices Evaluation Program, 2003-2007. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, Vallejo, California. 28 pages. 

USDA 2010. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2008. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region. On-line version.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/monitoringreport2008/ 

USDA 2010a. Stanislaus National Forest Forest Plan Direction, April 21, 2010. Plus errata. Sonora, 

CA. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5154788.pdf 

USDA 2010b. Forest Service Manual 2500, Chapter 2550--Soil Management. Manual, Washington, 

DC. USDA Forest Service.

USDA 2010c. Conservation Assessment with Management Guidelines for Peltigera hydrothyria 

Miadlikowska & Lutzoni (a.k.a. Hydrothyria venosa J. L. Russell). Prepared under contract 

by Eric B. Peterson, Ph.D., California Native Plant Society. Unpublished. USDA Forest 

Service, Region 5.

USDA 2010d. Fire History (Computer GIS Shapefile). Unpublished. USDA Forest Service, 

Stanislaus National Forest. 

USDA 2010e. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report: Life 

history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra Nevada National 

Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe 

National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. USDA Forest Service. 

Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. December 2010. 132 pages. 

USDA 2010f. Water quality best management practices evaluation program, report of BMPEP 

monitoring 2009. 6 pages. Unpublished document. On file with: Stanislaus National Forest, 

Resource Management Program Area, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370. 

USDA 2010g. Water quality best management practices evaluation program, report of BMPEP 

monitoring 2009. 5 pages. Unpublished document. On file with: USDA Forest Service, 

Stanislaus National Forest, Resource Management Program Area, 19777 Greenley Road, 

Sonora, CA 95370. 

USDA 2011. Forest Service Handbook 7709.59 sec 41.7, 2e, February 2011 

USDA 2011a. FSH 2509.22 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Chapter 10 Water Quality 

Management Handbook, Best Management Practices. USDA Forest Service Pacific 

Southwest Region. 

USDA 2011b. Invasive species management, national forest resource management. USDA Forest 

Service, FSM Chapter 2900, Washington, DC. 

USDA 2011d. Water quality best management practices evaluation program, report of BMPEP 

monitoring 2010. 7 pages. Unpublished document. On file with: USDA Forest Service, 

Stanislaus National Forest, Resource Management Program Area, 19777 Greenley Road, 

Sonora, CA 95370. 

USDA 2012. Increasing the Pace of Restoration and Job Creation on Our National Forests. February 

2012. Print.

442
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

USDA 2012a. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National 

Forest System Lands, Volume 1-National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. Washington, 

DC. April. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012

.pdf 

USDA 2012b. Region 5 Soil Management Handbook Amendment – 2550 FSM Amendment, Vallejo: 

USDA Forest Service.

USDA 2012c. Region 5, Stanislaus National Forest. 2012. “National Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM) Data collected FY 2007.” 

USDA 2012e. Water quality best management practices evaluation program, report of BMPEP 

monitoring 2011. 10 pages. Unpublished document. On file with: Stanislaus National Forest, 

Resource Management Program Area, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370. 

USDA 2013. BAER Rim Fire Recreation Facilities and Trails BAER Report. September 2013. Print.

USDA 2013a. Bagley Fire erosion and sedimentation investigation. Interim Report, Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest, Redding, CA. 49 pages. 

USDA 2013b. Forest Service Manual, (FSM) 2300 Recreation, Wilderness and Related Resource 

Management. May 13, 2013. Print. 

USDA 2013c. Forest Service Travel Routes Data Dictionary, Version 3.1. USDA Forest Service, 

Travel Routes Road User Board.

USDA 2013d. Regional Cumulative Effects Analysis for Black-Backed Woodpeckers in California 

Using Burned Forested Habitat – June 13, 2013. Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA. 

USDA 2013e. Science Synthesis to Promote Resilience of Social-ecological Systems in the Sierra 

Nevada and Southern Cascades (Draft) USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. January 2013. USDA Forest Service. 504 pages.

USDA 2013f. Temporary Forest Order (STF 2013-15) signed on November 18, 2013 by Forest 

Supervisor Susan Skalski. Print.

USDA 2013g. Update to Regional Foresters Sensitive Animal Species List. Dated June 30, 2013. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/tes/

USDA 2013h. Water quality best management practices evaluation program, report of BMPEP 

monitoring 2012. 10 pages. Unpublished document. On file with: Stanislaus National Forest, 

Resource Management Program Area, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370. 

USDA 2014. Forest Service Directive System, Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks, 7700 Series: 

Travel Management. USDA Forest Service. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/, 

accessed March 14, 2014. 

USDA 2014a. Forest transportation atlas – GIS Spatial and INFRA Tabular Data, Stanislaus National 

Forest. USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus NF, Sonora, CA. 

USDA 2014b. Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) Wildlife database. U.S. Forest Service.

USDA 2014c. Rim Fire Hazard Trees (43032) Environmental Assessment. March 2014. Print.

USDA 2014d. Rim Fire Recovery Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Forest Service, Stanislaus 

National Forest. Sonora, CA. April 2014. 

443
Stanislaus

References National Forest

USDA and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Memorandum of Understanding between the US 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to promote 

the conservation of migratory birds. FS Agreement #08-MU-1113-2400-264. Washington, 

D.C.

USDA Minimum Requirement Decision Guide. www.fs.usda.gov/internet/FSE 

USDA Recreation Facility Analysis (RFA). WWW.fs.usda.gov/recreation/programs/rfa. Forest 

Service Web Site.

USFWS 1984. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Recovery Plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Portland, Oregon. 

USFWS 1998. US Fish & Wildlife Service Endangered Species Consultation Handbook – Procedures 

for conducting Section 7 Consultations and Conferences. US Fish & Wildlife Service and 

National Marine Fisheries Service. Washington D.C.

USFWS 1999. Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California.

USFWS 2002. Recovery plan for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. viii + 173 pages.

USFWS 2006. Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), 5-Year 

Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. 

USFWS 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. May 2007. Washington, D.C. 

USFWS 2008. Birds of conservation concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pages. 

[Online version available at <http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/>

USFWS 2014. Federal endangered and threatened species that may be affected by projects in the 

Stanislaus National Forest. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES_Species/Lists/es_species_lists_NF-form-page.htm 

(February 19, 2014). 

USGS 2013. Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) 

(4 ed.): Techniques and Methods 11–A3. US Geological Survey, 63 pages., 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/11/a3/. 

Van Riper, C. III. and J. Van Wagtendonk. 2006. Home range characteristics of Great Gray Owls in 

Yosemite National Park. Journal of Raptor Research 40(2): pages 42-53. 

Verner, J., K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutierrez, G.I. Gould, Jr., and T.W. Beck., tech. coord. 

1992. The California Spotted Owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-133, US Forest Service, Albany, CA. 

Vierling, K. T., L. B. Lentile, and N. Nielsen-Pincus. 2008. Preburn characteristics and woodpecker 

use of burned coniferous forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: pages 422–427. 

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 217: pages 

361–374. 

Vredenburg, V.T., G. Fellers, and C. Davidson. 2005. The mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana 

muscosa). In Lannoo, M.J. (Ed.), Status and Conservation of U.S. Amphibians. University of 

California Press, Berkeley, California, USA. 

444
Rim Fire Recovery (43033)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

Wagener, W. W. 1961. Guidelines for estimating the survival of fire-damaged trees in California. 

Miscellaneous paper-60, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, 

CA. 11 pages. 

Wagtendonk, J.W.V., K.A.V Wagtendonk, and A.E. Thode. 2012. “Factors associated with the 

severity of Intersecting Fires in Yosemite” National Park, California, USA. Fire Ecology 

8(1). pages 11-32. 

Weller, T.J., and C.J. Zabel. 2001. Characteristics of fringed Myotis day roosts in northern California.

Journal of Wildlife Management, 65: pages 489-497. 

Wengert, G. 2008. Habitat Use, Home Range, and Movements of Mountain Yellow-legged Frogs 

(Rana muscosa) in Bean and Spanish Creeks on the Plumas National Forest. Final Report to 

the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, CA 32 

pages.

Wilderness.net Emigrant Wilderness Fact Sheet. www.wilderness.net

Wilderness.net Wilderness Character Toolbox. www.wilderness.net/charactor

Wilderness.net Yosemite Wilderness Fact Sheet. www.wilderness.net 

Williams, D.F. 1986. Mammalian Species of special concern in California. Prepared for the State of 

California the Resource Agency Department of Fish and Game Sacramento, CA. Department 

of Biological Sciences California State University Stanislaus, Turlock, CA. 107 pages.

Williamson, J.R. and W.A. Neilson. 2000. “The influence of forest site on rate and extent of soil 

compaction and profile disturbance of skid trails during ground-based harvesting”. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 30: pages 1196-1205. 

Wisely, S.M., S.W. Buskirk, G.H. Russel, K.B. Aubry, and W.J. Zielinski. 2004. Genetic diversity 

and structure of the fisher (Martes pennanti) in a peninsular and peripheral metapopulation.

Journal of Mammalogy. 85(4): pages 640-648. 

Woodbridge, B. and C. D. Hargis. 2006. Northern goshawk inventory and monitoring technical guide. 

Gen.Tech. Rep. WO-71. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. 

Woodbridge, B. and P. J. Detrich. 1994. Territory occupancy and habitat patch size of northern 

goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. Stud. Avian Biol. 16: pages 83-87. 

Wright, A. H., and A. A. Wright. 1949. Handbook of frogs and toads of the United States and 

Canada. Third edition. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, New York. xii+640 pages.

Zeiner, D.C., Laudenslayer, W.F. Jr., Mayer K.E., and White M. 1990. California Statewide Wildlife 

Habitat Relationships System. California’s Wildlife. Volume III; Mammals. CA Department 

of Fish and Game, Sacramento CA, USA. 

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, and K.E. Meyer (eds.) 1988. California’s wildlife. Volume I. 

Amphibians and reptiles. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relations System, California 

Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento. 2 pages. 

Zielinski, W.J, R.L. Truex, J.R. Dunk and T. Gaman. 2006. Using forest inventory data to assess 

fisher resting habitat suitability in California. Ecological Applications 16: pages 1010-1025. 

Zielinski, W.J, T.E. Kucera, and R.H. Barrett. 1995a. The current distribution of the fisher, Martes 

pennanti, in California. California Fish and Game 81: pages 104-112. 

Zielinski, W.J. and T.E. Kucera. 1995. American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine: Survey 

Methods for their Detection. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-157, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, USDA, Forest Service. Albany, California USA. 

445
Stanislaus

References National Forest

Zielinski, W.J., and N.P. Duncan. 2004a. Diets of sympatric populations of American martens 

(Martes americana) and fishers (Martes pennanti) in California. Journal of Mammalogy. 

85(3): pages 470-477. 

Zielinski, W.J., K.M. Slauson, A.E. Bowles. 2008. Effects of off-highway vehicle use on the 

American marten. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(7): pages 1558-1571. 

Zielinski, W.J., R.H. Barrett, R.L. Truex. 1997. Southern Sierra Nevada fisher and marten study 

progress report IV. Pacific southwest research station, USDA Forest Service, CA. 

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, G. Schmidt, R. Schlexer, K.N. Schmidt, and R.H. Barrett. 2004. Resting 

habitat selection by fishers in California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 68: pages 475-

492. 

Zielinski, W.J., W.D. Spencer and R.H. Barrett. 1983. Relationship between food habits and activity 

patterns of pine martens. Journal of Mammalogy 64: pages 387-396. 

Zweifel, R.G. 1955. Ecology, distribution, and systematics of frogs of the Rana boylei group. 

University of California Publications in Zoology 54(4): pages 207–292. 

Personal Communications

Beck, Thomas. Forest Biologist, retired, Stanislaus National Forest. Sonora, CA. 

Berenbrock, C., 2014. United States Geological Survey. Sacramento, CA. Magnitude and Frequency 

of Floods. Personal Communication. 

Bridgman, Roy. District Wildlife Biologist, Groveland Ranger District. Groveland, CA.

Frese, Adam. 2013-2014. CalFire. Sonora, CA. Timber Harvest Activities on Private Land. Personal 

Communication. 10/30/2013, 11/5/2013, 11/7/2013, 1/2/2014, 1/9/2014, 1/11/2014, 

1/13/2014, 1/14/2014.

Gerstenberg, Greg. Senior Wildlife Biologist, California Department of Fish & Wildlife. Fresno, CA.

Graveline, Nathan. Wildlife Biologist, Tuolomne-Mariposa Unit, California Department of Fish & 

Wildlife. Sonora, CA. 

Keane, John. Research Biologist, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Davis, CA.

Thompson, Craig. Research Wildlife Ecologist, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Fresno, CA. 

446
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix A

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Abbreviations and Acronyms

A. Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

AMS Aquatic Management Strategy

APCD Air Pollution Control District

APE Area of Potential Effects

ATV All-Terrain Vehicle

BA Biological Assessment

BACM Best Available Control Measure

BAER Burned Area Emergency Response

BARC Burned Area Reflectance Classification

BE Biological Evaluation

BF Board Feet

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMI Benthic Macro Invertebrate

BMP Best Management Practices

BST Bituminous Surface Treatment

BTU British Thermal Units

CAA Clean Air Act

CAR Critical Aquatic Refuge

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CRMR Cultural Resources Management Report

CSO California Spotted Owl

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database

CNPS California Native Plant Society

CRPR California Rare Plant Rank

CSERC Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center

CWD Coarse Woody Debris

CWE Cumulative Watershed Effects

CWHR California Wildlife Habitat Relationships

DBH Diameter at Breast Height

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

EA Environmental Assessment

EHR Erosion Hazard Rating

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERA Equivalent Roaded Acres

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

ESD Emergency Situation Determination

FCCC Forest Carnivore Connectivity Corridor

FFE Fire and Fuels Extension

447
Appendix A Stanislaus

Abbreviations and Acronyms National Forest

FOFEM First Order Fire Effects Model

FS Forest Service

FSEIS Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

FSS Forest Service Sensitive

FTS Forest Transportation System

FYLF Foothill yellow-legged frog

GIS Geographic Information System

GTR General technical Report

HCRA Home Range Core Area

HFC Hydrologic Function Class

HFRA Healthy Forests Restoration Act

HR Heritage Resources

HSA Hydrologically Sensitive Area

HT Hazard Trees

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

ID Interdisciplinary

IDT Interdisciplinary Team

INFRA Infrastructure Database

IRA Inventoried Roadless Area

JPB Jackpot Burning

LOP Limited Operating Period

EHR Erosion Hazard Rating

MBF Thousand Board Feet

MMBF Million Board Feet

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MIS Management Indicator Species

ML1 Maintenance Level 1 Road

ML2 Maintenance Level 2 Road

MOI Memorandum of Intent

MYLF Mountain yellow-legged frog

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NF National Forest

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFS National Forest System

NFSR National Forest System Road

NFST National Forest System Trail

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NOI Notice of Intent

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRIS Natural Resource Information System

NVUM National Visitor Use Monitoring

OFEA Old Forest Emphasis Area

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle

448
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix A

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Abbreviations and Acronyms

PA Programmatic Agreement

PAC Protected Activity Center

PM Particulate Matter

PSW Pacific Southwest Research Station

R5 Forest Service Region 5

RAVG Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire

RCA Riparian Conservation Area

RCO Riparian Conservation Objective

RD Ranger District

RNA Research Natural Area

ROD Record of Decision

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

SAF Special Aquatic Feature

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIA Special Interest Area

S&G Standard and Guideline

SMP Smoke Management Program

SNFPA Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

SNYLF Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog

SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions

SPI Sierra Pacific Industries

SPLAT Strategically Placed Landscape Area Treatment

SPM Semi-Primitive Motorized

SPNM Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

SSI StreamScape Inventory

STF Stanislaus National Forest

TE Threatened and Endangered

TES Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive

TOC Threshold of Concern

TuCARE Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources and Environment

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of Interior

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VELB Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle

VQO Visual Quality Objective

WSA Watershed Sensitive Area

YNP Yosemite National Park

YSS Yosemite Stanislaus Solutions

449
Appendix A Stanislaus

Abbreviations and Acronyms National Forest

450
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix B

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Cumulative Effects Analysis

B. Cumulative Effects Analysis

According to the CEQ NEPA regulations, “cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment 

which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person 

undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). The Forest queried its databases, including the Schedule of 

Proposed Actions (SOPA) to determine past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions as 

well as present and reasonably foreseeable future actions on other public (non-Forest Service) and 

private lands. This appendix lists the specific findings and information used for the cumulative effects 

analysis presented for each resource in Chapter 3. This list is not all inclusive since budgets and 

changing landscape conditions may warrant changes in management priorities or direction.

Past Actions

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action 

and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of 

past actions. Existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural 

events that affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. This cumulative 

effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior 

actions on an action-by-action basis for three reasons. 

First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to 

obtain. Innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond) impacted current conditions and trying 

to isolate the individual actions with residual impacts would be nearly impossible. 

Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the 

cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would 

be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because information on the environmental 

impacts of individual past actions is limited, and one cannot reasonably identify each and every action 

over the last century that contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of 

past human actions ignores the important residual effects of past natural events which may contribute 

to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to 

capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which 

particular action or event contributed those effects. 

Finally, the CEQ issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past 

actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on 

the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual 

past actions” (CEQ 2005).

The cumulative effects analysis in this EIS is also consistent with Forest Service NEPA Regulations 

(73 Federal Register 143, July 24, 2008; p. 43084-43099), which state, in part: 

“CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to 

determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present effects of 

past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects of the proposal 

for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The final analysis 

documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions considered (including past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. With respect to past 

actions, during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must 

determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of 

cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect 

effects of their design and implementation could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative 

451
Appendix B Stanislaus

Cumulative Effects Analysis National Forest

effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or 

exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about past actions 

may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to 

inform decision making. (40 CFR 1508.7)”

For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental 

conditions described in Chapters 1 and 2. Specialist reports (including BAs and BEs) provide the 

rationale for addressing any specific past projects.

Present Actions

For the purposes of cumulative effects analysis, present actions include: ongoing activities; Forest 

Service and other Federal land disturbance actions with completed NEPA decisions that are not yet 

fully implemented on the ground; and private land activities. 

Ongoing Activities

Ongoing activities on NFS lands within the Rim Fire perimeter include:

Livestock Grazing: 13 grazing allotments are either wholly or partially within the cumulative 

analysis area as defined previously. The maximum number of cattle run across all the allotments is 

about 1,632 cow/calf pairs in any given season. Grazing is subject to utilization standards in the 

SNFPA (2004) that protect resources such as meadow habitat. 

Recreation: recreation is abundant in the area and consists of activities including, but not limited to, 

Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use, passenger car driving, wood cutting, camping (dispersed and 

developed), hiking, cycling (mountain and road), fishing, backpacking, horseback riding, and winter 

sports. These recreation activities provide increased human access to the forest. 

Forest Service

Table B.01-1 displays present NFS land disturbance actions, followed by a brief description of each. 

Table B.01-1 Present National Forest System land disturbance actions

Project Purpose Decision Acres

Twomile Ecological Restoration Vegetation: Groovy Timber Sale Green Thinning 2012 839

Twomile Ecological Restoration Vegetation: Funky Timber Sale Green Thinning 2012 1,031

Soldier Creek Timber Sale Green Thinning 2008 175

total 2,045 

Groovy Timber Sale: thinning to increase structural diversity, improve wildlife habitat, and 

encourage pine and hardwoods. Treatments proposed on 839 acres include thinning (mechanical and 

hand) and biomass removal. These acres have dropped by almost half due to the fire. The high 

severity burn units are analyzed as part of this EIS.

Funky Timber Sale: thinning to increase structural diversity, improve wildlife habitat, and 

encourage pine and hardwoods. Treatments proposed on 1,031 acres include thinning (mechanical 

and hand) and biomass removal. These acres dropped slightly from the original proposal, two units 

are now a part of this EIS.

Soldier Creek Timber Sale: thinning to increase structural diversity, improve wildlife habitat, and 

encourage pine and hardwoods. Treatments proposed on 175 acres include thinning (mechanical and 

hand) and biomass removal.

452
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix B

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Cumulative Effects Analysis

National Park Service

Yosemite National Park Roadside Hazard Tree Removal: removal of hazard tree on 28.8 miles 

(816 acres) of high use roads within on Yosemite National Park.

Private Land

Table B.01-2 lists the present land disturbance actions on private lands that are on file with California 

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire).

Table B.01-2 Present private lands disturbance actions

Landowner Proposed Prescription Acres

Choppers’s Choice Emergency Notice Map Emergency Fire Salvage 2,004

Rim Hansen Peak Emergency Overview Map Emergency Fire Salvage 1,004

Cherry Emergency Emergency Fire Salvage 47

Rim Northwest Emergency Overview Map Emergency Fire Salvage 2,342

Duckwall Fireline Emergency Map Emergency Fire Salvage 137

Schaezlein Emergency Emergency Fire Salvage 326

Crook Property Emergency Fire Salvage 484

Seastrom Fire Salvage/Jones Tract Emergency Fire Salvage 168

Stone Meadow (Erickson) Emergency Notice Emergency Fire Salvage 321

Lee Price Camp 24 Tract Emergency Fire Salvage 200

Packard Canyon Emergency Emergency Fire Salvage 64

Parson's Emergency Emergency Fire Salvage 162

Quesnoy Emergency Emergency Fire Salvage 44

Manly Emergency Emergency Fire Salvage 141

Sawmill Emergency Notice Emergency Fire Salvage 48

Filiberti Fire Salvage Emergency Fire Salvage 83

Spinning Wheel EM Emergency Fire Salvage 11

Looney-Reynolds Emergency Notice Emergency Fire Salvage 779

Rim Woods Ridge Emergency Notice Emergency Fire Salvage 4,531

Skunkjaw Emergency Notice Emergency Fire Salvage 1,371

Duckwall Emergency Emergency Fire Salvage 4,140

total 18,407 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

For the purposes of cumulative effects analysis, the following reasonably foreseeable future actions 

are land disturbance projects with proposed actions published in the SOPA or with completed NEPA 

decisions not yet implemented (Table B.01-3). 

Reynolds Creek Ecological Restoration Aspen Release: aspen stand improvement/expansion 

involving the removal of encroaching conifers. Treatments proposed in 2 stands for 2 acres include 

thinning (mechanical and hand), biomass removal, removal of encroaching conifers, repairing gullies 

and stabilizing streambeds. 

Reynolds Creek Ecological Restoration Meadow Restoration: meadow treatments including 

headcut repair, fencing, removal of encroaching conifers, and planting of riparian vegetation. 

Treatments proposed in 8 meadows for 14 acres include thinning (mechanical and hand), biomass 

removal, removal of encroaching conifers, repairing gullies and stabilizing streambeds. 

Twomile Ecological Restoration Meadow Restoration: improve meadow function in five 

meadows and associated streams by raising water tables nearer to natural levels. Treatments include 

stabilizing banks and headcuts, revegetation with native species and subsoiling compacted areas.

453
Appendix B Stanislaus

Cumulative Effects Analysis National Forest

Twomile Ecological Restoration Noxious Weeds: control of 2 noxious weeds: the only known 

population of Dyers Woad on the Stanislaus National Forest and perennial sweetpea, on 8 acres near 

Reed Creek. The herbicide glyphosate is proposed for treatment since 12 years of hand pulling has 

not eradicated the weeds. 

Twomile Ecological Restoration Soil Improvement: push apart windrowed materials to restore soil 

productivity on 23 acres of volcanic soils in a ponderosa pine plantation established after the 1950 

Wrights Creek Burn. 

Rim Fire Hazard Trees: remove hazard trees and suppression felled trees within and adjacent to 

facilities including: 194 miles of high use roads; private property; developed sites; recreation use 

areas; and, powerlines. Treatments proposed on 10,315 acres.

Reynolds Ecological Restoration Timber Sale: thinning to increase structural diversity, improve 

wildlife habitat, and encourage pine and hardwoods. Treatments proposed on 844 acres include 

thinning (mechanical and hand) and biomass removal. 

Campy Timber Sale: thinning to increase structural diversity, improve wildlife habitat, and 

encourage pine and hardwoods. Treatments proposed on 995 acres include thinning (mechanical and 

hand), biomass removal. 

Looney Timber Sale: thinning to increase structural diversity, improve wildlife habitat, and 

encourage pine and hardwoods. Treatments proposed on 1,445 acres include thinning (mechanical 

and hand), biomass removal. 

Thommy Timber Sale: thinning to increase structural diversity, improve wildlife habitat, and 

encourage pine and hardwoods. Treatments proposed on 514 acres include thinning (mechanical and 

hand), biomass removal. 

Miwok OHV Restoration: authorize physical road actions and access designation changes to 

minimize resource damage and move the road system toward one that can be efficiently maintained 

while also maintaining access for management and public use. Includes block and restore 11.6 miles 

of unauthorized OHV routes and restore 4 acres of impact areas; install barriers at beginning of 

blocked routes; designate rock barrier source at Bourland and Coffin Quarries. 

Reynolds Creek Ecological Restoration Culvert and Road Work: replace and maintain 3 culverts 

to improve aquatic passage and hydrologic function. Decommission, close, reconstruct and complete 

watershed rehabilitation.

Twomile Ecological Restoration Motorized Trails: improve motorized trail system in the Twomile 

area to improve public safety and minimize resource damage. Treatments include closure and 

restoration actions on 72 segments of unauthorized routes, reconstruct and/or reroute 5 existing 

segments, and construction of 3 new segments.

Twomile Ecological Restoration Transportation: authorize physical road actions and access 

designation changes to minimize resource damage and move the road system toward one that can be 

efficiently maintained while also maintaining access for management and public use. Physical actions 

are those actions on the ground that involve moving earth and vegetation, and change the physical 

condition and drivability of the route. The proposed physical actions are oriented toward improving 

drivability and access and “storm-proofing” routes to minimize future erosion. Physical actions would 

occur on a total of 61 segments including: installation of 4 gates, close (ML1) 11 segments, 

decommission 14 segments, maintain 23 segments, construct one new segment, and reconstruct 9 

segments. 

Reynolds Creek Motorized Routes: decommissioning of 3.5 miles of unauthorized motorized 

routes in the Reynolds Creek area.

454
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix B

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Cumulative Effects Analysis

Livestock Grazing: present actions describe grazing allotments. This management activity will 

continue into the foreseeable future. 

Recreation: present actions describe recreation opportunities. These opportunities will, to some 

degree, continue into the foreseeable future.

Table B.01-3 lists the reasonably foreseeable future NFS land disturbance actions described above. 

Table B.01-3 Foreseeable Future NFS land disturbance actions

Project Purpose Decision Miles Acres

Reynolds Creek Ecological Restoration Aspen Release 2012 0 2

Reynolds Creek Ecological Restoration Meadow Restoration 2012 0 14

Twomile Ecological Restoration: Meadow Restoration Restore Meadow Condition and 

Function

2012 0 11

Twomile Ecological Restoration: Noxious Weeds Weed Eradication pending 0 8

Twomile Ecological Restoration: Soil Improvement Restore Soil Productivity 2012 0 23

subtotal Ecological Restoration 0 58

Rim Fire Hazard Trees Hazard Tree Removal pending 0 10,262

Reynolds Creek Ecological Restoration Green Thinning 2012 0 844

Two Mile Ecological Restoration Vegetation: Campy 

Timber Sale

Green Thinning 2012 0 995

Two Mile Ecological Restoration Vegetation: Looney 

Timber Sale

Green Thinning 2012 0 1,445

Two Mile Ecological Restoration Vegetation: Thommy 

Timber Sale

Green Thinning 2012 0 514

subtotal Timber Harvesting 0 14,060

Mi-Wok OHV Restoration Recreation Management 2012 11.6 4

Reynolds Creek Ecological Restoration Culvert and Road Work 2012 27.6 0

Twomile Ecological Restoration: Motorized Trails NFST Management 2012 24.5 0

Twomile Ecological Restoration: Transportation NFSR Management pending 29.2 0

Reynolds Creek Motorized Routes Decommission unauthorized 

routes

2013 3.5 0

subtotal Transportation Restoration 96.4 4

total 96.4 14,122

455
Appendix B Stanislaus

Cumulative Effects Analysis National Forest

456
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix C

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary

C. Glossary

90th percentile 

weather conditions 

High air temperature, low relative humidity, strong wind conditions and low fuel 

moisture content levels that historically that are met or exceeded on 10 percent of 

days during the fire season. It defines potential fire behavior as a result of these 

conditions: a 90th percentile weather day has the potential for severe wildfire

behavior.

Activity Generated 

Fuel

Fuel resulting from, or altered by, management practices such as timber 

harvesting, thinning, or road construction.

Adaptive Management A system of management practices based on clearly identified intended outcomes 

and monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting those outcomes; 

and, if not, to facilitate management changes that will best ensure that those 

outcomes are met or re-evaluated. Adaptive management stems from the 

recognition that knowledge about natural resource systems is sometimes 

uncertain (36 CFR 220.3).

Administrative Unit A National Forest, a National Grassland, a purchase unit, a land utilization project, 

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, Land Between the Lakes, Lake 

Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, or other 

comparable unit of the National Forest System.

Alluvial Pertaining to processes or materials associated with transportation or deposition 

by running water.

Aquatic Growing or living in or frequenting water; taking place in or on water.

Aquatic Ecosystem A stream channel, lake or estuary bed, the water itself, and the biotic (living) 

communities that occur therein.

ARC/INFO The name of a Geographic Information System software program.

Area of Potential 

Effects (APE)

This is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or 

indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any 

such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and 

nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused 

by the undertaking.

Aspect The direction a slope faces. For example, a hillside facing east has an eastern 

aspect.

Basal area The total cross-sectional area of all stems, including the bark, in a given area, 

measured at breast height (4.5 feet above the ground). Usually given in units of 

square feet per acre.

Beneficial Uses of 

Water

Uses of water that are protected against degradation as described in the Basin 

Plan of the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. These 

uses include municipal, agriculture, industry, recreation and aquatic and wildlife 

habitat categories.

Best Management 

Practices (BMPs)

Water Quality Best Management Practices, a codified series of about 100 

practices for protecting water quality when conducting forest management 

activities. BMPs are referenced in R5 FSH 2509.22, Soil and Water Conservation 

Handbook; Chapter 10, Water Quality Management Handbook.

Biological Diversity 

(Biodiversity)

The number and abundance of species found within a common environment. This 

includes the variety of genes, species, ecosystems, and the ecological processes 

that connect everything in a common environment.

Biomass Trees less than 10 inches dbh not used as sawlogs. This material is usually 

chipped and/or removed from the project area and hauled to a mill to be used for 

cogeneration of energy or as fiber for wood products.

Biota The plant and animal life of a particular region.

457
Appendix C Stanislaus

Glossary National Forest

Biotic Potential Factors that influence the ability of an animal to utilize its environment, including: 

reproductive rates, dispersal ability, habitat and life requisite specificity, and 

adaptability. Combine, these factors assign biotic potential of the animal.

Blue Oak Woodlands An ecosystem dominated by blue oak, valley oak, interior live oak (tree form), or 

Oregon white oak.

Board feet A unit of measure of sawlog volume, equivalent to 12 inches by 12 inches by 1 

inch. One thousand board feet is denoted as mbf.

Buffer Used in the context of GIS; a buffer is a zone of a specified distance around a 

feature in a coverage.

Burned Area 

Emergency Response 

(BAER)

BAER is a Forest Service activity of immediate post-wildfire response to assess 

and reduce the risk of loss of human life, property damage, and adverse effects to 

critical natural and cultural resources from threats caused by the fire. 

California Wildlife 

Habitat Relationships 

(CWHR)

A system of classifying vegetation in relation to its function as wildlife habitat. 

Tree-dominated habitat is classified according to tree size and canopy closure.

Canopy The part of any stand of trees represented by the tree crowns. It usually refers to 

the uppermost layer of foliage, but it can be used to describe lower layers in a 

multi-storied forest.

Canopy cover The degree to which the canopy (forest layers above one’s head) blocks sunlight 

or obscures the sky. Same as crown closure.

Chief The Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture (36 CFR 212).

Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR)

A codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal 

Register by the Executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

Collaboration Managers, scientists and citizens working together to plan, implement and monitor 

National Forest management. The intention is to engage people who have 

information, knowledge, expertise and an interest in the health of National Forest 

ecosystems and nearby communities.

Connected Actions Actions that: (i) automatically trigger other actions which may require 

environmental impact statements; (ii) cannot or will not proceed unless other 

actions are taken previously or simultaneously; or, (iii) are interdependent parts of 

a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification (40 CFR 

1508.25).

Connectivity (of 

Habitats)

The linkage of similar but separated vegetation stands by patches, corridors, or 

“stepping stones” of like vegetation. This term can also refer to the degree to 

which similar habitats are linked.

Coverage A digital map or layer of data in the ARC/INFO software program.

Council on 

Environmental Quality 

(CEQ)

The Council on Environmental Quality established by Title II of NEPA (40 CFR 

1508.6).

Critical Aquatic Refuge 

(CAR)

A relatively small watershed, ranging in size from about 3,000 to 85,000 acres, 

that is sometimes nested within an emphasis watershed and has localized 

populations of rare and/or at-risk populations of native fish and/or amphibians.

Critical Deer Winter 

Range

Areas of deer winter range that are of highest priority for protection.

Critical Habitat Areas designated for the survival and recovery of federally listed threatened or 

endangered species.

Crown closure Refer to canopy cover.

Cryptogamic Soil 

Crusts 

Biological soil crust composed of living cyanobacteria, green algae, brown algae, 

fungi, lichens, and/or mosses. 

458
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix C

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary

Cumulative Impact The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes 

such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but 

collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7).

Danger Tree Refer to Hazard Tree

Decommission Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads or trails 

to a more natural state (FSM 7703.2(1)).

Designated Road, Trail 

or Area

A National Forest System road, trail or area that is designated for motor vehicle 

on a motor vehicle use map (36 CFR 212).

Desired Future 

Conditions

Land or resource conditions that are expected to result based on goals and 

objectives.

Diameter at Breast 

Height (DBH)

The diameter of a tree trunk 4.5 feet above the ground.

Digital Elevation Model 

(DEM)

A digital GIS file typically used to represent terrain relief.

Disjunct A population of plants or animals which are separated by a large distance from 

the typical distribution of the species.

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement 

(DEIS)

A detailed written statement as required by section 102(2) (C) of the NEPA (40 

CFR 1508.11) that is released to governmental agencies and the general public 

for review and comment.

Drop and Lop A treatment that involves felling non-merchantable trees less than about 10 inches 

dbh and lopping them into pieces small enough to ensure the material is not 

stacked and has as much ground contact as practical.

Early Forest 

Succession

The biotic (or life) community that develops immediately following the removal or 

destruction of vegetation in an area. For example, grasses may be the first plants 

to grow in an area that was burned.

Ecology The interrelationships of living things to one another and to their environment, or 

the study of these interrelationships.

Ecosystem An arrangement of living and non-living things and the forces that move them. 

Living things include plants and animals. Non-living parts of ecosystems may be 

rocks and minerals. Weather and wildfire are two of the forces that act within 

ecosystems.

Endangered Species Those plant or animal species that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. Endangered species are identified by the 

Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Endemic An organism that evolved in and is restricted to a particular locality. The Little 

Kern golden trout found only in the Sierra Nevada region is an example.

Endlining Moving logs using cables where the log is in full or partial contact with the ground.

Environmental Justice The state (or condition) which 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.

Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS)

A detailed written statement as required by section 102(2) (C) of NEPA (CFR 

1508.11).

Environmentally 

Preferable Alternative

The alternative that will best promote the national environmental policy as 

expressed in NEPA section 101 (42 USC 4321). Ordinarily, the environmentally 

preferable alternative is that which causes the least harm to the biological and 

physical environment; it also is the alternative which best protects and preserves 

historic, cultural, and natural resources. In some situations, there may be more 

than one environmentally preferable alternative (36 CFR 220.3).

Ephemeral Stream Streams that flow only as the direct result of rainfall or snowmelt. They have no 

permanent flow since their streambeds are not connected to groundwater below.

459
Appendix C Stanislaus

Glossary National Forest

Equivalent Roaded 

Acres

A standardized unit of measure for land disturbance. A road prism is considered 

the reference to which other types of land disturbing activities are measured. A 

road is given an ERA coefficient of 1.0 (1 acre of road is equal to 1.0 ERA). Other 

disturbances such as logging, site preparation and wildfires are equated to a road 

surface by ERA coefficients that reflect their relative level of contribution to 

changes in runoff and sediment regimes in the watershed.

Erosion Hazard Rating 

(EHR)

A rating system used to classify the relative vulnerability of soil to erosion.

Escarpment A long, more or less continuous cliff or relatively steep slope produced by erosion 

or by faulting.

Fauna The animal life of an area.

Fireline A corridor, which has been cleared of organic material to expose mineral soil. 

Firelines may be constructed by hand or by mechanical equipment (e.g., dozers).

Fire Return Interval Number of years between 2 successive fires in a specified area.

Flag and Avoid The hanging of flagging in order to identify for the purpose of avoidance of a 

special feature in an area.

Flame Length The length of flame measured in feet. Increased flame lengths increase resistance 

to control and likelihood of torching events and crown fires.

Flora The plant life of an area.

Focal Species A species of concern.

Forest Road or Trail A road or 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 (36 CFR 212).

Forest Transportation 

Atlas

A display of the system of roads, trails, and airfields of an administrative unit.

Forest Transportation 

Facility

A forest road or trail or an airfield that is displayed in a forest transportation atlas, 

including bridges, culverts, parking lots, marine access facilities, safety devices, 

and other improvements appurtenant to the forest transportation system (36 CFR 

212).

Forest Transportation 

System

The system of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and 

airfields on National Forest System lands (36 CFR 212).

Free Flowing River Existing or flowing in a natural condition without impoundment, diversion, 

straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway.

Fuelbreak A system of linear or mosaic patch treatments of forest or shrub vegetation 

designed and treated to reduce fire spread, intensity, and create barriers to fire 

spread.

Fuel Loading The weight per unit area of fuel, often expressed in tons per acre.

Fuels Plants and woody vegetation, living and dead that are capable of burning.

Fuels Management The planned manipulation and/or reduction of living and dead forest fuels for 

forest management and other land use objectives.

Fuels Treatment The treatment of fuels that left untreated would otherwise interfere with effective 

fire management or control. For example, prescribed fire can reduce the amount 

of fuels that accumulate on the forest floor.

Fuelwood Wood cut into short lengths for burning in a fireplace, woodstove or fire pit.

Geographic 

Information Systems 

(GIS)

A computer system capable of storing, manipulating, analyzing, and displaying 

geographic information.

460
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix C

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary

Ground Cover Natural organic and inorganic material that covers the watershed ground surface 

in sufficient quantity to allow a satisfactory rate of water infiltration to replenish 

ground water and limit erosion to natural rates. Ground cover usually consists of 

perennial vegetation, forest floor litter and duff, rock, downed wood, or similar 

erosion resistant material. Sufficient ground cover is usually 50% or greater, and 

cover of many forested ground surface areas is 80% or higher.

Habitat The area where a plant or animal lives and grows under natural conditions.

Habitat Connectivity The degree to which the landscape facilitates animal movement and other 

ecological flows.

Habitat Fragmentation The degree to which a habitat type, specific to a plant or animal species, is 

interrupted by different, incompatible habitat characteristics or types.

Hand Piling Piling by hand branches and limbs from tree harvests or thinnings by hand, for

burning at a later time.

Hazard Tree A standing tree that presents a hazard to people due to conditions such as 

deterioration of or damage to the root system, trunk, stem, or limbs or the 

direction or lean of the tree. Synonymous with danger tree for purposes of this 

project.

Herbaceous A vascular plant having little or no woody tissue. This commonly refers to grass 

and grasslike plants. 

Heritage Program The comprehensive Forest Service program of responsibilities with regard to 

historic preservation. A pro-active program to manage prehistoric and historic 

cultural resources and cultural traditions for the benefit of the public through 

preservation, public use, and research. 

High Clearance 

Vehicle

All sport utility vehicles (SUVs), light trucks, motorcycles, and other highway-legal 

vehicles designed for operation on rough terrain. These vehicles are also OHVs.

Highway Highway is a way or a place of whatever nature publicly maintained and open to 

the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel (CA Vehicle Code Section 

360). However, the 38000 Division of the California Vehicle Code (the Off 

Highway Motor Vehicle section) states that for purposes of this division (38000) 

the term “highway” does not include fire trails, logging roads, service roads 

regardless of surface composition, or other roughly graded trails and roads upon 

which vehicular travel by the public is permitted (CA Vehicle Code 38001).

Home Range Core 

Area

An area designed to encompass the best available spotted owl habitat, and is in 

the closest proximity to owl protected activity centers where the most 

concentrated owl foraging activity is likely to occur. 

Hydrologically 

Connected Segment 

(HCS)

Locations where drainage off a road or trail is likely to enter a watercourse.

Hydrophobic Soils Soils that repel water, causing water to collect on the soil surface rather than 

infiltrate into the ground. Wild fires generally cause soils to be hydrophobic 

temporarily, which increases water repellency, surface runoff and erosion in postburn sites.

Image A graphic representation of a person or thing, typically produced by an electronic 

device. Common examples include remotely sensed data and photographs.

Indigenous Any species of plant or animals native to a given land or water area by natural 

occurrence.

Interdisciplinary Team A diverse group of professional resource specialists who analyze the effects of 

alternatives on natural and other resources. Through interaction, participants bring 

different points of view and a broader range of expertise.

Intermittent Stream A stream that flows during the wet season due to precipitation runoff and has 

streamflow extending partially through the dry season due to at least some 

groundwater contribution.

Invasive Species Refer to Noxious Weeds for the purposes of this project.

461
Appendix C Stanislaus

Glossary National Forest

Inventoried Roadless 

Area

Areas identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps, contained in Forest 

Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Volume 2, dated November 2000, which are held at the National headquarters 

office of the Forest Service, or any subsequent update or revision of those maps.

Irretrievable A term that applies to the loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources. 

For example, some or all of the timber production from an area is lost irretrievably 

while an area is serving as a winter sports site. The production lost is irretrievable, 

but the action is not irreversible. If the use changes, it is possible to resume 

timber production.

Irreversible A term that describes the loss of future options. Applies primarily to the effects of 

use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or to 

those factors, such as soil productivity that are renewable only over long periods 

of time

Jackpot Burning The prescribed burning of heavy concentrations of down woody fuels.

Lahars Landslide or mudflow material of pyroclastic (hot ash or tephra) on the flank of a 

volcano or the deposit formed by such a landslide or mudflow.

Landing A forested opening, cleared of vegetation, leveled and graded, and used to 

stockpile sawlogs for eventual loading of load log trucks for haul to a sawmill.

Landscape A large land area composed of interacting ecosystems that are repeated due to 

factors such as geology, soils, climate, and human impacts.

Large Woody Debris Large Woody Debris (LWD) is typically greater than 12 inches in diameter at the 

midpoint and at least 10 feet in length and refers to large logs on the forest floor or 

in stream areas. LWD provides wildlife habitat and soil building processes on 

land, and can provide aquatic habitat complexity and stream stability. Large 

woody debris is important habitat for a variety of wildlife species and their prey.

Late Forest 

Succession

The stage of forest succession in which most of the trees are mature or over 

mature.

Legacy Watershed 

Effects

Impacts to natural features in a watershed that originated in the distant past but 

presently remain evident. Impacts may have occurred from land uses prior to 

establishment of the national forest, forest management activities or natural 

events such as fires, floods and landslides.

Level 1 Road Roads that have been placed in storage between intermittent uses. Level 1 roads 

are closed to vehicular traffic but may be available and suitable for non-motorized 

uses.

Level 2 Road Roads open for use by high clearance vehicles. Traffic is normally minor, usually 

consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed 

recreation, or other specialized uses. Passenger cars are discouraged or 

prohibited.

Level 3 Road Roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard passenger 

car. Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed with single lanes and 

turnouts. 

Level 4 Road Roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at 

moderate travel speeds. Most level 4 roads are double lane and aggregate 

surfaced, but may single lane, paved and/or dust abated.

Level 5 Road Roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. These roads 

are normally double lane, paved facilities. Some may be aggregate surfaced and 

dust abated.

Limited Operating 

Period (LOP)

A specified period of time during which certain land management activities are 

prohibited.

Long-Term Risk A risk to be experienced within the next 50 to 100 years.

Machine Piling The use of mechanical equipment to push brush skeletons, small dead trees and 

excess downed fuels into piles for burning.

462
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix C

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary

Maintenance The upkeep of the entire forest 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).

Maintenance Level Defines the level of service provided by, and maintenance required for, a specific 

road, consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria. 

Management Action Any activity undertaken as part of the administration of the National Forest.

Management 

Requirements

Mandatory components of each alternative designed to implement the Forest Plan 

and to minimize or avoid potential adverse impacts. 

Mastication Shredding of brush skeletons and small dead trees (generally under 10 inches 

dbh).

Meadow Meadows are an ecosystem type dominated by herbaceous plants due to support 

of shallow groundwater that limits establishment of shrubs or trees. Meadows are 

usually comparatively flat in relation to their surrounding landscape.

Mesic Moderately moist climates or environments. Mesic Vegetation generally refers to 

vegetation found in moist environments. Mesic Soil refers specifically to soils with 

mean annual temperatures of 8 to 15 degrees centigrade.

Metasedimentary Rock Rock formed over a long period of time from marine sediments under heat and 

great pressure.

Mitigation Avoiding an impact by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. Minimizing 

impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action. Rectifying the impact by 

repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. Reducing or 

eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations 

during the life of the action. 

Mixed Severity Fire A wildfire that has a wide range of burn severity. This usually includes high, 

moderate and low soil burn severity and multiple classes of vegetation burn 

severity.

Montane Hardwood 

Forests

Vegetation communities dominated by California black oak, canyon live oak, 

Pacific madrone or tanoak, for the purposes of this project. 

Mosaic Areas with a variety of plant communities over a landscape. For example, areas 

with trees and areas without trees occurring over a landscape.

Motor Vehicle Any vehicle which is self-propelled, other than: (1) a vehicle operated on rails; 

and (2) any wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery-operated, 

that is designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, and 

that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area (36 CFR 212).

Multiple Use The management of all the various renewable surface resources of the National 

Forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of 

the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of 

these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient 

latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and 

conditions; that some land will be used for less than all of the resources; and 

harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the 

other, without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being 

given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the 

combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit 

output. (Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act; Public Law 86–517)

Multiplier The concept in regional economic analysis describing how economic impacts that 

are directly caused by an action generally create additional economic impacts 

through indirect or induced mechanisms. The multiplier is the ratio of all 

economic impacts combined (through direct, indirect and induced mechanisms) 

divided by just the direct economic impacts.

Mycorrhizal Fungi A type of fungi which forms a symbiotic relationship with vascular plants for the 

purpose of exchanging nutrients and moisture by growing amongst the roots of 

the plants.

463
Appendix C Stanislaus

Glossary National Forest

National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA)

Codifies the national policy of encouraging harmony between humans and the 

environment by promoting efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the 

environment, thereby enriching our understanding of ecological systems and 

natural resources. It declares the federal government to be responsible for: (a) 

coordinating programs and plans regarding environmental protection; (b) using an 

interdisciplinary approach to decision-making; (c) developing methods to ensure 

that non-quantifiable amenity values are included economic analyses; and (d) 

including in every recommendation, report on proposals for legislation, or other 

major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment a 

detailed environmental impact statement (EIS).

National Forest 

System

As defined in the Forest Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, the 

"National Forest System" includes all National Forest lands reserved or withdrawn 

from the public domain of the United States, all National Forest lands acquired 

through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means, the National Grasslands, 

and land utilization projects administered under title III of the Bankhead-Jones 

Farm Tennant Act (50 Stat. 525, 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012), and other lands, waters or 

interests therein which are administered by the Forest Service or are designated 

for administration through the Forest Service as a part of the system (36 CFR 

212).

National Forest 

System Road

A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a legally 

documented right-of-way held by a state, county, or local public road authority (36 

CFR 212.1).

National Forest 

System Trail

A forest trail other than a trail which has been authorized by a legally documented 

right-of-way held by a state, county, or local public road authority (36 CFR 212.1).

Natural Resource A feature of the natural environment that is of value in serving human needs.

Natural Succession The natural replacement, in time, of one plant community with another. Conditions 

of the prior plant community (or successional stage) create conditions that are 

favorable for the establishment of the next stage.

Noxious Weeds Any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to 

crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other 

interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United 

States, the public health, or the environment.

Old Forest (Old 

Growth)

Areas that contain large, old trees relative to the species-specific, 

environmentally-constrained growth capacity of the site.

Operability The ability to conduct vegetation management operations, which include

construction of access roads and log landings, use of cable logging systems, 

clearing of central skid trails for tractor logging, and removal of trees that pose 

hazards to forest workers. Trees to be removed for operability would be 

designated by a Forest Service representative.

Outstanding 

Remarkable Value

A river-related value must be a unique, rare, or exemplary feature that is 

significant at a comparative regional or national scale. 

Paleoecological The study of ancient or prehistoric ecosystems.

Passenger Vehicle All passenger vehicles such as sedans and other typical low clearance vehicles 

less than 10,000 GVW licensed to operate on public roads.

Patch An area of vegetation, similar in structure and composition. 

Perennial Stream A stream that typically has running water on a year-round basis due to 

precipitation runoff in the wet season and continual contribution of groundwater to 

support streamflow throughout the dry season except in smaller streams during 

droughts. 

Plantation A group of trees that have been planted together.

Polygon Used in a GIS to represent an area, a polygon is a digital feature class defined by 

arcs, or lines, that make up its boundary. A polygon would be used to represent 

areas such as lakes and land parcels on a map.

464
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix C

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary

Preferred Alternative The alternative(s) which the Agency believes would best fulfill the purpose and 

need for the proposal, consistent with the Agency’s statutory mission and 

responsibilities, giving consideration to environmental, social, economic, and other 

factors and disclosed in an EIS.

Prescribed Fire or Burn A type of fuel treatment whereby fire is intentionally set in wildland fuels under 

prescribed conditions and circumstances.

Proposed Action A proposal made by the Forest Service to authorize, recommend, or implement an 

action to meet a specific purpose and need.

Protected Activity 

Centers (PACs)

Designated areas that are afforded protection to specific species by restricting 

certain management activities. For example, California spotted owl PACs protect 

owl habitat and breeding areas by restricting timber harvest.

Public Involvement The use of appropriate procedures to inform the public, obtain early and 

continuing public participation, and consider the views of interested parties in 

planning and decision-making.

Public Land Land for which title and control rests with a federal, state, regional, county, or 

municipal government.

Public Road Roads under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority that are open 

to public travel (23 U.S.C 101(a)).

Radio Telemetry The science and technology of automatic measurement and transmission of data 

by radio from remote sources to receiving stations for recording and analysis. 

Radio telemetry is used to track the movements of wild animals that have been 

tagged with radio transmitters.

Reasonably 

Foreseeable Future 

Actions

Those Federal or non-Federal activities not yet undertaken, for which there are 

existing decisions, funding, or identified proposals. Identified proposals for Forest 

Service actions are described in 220.4(a) (1) (36 CFR 220.3).

Record of Decision 

(ROD)

A concise public record of the responsible official’s decision to implement an 

action when an environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared.

Reforestation The natural or intentional restocking of existing forests and woodlands that have 

been depleted.

Regeneration Tree seedlings and saplings that have the potential to develop into mature forest 

trees.

Remote Sensing Acquiring information about a geographic feature without contacting it physically. 

Methods include aerial photography and satellite imaging.

Resilience The ability of an ecosystem to maintain diversity, integrity, and ecological 

processes following a disturbance.

Responsible Official The Agency employee who has the authority to make and implement a decision 

on a proposed action (36 CFR 220.3).

Riparian Area The area along a watercourse, around a lake or pond, or in other wetlands.

Riparian Conservation 

Area (RCA)

Identified areas within a certain distance from streams, special aquatic features or 

riparian vegetation. RCA width and protection measures are determined through 

project level analysis.

Riparian Ecosystem The ecosystem around or next to water or in wetlands that support unique 

vegetation and animal communities as a result of a high water table.

Riparian Obligate 

Vegetation

Trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants that are sustained by wetland conditions 

along stream courses and in and around meadows and other wetlands. Trees and 

shrubs are usually deciduous species such as alder, aspen, big leaf maple, and 

cottonwoods. Shrubs include willows and dogwoods. Herbaceous plants include 

sedges, rushes and other grasslike plants.

Road A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a 

trail (36 CFR 212).

Road Density The length of roads within a given area, most often calculated as miles of road per 

square mile of land area. Road density is often used as an indicator of watershed 

disturbance.

465
Appendix C Stanislaus

Glossary National Forest

Roadless Area Refer to Inventoried Roadless Area for the purposes of this project.

Road Construction Development of a new road, designed to engineering standards according to 

assigned management standards. Actions may include vegetation clearing, 

excavation and embankment, blading and shaping, installation of drainage 

structures, and importing of armoring and surfacing rock material as needed.

Road Reconstruction Improvement, restoration, and/or realignment of a road. Actions may include 

surface improvement; construction of drainage dips, culverts, riprap fills or other 

drainage or stabilization features with potential disturbance outside the 

established roadway (toe of fill to top of cut); realignment; and widening of curves 

as needed for log trucks and chip van passage.

Salvage Logging Dead conifer trees will be cut down and transported to a mill for processing. 

Logging systems may include ground based equipment such as harvesters and 

rubber tired skidders, or helicopter logging or skyline systems on steeper slopes 

and where necessary to meet resource objectives.

Schedule of Proposed 

Actions (SOPA)

A Forest Service document that informs the public about those proposed and 

ongoing Forest Service actions for which a record of decision, decision notice or 

decision memo would be or has been prepared. The SOPA also identifies a 

contact for additional information on any proposed actions (36 CFR 220.3).

Scope The range of actions, alternatives and impacts to be considered in an 

environmental impact statement (40 CFR 1508.25).

Scoping An early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed 

and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action (40 CFR 

1501.7).

Sensitive Species Plant or animal species which are susceptible to habitat changes or impacts from 

management activities. The official designation is made by the USDA Forest 

Service at the regional level and is not part of the designation of threatened or 

endangered species made by the U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service.

Seral Stage The stage of succession of a plant or animal community that is transitional. If left 

alone, the seral stage will give way to another plant or animal community that 

represents a further stage of succession.

Shaded Fuel Break A defensible location where fuels have been modified, that can be used by fire 

suppression resources to suppress oncoming wildfires.

Short-Term Risk A risk to be experienced within the next 10 to 15 years. For example, prescribed 

burns can disturb habitat in the short-term, but in the long-term the fire resiliency 

of the habitat may be improved.

Silvicultural System The cultivation of forests; the result is a forest of a distinct form. Silvicultural 

systems are classified according to harvest and regeneration methods and the 

type of forest that results.

Silviculture The art and science that promotes the growth of single trees and the forest as a 

biological unit.

Skidding Dragging a log with a tractor to a landing for loading onto a logging truck.

Skid Zone Areas where landings for units harvested using ground based equipment are not 

located either within or adjacent to the units.

Slash Tree tops and branches left on the ground after logging or accumulating as a 

result of natural processes.

Snag A standing dead tree. Snags are important as habitat for a variety of wildlife 

species and their prey.

Soil Burn Severity The effect of a fire on ground surface characteristics, described in terms of char 

depth, organic matter loss, altered color and structure of soil, and reduced 

infiltration. Soil burn severity is measured in high, moderate and low classes 

based upon the degree of effects.

Soil Compaction An increase in soil density resulting from repeated tracking by mechanized 

equipment. Compaction reduces infiltration of water and can cause subsequent 

erosion, and can adversely affect forest vegetation in compacted areas.

466
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix C

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary

Soil Displacement A lateral relocation of topsoil and often subsoil by movement of mechanized 

equipment or from sawlog yarding practices. Displacement can result in soil 

berms or ditches that divert water and lead to erosion. 

Spatial Data A GIS contains spatial data. The spatial data represents geographic features 

associated with real-world locations. 

Special Aquatic 

Features

Lakes, ponds, vernal pools, meadows, bogs, fens, springs, and other wetlands.

Species A class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common 

name; a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus 

or subgenus; comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of 

interbreeding.

Strategically Placed 

Land Area Treatment 

(SPLAT)

Fuel reduction treatments placed in a pattern to interrupt fire progression such 

that the fire reduces in intensity and becomes a surface fire in these areas. The 

overall pattern impedes fire spread.

Stand A group of trees that occupies a specific area and is similar in species, age and 

condition.

Standards and 

Guidelines (S&Gs)

The primary instructions for land managers. Standards address mandatory 

actions, while guidelines are recommended actions necessary to a land 

management decision.

Stand-Replacing Fire A fire that burns with sufficient intensity to kill the majority of living vegetation over 

a given area (grass and brush fires are stand replacement fires for that vegetation 

type, in forest vegetation types when 75-80% of the stand is killed by fire are also 

considered stand replacement fires).

Stewardship Caring for the land and its resources in order to pass healthy ecosystems on to 

future generations.

Subsoiling Mechanical lifting and shattering of the layer of soil beneath the topsoil in order to 

reduce soil density and strength, improve moisture infiltration and retention, and 

increase root penetration in the soil.

Suitability The appropriateness of certain resource management to an area of land. 

Suitability can be determined by environmental and economic analysis of 

management practices.

Sustainability The ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes and functions, 

biological diversity, and productivity over time. 

Sustainable The yield of a natural resource that can be produced continually at a given 

intensity of management is said to be sustainable. Recreation activities are 

sustainable if the human activity does not reduce ecologic sustainability.

Taxa The name applied to any one group or entity in the scientific classification system.

Temporary Road A road necessary for emergency operations or authorized by contract, permit, 

lease, or other written authorization that is not a forest road or a forest trail and 

that is not included in a forest transportation atlas.

Thermic A soil with a mean annual soil temperature of greater than or equal to 15 degrees 

centigrade, but less than 22 degrees centigrade and a difference between the 

mean summer and winter soil temperatures of greater than 5 degrees centigrade 

measured at 50 cm below the surface.

Threatened Species Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered throughout all or a 

specific portion of their range within the foreseeable future as designated by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Threshold of Concern The level of watershed disturbance which, if exceeded, could create adverse 

watershed or water quality effects, in spite of application of best management 

practices and project design criteria.

Understory The trees and woody shrubs growing beneath branches and foliage formed 

collectively by the upper portions of adjacent trees. 

467
Appendix C Stanislaus

Glossary National Forest

Unroaded Area Any area, without the presence of a classified road, of a size and configuration 

sufficient to protect the inherent characteristics associated with its roadless 

condition. Unroaded areas do not overlap with inventoried roadless areas.

Vegetation Burn 

Severity

The effect of a fire on vegetation, often described by the degree of scorch, 

consumption, and mortality of vegetation. Vegetation burn severity is measured by 

classes of canopy mortality or basal area loss.

Visual Quality The forest visual resources; terrain, geological features, or vegetation.

Water Quality 

Objectives

Water quality objectives, as listed in the Basin Plan of the California Central Valley 

Regional Water Quality Control Board, are the limits or levels of water quality 

constituents or characteristics which are established for the reasonable protection 

of beneficial uses of water.

Watershed An area of land above a given point on a stream that contributes water to the 

streamflow at that point.

Watershed Sensitive 

Areas (WSAs)

Portions of watersheds determined to be at high risk of soil erosion and 

sedimentation due to the combined effects of fire and proposed activities. Criteria 

for evaluating WSAs include: proposed recovery activities, burn severity, percent 

slope, slope shape, slope length, existing and potential soil cover, proximity to 

intermittent and perennial drainages, and proximity to high runoff response soils.

Wetlands Areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to 

support (and that under normal circumstances do or would support) a prevalence 

of vegetation or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil 

conditions for growth and reproduction.

Wild and Scenic River A river that is either already designated or proposed for designation because of its 

free flowing condition and outstanding remarkable values.

Wildland An area in which development is essentially non-existent, except for roads, 

railroads, powerlines and similar transportation facilities.

Xeric A soil moisture regime common to Mediterranean climates that have moist cool 

winters and warm dry summers. A limited amount of water is present but does not 

occur at optimum periods for plant growth.

Yarding Bringing sawlogs or biomass to a central location for removal from a treatment 

area.

468
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix D

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Research

D. Research

The Rim fire presents a rare and compelling opportunity to investigate a number of key management 

questions that have challenged land managers for decades. The response of the ecosystem after such a 

large and intense fire raises many critical questions: how do different wildlife species respond, how 

do riparian systems recover, what are the ecological effects of varying levels of salvage treatments, 

what sort of fuels hazards remain, what management strategies can effectively control hillslope 

erosion, and how can restoration efforts today meet present-day restoration needs while setting the 

course for desired forest conditions decades into the future. By the same token the Forest Service 

also has the opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of various prior forest management strategies that 

were intended to reduce the risk of just such a fire. Some areas within the footprint of the fire had 

plots where extensive data were collected prior to the fire. Records of treatments exist that also can be 

used in follow up research. Collaborating with the staff in Yosemite National Park provides expanded 

opportunities to examine pre and post-fire conditions and attending management strategies.

Following is an integrated package of proposed studies and activities that will investigate key 

questions related to fireshed management and landscape restoration after a mega-fire. Scientists at the 

Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW) developed this research agenda in collaboration with the 

the Stanislaus National Forest and research partners at multiple universities and other government 

agencies. They can be implemented as stand-alone projects, but they were designed as an integrated 

research approach, including integrated sampling design, treatment, data collection, and analysis 

elements. 

The following research projects are proposed to be implemented for Alternatives 3 and 4: 

1. Landscape fuel treatment effectiveness in the 2013 Rim Fire: a spatially explicit assessment of 

treatment impacts on fire severity patterns.

2. Effect of varying salvage and re-planting intensities on the fuel complex and native/non-native 

species abundance over time.

3. Forest resilience after large high-severity wildfire: effects of salvaging logging and green tree 

proximity on forest recovery and wildlife habitat. 

4. Western Pond Turtle Survival and Habitat Use Following the Rim Fire. 

5. Addressing levels of post-fire snag removal on Black-backed woodpecker nesting and foraging 

behavior. 

6. Assessing the Response of California Spotted Owls to Wildfire and Salvage Logging on the Rim 

Fire.

7. Assessing the Response of Great Gray Owls to Wildfire and Salvage Logging on the Rim Fire.

8. Modeling the regional impacts of large-scale wildfire and subsequent restoration efforts on 

Pacific fisher habitat.

9. Effects of Salvage and Watershed Treatments on Hillslope Erosion

10. Effects of Salvage and Erosion Mitigation on Small Watershed Response 

11. Effects of Salvage and Watershed Treatments on Riparian Conditions

12. Develop an online interface to the WEPP technology for prediction erosion risk after salvage 

logging and effects of various mitigation treatments on reducing that risk

The following descriptions provide information about each research proposal including:

 Research and/or management questions to be addressed 

 Anticipated management implications 

 A brief description of the sampling design and analysis 

 Timeframe for project completion

469
Appendix D Stanislaus

Research National Forest

1. Landscape fuel treatment effectiveness in the 2013 Rim Fire: a spatially explicit assessment of 

treatment impacts on fire severity patterns

The 255,000 acre 2013 Rim Fire in the Sierra Nevada created a unique opportunity to study fuels 

treatment effects across a large landscape. Nearly two-thirds of the total burned area was in mixedconifer forest, which was relatively evenly divided between Yosemite National Park (YNP) and the 

Stanislaus National Forest (STF). A considerable portion of the mixed-conifer dominated area was 

treated for fuels reduction/restoration (~ 18,863 ac. within YNP and 17,222 ac. within STF). This 

includes prescribed fire and managed wildfire, mechanical thinning (including mastication), and 

combinations thereof. These treatments have been applied in various sizes, shapes, spatial 

arrangements, and conditions resulting in a range of severities (proportions of fuels removed), 

frequencies, and time since last treatments. This project leverages several existing datasets and ongoing research for a comprehensive investigation on how fuel treatments affect fire severity and 

resulting forest structure.

This proposed project will answer the following questions

 How does the amount and configuration of fuels treatments across landscapes influence severity 

for subsequent large wildfires?

 How does the answer to the question above vary with characteristics of fuels treatments (i.e., 

type, intensity, age, spatial pattern), climatic variables (i.e., fire danger rating), or environmental 

(i.e., terrain, fuel type) conditions? 

 How can landscape fuels treatment strategies maintain effectiveness over time?

Anticipated management implications

Modeling studies suggest that certain arrangements of fuels treatment across landscapes can affect the 

spread and/or severity patterns of wildfires. However, the effects of location, size, type, and 

configuration of fuels treatments on the patterns of real wildfires at landscape scales remains poorly 

documented and understood. It is also largely unknown if and how fuels treatments retain 

effectiveness under the influence of extreme fire weather, and to what extent effectiveness is 

influenced by suppression operations, antecedent climate conditions, previous wildfires, land use, and 

existing vegetation. This information is needed to prioritize fuel treatments that have the highest 

probability of minimizing undesirable fire behavior and effects, and to implement strategically placed 

treatments where their effects can extend beyond their physical footprint. This project will provide 

critical information on mitigating effects of large wildfires that will compliment much of the previous 

work which has been based primarily on fire modeling. This information will be particularly valuable 

for informing the design of fuels treatment projects, which are being called for at greater pace and 

scale in dry forest types throughout the western United States. 

Sampling Design and Analysis

This study will primarily utilize existing remote sensing and other geospatial data that span the entire 

Rim Fire area. In addition, there will be field data collection focused on capturing a range of 

treatment types/ages and severities. The intent with these data is to ground-truth/validate remotely 

sensed estimates of fire severity across a range of stand and vegetation type conditions. Sampling will 

be focused on re-visiting existing plots. Based on initial investigation there are approximately 350 

field plots within the fire perimeter that were established prior to the fire. These plots were 

established by YNP and university partners affiliated with project PI (Collins). Some of the richest 

sources of field data included 204 forest structure/inventory plots, all of which were established 

within six weeks prior to Rim Fire ignition date. The specific number of existing plots that are in 

previously treated areas is unknown at this time, but will be determined by the start of this project. 

Researchers will attempt to re-sample all existing plots that were in treated areas. This will allow for 

explicit characterization of change as a result of the Rim Fire and strengthen inferences made with 

remote sensing data. 

470
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix D

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Research

Researchers will explicitly investigate the spatial aspects of whether/how treatments modified fire 

rate of spread and severity. To do so, a randomized, moving window approach within GIS will be 

employed and will identify focal areas, within which fire severity, fuel treatment characteristics, and 

other vegetation and weather covariates will be quantified. This approach of stratified, randomized 

focal area selection will be automated within ArcGIS to allow for sufficient samples sizes within each 

stratum, at each focal window size, but balances the potential for n-inflation.

Researchers will also perform a separate analysis focused on treatment units to assess potential 

treatment effects as a function of distance both within a treated area and on the lee-side of treatment. 

GIS will be used to extract fire severity, fuel treatment characteristics, and other vegetation and 

weather covariates within transects intersecting treatments units. These transects will be oriented in 

the direction of fire spread, and will start outside of treatment on windward side and extend beyond 

the treatment boundary to the leeward side. The intent of this analysis is to investigate potential 

distance lags in the modification of fire spread and severity as fires encounter treatments, as well as 

potential leeside effects of treatment outside of treated areas.

Study duration

The proposed project will be a collaborative effort between YNP, UC Berkeley, and PSW. The 

majority of the plot data collection, spatial analysis, and write-up of the final report will be conducted 

by PSW and UC Berkeley. The contribution from YNP will include plot data collection and 

compellation of spatial data, as well as assistance in interpreting results and writing the final report. 

Deliverables will be: 1) final report 2) geodatabase containing assembled spatial data layers, and 3) a 

journal publication. The duration of the project is approximately 2 years. Field data would be 

collected in the summer of 2014. Spatial analysis, which will incorporate the field data, would occur 

the following year. The write-up of the final report and preparation of a journal manuscript will take 

an additional 5 months. 

2. Forest resilience after large high-severity wildfire: effects of salvaging logging and green tree 

proximity on forest recovery and wildlife habitat

Salvage logging is one of the most contentious issues in Forest Service management, yet there is scant 

research to help inform these debates from the fire-dependent forests where it is most needed. 

Wildfire size and severity has been increasing in much of the western U.S. and the recent Rim Fire, 

with its large size and contiguous areas of dead trees may be a new norm for wildland fire under 

changing climatic conditions. This research will examine how salvage logging and the size of highseverity patches effects key components of the recovering ecosystem. In a large part, burn area 

recovery will depend on dispersal of plants and wildlife from remnant islands of green forest. Does 

salvage hinder or help these processes? How do the size of dead tree patches and their proximity to 

live trees effect the abundance and diversity of plants and animals recolonizing high-severity 

landscapes?

This project will examine how salvage, and distance and orientation (aspect and prevailing wind 

direction) from green forest affect plant abundance and diversity, fuel conditions, and bird and small 

mammal communities. Sampling will be coordinated and use an integrated approach because of the 

strong linkage between vegetation, fuels and habitat conditions for facilitating or limiting plant and 

wildlife dispersal, and fire spread. 

This proposed project will answer the following questions

 How does understory plant and tree regeneration decrease as the distance to green forest edge 

increases? Does this relationship change in areas that have been harvested for salvage?

 How does use of high severity patches by wildlife change as distance to green forest increases? 

Does this relationship change in areas that have been harvested for salvage?

 How do surface fuel loads vary as a function of salvage treatment and distance to green forest 

edge? Is there a relationship between surface fuel loads and understory plant/tree regeneration? 

How does variation in surface fuel loads influence use of burned habitat by wildlife? 

471
Appendix D Stanislaus

Research National Forest

Anticipated management implications

This research will address important management questions about ecological recovery in highseverity patches and the influence of green tree islands. For example, if wildlife use significantly 

decreases with distance from green edge, then managers can prioritize harvesting and replanting 

projects in areas of greatest need. This research addresses some of the contentious issues of wildlife 

response to salvage logging. California Spotted Owls are known to forage within high severity 

patches and foraging distance will depend on the availability of prey. Monitoring of avian populations 

will also provide important information regarding the impact of harvesting of dead trees on Blackbacked Woodpeckers. In addition, this project will quantify vegetation recovery patterns across a 

large spatial extent, which will ultimately inform landscape-scale restoration efforts for this and other 

large fires in similar forest types.

Sampling Design and Analysis

Researchers will use transects to measure live and dead vegetation and habitat use by wildlife species. 

Two hundred transects will be placed within patches of fire that burned at high severity. Transect 

length will be dependent on the size of the patch and will originate within the green forest and finish 

at the center of the patch. Live and dead vegetation will be sampled every 30 meters using standard 

protocols. Wildlife will be monitored on each transect. Birds will be surveyed using point counts 

every 250 m with three visits to each point during the breeding season. Small mammal populations 

will be measured using live trapping mark-recapture techniques along each transect. Fuels will be 

measured with standard methods and potential fire behavior will be modeled from these data. Two 

years of field sampling are requested to follow temporal changes.

Study duration

After one year produce a General Technical Report of project results and convene a 

workshop for forest managers. After the second year, at least two papers will be submitted 

to peer-reviewed journals and conduct outreach through venues such as a webinar with the 

California Fire Science Consortium. 

3. Effect of varying salvage and re-planting intensities on the fuel complex and native/ non-native 

species abundance over time

Salvage harvesting trees after high severity wildfire is highly controversial, in part because so little is 

known about short- and long-term effects. Much of the current understanding about snag, fuel, and 

understory dynamics in relation to salvage comes from observational and un-replicated studies and/or 

is based on short-term observations. The only replicated study of different levels of salvage is one 

described in Ritchie et al. (2013), within the Cone Fire in ponderosa pine dominated forests of the 

southern Cascades. Because rates of snag fall and fuel development varies with tree species,

understory species, and site-specific factors such as climate that influence rates of decay, additional 

studies in different forest types are needed. 

Snags provide food and shelter for cavity nesting birds, including various woodpecker species. Snags 

are some of the only vertical structure left in stands killed by fire. However, the snag phase is also 

transient, and within four to ten years, many snags fall to the ground and become fuel. Once on the 

ground, the dead woody fuel along with a developing shrub layer makes any young trees that 

establish susceptible to mortality in the event of another wildfire. Salvaging some of the wood may 

help increase chances that young trees will survive subsequent wildfires. The challenge is balancing 

short- and long-term objectives, providing some snags for wildlife without generating excess future 

fuels and potentially reducing the resilience of young stands. Salvage is also an additional soil 

disturbance in an already fire-disturbed system, thereby increasing the probability of invasion by 

exotic weedy species, potentially setting back the native re-sprouting species, and killing newly 

germinating tree seedlings. The Cone Fire salvage study found no effect of salvage treatment on 

exotic weedy species or tree seedlings, but this was only one site, with one suite of understory plants. 

472
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix D

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Research

In the past, replanting after high-severity fire has frequently been done at a relatively even spacing. 

Such spacing differs from the documented structure of historical frequent-fire forests, consisting of 

individual trees, clumps of trees and openings - a structure which may enhance resilience to drought 

and fire. Dense brush and high fuel continuity contributed to the loss of many such plantations in the 

Rim Fire. Given that budgets for treating fuels in planted stands are likely to remain limited, new 

planting strategies that reduce the cost of maintaining resilience need to be tested. Because of the 

suppressing effect of shade on shrubs, a variable planting might also lead to a variable shrub 

understory, breaking up the fuel complex and reducing fire hazard with less intensive management. 

This proposed project will answer the following questions

 How long do fire-killed trees remain upright as snags? 

 How does the rate at which snags become fuel vary with tree species, tree size, and other local 

factors? 

 Do salvage operations affect overall understory biodiversity and does logging disturbance 

facilitate invasion by non-native species? 

 Do salvage operations positively or negatively affect rates of natural tree regeneration? and 

 How does different spacing of planted tree regeneration affect tree survival, growth and resilience 

of the stand to future fire?

Anticipated management implications

Results of this study will improve the understanding of the longevity of snags, and the effect of 

salvage on fuel loading and understory development. Results will also provide information about 

replanting patterns that could reduce maintenance costs while simultaneously improving stand 

resilience. 

Sampling Design and Analysis

Researchers will evaluate four levels of salvage (5 acre units) in a randomized complete block design.

Treatments will be: unsalvaged, approx. 1/3 of basal area salvaged, approx. 2/3 of basal area 

salvaged, and 100% salvaged. [The two intermediate levels may be refined somewhat, based on input 

from the NFS and other researchers.] Treated units will be placed in close proximity to each other 

(with some buffer), within patches of complete tree mortality with otherwise relatively uniform 

species composition and topography. Four to five such blocks, each containing all four salvage levels, 

will be installed. At the time of re-planting, each unit will be divided into thirds and randomly 

assigned a planting treatment – unplanted, even spacing at the standard density, and variable spacing 

using the same number of trees but planting in dense patches, gaps, and more widely spaced 

individuals. The latter design will be based on the spatial scale and variability found historically 

within forests on the Stanislaus NF. 

Plots will be established to sample approximately 10% of the area within each unit, using a grid of 

spatially referenced and marked points and circular plots of diameter depending on the variable being 

measured. Snags will be tagged, species, diameter, and height measured. Shrub cover and herbaceous 

species cover will be quantified by species. Density of natural regeneration will be determined. 

Planted seedlings will be mapped in relation to grid points, and height and condition noted. Fuel load 

will be estimated using two Brown’s transects at each grid point. Data will be collected prior to 

salvage and in the two summers immediately following salvage.

Study duration

This study would be set up for the long term. Three years will allow us to set up the experimental 

design, collect pre-salvage stand data, and evaluate the initial response of understory vegetation and 

the fuel complex. Three years is well before many of the snags are expected to fall and become fuel, 

and before planted tree seedlings are large enough to influence competing vegetation. With a solid 

experimental design in place, the opportunity to leverage the initial investment through grant 

proposals to fund longer-term data collection will exist. Ultimately, data will likely be collected 

within the experimental units for decades. 

473
Appendix D Stanislaus

Research National Forest

4. Western Pond Turtle Survival and Habitat Use Following the Rim Fire

Western pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) are currently a species of special concern in California 

and a candidate for federal listing. The range of this species has declined by 75-80% in the last 50 

years. Most work done on this species to date has focused on populations in river systems. To date, 

few studies have examined the ecology of populations in ephemeral or intermittent ponds. Despite 

being highly aquatic, western pond turtles may use terrestrial habitat for much of the year for nesting, 

overwintering, and summer aestivation, particularly in ephemeral wetlands, but little is known about 

their terrestrial activities and habitat use. There is increased interest in determining appropriate ways 

to manage for upland habitat to support functioning populations of this species. 

Researchers are aware of no work on the impacts of fire on western pond turtles. The Rim Fire 

affected turtle populations using Abernathy Meadow and the Kibbie Ponds in the Stanislaus National 

Forest. These are ephemeral wetlands that dry up in most years (the Kibbie Ponds dry in less than 

average years while Abernathy Meadow dries each year by mid-summer) yet sustain viable turtle 

populations independent of other water sources. Some turtles did succumb to the fire but the full 

impact on these populations is unknown. 

This proposed project will answer the following questions

 What are the effects of the Rim fire on western pond turtle populations? 

 How many turtle mortalities resulted from the Rim Fire?

 What is the timing, duration, and extent of western pond turtle terrestrial movements? 

Anticipated management implications

Results from this study will provide information on the impacts of fire on western pond turtle 

populations and will help inform land management decisions for post-fire management, particularly 

the importance of previously unrecognized terrestrial habitats. Data from this study will also provide 

information on population size, current age and sex distribution, movement patterns, and the 

importance and characteristics of upland habitat used by pond turtles. Results from this study will be 

used to determine the type of habitat and area surrounding these wetlands used by pond turtles. 

Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a scientific conference. 

Sampling Design and Analysis

Turtles will be captured for data collection, marking, and radio tagging using baited hoop nets. For all 

captured turtles, researchers will record sex, age, morphometric data (carapace length, width, shell 

height, and mass), and evaluate health, body condition, and injuries. Turtles will be marked for 

individual identification by notching marginal scutes. Females will be palpated for eggs. Adults will 

be fitted with radio transmitters weighing 10 g, with a life expectancy of 10-18 months (Model RI2B, Holohil Systems Ltd., Ontario, Canada), mounted to their costal carapace scutes. Transmitters 

will be affixed to the carapace using non-exothermic epoxy cement with the whip antennae trailing 

free. Only turtles with a mass ≥ 450 g will be fitted with radio transmitters. Turtles will be returned to 

the pond and released after application of transmitters. 

Turtles will be tracked and located 2 times per week using hand-held receivers (Model R1000, 

Communication Specialists; Orange, California) and 3-element Yagi antennas. Once a turtle is 

located, its location and activity will be noted and a GPS location will be recorded for all upland 

observations. Habitat characteristics of upland sites will be recorded, including substrate, canopy 

cover, distance to water, slope, and aspect. Turtles will be disturbed only to the extent necessary to 

establish their locations. For terrestrial locations, this occasionally may require manual searching 

through leaf litter. Upon completion of the study, all tags and epoxy will be removed. Data from a 

mark-recapture study done from 1996-1999 are available to provide a baseline estimate of pre-fire 

population size. Researchers will estimate population size using a closed mark-recapture model in 

Program MARK.

Study duration

This research is intended to extend through two field seasons.

474
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix D

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Research

5. Addressing levels of post-fire snag removal on Black-backed woodpecker nesting and foraging 

behavior

The value of dead and dying trees to cavity nesting birds in recently burned forests is welldocumented. In the Sierra Nevada, over 30 species of cavity users across several taxa provide services 

that are essential for ecosystem function, including seed dispersal and control of insect populations. 

Although several animal species are dependent on a high density of dead wood characteristic of 

burned forest, concerns over the dependence of the Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) on 

burned forests has fueled much of the debate surrounding post-fire snag removal in high severity burn 

areas. 

The recently compiled Conservation Strategy for the Black-backed Woodpecker made several 

recommendations that would be of the greatest benefit in advancing efforts to ensure this species’ 

persistence. In particular, the strategy stated that “Data are not yet available to provide specific 

guidelines on the density of retained snags necessary to support Black-backed Woodpecker 

occupancy and reproduction.” By using an experimental design that will be implemented in the SNF, 

this data deficiency will be addressed by monitoring nesting and foraging behavior of Black-backed 

Woodpeckers at three levels of salvage (none, retaining 30 ft2

/ac and 120 ft2/ac). The research will 

compare how the abundance of nesting and foraging birds differences at each level of salvage to 

determine if these factors are limited by the volume of tree retention. In addition, by collecting data of 

tree and habitat characteristics, the study will address whether it is the quantity or quality of the 

remaining standing trees that increases habitat suitability. 

This proposed project will answer the following questions

An experimental design is proposed for implementation in California Spotted Owl PACs impacted by 

the Rim fire, to address how three levels of salvage (none, retaining 30 ft2/ac and 120 ft2/ac) impact 

nesting density of Black-backed Woodpecker and other cavity-nesting birds. Researchers will 

compare how the density of nesting birds – Black-backed Woodpeckers as well as other cavitynesting birds - differs at each level of salvage within Spotted Owl PACs. This work will complement 

IBP’s simultaneous project to assess Black-backed Woodpecker occupancy across the broader Rim 

Fire footprint with a more spatially intensive study of nesting habitat selection (rather than 

occupancy). 

Results from this research will enable managers with guidance on levels of post wildfire salvage 

intensities that can safeguard black-backed woodpecker populations in California. These analyses will 

provide useful information on how site-specific and fire-specific parameters influence black-backed 

woodpecker populations and use of habitat.

Anticipated management implications

One of the most controversial issues surrounding post-fire forest management is the treatment of 

standing dead trees. Dead or dying trees can contribute fuel to future fires and can pose a risk to 

human life or property when they fall. In many areas, post-fire harvest of dead and dying trees is 

conducted to reduce these risks and to realize economic benefits. This research will address important 

management questions related to the levels and types of snag retention that can provide suitable 

habitat for Black-backed Woodpeckers.

Sampling Design and Analysis

Monitor cavity use and foraging behavior of Black-backed Woodpeckers in 44, 200-ha areas that are 

part of a planned experiment to investigate the impact of different levels of dead tree retention on 

California Spotted Owl occupancy. At each 200-ha area, identify all active Black-backed 

Woodpecker nests using standard nest searching protocols. Once nests are found, vegetation data will 

be collected on characteristics of the nest tree and habitat within an 11.3-radius fixed-radius plot 

surrounding the nest tree. Foraging data will be collected opportunistically and will include the 

foraging item and characteristics of the foraging substrate. Two years of field sampling are requested 

to follow temporal changes. 

475
Appendix D Stanislaus

Research National Forest

Study duration

After the first year, a general technical report of project results will be produced and a workshop 

convened for forest managers. After the 2nd year, at least two papers will be submitted to peerreviewed journals and outreach through venues such as a webinar with the California Fire Science 

Consortium will be conducted. 

6. Assessing the Response of California Spotted Owls to Wildfire and Salvage Logging on the 

Rim Fire

Increasing research suggests that California spotted owls (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) can occupy 

landscapes that experience low-moderate severity and mixed-severity wildfire. However, uncertainty 

persists regarding thresholds where the amounts and patch sizes of high severity wildfire affect 

California spotted owl occupancy within the post-fire landscape. Further, post-fire salvage-logging 

introduces additional effects that are poorly understood and can interact with amounts of post-fire 

habitat to affect California spotted owl occupancy and habitat use patterns. 

This proposed project will answer the following questions

 What are the effects of wildfire, particularly high severity wildfire, and salvage-logging on 

California spotted owl site occupancy? 

 How do California spotted owls use habitats of vegetation patches of different burn severities and 

salvage-logging intensities?

Anticipated management implications

Uncertainty regarding the effects of high-severity wildfire and post-fire management (salvagelogging) is certain to drive increasing challenges for forest managers in the Sierra Nevada given 

increasing trends in the amounts and patch sizes of high severity wildfire, coupled with evidence 

indicating declining CSO populations across the Sierra Nevada. This research will provide 

information to better understand the effects of wildfire and salvage-logging that can serve as an 

empirical basis to inform future management decisions. 

Sampling Design and Analysis

Scientists from PSW and managers from the Stanislaus National Forest worked collaboratively on the 

study design to allocate 44 CSO sites affected by the Rim Fire into treatment groups (Figure 1). 

Sample units consist of 200ha circular core areas around the centroid (nest/main roost) for each of the 

44 CSO sites. Sample units were arrayed across gradients of amount of post-fire suitable habitat and 

proposed salvage/road hazard tree treatment acres and then allocated to one of three treatment groups: 

(1) controls; (2) Light Salvage prescription (retain 100ft2 BA); and (3) High Salvage prescription 

(retain 30 ft2 BA). 

Site Occupancy: Occupancy surveys will be conducted annually for 5 years beginning in 2014. 

Assuming a best case treatment schedule, salvage treatments will be initiated in late Fall 2014 and 

continue thru at least 2016. Two years of post-treatment surveys are needed to assess the effects of 

both wildfire and salvage-logging. Occupancy surveys will consist of 3 nocturnal visits and/or 2-3 

diurnal visits to each site per year to record CSO detections and assess reproduction. Current research 

indicates information on reproductive status can improve detectability modeling and also provide 

information on reproductive output. Data will be analyzed using Program MARK. Explanatory 

covariates will include amounts and patch-size of high severity fire, amount of suitable post-fire 

habitat, salvage prescription and acres treated.

Radio-telemetry will be used to document habitat use and foraging behavior of CSOs during the five 

year period post-fire. The objective of this research is to determine CSO use of forest patches of 

differing fire severity and post-fire salvage treatments. The study will be adapted to utilize the 

specific timing and spatial implementation of treatments.

Study duration

The site occupancy component of the research will be conducted annually from 2014-2018. Survey 

work will be a collaboration between PSW and the Stanislaus National Forest. Radio-telemetry 

476
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix D

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Research

research will be conducted over a 3-year period between 2015 and 2018. The specific 3-years will be 

determined on the specific timing and spatial allocation of salvage treatments. Approximately 20 owls 

per year will be studied. The project will attempt to follow CSOs during the 6-month winter period. It 

is important to understand seasonal variation in habitat use and elevational movements as CSOs are 

facultative altitudinal winter migrants in the Sierra Nevada, apparently in response to winter snow and 

prey factors. 

7. Assessing the Response of Great Gray Owls to Wildfire and Salvage Logging on the Rim Fire

The Sierra Nevada Great Gray Owl (GGOW) is a State-endangered species with a small population 

estimated at 100-200 pairs and a geographically-limited distribution in the central Sierra Nevada 

centered on Yosemite National park and the surrounding Stanislaus and Sierra National Forests. 

Recent population genetics collaborative research between UCD and PSW has determined that the 

geographically-isolated population of GGOWs in the Sierra Nevada warrants sub-specific 

recognition. PSW has been conducting research and monitoring this population of GGOWs nearly 

continuously since 2004. The Rim Fire burned x GGOW Protected Activity Centers on the Stanislaus 

NF. This represents x% of the known GGOW sites on the Stanislaus NF. An additional 10-12 known 

sites were burned within adjacent Yosemite National Park. 

GGOWs have a unique suite of habitat requirements. Dense stands of forest that contain a large nest 

snag or live oak with a large cavity are used for nesting. Conifer nest trees average about 40” dbh 

while oak (black, valley) nest trees can be significantly larger. GGOWs forage primarily on voles and 

gophers in meadows or other early-seral vegetation (recent burns, timber cuts, open understories). 

Thus, depending on the initial habitat conditions and burn severity patterns, wildfire can have both 

negative and positive effects on GGOW habitat. 

This research proposal has two primary objectives. First, to resurvey all historic sites on the 

Stanislaus NF and Yosemite National Park where we have pre-fire monitoring information to assess 

GGOW occupancy and relate these observations to amounts of habitat (pre- and post-fire) and 

wildfire severity. This will be followed by monitoring these sites for 3-4 years to assess effects of 

salvage-logging. This secondary objective will be to randomly select a sample of high-severity burn 

sites that contain mature forest in the near vicinity and conduct occupancy surveys to assess GGOW 

colonization of these recently burned sites. This previous research results lead us to hypothesize that 

GGOWs exhibit long-term site occupancy associated with more permanent meadow systems, but that 

there is also a more dynamic aspect to their population dynamics whereby GGOWs can persist over 

shorter time periods in proximity to ephemeral foraging habitat created by wildfire and other 

disturbances. 

This proposed project will answer the following questions

 What are the effects of wildfire on Great Gray Owl habitat occupancy?

 What are the effects of salvage logging on Great Gray Owl habitat occupancy? 

Anticipated management implications

Recent UCD/PSW research identifying the Sierra Nevada GGOW as a unique sub-species has 

increased management and socio-political focus on this population and its habitat. No research has 

extensively investigated the effects of wildfire and salvage logging on GGOWs. Controversy and 

focus on this population of GGOWs is certain to increase given their conservation status and the 

effects of the Rim Fire on a large proportion of known GGOW sites on the Stanislaus NF. This 

research will provide information to better understand the effects of wildfire and salvage-logging that 

can serve as an empirical basis to inform future management decisions.

Sampling Design and Analysis

Scientists and managers from PSW, the Stanislaus National Forest, and UCD will work 

collaboratively to identify new areas for GGOW inventory and survey. Known sites are welldocumented and have been surveyed nearly every year between 2004-2013. Occupancy surveys will 

be conducted annually at known sites for 4 years beginning in 2014. Assuming a best case treatment 

477
Appendix D Stanislaus

Research National Forest

schedule, salvage treatments will be initiated in late Fall 2014 and continue thru at least 2016. At the 

very minimum, one year (two years would be better) of post-treatment surveys will be conducted to 

assess the effects of both wildfire and salvage-logging. Occupancy surveys will consist of 3 nocturnal 

visits and/or 2-3 diurnal visits to each site per year. Previous work has estimated detection 

probabilities for each of the specific GGOW survey methods. Researchers will attempt to assess 

reproductive status at each site to evaluate its effect on detection probabilities. Further, ongoing 

research assessing the use of molted feathers, commonly collected in the field, as a source for 

genetically identifying individual GGOWs for mark-resight analysis to estimate lambda and survival. 

Hence, past and ongoing research can be leveraged to significantly expand the value and scope of the 

proposed work. Data will be analyzed using Program MARK. 

Study duration

The site occupancy component of the research will be conducted annually from 2014-2017. These 

surveys will serve to sample known owl sites as well as to conduct NEPA-required post-treatment 

surveys in salvage-logging and road hazard tree areas to meet management objectives. 

8. Modeling the regional impacts of large-scale wildfire and subsequent restoration efforts on 

Pacific fisher habitat

The southern Sierra fisher population is small, isolated, and of great regional conservation concern. 

Currently the population is under consideration for endangered species listing at both the state and 

federal level, and significant efforts are underway to identify critical habitat and develop conservation 

strategies. While the Rim Fire landscape does not currently contain resident fishers, it did represent 

the best expansion habitat for the existing population. The loss of mature forest habitat and 

connectivity associated with the Rim Fire represents an increase in the fisher population’s isolation 

and in the need for regional-level habitat connectivity planning. The overall goal of this project is to 

evaluate the impact of the 2013 Rim Fire on available but currently unoccupied fisher habitat in the 

Sierra Nevada region, and to project the effects of alternative restoration scenarios on fisher habitat 

availability and connectivity within the central Sierra Nevada. Furthermore, this project highlights the 

need for large-scale restoration planning and the development of associated tools in the face of 

potential habitat loss from expected increases in fire extent and severity, as exemplified by the Rim 

Fire. Specific objectives include:

 Parameterize the Rocky Mountain Landscape Simulator (RMLands) for use in the Stanislaus 

National Forest region.

 Characterize the pre-fire vegetation structure and dynamics in the Rim Fire landscape, and 

quantify the impacts of the fire on fisher habitat availability and connectivity. 

 Project alternative restoration scenarios, and the subsequent reestablishment of fisher habitat 

connectivity.

This proposed project will answer the following questions

 What are the impacts of the Rim fire on fisher habitat connectivity? 

 What are the expected future habitat conditions associated with alternative restoration scenarios? 

 How can research plan for wildlife habitat restoration in the face of future large-scale 

disturbances? 

Anticipated management implications

RMLands is designed to characterize the range of future variation given a certain suite of landscape 

structure, dynamics, and disturbance. Variation can be characterized within specific structural 

features, such as mature forest connectivity, or as a function of species-specific habitat requirements. 

Therefore, the anticipated results will be:

 A comparison of the potential impact of different restoration scenarios on fisher habitat.

 A detailed sensitivity analysis quantifying the relative influence of different restoration 

components such as salvage logging or nucleation-based replanting on fisher habitat recovery 

rates.

478
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix D

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Research

It is anticipated that these deliverables would be used to help guide restoration in both the Rim Fire 

and future efforts. Also, once modified for use in the Sierra Nevada bioregion, the RMLands software 

could be used extensively for evaluating the impacts of large-scale disturbances and subsequent 

restoration planning throughout the region. Used in conjunction with FVS, it could facilitate effective 

multi-scale planning efforts.

Sampling Design and Analysis

 Compile RMLands input spatial data layers for the project area.

 Compile data on regional disturbance and succession processes, and conduct statistical analyses 

as necessary to guide model parameterization. Given the novel situation presented by the Rim 

Fire, parameterization will require a combination of empirical data and regional expert opinion. 

 Design and simulate alternative restoration scenarios aimed at achieving desired future conditions 

and restoring habitat connectivity. 

 Summarize model application and output. 

 Integrate model output into regional conservation planning efforts.

Study duration

Study duration is approximately 10 months depending on the availability of funds, with final 

deliverables due 31 March, 2105.

9. Effects of Salvage and Watershed Treatments on Hillslope Erosion

Quantify effects of salvage and several mitigation treatments on hillslope soil erosion, relative to 

untreated burned areas, in areas that are at high risk of erosion following wildfire. The mitigation 

treatments are practices that forest managers have proposed to treat severely burned watersheds and 

mitigate effects of salvage, including mastication of dead trees, dropping and lopping dead trees, and 

“ripping” the soils along contours. All of these treatments are intended to increase soil cover on 

denuded hillslopes, encourage water infiltration, and reduce downstream runoff and erosion. 

This proposed project will answer the following questions

 What are the effects of salvage logging on hillslope erosion? 

 How effective are watershed mitigation treatments at increasing soil cover?

 How effective are watershed mitigation treatments at reducing hillslope erosion?

Anticipated management implications

This research would help to answer a long-standing question about the extent to which salvage 

harvest following wildfire further increases soil erosion, and whether mitigation can even make 

treatments beneficial in reducing extreme rates of erosion. This information will also help to evaluate 

downstream sedimentation impacts and potentially fine-tune hillslope erosion models to help 

managers predict future effects. Therefore, it will be valuable to managers facing similar decisions 

about post-fire salvage as well as treatment to reduce the likelihood of such fires.

Sampling Design and Analysis

The study will use silt fences to measure erosion rates in small (<0.5 acre) treated and untreated 

swales within areas of high soil burn severity. Site selection would be guided by local staff familiar 

with the soils, topography, and proposed treatments. Monitoring sites would be dispersed to account 

for variation across the landscape. The response variable would be sediment accumulation behind silt 

fences, constructed of silt cloth wired to t-posts. Sediment would be field weighed, subsampled for 

moisture content, and corrected for the weight of the water. Ideally, the fences would be cleaned out 

after every storm or series of storms, but this may depend on site access. Tipping bucket rain gages 

and snow gages would be used to measure local precipitation totals and intensities.

Study duration

Silt fences would be constructed in 2014 after the ground-disturbing activities are completed. The 

study would last for two to three years, depending on recovery rates at the sites. Local forest 

personnel are expected available to maintain the silt fences and monitor precipitation, in which case 

the primary cost will be for project set-up, data analysis, and writing. 

479
Appendix D Stanislaus

Research National Forest

10. Effects of Salvage and Erosion Mitigation on Small Watershed Response

Quantify effects of salvage logging and erosion mitigation treatments on hillslope erosion, sediment 

yield and peak discharge at the small watershed scale that are at high risk of degrading water quality. 

This project would evaluate salvage logging alone, and in combination with proposed mitigation 

treatments (mastication and contour ripping) on small watershed response. 

This proposed project will answer the following questions

 What are the effects of salvage logging on hillslope erosion, sediment yield and peak discharge at 

the small watershed scale?

 What are the combined effects of salvage logging and proposed watershed mitigation treatments 

on small watershed response? 

Anticipated management implications

There is high interest and constant debate on efficacy of salvage logging as well as salvage logging 

mitigation treatments reduce the erosion risk. This research would help answer the questions on 

salvage and erosion mitigation at the most critical scale for forest managers, small catchments (10-20 

acres). If there is no effect at this scale, it is unlikely to translate sediment increases in water 

reservoirs or affect downstream water quality. These results would provide guidelines of salvage 

effects, erosion mitigation on hillslope erosion rates, sediment yields from the 10-20 acre watersheds 

and effects on peak flow. Quantification of the total sediment yield (hillslope and channel processes) 

for this small-sized catchment would allow quantification and validation of the LIDAR measurements 

already underway. Therefore, this information on salvage effects would be valuable to managers 

facing similar salvage logging decisions as well as erosion mitigation effectiveness.

Sampling Design and Analysis

This study will use paired small catchment (10-20 acres) to measure total sediment yields, runoff and 

peak flow as well as small hillslope sediment fences to quantify hillslope contributions. Eight paired 

catchments (salvage, salvage with mastication, salvage with ripping, and control) with 2 reps of each 

treatment. Site selection within their proposal salvage units would be used to be sure to represent 

actual salvage conditions. Sheet metal sediment basins and weirs would be installed at each 

catchment and would be cleaned out after each major storm. Site and rain event data would also be 

collected in each catchment. Both the paired catchment sediment traps and hillslope sediment fences 

have been successes used on numerous fires to measure impacts on various erosion mitigation 

treatments and salvage effects. 

Study duration

Sediment basins and weirs would be installed in 2014. Continuous monitoring would commence 

immediately after installation and continue for three years, as site in this region generally recover to 

significant erosion reduction in this timespan. 

11. Effects of Salvage and Watershed Treatments on Riparian Conditions

Quantify effects of salvage and an erosion control method (contour ripping) on riparian conditions 

adjacent to flowing streams in watersheds that are at high risk of soil erosion following wildfire. In 

addition to evaluating effects on erosion, this study will compare fuel loading, vegetation recovery, 

effects on non-species, shading and temperature, and large woody debris loading to the streams. 

Measuring these response variables in treated areas will provide more a more integrated 

understanding of the effects of salvage in riparian areas. 

This proposed project will answer the following questions

 How long do fire-killed trees remain upright as snags in riparian areas, and what tree attributes 

affect that longevity?

 How do salvage operations affect fuel loading and fire hazard in riparian areas over time?

 How do salvage operations affect loading of large woody debris to streams? 

 Do salvage and contour ripping affect understory biodiversity and do they facilitate invasion by 

non-native species?

480
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix D

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Research

 Do salvage and contour ripping positively or negatively affect rates of natural tree regeneration?

 How do salvage and contour ripping affect soil movement into streams? 

 How does salvage affect temperature in riparian areas and streams?

Anticipated management implications

Salvage has been proposed by forest managers as a means of reducing fuel loads and excessive 

loading of large woody debris to streams. Contour ripping has been used by forest managers in the 

region as an erosion control measure following wildfire. By evaluating a variety of important riparian 

attributes that would be affected by these treatments, the study will provide managers with essential 

knowledge when facing similar decisions about post-fire salvage. Both scientists and managers are 

divided about whether salvage in riparian areas is harmful or beneficial, and the potential to mitigate 

salvage using contour ripping is another hotly debated idea. This research would help to answer these 

critical questions about the extent to which fire salvage in riparian areas increases negative impacts to 

streams, and whether it provides benefits in terms of moderating fuel accumulations. Quantification 

of rill and channel erosion would be related to LiDAR data to groundtruth areas identified as erosion 

hotspots. The study areas would provide a long-term demonstration area of different treatment 

approaches, enabling future researchers to conduct retrospective analyses. Information from this study 

will also help to evaluate downstream sedimentation impacts and predict future effects of wildfires. 

Therefore, it will be valuable to managers and the public in understanding the impacts of high 

severity fires on important water resources.

Sampling Design and Analysis

Along eight streams, there will be a 300 m long control reach that extend 50 m wide on each side of 

the stream, to remain unsalvaged and untreated (60 acres total). There would be a similar 300 m long 

reach that is salvage logged, and a similar 300 m long reach with salvage logging plus contour 

ripping. Depending on treatment implementation, the control and treatment reaches could be 

interspersed. The study watersheds target perennial streams in watersheds located primarily on Forest 

Service lands that burned at high soil burn severity. Most drainages flow NE to SW and represent

metasedimentary and granitic soils.

Soil Erosion

This component of the study will be similar to the hillslope erosion study, but monitoring would 

quantify rills and sediment plumes as they enter and leave the treatment areas adjacent to the streams. 

By combining information on soil erosion rates from this hillslopes, this study will help to calculate 

sediment loading to streams. 

Riparian Vegetation and Dead Wood

This component of the study will parallel the upland study of effects of varying salvage on fuels and 

native/ non-native species abundance. In plots within treatment reaches, but outside of the erosion 

study reaches, research will establish plots to sample approximately 10% of the area within each unit, 

using a grid of spatially referenced and marked points and circular plots of diameter depending on the 

variable being measured. Snags will be tagged, species and diameter measured. Soil cover, shrub 

cover and herbaceous species cover will be quantified by species. Density of natural regeneration will 

be determined. Fuel load will be estimated using two Brown’s transects at each grid point. 

Temperature and relative humidity will be measured using Hobo data loggers. 

Effects on Streams

The quantity and impacts of large woody debris that falls into streams will be monitored. In-stream 

temperature will be monitored using data loggers, and solar exposure will be measured. Gages would 

be used to measure local precipitation totals and intensities. 

Study duration

Data will be collected before salvage and for two summers afterward. Erosion will be measured three 

times per year in conjunction with storms. The data will be collected in ways to track changes over 

long periods (decades) in the event of future reburns. 

481
Appendix D Stanislaus

Research National Forest

12. Modeling Erosion Risk after Salvage Logging, Adding an Interface to the WEPP Technology

Develop an online interface to the WEPP technology for prediction erosion risk after salvage logging 

and effects of various mitigation treatments on reducing that risk. This interface would allow 

managers to directly compare salvage activities with and without proposed erosion reduction 

mitigation treatments. 

This proposed project will answer the following questions

The USDA - Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model represents a new erosion prediction 

technology based on fundamentals of stochastic weather generation, infiltration theory, hydrology, 

soil physics, plant science, hydraulics, and erosion mechanics. The hillslope or landscape profile 

application of the model provides major advantages over existing erosion prediction technology. The 

most notable advantages include capabilities for estimating spatial and temporal distributions of soil 

loss (net soil loss for an entire hillslope or for each point on a slope profile can be estimated on a 

daily, monthly, or average annual basis), and since the model is process-based it can be extrapolated 

to a broad range of conditions that may not be practical or economical to field test. In watershed 

applications, sediment yield from entire fields can be estimated. With this additional information, 

researchers will be able to include the effects of salvage logging into the predictive capabilities of the 

WEPP model.

Anticipated management implications

There is a significant amount of time and effort to quantify the effects of salvage logging on hillslope 

erosion, runoff, sediment yield and peak flow following major wildfires in the Western US. A land 

managers’ user-friendly interface to the WEPP model would be developed as part of this proposal. 

WEPP is a process-based model that predicts runoff and sediment yields from hillslopes and small 

watersheds. This model would allow comparisons of salvage logging with and without mitigation 

treatments on erosion, runoff, sediment yield and peak flow. 

Sampling Design and Analysis

Research would build on existing technology of FSWEPP interfaces that are currently in wide use 

within and outside of the agency (http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/FSWEPP). Management files from 

past salvage monitoring activities (Hayman, Red Eagle and Kraft Springs Fires) combined with active 

monitoring on this fire would allow for proper parameterization and calibration of the model. Selected 

storm response from this salvaged fire activities would be used for validation. 

Using DEMs and smaller raster inputs files (soils, land cover, burn severity) combined with salvage 

disturbance for generating erosion risk maps with and without mitigation. Climate data input files are 

generated from the Forest Service RockClime weather generator. The resulting erosion risk 

predictions maps will be displayed tabular form and in the Google Earth platform for ease in use of 

identifying areas with high erosion potential. 

Study duration

Model interface development would occur over an 18-month period with an identified post-doc who 

have proper modeling experience. Oversight will be by the cooperating university professor and 

agency’s scientist. Validation would occur during the last 4 months of the project with data from this 

salvage monitoring activities. 

482
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

E. Treatments

This Appendix provides detailed information about the treatments described in Chapter 2.01 and 

proposed in the action alternatives 1, 3 and 4 (Chapter 2.02). Appendix E.01 provides detailed 

information about the application of the primary objectives described in Chapter 2.01 and Table 2.01-

1. Appendix E.02 provides detailed information about salvage and biomass treatments. Appendix 

E.03 provides detailed information about the additional fuels treatments proposed in Alternative 3 and 

Alternative 4. Appendix E.04 provides detailed information about the additional watershed treatments 

proposed in Alternative 3 and Alternative 4. Appendix E.05 provides detailed information about the 

road treatments.

E.01 PRIMARY OBJECTIVES

Treatment units and unit primary objectives vary between the action alternatives. Chapter 2.01 and 

Table 2.01-1 provide more details for the primary objectives listed below. 

Primary Objectives

1. Economic Value: Capture the economic value of hazard trees and dead trees which pays for 

their removal from the forest and potentially for other future restoration treatments.

2. Public and Worker Safety: Remove dead and dying hazard trees adjacent to Forest Roads and 

project access areas. This primary objective also includes the health and safety of workers and 

permittees during range fence installation and maintenance.

3. Fuel Reduction: Reduce fuels to provide for future forest resiliency and firefighting safety and 

success. Additional treatments in SPLATS and Defense Zones.

4. Enhance Hydrologic Function: Improve road infrastructure to enhance hydrologic function of 

roads. This only applies to roads so it will not be displayed in Table E.01-1 which displays unit 

acres.

5. Enhance Wildlife Habitat: Retain specific old forest components (large snags and down logs) 

and/or remove material to improve wildlife habitat. 

a. Deer Habitat Improvement: Removal of dead trees (commercial and non-commercial) for 

movement and access, and to achieve desired forage/cover ratios

b. Snag Retention 

6. Research: Utilize the unique scale and intensity of the Rim Fire to answer questions and provide 

more information on a wide range of research topics.

Table E.01-1 displays the unit number, acres and primary objectives for each harvest unit as proposed 

in the action alternatives.

483
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Table E.01-1 Primary Objectives for Treatment Units in Alternatives 1, 3 and 4

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit Acres Objectives Unit Acres Objectives Unit Acres Objectives

A01A 7 1

A01B 143 1,2 A01B 143 1,2,5b

A02 8 1,2

A03 86 1,2 A03 55 1,2,5b

A04 21 1 A04 21 1,5b

A05 672 1,2

A05A 293 1,2,5b

A05B 25 1,5b

A05C 85 1,2,5b A05C 85 1,2,5b

A08A 155 1,2 A08A 111 1,2,5b A08A 111 1,2,5b

A08B 14 1,2

A08C 33 1,2 A08C 18 1,5b A08C 18 1,5b

A08D 28 1

A09 53 1 A09 81 1,5b A09 81 1,5b

A10 112 1,2

A14 7 1 A14 8 1,3,5b A14 8 1,3,5b

A14X 2 1,3,5b,6 A14X 2 1,3,5b,6

A15 22 1 A15 22 1,3,5b,6 A15 22 1,3,5b,6

B01A 3 1

B01B 9 1

B02 60 1,2 B02 63 1,2 B02 63 1,2

B03 18 1 B03 18 1 B03 18 1

B21 4 1 B21 4 1 B21 4 1

B22 27 1 B22 8 1 B22 8 1

B22X 19 1,5b,6 B22X 19 1,5b,6

B23 100 1,2 B23 100 1,2 B23 100 1,2

B24 87 1

B24X 87 1,5b,6 B24X 87 1,5b,6

B25 21 1,2

B25X 21 1,2,5b,6 B25X 21 1,2,5b,6

B32 62 1,2 B32 62 1,2 B32 62 1,2

B33 16 1

C02 132 1,2 C02 86 1,5b C02 86 1,5b

C03 39 1,2 C03 39 1,2,3,5b C03 39 1,2,3,5b

C04 14 1,2

C04X 14 1,2,3,5b,6 C04X 14 1,2,3,5b,6

C05 10 1 C05 10 1,3,5b C05 10 1,3,5b

C06 4 1,2 C06 4 1,2,3,5b C06 4 1,2,3,5b

D01A 200 1,2 D01A 200 1,2,5b

D01B 1 1 D01B 1 1,5b D01B 1 1,5b

D01C 23 1,2 D01C 23 1,2 D01C 23 1,2

D01D 13 1,2 D01D 13 1,2 D01D 13 1,2

D01E 18 1 D01E 18 1 D01E 18 1

D02 108 1,2 D02 123 1,2,5b

D03 26 1 D03 26 1,5b D03 26 1,5b

D04A 32 1 D04A 32 1,5b D04A 32 1,5b

D04B 345 1,2 D04B 345 1,2,5b D04B 345 1,2,5b

D05 43 1 D05 22 1,5b D05 22 1,5b

D06 16 1,2 D06 16 1,2,5b D06 16 1,2,5b

D08 42 1,2 D08 42 1,2,5b D08 42 1,2,5b

D09 63 1,2 D09 37 1,2,5b D09 37 1,2,5b

D11 107 1,2 D11 107 1,2,3 D11 107 1,2,3

484
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit Acres Objectives Unit Acres Objectives Unit Acres Objectives

D12 408 1,2 D12 408 1,2,3 D12 408 1,2,3

D13 60 1,2 D13 150 2,3 D13 150 2,3

E01A 75 1 E01A 75 1

E01B 719 1,2 E01B 719 1,2,3

E02 112 1,2 E02 112 1,2

E03A 174 1,2 E03A 174 1,2 E03A 174 1,2

E03B 157 1,2 E03B 190 1,2 E03B 190 1,2

E04 72 1,2 E04 72 1,2,3 E04 72 1,2,3

E05 10 1 E05 10 1 E05 10 1

E06 44 1,2

F01 135 1 F01 196 1,5b,6 F01 196 1,5b,6

F02A 526 1,2 F02A 604 1,2,5b,6 F02A 604 1,2,5b,6

F02B 34 1,2 F02B 34 1,2,5b F02B 34 1,2,5b

F03 58 1 F03 58 1,5b F03 58 1,5b

F11 551 1,2 F11 551 2,3,5b F11 551 2,3,5b

F12 157 1,2 F12 121 1,2,5b F12 121 1,2,5b

F13 142 1 F13 177 1,5b F13 177 1,5b

F14 158 1,2 F14 135 1,2,5b F14 135 1,2,5b

F15 33 1,2 F15 33 1,2,5b F15 33 1,2,5b

F16 69 1,2 F16 69 1,2,5b F16 69 1,2,5b

F17 12 1,2 F17 12 1,2,5b F17 12 1,2,5b

F18 51 1,2 F18 51 1,2,5b F18 51 1,2,5b

F19 12 1,2 F19 12 1,2,5b F19 12 1,2,5b

F20 127 1,2 F20 145 1,2,5b F20 145 1,2,5b

F21 22 1 F21 22 1,5b F21 22 1,5b

F22A 7 1 F22A 7 1,5b F22A 7 1,5b

F22B 6 1 F22B 6 1,5b F22B 6 1,5b

F23A 16 1 F23A 16 1,5b,6 F23A 16 1,5b,6

F23B 10 1,2 F23B 10 1,2,5b,6 F23B 10 1,2,5b,6

F23C 1 1 F23C 1 1,5b F23C 1 1,5b

F23D 30 1 F23D 30 1,5b F23D 30 1,5b

G01 106 1,2 G01 66 1,2,5b G01 66 1,2,5b

G01X 40 1,2,5b,6 G01X 40 1,2,5b,6

G02 5 1,2

G02X 5 1,2,5b,6 G02X 5 1,2,5b,6

G03A 131 1,2 G03A 131 1,2,5b G03A 131 1,2,5b

G03B 119 1,2 G03B 119 1,2,5b G03B 119 1,2,5b

G04 24 1,2 G04 24 1,2,5b G04 24 1,2,5b

G05 23 1,2 G05 23 1,2,5b G05 23 1,2,5b

G06 23 1,2 G06 23 1,2,5b,6 G06 23 1,2,5b,6

G07 2 1 G07 2 1,5b,6 G07 2 1,5b,6

G08 52 1,2 G08 24 1,2,5b G08 24 1,2,5b

G08X 29 1,5b,6 G08X 29 1,5b,6

G09 43 1,2 G09 43 1,2,5b,6 G09 43 1,2,5b,6

G10 6 1 G10 6 1,5b,6 G10 6 1,5b,6

G11 28 1,2

G11A 5 1,2,5b,6 G11A 5 1,2,5b,6

G11B 7 1,2,5b,6 G11B 7 1,2,5b,6

G11C 15 1,2,5b,6 G11C 15 1,2,5b,6

G12 10 1,2 G12 10 1,2,5b,6 G12 10 1,2,5b,6

G13 19 1,2

G13A 16 1,2,5b G13A 16 1,2,5b

G13B 5 1,2,5b G13B 5 1,2,5b

G14A 6 1 G14A 6 1,5b,6 G14A 6 1,5b,6

485
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit Acres Objectives Unit Acres Objectives Unit Acres Objectives

G14B 6 1,2 G14B 6 1,2,5b,6 G14B 6 1,2,5b,6

G15 58 1,2 G15 95 1,2,5b G15 95 1,2,5b

G25 60 1,2 G25 60 1,2,5b,6 G25 60 1,2,5b,6

G26 24 1,2 G26 24 1,2,5b,6 G26 24 1,2,5b,6

G35 3 1,2 G35 3 1,2 G35 3 1,2

H01 4 1,2 H01 4 1,2,3,5b H01 4 1,2,3,5b

H02 9 1 H02 9 1,3,5b H02 9 1,3,5b

H03 3 1,2

H04 13 1

H05 28 1

H06 6 1,2 H06 34 1,2,5b H06 34 1,2,5b

H07 2 1,2

H08 26 1

H09 6 1,2 H09 21 1,2,5b H09 21 1,2,5b

H11 44 1,2 H11 27 1,2,5b H11 27 1,2,5b

H11X 17 1,2,5b,6 H11X 17 1,2,5b,6

H12 37 1,2 H12 6 1,2,5b H12 6 1,2,5b

H12X 31 1,2,5b,6 H12X 31 1,2,5b,6

H13A 103 1,2 H13A 54 1,2,5b H13A 54 1,2,5b

H13AX 52 1,2,5b,6 H13AX 52 1,2,5b,6

H13B 65 1,2 H13B 13 1,2,5b H13B 13 1,2,5b

H13BX 52 1,2,5b,6 H13BX 52 1,2,5b,6

K01 11 1,2 K01 11 1,2 K01 11 1,2

K02 132 1,2 K02 132 1,2 K02 132 1,2

L01 61 1,2 L01 39 1,2,5b L01 39 1,2,5b

L02A 374 1,2 L02A 369 1,2,3,5b L02A 369 1,2,3,5b

L02AX 5 1,2,3,5b,6 L02AX 5 1,2,3,5b,6

L02B 715 1,2 L02B 275 1,2,3,5b L02B 275 1,2,3,5b

L02BX 215 1,2,3,5b,6 L02BX 215 1,2,3,5b,6

L02C 796 1,2 L02C 610 1,2,5b L02C 610 1,2,5b

L02CX 185 1,2,5b,6 L02CX 185 1,2,5b,6

L02D 257 1,2 L02D 257 1,2,5b L02D 257 1,2,5b

L02E 62 1,2,5b L02E 62 1,2,5b

L02F 185 1,2,3,5b L02F 185 1,2,3,5b

L03 31 1,2,5a L03 31 1,2,5a,5b L03 31 1,2,5a,5b

L04 79 1,2 L04 79 1,2,5b L04 79 1,2,5b

L05A 9 1,2

L05AX 9 1,2,5b,6 L05AX 9 1,2,5b,6

L05B 17 1

L05BX 17 1,5b,6 L05BX 17 1,5b,6

L06 10 1,5a

L07 5 1,2,5a L07 5 1,2,5a,5b L07 5 1,2,5a,5b

L201 92 5a,5b L201 92 5a,5b

L202 142 2,5a L202 142 2,5a,5b L202 142 2,5a,5b

L203 695 2,5a,5b L203 695 2,5a,5b

L203A 152 2,5a

L203B 113 2,5a

L204 1519 2,5a,5b L204 1519 2,5a,5b

L204A 55 2,5a

L204B 32 2,5a

L205 140 2,5a L205 756 2,3,5a,5b L205 756 2,3,5a,5b

L206 138 2,5a L206 81 2,5a,5b L206 81 2,5a,5b

M01 701 1,2 M01 701 1,2,5b,6 M01 701 1,2,5b,6

M02A 110 1,2 M02A 141 1,2,3,5b,6 M02A 141 1,2,3,5b,6

486
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit Acres Objectives Unit Acres Objectives Unit Acres Objectives

M02B 3 1,2

M02C 10 1 M02C 30 1,5b,6 M02C 30 1,5b,6

M04A 254 1,2 M04A 260 1,2,5b M04A 260 1,2,5b

M04B 4 1,2 M04B 13 1,2,5b M04B 13 1,2,5b

M04C 10 1 M04C 15 2,5b M04C 15 2,5b

M05A 34 1 M05A 34 1,3,5b M05A 34 1,3,5b

M05B 245 1,2 M05B 120 1,2,3,5b M05B 120 1,2,3,5b

M05C 24 2,3,5b M05C 24 2,3,5b

M05D 76 1,2,3,5b M05D 76 1,2,3,5b

M05E 21 1,2,3,5b M05E 21 1,2,3,5b

M05F 39 1,3,5b M05F 39 1,3,5b

M05G 11 1,3,5b M05G 11 1,3,5b

M06 97 1,2 M06 97 1,2,5b M06 97 1,2,5b

M07 21 1,2 M07 21 1,2,5b M07 21 1,2,5b

M08A 98 1,2 M08A 98 1,2,5b M08A 98 1,2,5b

M08B 33 1,2 M08B 29 1,2,5b M08B 29 1,2,5b

M08C 11 1,2 M08C 11 1,2,5b M08C 11 1,2,5b

M08D 27 1,2 M08D 27 1,2,5b M08D 27 1,2,5b

M08E 3 1 M08E 8 1,5b M08E 8 1,5b

M09 211 1,2 M09 224 1,2,5b,6 M09 224 1,2,5b,6

M10 71 1,2 M10 71 1,2,5b M10 71 1,2,5b

M12 15 1 M12 12 1,2,5b M12 12 1,2,5b

M13 10 1,2 M13 10 1,2,5b M13 10 1,2,5b

M15 28 1 M15 28 1,2,5b M15 28 1,2,5b

M16A 10 1 M16A 10 1,2,5b M16A 10 1,2,5b

M16B 86 1,2 M16B 86 1,2,3,5b M16B 86 1,2,3,5b

M18 58 1,2 M18 58 1,2,3,5b M18 58 1,2,3,5b

M19 27 1,2 M19 27 1,2,5b M19 27 1,2,5b

M20 15 1,2 M20 15 1,2

M201 50 2,5a M201 74 2,5a,5b M201 74 2,5a,5b

M202A 117 1,2,5a,5b M202A 117 1,2,5a,5b

M202B 21 1,2,5a,5b M202B 21 1,2,5a,5b

M203 63 1,2,5a,5b M203 63 1,2,5a,5b

M204 282 1,2,5a,5b M204 282 1,2,5a,5b

N01 732 1,2

N01A 37 1,2,5b N01A 37 1,2,5b

N01B 13 1 N01B 13 1

N01C 225 1,2,5b N01C 225 1,2,5b

N01D 14 1,5b N01D 14 1,5b

N01E 71 1,5b N01E 71 1,5b

N01F 2 1,5b N01F 2 1,5b

N01G 5 1,5b N01G 5 1,5b

N01H 49 1,5b N01H 49 1,5b

N01I 28 1,5b N01I 28 1,5b

N01J 21 1,2,5b N01J 21 1,2,5b

N02 42 1,2

N02A 24 1,2 N02A 24 1,2

N02B 5 1,2 N02B 5 1,2

N03 26 1,2 N03 26 1,2,5b N03 26 1,2,5b

O01 11 1,2 O01 8 1,2,3,5b

O02 472 1,2

O02A 262 1,2,3,5b

O02B 173 1,2,5b

O03 46 1 O03 46 1,5b O03 46 1,5b

487
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit Acres Objectives Unit Acres Objectives Unit Acres Objectives

O04 19 1 O04 32 1,5b

O05 100 1,2 O05 100 1,2,5b

O06 33 1 O06 33 1,5b O06 33 1,5b

O07 48 1 O07 48 1 O07 48 1

O08 27 1 O08 27 1 O08 27 1

O09 10 1 O09 10 1 O09 10 1

O10A 14 1 O10A 14 1,3 O10A 14 1,3

O10B 6 1 O10B 6 1 O10B 6 1

O11A 27 1 O11A 27 1 O11A 27 1

O11B 39 1,2 O11B 39 1,2 O11B 39 1,2

O11C 15 1 O11C 15 1,3 O11C 15 1,3

O12 96 1 O12 96 1,3,5b

O201 299 2,5a

O201A 156 2,5a,5b O201A 156 2,5a,5b

O201B 121 2,5a,5b O201B 121 2,5a,5b

P201 185 1,5a P201 185 1,5a,5b P201 185 1,5a,5b

Q06 19 1,2 Q06 19 1,2,5b Q06 19 1,2,5b

Q07 13 1,2 Q07 13 1,2,5b Q07 13 1,2,5b

Q08 42 1,2 Q08 42 1,2,5b Q08 42 1,2,5b

Q09 18 1,2 Q09 18 1,2,5b Q09 18 1,2,5b

Q13 81 1 Q13 81 1,5b Q13 81 1,5b

Q14A 397 1,2 Q14A 395 1,2,5b,6 Q14A 395 1,2,5b,6

Q14B 146 1 Q14B 146 1,5b,6 Q14B 146 1,5b,6

Q15 14 1,2 Q15 17 1,2,5b Q15 17 1,2,5b

Q16 8 1 Q16 8 1,5b,6 Q16 8 1,5b,6

R01A 325 1,2 R01A 106 1,2,3,5b

R01B 11 1,2 R01B 11 1,2,3,5b R01B 11 1,2,3,5b

R02 36 1,2 R02 30 1,2,3

R03 32 1,2

R04A 52 1,2 R04A 52 1,2,3,5b,6 R04A 52 1,2,3,5b,6

R04B 41 1,2 R04B 41 1,2,3 R04B 41 1,2,3

R06A 9 1 R06A 12 1,3 R06A 12 1,3

R06B 24 1 R06B 21 1 R06B 21 1

R07 83 1,2

R07A 98 1,2 R07A 98 1,2

R07B 19 1,2 R07B 19 1,2

R08 2 1

R12 64 1 R12 8 1,5b R12 8 1,5b

R12X 56 1,5b,6 R12X 56 1,5b,6

R14 5 1,2

R15 25 1 R15 66 1,3,5b R15 66 1,3,5b

R16 98 1,2 R16 98 1,2,5b R16 98 1,2,5b

R17 72 1,2

R17X 72 1,2,5b,6 R17X 72 1,2,5b,6

R18 100 1,2 R18 83 1,2,5b R18 83 1,2,5b

R18X 17 1,5b,6 R18X 17 1,5b,6

R19A 52 1 R19A 52 1,3,5b,6 R19A 52 1,3,5b,6

R19B 12 1,2 R19B 12 1,2,3,5b,6 R19B 12 1,2,3,5b,6

R19D 70 1,2 R19D 91 1,2,3,5b,6 R19D 91 1,2,3,5b,6

R19DX 24 1,2,5b,6 R19DX 24 1,2,5b,6

R19E 4 1,2 R19E 4 1,2,5b,6 R19E 4 1,2,5b,6

R19F 5 1 R19F 11 1,2,5b,6 R19F 11 1,2,5b,6

R20 37 1 R20 50 1,5b,6 R20 50 1,5b,6

R22 28 1,2 R22 28 1,2,3,5b R22 28 1,2,3,5b

488
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit Acres Objectives Unit Acres Objectives Unit Acres Objectives

R23 13 1,2 R23 13 1,2 R23 13 1,2

R24A 41 1,2 R24A 41 1,2,5b R24A 41 1,2,5b

R24B 5 1,2

R25 34 1,2

R25X 34 1,2,5b,6 R25X 34 1,2,5b,6

R31 140 1,2 R31 120 1,2,3,5b R31 120 1,2,3,5b

R31X 67 1,2,3,5b,6 R31X 67 1,2,3,5b,6

R32 30 1,2 R32 31 1,2,6 R32 31 1,2,6

R33 12 1,2

R33X 12 1,2,3,5b,6 R33X 12 1,2,3,5b,6

R35 26 1,2

R35A 10 1,2,3,5b R35A 10 1,2,3,5b

R35B 16 1,2,3,5b R35B 16 1,2,3,5b

R36 15 1,2 R36 12 1,2,3,5b R36 12 1,2,3,5b

R37 25 1,2 R37 25 1,2,5b R37 25 1,2,5b

R38 20 1,2 R38 20 1,2,3 R38 20 1,2,3

R39 3 1 R39 3 1,2,3,5b R39 3 1,2,3,5b

R40A 32 2,3,5b R40A 32 2,3,5b

R40B 52 2,3,5b R40B 52 2,3,5b

S01 34 1 S01 53 1,5b S01 53 1,5b

S02 135 1,2 S02 135 1,2,5b S02 135 1,2,5b

S03 168 1,2 S03 168 1,2,5b S03 168 1,2,5b

S04 284 1,2 S04 284 1,2,5b S04 284 1,2,5b

S05A 46 1,2

S05B 28 1,2 S05B 7 1,2,5b S05B 7 1,2,5b

S05C 27 1

S06 28 1 S06 28 1,3,5b S06 28 1,3,5b

S08 81 1,2 S08 81 1,2,5b S08 81 1,2,5b

S10 9 1 S10 9 1,3,5b S10 9 1,3,5b

S11 25 1 S11 25 1,3 S11 25 1,3

T01 19 1 T01 19 1,3 T01 19 1,3

T02 33 1,2 T02 33 1,2,3 T02 33 1,2,3

T03 29 1,2 T03 29 1,2 T03 29 1,2

T04A 266 1,2 T04A 266 1,2,3 T04A 266 1,2,3

T04B 904 1,2 T04B 904 1,2,3 T04B 904 1,2,3

T04C 77 1 T04C 101 1,3 T04C 101 1,3

T04D 9 1 T04D 9 1,3 T04D 9 1,3

T04E 2 1 T04E 2 1,3 T04E 2 1,3

T20 9 1 T20 9 1,3 T20 9 1,3

T21A 3 1,2

T21B 18 1 T21B 18 1,3,5b T21B 18 1,3,5b

T22 16 1,2 T22 18 1,2,5b T22 18 1,2,5b

T23 82 1,2 T23 28 1,2,5b T23 28 1,2,5b

T23X 54 1,2,5b,6 T23X 54 1,2,5b,6

T24 151 1,2 T24 154 1,2,3,5b T24 154 1,2,3,5b

T25 32 1,2 T25 6 1,2 T25 6 1,2

T25X 26 1,2,5b,6 T25X 26 1,2,5b,6

T26 15 1,2 T26 15 1,2 T26 15 1,2

T27A 1075 1,2 T27A 926 1,2,3,5b T27A 926 1,2,3,5b

T27AX 150 1,2,3,5b,6 T27AX 150 1,2,3,5b,6

T27B 953 1,2 T27B 573 1,2,3 T27B 573 1,2,3

T27BX 360 1,2,3,6 T27BX 360 1,2,3,6

T27C 97 1,2,3 T27C 97 1,2,3

T28 44 1,2

489
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit Acres Objectives Unit Acres Objectives Unit Acres Objectives

U01 775 1,2

U01A 3 1,2 U01A 3 1,2

U01B 26 1,2 U01B 26 1,2

U01C 12 1 U01C 12 1

U01D 617 1,2,3,5b,6 U01D 617 1,2,3,5b,6

U01DX 33 1,2,5b,6 U01DX 33 1,2,5b,6

U02 65 1,2 U02 56 1,2 U02 56 1,2

U03 347 1,2 U03 320 1,2,3 U03 320 1,2,3

V01 20 1 V01 20 1 V01 20 1

V02 17 1,2 V02 16 1,2 V02 16 1,2

V03 35 1,2 V03 25 1,2 V03 25 1,2

V04 15 1,2

V04A 2 1,2 V04A 2 1,2

V04B 3 1,2 V04B 3 1,2

V05A 3 1,2

V05B 7 1 V05B 6 1 V05B 6 1

V06 9 1 V06 4 1 V06 4 1

V10 50 1,2 V10 50 1,2,3 V10 50 1,2,3

V12A 9 1 V12A 9 1,3 V12A 9 1,3

V12B 16 1 V12B 16 1,2,3 V12B 16 1,2,3

V13 160 1,2 V13 119 1,2,3 V13 119 1,2,3

V13X 69 1,2,3,5b,6 V13X 69 1,2,3,5b,6

V14A 15 1,2 V14A 15 1,2,3 V14A 15 1,2,3

V14B 382 1,2 V14B 382 1,2,3 V14B 382 1,2,3

V14C 70 1,2 V14C 70 1,2,3,5b V14C 70 1,2,3,5b

V15 61 1,2 V15 61 1,2 V15 61 1,2

W01 51 1,2 W01 51 1,2 W01 51 1,2

W02 226 1,2 W02 226 1,2 W02 226 1,2

W03 21 1,2 W03 21 1,2,3 W03 21 1,2,3

W04 85 1,2 W04 74 1,2 W04 74 1,2

W05 51 1

W05A 3 1 W05A 3 1

W05B 5 1 W05B 5 1

W06 63 1

W06A 13 1 W06A 13 1

W06B 7 1 W06B 7 1

X01 21 1

X01A 8 1,3 X01A 8 1,3

X01B 3 1,3 X01B 3 1,3

X02 43 1,2 X02 43 1,2,3 X02 43 1,2,3

X03 58 1,2 X03 58 1,2,3,5b X03 58 1,2,3,5b

X04 7 1,2 X04 7 1,2,3 X04 7 1,2,3

X05 33 1,2 X05 33 1,2,3 X05 33 1,2,3

X06 56 1,2 X06 60 1,2,3 X06 60 1,2,3

X07 43 1,2 X07 43 1,2 X07 43 1,2

X08 20 1 X08 20 1 X08 20 1

X09 5 1 X09 5 1,3 X09 5 1,3

X10 10 1,2 X10 8 1,2,3,5b X10 8 1,2,3,5b

X11 19 1,2

X12 23 1,2 X12 23 1,2,3,5b X12 23 1,2,3,5b

X13 19 1,2 X13 19 1,2,3,5b X13 19 1,2,3,5b

X14 12 1,2

X15 76 1,2 X15 116 1,2,3,5b X15 116 1,2,3,5b

X16 16 1,2 X16 16 1,2,5b X16 16 1,2,5b

490
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit Acres Objectives Unit Acres Objectives Unit Acres Objectives

X17 51 1,2 X17 51 1,2,3,5b,6 X17 51 1,2,3,5b,6

X18 19 1,2 X18 19 1,2,3,5b,6 X18 19 1,2,3,5b,6

X19 4 1,2 X19 4 1,2,3,5b,6 X19 4 1,2,3,5b,6

X22 52 1,2 X22 52 1,2,3,5b X22 52 1,2,3,5b

X23 353 1,2 X23 353 1,2,3,5b X23 353 1,2,3,5b

X24 76 1,2 X24 76 1,2,5b X24 76 1,2,5b

X25 253 1,2 X25 253 1,2,5b,6 X25 253 1,2,5b,6

X26 75 1,2 X26 75 1,2,3,5b X26 75 1,2,3,5b

X27 34 1,2 X27 34 1,2,5b X27 34 1,2,5b

X40 8 1,2 X40 8 1,2 X40 8 1,2

X41 21 1,2 X41 21 1,2,3 X41 21 1,2,3

X100 22 1,2 X100 22 1,2,5b X100 22 1,2,5b

X101 21 1,2 X101 31 1,2 X101 31 1,2

X102 23 1,2 X102 23 1,2 X102 23 1,2

X103 28 1,2 X103 28 1,2,3 X103 28 1,2,3

X104 76 1,2 X104 72 1,2,3,5b X104 72 1,2,3,5b

X105 14 1,2 X105 14 1,2 X105 14 1,2

X106 18 1,2 X106 18 1,2 X106 18 1,2

X107 142 1,2 X107 70 1,2,3 X107 70 1,2,3

X108 183 1,2 X108 183 1,2,3,5b X108 183 1,2,3,5b

X109A 28 1,2 X109A 28 1,2,5b X109A 28 1,2,5b

X109B 8 1,2 X109B 8 1,2,5b X109B 8 1,2,5b

X109C 12 1,2 X109C 18 1,2,3,5b X109C 18 1,2,3,5b

X109D 13 1,2 X109D 13 1,2,3,5b X109D 13 1,2,3,5b

X109E 9 1,2 X109E 9 1,2,5b X109E 9 1,2,5b

X110 18 1 X110 18 1 X110 18 1

X111 32 1,2

X111X 32 1,2,5b,6 X111X 32 1,2,5b,6

X112 15 1,2 X112 14 1,2 X112 14 1,2

X114 13 1,2

X114X 18 1,2,5b,6 X114X 18 1,2,5b,6

X115 150 1,2 X115 150 1,2,3,5b X115 150 1,2,3,5b

X116 109 1,2 X116 110 1,2,3,5b X116 110 1,2,3,5b

X117 14 1,2 X117 9 1,2,5b X117 9 1,2,5b

X118 162 1,2 X118 7 1,2 X118 7 1,2

X118X 156 1,2,5b,6 X118X 156 1,2,5b,6

X119 114 1,2

X119X 113 1,2,5b,6 X119X 113 1,2,5b,6

X120 19 1 X120 24 1,3,5b X120 24 1,3,5b

Y01 132 1,2

Y01A 36 1,3 Y01A 36 1,3

Y01B 18 1,2,3 Y01B 18 1,2,3

Y01C 3 1 Y01C 3 1

Y01D 22 1,2,3 Y01D 22 1,2,3

Y02 19 1,2 Y02 15 1,2 Y02 15 1,2

Y03 17 1,2

Y03A 10 1 Y03A 10 1

Y03B 2 1,3 Y03B 2 1,3

AA01 34 1,2 AA01 34 1,2,3,5b AA01 34 1,2,3,5b

AA02 10 1

AA03 28 1,2 AA03 28 1,2,3,5b AA03 28 1,2,3,5b

AA04 25 1 AA04 28 1,3,5b AA04 28 1,3,5b

AA05 11 1,2

AA07 14 1,2 AA07 10 1,2,3,5b AA07 10 1,2,3,5b

491
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit Acres Objectives Unit Acres Objectives Unit Acres Objectives

AA08 19 1,2 AA08 19 1,2,3,5b AA08 19 1,2,3,5b

AA09 66 1 AA09 66 1,3,5b AA09 66 1,3,5b

AA11 12 1,2 AA11 12 1,2 AA11 12 1,2

AA12 4 1,2 AA12 4 1,2,3 AA12 4 1,2,3

AA13 12 1,2 AA13 12 1,2 AA13 12 1,2

Total 28,326 Total 30,399 Total 27,826

Blank entries indicate the item does not apply.

E.02 SALVAGE AND BIOMASS TREATMENTS

Table E.02-1 displays the unit number, harvest system9, salvage acres and biomass acres for each 

salvage and biomass treatment unit as proposed in the action alternatives.

Table E.02-1 Salvage and Biomass Treatment Units in Alternatives 1, 3 and 4

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit System Salvage

(acres)

Biomass

(acres) Unit System Salvage(acres)

Biomass

(acres) Unit System Salvage(acres)

Biomass

(acres)

A01A G 7

A01B G 143 A01B G 143

A02 S 8

A03 G 86 A03 G 55

A04 H 21 A04 H 21

A05 H 672

A05A H 293

A05B H 25

A05C H 85 A05C H 85

A08A G 155 A08A G 111 A08A G 111

A08B G 14

A08C G 33 A08C H 18 A08C H 18

A08D G 28

A09 H 53 A09 H 81 A09 H 81

A10 G 112

A14 G 7 7 A14 G 8 8 A14 G 8 8

A14X G 2 2 A14X G 2 2

A15 G 22 22 A15 H 22 A15 H 22

B01A G 3

B01B G 9

B02 G 60 B02 G 63 B02 G 63

B03 G 18 B03 G 18 B03 G 18

B21 G 4 B21 G 4 B21 G 4

B22 G 27 B22 G 8 B22 G 8

B22X G 19 B22X G 19

B23 G 100 B23 G 100 B23 G 100

B24 H 87

B24X H 87 B24X H 87

B25 G 21

B25X G 21 B25X G 21

B32 G 62 B32 G 62 B32 G 62

B33 G 16

C02 S 132 C02 H 86 C02 H 86

9 Harvest System: G=Ground based equipment; H=Helicopter; S=Skyline

492

 
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit System Salvage

(acres)

Biomass

(acres) Unit System Salvage(acres)

Biomass

(acres) Unit System Salvage(acres)

Biomass

(acres)

C03 G 39 39 C03 G 39 39 C03 G 39 39

C04 G 14 14

C04X G 14 14 C04X G 14 14

C05 G 10 10 C05 G 10 10 C05 G 10 10

C06 G 4 4 C06 G 4 4 C06 G 4 4

D01A G 200 D01A G 200

D01B G 1 D01B G 1 D01B G 1

D01C G 23 D01C G 23 D01C G 23

D01D G 13 D01D G 13 D01D G 13

D01E G 18 D01E G 18 D01E G 18

D02 G 108 D02 G 123

D03 G 26 D03 G 26 D03 G 26

D04A G 32 D04A G 32 D04A G 32

D04B G 345 D04B G 345 D04B G 345

D05 G 43 D05 G 22 D05 G 22

D06 G 16 D06 G 16 D06 G 16

D08 G 42 D08 G 42 D08 G 42

D09 G 63 D09 G 37 D09 G 37

D11 G 107 40 D11 G 107 40 D11 G 107 40

D12 G 408 291 D12 G 408 291 D12 G 408 291

D13 G 60 58 D13 G 150 147 D13 G 150 147

E01A G 75 E01A G 75

E01B G 719 97 E01B G 719 97

E02 G 112 E02 G 112

E03A G 174 E03A G 174 E03A G 174

E03B G 157 E03B G 190 E03B G 190

E04 G 72 71 E04 G 72 71 E04 G 72 71

E05 G 10 E05 G 10 E05 G 10

E06 H 44

F01 H 135 F01 H 196 F01 H 196

F02A G 526 F02A G 604 F02A G 604

F02B G 34 F02B G 34 F02B G 34

F03 H 58 F03 H 58 F03 H 58

F11 G 551 551 F11 G 551 551 F11 G 551 551

F12 G 157 F12 G 121 F12 G 121

F13 H 142 F13 H 177 F13 H 177

F14 G 158 F14 G 135 F14 G 135

F15 H 33 F15 H 33 F15 H 33

F16 G 69 F16 G 69 F16 G 69

F17 S 12 F17 S 12 F17 S 12

F18 G 51 F18 G 51 F18 G 51

F19 G 12 F19 G 12 F19 G 12

F20 H 127 F20 H 145 F20 H 145

F21 G 22 F21 G 22 F21 G 22

F22A G 7 F22A G 7 F22A G 7

F22B G 6 F22B G 6 F22B G 6

F23A G 16 F23A G 16 F23A G 16

F23B G 10 F23B G 10 F23B G 10

F23C G 1 F23C G 1 F23C G 1

F23D G 30 F23D G 30 F23D G 30

G01 G 106 G01 G 66 G01 G 66

G01X G 40 G01X G 40

G02 G 5

G02X G 5 G02X G 5

493
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit System Salvage

(acres)

Biomass

(acres) Unit System Salvage(acres)

Biomass

(acres) Unit System Salvage(acres)

Biomass

(acres)

G03A G 131 G03A G 131 G03A G 131

G03B G 119 G03B G 119 G03B G 119

G04 G 24 G04 G 24 G04 G 24

G05 G 23 G05 G 23 G05 G 23

G06 G 23 G06 G 23 G06 G 23

G07 G 2 G07 G 2 G07 G 2

G08 G 52 G08 G 24 G08 G 24

G08X G 29 G08X G 29

G09 G 43 G09 G 43 G09 G 43

G10 S 6 G10 S 6 G10 S 6

G11 S 28

G11A S 5 G11A S 5

G11B S 7 G11B S 7

G11C G 15 G11C G 15

G12 S 10 G12 S 10 G12 S 10

G13 S 19

G13A S 16 G13A S 16

G13B G 5 G13B G 5

G14A H 6 G14A H 6 G14A H 6

G14B H 6 G14B H 6 G14B H 6

G15 G 58 G15 G 95 G15 G 95

G25 G 60 G25 G 60 G25 G 60

G26 G 24 G26 G 24 G26 G 24

G35 G 3 G35 G 3 G35 G 3

H01 G 4 3 H01 G 4 3 H01 G 4 3

H02 G 9 H02 G 9 H02 G 9

H03 G 3

H04 H 13

H05 H 28

H06 G 6 H06 G 34 H06 G 34

H07 G 2

H08 H 26

H09 G 6 H09 G 21 H09 G 21

H11 G 44 H11 G 27 H11 G 27

H11X G 17 H11X G 17

H12 G 37 H12 G 6 H12 G 6

H12X G 31 H12X G 31

H13A G 103 H13A G 54 H13A G 54

H13AX G 52 H13AX G 52

H13B G 65 H13B G 13 H13B G 13

H13BX G 52 H13BX G 52

K01 G 11 K01 G 11 K01 G 11

K02 G 132 K02 G 132 K02 G 132

L01 S 61 L01 S 39 L01 S 39

L02A G 374 373 L02A G 369 368 L02A G 369 368

L02AX G 5 5 L02AX G 5 5

L02B G 715 L02B G 275 L02B G 275

L02BX G 215 L02BX G 215

L02C G 796 L02C G 610 L02C G 610

L02CX G 185 L02CX G 185

L02D G 257 L02D G 257 L02D G 257

L02E H 62 L02E H 62

L02F G 185 L02F G 185

L03 G 31 31 L03 G 31 31 L03 G 31 31

494
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit System Salvage

(acres)

Biomass

(acres) Unit System Salvage(acres)

Biomass

(acres) Unit System Salvage(acres)

Biomass

(acres)

L04 G 79 L04 G 79 25 L04 G 79 25

L05A S 9

L05AX H 9 L05X H 9

L05B S 17

L05BX H 17 L05BX H 17

L06 S 10 10

L07 G 5 5 L07 G 5 5 L07 G 5 5

L201 G 92 92 L201 G 92 92

L202 G 142 28 L202 G 142 28 L202 G 142 28

L203 G 695 250 L203 G 695 250

L203A G 152 152

L203B G 113 113

L204 G 1519 340 L204 G 1519 340

L204A G 55 55

L204B G 32 32

L205 G 140 140 L205 G 756 756 L205 G 756 756

L206 G 138 138 L206 G 81 15 L206 G 81 15

M01 G 701 M01 G 701 M01 G 701

M02A G 110 110 M02A G 141 141 M02A G 141 141

M02B G 3 3

M02C G 10 M02C G 30 M02C G 30

M04A G 254 M04A G 260 M04A G 260

M04B G 4 M04B G 13 M04B G 13

M04C G 10 M04C G 15 M04C G 15

M05A G 34 34 M05A H 34 M05A H 34

M05B G 245 245 M05B H 120 M05B H 120

M05C G 24 24 M05C G 24 24

M05D G 76 76 M05D G 76 76

M05E G 21 21 M05E G 21 21

M05F G 39 39 M05F G 39 39

M05G G 11 11 M05G G 11 11

M06 G 97 M06 G 97 M06 G 97

M07 G 21 M07 G 21 M07 G 21

M08A G 98 M08A G 98 M08A G 98

M08B G 33 M08B G 29 M08B G 29

M08C G 11 M08C G 11 M08C G 11

M08D G 27 M08D G 27 M08D G 27

M08E G 3 M08E G 8 M08E G 8

M09 H 211 M09 H 224 M09 H 224

M10 G 71 M10 G 71 M10 G 71

M12 G 15 M12 G 12 M12 G 12

M13 H 10 M13 H 10 M13 H 10

M15 G 28 M15 G 28 M15 G 28

M16A G 10 M16A G 10 M16A G 10

M16B G 86 18 M16B G 86 18 M16B G 86 18

M18 G 58 34 M18 G 58 34 M18 G 58 34

M19 G 27 M19 G 27 M19 G 27

M20 G 15 M20 G 15

M201 G 50 35 M201 G 74 35 M201 G 74 35

M202A G 117 17 M202A G 117 17

M202B G 21 3 M202B G 21 3

M203 G 63 20 M203 G 63 20

M204 G 282 79 M204 G 282 79

N01 G 732

495
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit System Salvage

(acres)

Biomass

(acres) Unit System Salvage(acres)

Biomass

(acres) Unit System Salvage(acres)

Biomass

(acres)

N01A G 37 N01A G 37

N01B G 13 N01B G 13

N01C G 225 N01C G 225

N01D G 14 N01D G 14

N01E G 71 N01E G 71

N01F G 2 N01F G 2

N01G G 5 N01G G 5

N01H G 49 N01H G 49

N01I G 28 N01I G 28

N01J G 21 N01J G 21

N02 G 42

N02A G 24 N02A G 24

N02B G 5 N02B G 5

N03 G 26 N03 G 26 N03 G 26

O01 G 11 10 O01 G 8 8

O02 G 472 202

O02A G 262 193

O02B G 173

O03 H 46 O03 H 46 O03 H 46

O04 H 19 O04 H 32

O05 G 100 O05 G 100

O06 H 33 O06 H 33 O06 H 33

O07 H 48 O07 H 48 O07 H 48

O08 G 27 O08 G 27 O08 G 27

O09 G 10 O09 G 10 O09 G 10

O10A G 14 14 O10A G 14 14 O10A G 14 14

O10B G 6 O10B G 6 O10B G 6

O11A G 27 O11A G 27 O11A G 27

O11B G 39 O11B G 39 O11B G 39

O11C G 15 15 O11C G 15 15 O11C G 15 15

O12 H 96 O12 H 96

O201 G 299 140

O201A G 156 80 O201A G 156 80

O201B G 121 60 O201B G 121 60

P201 H 185 P201 H 185 P201 H 185

Q06 G 19 Q06 G 19 Q06 G 19

Q07 G 13 Q07 G 13 Q07 G 13

Q08 G 42 Q08 G 42 Q08 G 42

Q09 S 18 Q09 S 18 Q09 S 18

Q13 G 81 Q13 G 81 Q13 G 81

Q14A G 397 10 Q14A G 395 10 Q14A G 395 10

Q14B G 146 Q14B G 146 Q14B G 146

Q15 S 14 Q15 S 17 Q15 S 17

Q16 G 8 Q16 G 8 Q16 G 8

R01A G 325 325 R01A G 106 106

R01B G 11 11 R01B G 11 11 R01B G 11 11

R02 S 36 R02 S 30

R03 G 32 32

R04A G 52 52 R04A G 52 52 R04A G 52 52

R04B G 41 41 R04B G 41 41 R04B G 41 41

R06A G 9 9 R06A G 12 12 R06A G 12 12

R06B G 24 R06B G 21 R06B G 21

R07 H 83

R07A S 98 R07A S 98

496
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit System Salvage

(acres)

Biomass

(acres) Unit System Salvage(acres)

Biomass

(acres) Unit System Salvage(acres)

Biomass

(acres)

R07B G 19 R07B G 19

R08 G 2 2

R12 G 64 R12 G 8 R12 G 8

R12X G 56 R12X G 56

R14 G 5

R15 G 25 25 R15 G 66 26 R15 G 66 26

R16 G 98 R16 G 98 R16 G 98

R17 G 72

R17X G 72 R17X G 72

R18 S 100 R18 S 83 R18 S 83

R18X S 17 R18X S 17

R19A G 52 38 R19A G 52 38 R19A G 52 38

R19B G 12 7 R19B G 12 7 R19B G 12 7

R19D G 70 11 R19D G 91 11 R19D G 91 11

R19DX G 24 R19DX G 24

R19E G 4 R19E G 4 R19E G 4

R19F G 5 R19F G 11 R19F G 11

R20 H 37 R20 H 50 R20 H 50

R22 G 28 11 R22 G 28 11 R22 G 28 11

R23 H 13 R23 H 13 R23 H 13

R24A G 41 R24A G 41 R24A G 41

R24B G 5

R25 G 34

R25X G 34 R25X G 34

R31 G 140 140 R31 G 120 120 R31 G 120 120

R31X G 67 67 R31X G 67 67

R32 G 30 R32 G 31 R32 G 31

R33 H 12

R33X H 12 R33X H 12

R35 S 26

R35A S 10 R35A S 10

R35B G 16 16 R35B G 16 16

R36 G 15 15 R36 G 12 12 R36 G 12 12

R37 G 25 R37 G 25 R37 G 25

R38 G 20 20 R38 G 20 20 R38 G 20 20

R39 G 3 3 R39 G 3 3 R39 G 3 3

R40A G 32 32 R40A G 32 32

R40B G 52 52 R40B G 52 52

S01 G 34 S01 G 53 S01 G 53

S02 G 135 S02 G 135 S02 G 135

S03 G 168 S03 G 168 S03 G 168

S04 G 284 S04 G 284 S04 G 284

S05A G 46

S05B G 28 S05B G 7 S05B G 7

S05C G 27

S06 G 28 28 S06 G 28 28 S06 G 28 28

S08 S 81 S08 S 81 S08 S 81

S10 H 9 S10 H 9 S10 H 9

S11 G 25 11 S11 G 25 11 S11 G 25 11

T01 G 19 5 T01 G 19 5 T01 G 19 5

T02 G 33 24 T02 G 33 24 T02 G 33 24

T03 S 29 T03 S 29 T03 S 29

T04A G 266 2 T04A G 266 2 T04A G 266 2

T04B G 904 744 T04B G 904 744 T04B G 904 744

497
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit System Salvage

(acres)

Biomass

(acres) Unit System Salvage(acres)

Biomass

(acres) Unit System Salvage(acres)

Biomass

(acres)

T04C G 77 77 T04C G 101 101 T04C G 101 101

T04D G 9 9 T04D G 9 9 T04D G 9 9

T04E G 2 2 T04E G 2 2 T04E G 2 2

T20 G 9 9 T20 G 9 9 T20 G 9 9

T21A G 3 3

T21B G 18 18 T21B G 18 18 T21B G 18 18

T22 G 16 T22 G 18 T22 G 18

T23 G 82 T23 G 28 T23 G 28

T23X G 54 T23X G 54

T24 G 151 87 T24 G 154 90 T24 G 154 90

T25 S 32 T25 S 6 T25 S 6

T25X S 26 T25X S 26

T26 S 15 T26 S 15 T26 S 15

T27A G 1075 531 T27A G 926 427 T27A G 926 427

T27AX G 150 104 T27AX G 150 104

T27B G 953 784 T27B G 573 540 T27B G 573 540

T27BX G 360 227 T27BX G 360 227

T27C G 97 64 T27C G 97 64

T28 G 44 14

U01 G 775 117

U01A G 3 U01A G 3

U01B G 26 U01B G 26

U01C G 12 U01C G 12

U01D G 617 105 U01D G 617 105

U01DX G 33 U01DX G 33

U02 G 65 3 U02 G 56 3 U02 G 56 3

U03 G 347 80 U03 G 320 75 U03 G 320 75

V01 G 20 V01 G 20 V01 G 20

V02 G 17 V02 G 16 V02 G 16

V03 G 35 V03 G 25 V03 G 25

V04 G 15

V04A G 2 V04A G 2

V04B G 3 V04B G 3

V05A G 3

V05B G 7 V05B G 6 V05B G 6

V06 G 9 V06 G 4 V06 G 4

V10 G 50 46 V10 G 50 46 V10 G 50 46

V12A G 9 9 V12A G 9 9 V12A G 9 9

V12B G 16 13 V12B G 16 13 V12B G 16 13

V13 G 160 110 V13 G 119 96 V13 G 119 96

V13X G 69 21 V13X G 69 21

V14A G 15 8 V14A G 15 8 V14A G 15 8

V14B G 382 90 V14B G 382 90 V14B G 382 90

V14C G 70 7 V14C G 70 7 V14C G 70 7

V15 H 61 V15 H 61 V15 H 61

W01 G 51 W01 G 51 W01 G 51

W02 G 226 W02 G 226 W02 G 226

W03 G 21 20 W03 G 21 20 W03 G 21 20

W04 G 85 W04 G 74 W04 G 74

W05 G 51

W05A G 3 W05A G 3

W05B G 5 W05B G 5

W06 G 63

W06A G 13 W06A G 13

498
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit System Salvage

(acres)

Biomass

(acres) Unit System Salvage(acres)

Biomass

(acres) Unit System Salvage(acres)

Biomass

(acres)

W06B G 7 W06B G 7

X01 G 21 21

X01A G 8 8 X01A G 8 8

X01B G 3 3 X01B G 3 3

X02 H 43 X02 H 43 X02 H 43

X03 S 58 X03 S 58 X03 S 58

X04 G 7 7 X04 G 7 7 X04 G 7 7

X05 H 33 X05 H 33 X05 H 33

X06 H 56 X06 H 60 X06 H 60

X07 G 43 X07 G 43 X07 G 43

X08 H 20 X08 H 20 X08 H 20

X09 G 5 5 X09 G 5 5 X09 G 5 5

X10 H 10 X10 H 8 X10 H 8

X11 G 19 19

X12 S 23 X12 S 23 X12 S 23

X13 G 19 19 X13 G 19 19 X13 G 19 19

X14 G 12 12

X15 G 76 47 X15 G 116 87 X15 G 116 87

X16 G/S 16 X16 G/S 16 X16 G/S 16

X17 S 51 X17 S 51 X17 S 51

X18 G 19 19 X18 G 19 19 X18 G 19 19

X19 G 4 4 X19 G 4 4 X19 G 4 4

X22 S 52 X22 S 52 X22 S 52

X23 H 353 X23 H 353 X23 H 353

X24 S 76 X24 S 76 X24 S 76

X25 S 253 X25 S 253 X25 S 253

X26 G 75 52 X26 G 75 52 X26 G 75 52

X27 S 34 X27 S 34 X27 S 34

X40 G 8 X40 G 8 X40 G 8

X41 G 21 21 X41 G 21 21 X41 G 21 21

X100 G 22 X100 G 22 X100 G 22

X101 G 21 X101 G 31 X101 G 31

X102 G 23 X102 G 23 X102 G 23

X103 G 28 6 X103 G 28 6 X103 G 28 6

X104 G 76 5 X104 G 72 4 X104 G 72 4

X105 G 14 X105 G 14 X105 G 14

X106 G 18 X106 G 18 X106 G 18

X107 G 142 142 X107 G 70 70 X107 G 70 70

X108 G 183 183 X108 G 183 183 X108 G 183 183

X109A G 28 X109A G 28 X109A G 28

X109B G 8 X109B G 8 X109B G 8

X109C G 12 X109C G 18 1 X109C G 18 1

X109D G 13 13 X109D G 13 13 X109D G 13 13

X109E G 9 X109E G 9 X109E G 9

X110 G 18 X110 G 18 X110 G 18

X111 G 32

X111X G 32 X111X G 32

X112 G 15 X112 G 14 X112 G 14

X114 G 13

X114X G 18 X114X G 18

X115 G 150 91 X115 G 150 91 X115 G 150 91

X116 G 109 27 X116 G 110 27 X116 G 110 27

X117 G 14 X117 G 9 X117 G 9

X118 G 162 X118 G 7 X118 G 7

499
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit System Salvage

(acres)

Biomass

(acres) Unit System Salvage(acres)

Biomass

(acres) Unit System Salvage(acres)

Biomass

(acres)

X118X G 156 X118X G 156

X119 G 114

X119X G 113 X119X G 113

X120 S 19 X120 H 24 X120 H 24

Y01 G 132 69

Y01A G 36 11 Y01A G 36 11

Y01B G 18 18 Y01B G 18 18

Y01C G 3 Y01C G 3

Y01D G 22 8 Y01D G 22 8

Y02 G 19 1 Y02 G 15 Y02 G 15

Y03 G 17 6

Y03A G 10 Y03A G 10

Y03B G 2 2 Y03B G 2 2

AA01 G 34 34 AA01 G 34 34 AA01 G 34 34

AA02 H 10

AA03 G 28 28 AA03 G 28 28 AA03 G 28 28

AA04 H 25 AA04 H 28 AA04 H 28

AA05 G 11 11

AA07 G 14 14 AA07 G 10 10 AA07 G 10 10

AA08 G 19 19 AA08 G 19 19 AA08 G 19 19

AA09 H 66 AA09 H 66 AA09 H 66

AA11 S 12 AA11 S 12 AA11 S 12

AA12 G 4 4 AA12 G 4 4 AA12 G 4 4

AA13 S 12 AA13 S 12 AA13 S 12

total 28,326 7,626 total 30,399 8,379 total 27,826 7,975

Harvest System: G=Ground based equipment; H=Helicopter; S=Skyline

Blank entries indicate the item does not apply.

E.03 FUELS TREATMENTS

Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 include fuels treatments that are not included in Alternative 1. These 

fuels treatments are Strategically Placed Land Area Treatments (SPLAT), non-SPLAT fuels 

treatments, and fuels ground pile treatments including the following.

1. Lop and scatter to 12" dbh in SPLAT areas within S and helicopter units. 

2. Lop and scatter to 18" dbh in non-SPLAT areas within S and helicopter units. 

3. Ground pile (jackpot or pile burning) in all units following hand and mechanical fuels treatments. 

Table E.03-1 displays the unit number, SPLAT acres, non-SPLAT acres and ground pile acres for 

each fuels treatment unit as proposed in Alternative 3 and Alternative 4. 

Table E.03-1 Fuels Treatment Units in Alternatives 3 and 4

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit SPLAT

(acres)

Non-SPLAT

(acres)

Ground Pile

(acres) Unit SPLAT(acres)

Non-SPLAT

(acres)

Ground Pile

(acres)

A01B 143 38

A03 55 55

A04 21

A05A 293

A05B 25

A05C 85 A05C 85

A08A 111 102 A08A 111 102

500
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit SPLAT

(acres)

Non-SPLAT

(acres)

Ground Pile

(acres) Unit SPLAT(acres)

Non-SPLAT

(acres)

Ground Pile

(acres)

A08C 18 A08C 18

A09 81 A09 81

A14 8 8 A14 8 8

A14X 2 2 A14X 2 2

A15 22 A15 22

B02 63 63 B02 63 63

B03 18 18 B03 18 18

B21 4 4 B21 4 4

B22 8 8 B22 8 8

B22X 19 19 B22X 19 19

B23 100 100 B23 100 100

B24X 87 B24X 87

B25X 21 21 B25X 21 21

B32 62 62 B32 62 62

C02 86 C02 86

C03 39 39 C03 39 39

C04X 14 14 C04X 14 14

C05 10 10 C05 10 10

C06 4 4 C06 4 4

D01A 200 200 0

D01B 1 1 D01B 1 1

D01C 23 23 D01C 23 23

D01D 13 13 D01D 13 13

D01E 18 18 D01E 18 18

D02 123 123 0

D03 26 26 D03 26 26

D04A 32 32 D04A 32 32

D04B 345 345 D04B 345 345

D05 22 22 D05 22 22

D06 16 16 D06 16 16

D08 42 42 D08 42 42

D09 37 37 D09 37 37

D11 40 67 107 D11 40 67 107

D12 291 117 408 D12 291 117 408

D13 147 3 150 D13 147 3 150

E01A 75 75 0

E01B 97 622 492 0

E02 112 112 0

E03A 174 103 E03A 174 103

E03B 190 98 E03B 190 98

E04 71 1 72 E04 71 1 72

E05 10 10 E05 10 10

F01 196 F01 196

F02A 604 280 F02A 604 280

F02B 34 15 F02B 34 15

F03 58 F03 58

F11 551 426 F11 551 426

F12 121 3 F12 121 3

F13 177 F13 177

F14 135 98 F14 135 98

F15 33 F15 33

F16 69 69 F16 69 69

F17 12 F17 12

F18 51 34 F18 51 34

501
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit SPLAT

(acres)

Non-SPLAT

(acres)

Ground Pile

(acres) Unit SPLAT(acres)

Non-SPLAT

(acres)

Ground Pile

(acres)

F19 12 6 F19 12 6

F20 145 F20 145

F21 22 22 F21 22 22

F22A 7 7 F22A 7 7

F22B 6 6 F22B 6 6

F23A 16 16 F23A 16 16

F23B 10 10 F23B 10 10

F23C 1 1 F23C 1 1

F23D 30 30 F23D 30 30

G01 66 66 G01 66 66

G01X 40 40 G01X 40 40

G02X 5 5 G02X 5 5

G03A 131 131 G03A 131 131

G03B 119 114 G03B 119 114

G04 24 24 G04 24 24

G05 23 23 G05 23 23

G06 23 23 G06 23 23

G07 2 2 G07 2 2

G08 24 24 G08 24 24

G08X 29 29 G08X 29 29

G09 43 43 G09 43 43

G10 6 G10 6

G11A 5 G11A 5

G11B 7 G11B 7

G11C 15 15 G11C 15 15

G12 10 G12 10

G13A 16 G13A 16

G13B 5 5 G13B 5 5

G14A 6 G14A 6

G14B 6 G14B 6

G15 95 95 G15 95 95

G25 60 60 G25 60 60

G26 24 24 G26 24 24

G35 3 3 G35 3 3

H01 3 1 4 H01 3 1 4

H02 9 9 H02 9 9

H06 34 34 H06 34 34

H09 21 21 H09 21 21

H11 27 15 H11 27 15

H11X 17 11 H11X 17 11

H12 6 6 H12 6 6

H12X 31 31 H12X 31 31

H13A 54 40 H13A 54 40

H13AX 52 13 H13AX 52 13

H13B 13 13 H13B 13 13

H13BX 52 52 H13BX 52 52

K01 11 11 K01 11 11

K02 132 132 K02 132 132

L01 39 L01 39

L02A 368 1 369 L02A 368 1 369

L02AX 5 5 L02AX 5 5

L02B 275 275 L02B 275 275

L02BX 215 182 L02BX 215 182

L02C 610 138 L02C 610 138

502
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit SPLAT

(acres)

Non-SPLAT

(acres)

Ground Pile

(acres) Unit SPLAT(acres)

Non-SPLAT

(acres)

Ground Pile

(acres)

L02CX 185 111 L02CX 185 111

L02D 257 218 L02D 257 218

L02E 62 L02E 62

L02F 185 119 L02F 185 119

L03 31 31 L03 31 31

L04 79 54 L04 79 54

L05AX 9 L05X 9

L05BX 17 L05BX 17

L07 5 5 L07 5 5

L201 92 92 L201 92 92

L202 142 93 L202 142 93

L203 695 445 L203 695 445

L204 1519 1179 L204 1519 1179

L205 692 64 756 L205 692 64 756

L206 81 66 L206 81 66

M01 701 663 M01 701 663

M02A 141 141 M02A 141 141

M02C 30 30 M02C 30 30

M04A 260 260 M04A 260 260

M04B 13 13 M04B 13 13

M04C 15 15 M04C 15 15

M05A 34 M05A 34

M05B 120 M05B 120

M05C 24 24 M05C 24 24

M05D 76 53 M05D 76 53

M05E 21 21 M05E 21 21

M05F 39 39 M05F 39 39

M05G 11 11 M05G 11 11

M06 97 68 M06 97 68

M07 21 21 M07 21 21

M08A 98 62 M08A 98 62

M08B 29 29 M08B 29 29

M08C 11 11 M08C 11 11

M08D 27 27 M08D 27 27

M08E 8 8 M08E 8 8

M09 224 M09 224

M10 71 71 M10 71 71

M12 12 12 M12 12 12

M13 10 M13 10

M15 28 28 M15 28 28

M16A 10 10 M16A 10 10

M16B 18 68 57 M16B 18 68 57

M18 34 24 58 M18 34 24 58

M19 27 27 M19 27 27

M20 15 M20 15

M201 74 39 M201 74 39

M202A 117 100 M202A 117 100

M202B 21 18 M202B 21 18

M203 63 43 M203 63 43

M204 282 203 M204 282 203

N01A 37 14 N01A 37 14

N01B 13 13 N01B 13 13

N01C 225 122 N01C 225 122

N01D 14 1 N01D 14 1

503
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit SPLAT

(acres)

Non-SPLAT

(acres)

Ground Pile

(acres) Unit SPLAT(acres)

Non-SPLAT

(acres)

Ground Pile

(acres)

N01E 71 27 N01E 71 27

N01F 2 2 N01F 2 2

N01G 5 5 N01G 5 5

N01H 49 21 N01H 49 21

N01I 28 2 N01I 28 2

N01J 21 12 N01J 21 12

N02A 24 7 N02A 24 7

N02B 5 5 N02B 5 5

N03 26 26 N03 26 26

O01 8 8 0

O02A 193 69 262 0

O02B 173 173 0

O03 46 O03 46

O04 32

O05 100 100 0

O06 33 O06 33

O07 48 O07 48

O08 27 27 O08 27 27

O09 10 10 O09 10 10

O10A 14 14 O10A 14 14

O10B 6 6 O10B 6 6

O11A 27 27 O11A 27 27

O11B 39 39 O11B 39 39

O11C 15 15 O11C 15 15

O12 95 1

O201A 156 76 O201A 156 76

O201B 121 61 O201B 121 61

P201 185 P201 185

Q06 19 19 Q06 19 19

Q07 13 13 Q07 13 13

Q08 42 42 Q08 42 42

Q09 18 Q09 18

Q13 81 81 Q13 81 81

Q14A 10 385 309 Q14A 10 385 309

Q14B 146 146 Q14B 146 146

Q15 17 Q15 17

Q16 8 8 Q16 8 8

R01A 106 78 0

R01B 11 11 R01B 11 11

R02 30

R04A 52 52 R04A 52 52

R04B 41 33 R04B 41 33

R06A 12 12 R06A 12 12

R06B 21 21 R06B 21 21

R07A 98 R07A 98

R07B 19 19 R07B 19 19

R12 8 8 R12 8 8

R12X 56 56 R12X 56 56

R15 26 40 66 R15 26 40 66

R16 98 98 R16 98 98

R17X 72 72 R17X 72 72

R18 83 R18 83

R18X 17 R18X 17

R19A 38 14 52 R19A 38 14 52

504
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit SPLAT

(acres)

Non-SPLAT

(acres)

Ground Pile

(acres) Unit SPLAT(acres)

Non-SPLAT

(acres)

Ground Pile

(acres)

R19B 7 5 12 R19B 7 5 12

R19D 11 80 91 R19D 11 80 91

R19DX 24 24 R19DX 24 24

R19E 4 4 R19E 4 4

R19F 11 11 R19F 11 11

R20 50 R20 50

R22 11 17 28 R22 11 17 28

R23 13 R23 13

R24A 41 41 R24A 41 41

R25X 34 34 R25X 34 34

R31 120 120 R31 120 120

R31X 67 67 R31X 67 67

R32 31 31 R32 31 31

R33X 11 1 R33X 11 1

R35A 10 R35A 10

R35B 16 16 R35B 16 16

R36 12 12 R36 12 12

R37 25 25 R37 25 25

R38 20 20 R38 20 20

R39 3 3 R39 3 3

R40A 32 32 R40A 32 32

R40B 52 52 R40B 52 52

S01 53 53 S01 53 53

S02 135 135 S02 135 135

S03 168 168 S03 168 168

S04 284 255 S04 284 255

S05B 7 7 S05B 7 7

S06 28 28 S06 28 28

S08 81 S08 81

S10 9 S10 9

S11 11 14 25 S11 11 14 25

T01 5 14 19 T01 5 14 19

T02 24 9 33 T02 24 9 33

T03 29 T03 29

T04A 2 264 266 T04A 2 264 266

T04B 744 160 670 T04B 744 160 670

T04C 101 101 T04C 101 101

T04D 9 9 T04D 9 9

T04E 2 2 T04E 2 2

T20 9 9 T20 9 9

T21B 18 18 T21B 18 18

T22 18 18 T22 18 18

T23 28 28 T23 28 28

T23X 54 54 T23X 54 54

T24 90 64 154 T24 90 64 154

T25 6 T25 6

T25X 26 T25X 26

T26 15 T26 15

T27A 427 499 778 T27A 427 499 778

T27AX 104 46 103 T27AX 104 46 103

T27B 540 33 472 T27B 540 33 472

T27BX 227 133 267 T27BX 227 133 267

T27C 64 33 97 T27C 64 33 97

U01A 3 3 U01A 3 3

505
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit SPLAT

(acres)

Non-SPLAT

(acres)

Ground Pile

(acres) Unit SPLAT(acres)

Non-SPLAT

(acres)

Ground Pile

(acres)

U01B 26 26 U01B 26 26

U01C 12 12 U01C 12 12

U01D 105 512 545 U01D 105 512 545

U01DX 33 33 U01DX 33 33

U02 3 53 56 U02 3 53 56

U03 75 245 320 U03 75 245 320

V01 20 20 V01 20 20

V02 16 16 V02 16 16

V03 25 14 V03 25 14

V04A 2 2 V04A 2 2

V04B 3 3 V04B 3 3

V05B 6 6 V05B 6 6

V06 4 4 V06 4 4

V10 46 4 50 V10 46 4 50

V12A 9 9 V12A 9 9

V12B 13 3 16 V12B 13 3 16

V13 96 23 119 V13 96 23 119

V13X 21 48 69 V13X 21 48 69

V14A 8 7 15 V14A 8 7 15

V14B 90 292 340 V14B 90 292 340

V14C 7 63 70 V14C 7 63 70

V15 3 58 V15 3 58

W01 51 51 W01 51 51

W02 226 226 W02 226 226

W03 20 1 21 W03 20 1 21

W04 74 74 W04 74 74

W05A 3 3 W05A 3 3

W05B 5 W05B 5

W06A 13 13 W06A 13 13

W06B 7 7 W06B 7 7

X01A 8 8 X01A 8 8

X01B 3 3 X01B 3 3

X02 43 X02 43

X03 58 X03 58

X04 7 7 X04 7 7

X05 33 X05 33

X06 58 2 X06 58 2

X07 43 43 X07 43 43

X08 20 X08 20

X09 5 5 X09 5 5

X10 8 X10 8

X12 13 10 X12 13 10

X13 19 19 X13 19 19

X15 87 29 116 X15 87 29 116

X16 16 16 X16 16 16

X17 40 11 X17 40 11

X18 19 19 X18 19 19

X19 4 4 X19 4 4

X22 52 X22 52

X23 353 X23 353

X24 76 X24 76

X25 253 X25 253

X26 52 23 75 X26 52 23 75

X27 34 X27 34

506
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit SPLAT

(acres)

Non-SPLAT

(acres)

Ground Pile

(acres) Unit SPLAT(acres)

Non-SPLAT

(acres)

Ground Pile

(acres)

X40 8 2 X40 8 2

X41 21 21 X41 21 21

X100 22 22 X100 22 22

X101 31 31 X101 31 31

X102 23 23 X102 23 23

X103 6 22 28 X103 6 22 28

X104 4 68 72 X104 4 68 72

X105 14 14 X105 14 14

X106 18 18 X106 18 18

X107 70 70 X107 70 70

X108 183 183 X108 183 183

X109A 28 22 X109A 28 22

X109B 8 8 X109B 8 8

X109C 1 17 18 X109C 1 17 18

X109D 13 13 X109D 13 13

X109E 9 9 X109E 9 9

X110 18 18 X110 18 18

X111X 32 32 X111X 32 32

X112 14 14 X112 14 14

X114X 18 18 X114X 18 18

X115 91 59 150 X115 91 59 150

X116 27 83 110 X116 27 83 110

X117 9 9 X117 9 9

X118 7 7 X118 7 7

X118X 156 156 X118X 156 156

X119X 113 113 X119X 113 113

X120 5 19 X120 5 19

Y01A 11 25 36 Y01A 11 25 36

Y01B 18 18 Y01B 18 18

Y01C 3 3 Y01C 3 3

Y01D 8 14 22 Y01D 8 14 22

Y02 15 15 Y02 15 15

Y03A 10 10 Y03A 10 10

Y03B 2 2 Y03B 2 2

AA01 34 34 AA01 34 34

AA03 28 28 AA03 28 28

AA04 28 AA04 28

AA07 10 10 AA07 10 10

AA08 19 19 AA08 19 19

AA09 66 AA09 66

AA11 12 AA11 12

AA12 4 4 AA12 4 4

AA13 12 AA13 12

Total 8,274 22,125 22,036 Total 7,745 20,080 20,320

4WD=4 Wheel Drive; ALL=All Vehicles; HLO=Highway Legal Only MVUM=Motor Vehicle Use Map; Temp=Temporary

Blank entries indicate the item does not apply.

507
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

E.04 WATERSHED TREATMENTS

Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 include watershed treatments that are not included in Alternative 1. 

As described in Chapter 2.01, these watershed treatments proposed in areas identified as watershed

sensitive areas include mastication and, drop and lop. 

Table E.04-1 displays the unit number, mastication acres, and drop and lop acres for each watershed

treatment unit as proposed in Alternative 3 and Alternative 4. 

Table E.04-1 Watershed Treatments for Alternatives 3 and 4

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit Mastication

(acres)

Drop and Lop

(acres) Unit Mastication(acres)

Drop and Lop

(acres)

A01B 105

A05A 70

A05C 1 A05C 1

A08A 9 A08A 9

E01B 227

E03A 71 E03A 71

E03B 92 E03B 92

F01 32 F01 32

F02A 323 1 F02A 323 1

F02B 19 F02B 19

F11 125 F11 125

F12 118 F12 118

F13 49 F13 49

F14 37 F14 37

F15 10 F15 10

F18 17 F18 17

F19 6 F19 6

F20 25 F20 25

G03B 5 G03B 5

H11 12 H11 12

H11X 6 H11X 6

H13A 14 H13A 14

H13AX 39 H13AX 39

L02BX 33 L02BX 33

L02C 418 54 L02C 418 54

L02CX 47 27 L02CX 47 27

L02D 39 L02D 39

L02F 66 L02F 66

L202 21 L202 21

M01 35 3 M01 35 3

M05D 23 M05D 23

M06 29 M06 29

M08A 36 M08A 36

M09 41 M09 41

M16B 29 M16B 29

M20 15 M20 15

N01A 23 N01A 23

N01C 103 N01C 103

N01D 13 N01D 13

N01E 32 12 N01E 32 12

N01H 28 N01H 28

508
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unit Mastication

(acres)

Drop and Lop

(acres) Unit Mastication(acres)

Drop and Lop

(acres)

N01I 26 N01I 26

N01J 9 N01J 9

N02A 17 N02A 17

Q14A 86 Q14A 86

R01A 28

R04B 8 R04B 8

S04 20 9 S04 20 9

T04B 234 T04B 234

T27A 148 T27A 148

T27AX 47 T27AX 47

T27B 90 11 T27B 90 11

T27BX 3 90 T27BX 3 90

U01D 72 U01D 72

V03 11 V03 11

V14B 42 V14B 42

W05B 5 W05B 5

X25 29 X25 29

X40 6 X40 6

X109A 6 X109A 6

Total 1,309 2,228 Total 1,309 1,798

4WD=4 Wheel Drive; ALL=All Vehicles; HLO=Highway Legal Only MVUM=Motor Vehicle Use Map; Temp=Temporary

Blank entries indicate the item does not apply.

E.05 ROAD TREATMENTS

Road treatments, as described in Chapter 2.01, vary between the action alternatives. These treatments 

include maintenance and reconstruction of existing roads, new construction and development of new 

temporary roads 

Table E.05-1 displays the route number, status, miles, MVUM10 and road treatments as proposed in 

the action alternatives. 

Table E.05-1 Road Treatments in Alternatives 1, 3 and 4

Route Status miles MVUM Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

01N01 Existing 8.530 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N01 Existing 0.824 ALL, year round Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N01A Existing 0.503 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N01E Existing 0.449 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N01H Existing 0.659 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N01K Existing 0.597 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N01L Existing 0.120 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N02 Existing 1.466 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N02 Existing 2.666 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N02B Existing 0.636 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N02Y Existing 1.485 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

01N04 Existing 0.382 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N04B Existing 0.630 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N04D Existing 0.525 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N04Y Existing 0.504 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

10 The MVUM (Motor Vehicle Use Map) indentifies public motor vehicle use by Vehicle Class (4 wheel drive, All Vehicles, Highway Legal 

Only, etc.) and whether the season of use is closed, open year round or seasonal (open April 15 through December 15).

509

 
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Route Status miles MVUM Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

01N04Y Existing 0.247 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N05 Existing 0.142 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

01N05 Existing 2.209 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N07C Existing 0.595 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N07Y Existing 1.567 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N09 Existing 0.830 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N09 Existing 0.569 Closed Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N09 Existing 2.438 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N09Y Existing 0.356 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N10 Existing 3.677 HLO, seasonal Maintain

01N10 Existing 6.274 HLO, year round Maintain

01N10A Existing 0.528 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N10C Existing 0.140 HLO, year round Maintain

01N10E Existing 0.161 HLO, year round Maintain

01N11 Existing 2.060 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N11Y Existing 0.125 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

01N11Y Existing 2.303 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N12 Existing 0.539 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N12 Existing 0.491 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N12Y Existing 0.279 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N13 Existing 2.048 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N13A Existing 0.378 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N13B Existing 0.965 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N14 Existing 3.758 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N14A Existing 0.823 HLO, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N14F Existing 0.444 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

01N14G Existing 0.127 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Maintain

01N15 Existing 1.233 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N15Y Existing 0.532 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N16 Existing 0.030 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N17 Existing 0.212 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N17 Existing 2.154 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N17A Existing 0.104 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N18 Existing 1.366 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N18A Existing 0.170 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N19 Existing 1.331 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N19 Existing 0.120 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N24 Existing 2.243 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N24 Existing 1.465 ALL, year round Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N24A Existing 0.099 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N24B Existing 0.344 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N24C Existing 1.184 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N25 Existing 0.344 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N25A Existing 0.105 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N25B Existing 0.328 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N25Y Existing 0.729 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N26 Existing 2.792 ALL, seasonal Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N26 Existing 1.068 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N26A Existing 0.261 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N26B Existing 0.412 ALL, seasonal Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N26C Existing 0.305 ALL, seasonal Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N26D Existing 0.248 ALL, seasonal Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N26YA Existing 0.354 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N27 Existing 0.823 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N27B Existing 0.445 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N28 Existing 0.386 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N28A Existing 0.119 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

510
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Route Status miles MVUM Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

01N30 Existing 0.713 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

01N30 Existing 2.096 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N30A Existing 0.053 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N31Y Existing 0.388 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N31Y Existing 0.544 ALL, seasonal Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N31YA Existing 0.335 ALL, seasonal Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N31YB Existing 0.391 Closed Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N32 Existing 0.274 ALL, seasonal Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N32 Existing 0.647 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N32A Existing 0.124 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N32Y Existing 0.116 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

01N34 Existing 0.399 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Maintain

01N34C Existing 0.224 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Maintain

01N34Y Existing 1.076 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N35 Existing 0.933 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N36 Existing 0.713 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N36A Existing 0.210 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N37 Existing 1.425 Closed (mitigation) Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N38 Existing 0.255 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N38 Existing 0.191 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N38A Existing 0.028 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N39 Existing 0.886 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N39Y Existing 0.115 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N39Y Existing 0.560 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N40 Existing 0.220 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N40Y Existing 1.501 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N40Y Existing 0.409 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Maintain

01N40YA Existing 0.474 Closed Temp Use - Revert Temp Use - Revert

01N41 Existing 0.269 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N42Y Existing 1.143 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N42YC Existing 0.281 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N43 Existing 5.941 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N43A Existing 0.820 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N43B Existing 0.628 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N43C Existing 0.526 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N43D Existing 0.205 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N43D Existing 0.052 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N44 Existing 0.524 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N46 Existing 0.908 ALL, year round Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N48 Existing 0.831 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N48A Existing 0.566 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N48B Existing 0.189 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N49 Existing 1.306 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N49 Existing 0.847 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N49 Existing 0.145 ALL, year round Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N49A Existing 0.219 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N49B Existing 0.377 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N50 Existing 0.026 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

01N50 Existing 2.945 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N50A Existing 0.441 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N50C Existing 1.181 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N51 Existing 0.651 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N56 Existing 0.145 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N56 Existing 3.087 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N56A Existing 0.654 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

01N56A Existing 0.523 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N57 Existing 2.178 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

511
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Route Status miles MVUM Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

01N58 Existing 1.587 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N58 Existing 0.291 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N58A Existing 0.393 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N58B Existing 0.221 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N59 Existing 0.186 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N60 Existing 0.758 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N60A Existing 0.346 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N61 Existing 1.776 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N67 Existing 1.055 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N70 Existing 0.459 Closed Temp Use - Revert Temp Use - Revert

01N70A Existing 0.235 Closed Temp Use - Revert Temp Use - Revert

01N72 Existing 0.684 Closed Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N72 Existing 0.428 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N74 Existing 4.315 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N74A Existing 0.460 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N74C Existing 0.326 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N75 Existing 0.266 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N76 Existing 2.378 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N77 Existing 0.118 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N78 Existing 0.383 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N79 Existing 3.346 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N79A Existing 0.513 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N79B Existing 0.379 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N79B Existing 0.353 ALL, seasonal Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N80 Existing 1.449 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N80A Existing 0.335 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N82 Existing 0.300 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N83 Existing 0.021 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N83 Existing 1.934 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N83 Existing 0.105 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N86 Existing 1.072 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N88 Existing 0.631 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N89 Existing 0.522 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N91 Existing 0.280 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N94 Existing 0.259 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01N94 Existing 0.294 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N94A Existing 0.403 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N96 Existing 4.940 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N96E Existing 0.525 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N97 Existing 5.012 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N97C Existing 0.113 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01N97D Existing 0.064 Closed Temp Use - Revert Temp Use - Revert

01S01 Existing 0.138 4WD, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S01 Existing 0.619 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S01Y Existing 0.066 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S01Y Existing 0.587 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S01YA Existing 0.167 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S01YB Existing 0.585 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S02Y Existing 0.151 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S03 Existing 0.445 HLO, year round Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S03B Existing 1.025 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S04 Existing 2.964 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S04A Existing 0.851 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S05 Existing 4.003 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S05A Existing 0.651 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S06 Existing 2.688 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S06B Existing 0.104 HLO, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

512
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Route Status miles MVUM Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

01S08 Existing 1.460 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S08Y Existing 0.949 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S08YA Existing 0.105 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S09 Existing 2.029 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S11 Existing 0.286 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S11 Existing 0.711 ALL, seasonal Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S11 Existing 2.118 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S11A Existing 0.555 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S11A Existing 0.311 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Maintain

01S11F Existing 0.575 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S11Y Existing 1.449 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S12G Existing 0.363 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S12G Existing 0.413 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S12H Existing 0.581 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S12H Existing 0.185 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

01S13 Existing 15.934 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S13C Existing 2.001 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S13Y Existing 1.223 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S14 Existing 5.912 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S14M Existing 0.428 ALL, seasonal Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S15Y Existing 3.059 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S15YA Existing 1.357 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S15YB Existing 0.181 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S16Y Existing 0.699 HLO, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S16Y Existing 1.169 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S18Y Existing 0.669 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S19 Existing 0.544 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S19 Existing 2.149 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S19A Existing 0.987 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S19B Existing 0.011 Closed Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S19B Existing 0.523 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S19C Existing 0.238 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S19Y Existing 0.208 HLO, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S19Y Existing 0.263 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

01S20Y Existing 0.220 HLO, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S20Y Existing 0.433 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S21Y Existing 0.878 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S23 Existing 3.029 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S23D Existing 0.351 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S23E Existing 0.228 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S23H Existing 0.078 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S23X Existing 0.571 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S23Y Existing 0.661 HLO, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S24 Existing 0.514 ALL, seasonal Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S24 Existing 2.846 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S24 Existing 0.032 Closed Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S24A Existing 1.075 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S25 Existing 0.630 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S25 Existing 2.256 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S25A Existing 2.369 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S25C Existing 0.145 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S25C Existing 0.476 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S25D Existing 0.518 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S25E Existing 0.238 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S25F Existing 0.519 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S25Y Existing 0.469 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S25Y Existing 0.465 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

513
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Route Status miles MVUM Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

01S25YA Existing 0.255 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S26 Existing 1.945 HLO, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S26 Existing 2.924 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S26B Existing 0.409 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S26C Existing 0.684 HLO, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S26E Existing 0.205 HLO, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S28Y Existing 0.320 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S30 Existing 1.243 HLO, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S30B Existing 0.554 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S32 Existing 0.176 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S32 Existing 0.257 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

01S32 Existing 1.651 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S36 Existing 1.366 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S36B Existing 0.198 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S39Y Existing 0.889 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S39YA Existing 0.102 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S41 Existing 1.435 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S41A Existing 0.517 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S48 Existing 0.520 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S48Y Existing 0.716 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S49 Existing 2.379 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S49Y Existing 0.111 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S51 Existing 2.236 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S51B Existing 0.711 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S52 Existing 0.149 HLO, year round Maintain

01S53 Existing 0.313 HLO, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S53 Existing 0.763 HLO, seasonal Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S54 Existing 2.085 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S57 Existing 1.960 HLO, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S58 Existing 2.472 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S58B Existing 0.521 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S58D Existing 0.082 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S58F Existing 0.700 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S58G Existing 0.073 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S60 Existing 1.925 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S62 Existing 0.096 Closed Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

01S62 Existing 1.326 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S62A Existing 0.388 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S62Y Existing 0.715 Closed Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S62YA Existing 0.296 Closed Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S63Y Existing 0.134 Closed Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S63Y Existing 2.250 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S63YA Existing 0.138 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S64 Existing 1.595 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S66 Existing 1.796 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S66A Existing 0.340 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S68 Existing 0.403 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S68Y Existing 0.634 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S69 Existing 1.260 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S70 Existing 1.097 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S70 Existing 1.636 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S70A Existing 0.339 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S70B Existing 0.416 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S71 Existing 1.649 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S72Y Existing 1.158 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S73Y Existing 0.845 Closed (mitigation) Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S74 Existing 0.311 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

514
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Route Status miles MVUM Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

01S74 Existing 0.729 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S75 Existing 1.098 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S75A Existing 0.365 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S75Y Existing 1.559 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S75YA Existing 0.688 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S75YB Existing 0.324 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S76 Existing 1.654 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S77 Existing 1.122 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S77A Existing 0.205 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S77B Existing 0.266 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S78 Existing 4.045 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S78A Existing 0.806 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S79 Existing 0.088 Closed Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S79 Existing 1.833 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S79A Existing 0.188 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S80 Existing 1.935 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S80 Existing 0.874 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S80A Existing 0.545 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S81 Existing 1.904 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S81A Existing 0.577 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S82 Existing 0.127 HLO, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S82 Existing 1.264 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S84 Existing 0.198 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S85 Existing 1.680 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S88 Existing 0.278 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S89 Existing 2.130 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S94 Existing 0.757 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S96 Existing 1.517 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S96A Existing 0.223 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

01S98Y Existing 0.104 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S98YA Existing 0.067 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S98YA Existing 0.033 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

01S99Y Existing 0.105 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N03 Existing 0.544 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N04 Existing 1.078 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N04Y Existing 0.432 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N05 Existing 1.660 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N05 Existing 2.131 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N05A Existing 0.302 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

02N05A Existing 2.266 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N05C Existing 1.032 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N05X Existing 0.030 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N06 Existing 4.489 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N06Y Existing 0.776 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N06Y Existing 0.386 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

02N08Y Existing 1.621 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N08Y Existing 2.671 ALL, seasonal Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N08YA Existing 0.354 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Maintain

02N08YB Existing 0.416 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N08YB Existing 0.739 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N08YB Existing 0.048 Closed Reconstruct

02N08YD Existing 1.218 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N10B Existing 0.757 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N10Y Existing 0.025 HLO, seasonal Maintain Maintain Reconstruct

02N10Y Existing 4.168 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N10YA Existing 0.280 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N11 Existing 4.757 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

515
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Route Status miles MVUM Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

02N11 Existing 4.076 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N11 Existing 0.917 ALL, year round Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N11B Existing 0.097 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N11C Existing 0.451 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N11D Existing 0.196 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N11E Existing 0.758 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N11F Existing 0.595 ALL, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N11F Existing 0.410 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N12 Existing 0.746 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

02N12 Existing 0.100 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct

02N13 Existing 1.132 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N13 Existing 1.113 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N13 Existing 0.309 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N15 Existing 1.251 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N16 Existing 1.260 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N16A Existing 0.425 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N18 Existing 1.471 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Maintain

02N20 Existing 1.438 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N20A Existing 0.259 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N22 Existing 1.282 HLO, year round Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N22A Existing 0.756 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N23 Existing 0.972 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N23A Existing 0.331 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N24 Existing 1.623 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

02N24 Existing 1.661 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N24A Existing 0.758 Closed Temp Use - Revert Temp Use - Revert

02N29 Existing 2.259 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N29 Existing 2.123 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

02N29 Existing 1.493 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Maintain

02N29A Existing 0.567 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Maintain

02N29Y Existing 0.953 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N30 Existing 0.397 Closed Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

02N30 Existing 0.471 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N31 Existing 0.945 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N31Y Existing 0.663 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N31YA Existing 0.514 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N31YB Existing 0.068 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N32 Existing 2.792 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N33 Existing 1.145 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N40 Existing 2.526 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N40 Existing 0.359 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N41 Existing 0.356 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Maintain

02N43 Existing 0.327 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N43 Existing 0.231 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

02N43 Existing 1.501 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N44 Existing 1.430 HLO, year round Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N44A Existing 0.151 HLO, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N45 Existing 0.354 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N46 Existing 0.081 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N46 Existing 1.320 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N46A Existing 0.097 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N48 Existing 1.512 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N48A Existing 0.490 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

02N52 Existing 1.692 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N52 Existing 0.332 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N52A Existing 0.109 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N52A Existing 0.427 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

516
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Route Status miles MVUM Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

02N53 Existing 1.211 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N53A Existing 0.343 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N54 Existing 0.482 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N54 Existing 0.154 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

02N54 Existing 2.793 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N56 Existing 3.438 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N56 Existing 0.289 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N57 Existing 0.294 ALL, seasonal Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N57A Existing 0.070 ALL, seasonal Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N58 Existing 0.695 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N59 Existing 1.775 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N60 Existing 1.034 ALL, seasonal Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N60 Existing 0.293 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N61 Existing 0.876 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Maintain

02N62 Existing 2.769 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N66 Existing 0.307 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N66 Existing 2.669 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N69 Existing 0.077 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N76 Existing 0.631 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Maintain

02N76 Existing 0.861 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N77 Existing 0.202 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N77Y Existing 0.500 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N78 Existing 0.596 ALL, seasonal Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N81 Existing 0.315 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

02N81 Existing 1.758 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N81A Existing 0.161 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N82 Existing 1.421 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N84 Existing 0.618 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N85 Existing 1.354 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N87 Existing 0.130 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N94 Existing 0.158 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

02N94 Existing 1.873 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02N98 Existing 0.102 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02N98A Existing 0.259 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S01 Existing 1.512 HLO, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S01 Existing 3.596 HLO, seasonal Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S01A Existing 0.916 HLO, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S01C Existing 0.309 HLO, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S01D Existing 0.507 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S07 Existing 2.881 Closed (mitigation) Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S07A Existing 0.665 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S15Y Existing 1.007 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S19Y Existing 0.334 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S19Y Existing 1.367 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S19YA Existing 0.506 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S19YB Existing 0.309 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S25 Existing 2.068 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S25 Existing 1.362 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S25B Existing 0.390 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S30 Existing 0.259 other public road Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S30A Existing 0.179 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S30C Existing 0.568 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S30E Existing 0.463 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S35Y Existing 0.334 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S35YA Existing 0.064 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S38Y Existing 0.383 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S40 Existing 1.359 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

517
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Route Status miles MVUM Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

02S50Y Existing 0.727 HLO, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S51Y Existing 1.901 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S51YA Existing 0.554 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S60 Existing 1.934 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S60B Existing 0.506 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S60C Existing 0.214 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S62 Existing 5.598 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S62B Existing 0.661 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S64 Existing 1.612 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S65 Existing 0.864 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S65 Existing 1.261 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

02S65 Existing 1.247 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S65A Existing 0.356 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S65D Existing 0.216 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S66Y Existing 1.823 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S66YA Existing 0.085 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S68 Existing 1.814 Closed (mitigation) Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S68A Existing 0.254 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S68B Existing 0.176 Closed Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

02S68B Existing 0.128 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S72 Existing 0.465 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S87 Existing 0.009 Closed Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S87 Existing 1.077 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S88 Existing 0.783 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

02S88 Existing 0.287 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

02S88 Existing 1.308 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S89 Existing 4.948 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

02S93 Existing 2.518 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

03N01A Existing 0.292 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Maintain

03N01C Existing 0.110 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

03N01C Existing 0.472 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

03N01G Existing 1.004 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

03N01K Existing 0.668 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

03N01M Existing 0.709 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

03N01N Existing 0.372 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

03N01N Existing 0.415 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

03N01P Existing 0.440 HLO, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

03N01Q Existing 0.198 HLO, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

03N01R Existing 0.558 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

03N01S Existing 0.360 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

03N01T Existing 0.171 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Maintain

03N04Y Existing 0.497 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

03N07 Existing 0.253 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

03N21 Existing 1.534 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

03N22 Existing 1.895 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

03N22A Existing 1.322 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

03N45Y Existing 0.851 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

03N56Y Existing 0.134 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

03N56Y Existing 0.857 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

03N56Y Existing 0.275 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Maintain

03N56Y Existing 0.155 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct

03N56YA Existing 0.622 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Maintain

03N83 Existing 5.116 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

03N83 Existing 0.285 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

03N83A Existing 1.016 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

03N83B Existing 0.586 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Maintain Maintain

03N83C Existing 1.439 Closed Temp Use - Revert Reconstruct Reconstruct

518
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Route Status miles MVUM Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

03N83C Existing 0.548 Closed Temp Use - Revert

03N86 Existing 2.138 ALL, seasonal Maintain Maintain Maintain

11705B Existing 0.306 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

11805A Existing 0.085 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

11806A Existing 0.473 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

11807A Existing 0.077 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

11819F Existing 0.109 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

11821B Existing 0.304 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

11821J2 Existing 0.692 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

11824P2 Existing 0.098 Closed Reconstruct Temp Use - Revert Temp Use - Revert

11833A Existing 0.228 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

11833D Existing 0.286 Closed Temp Use - Revert Temp Use - Revert Temp Use - Revert

11833D Existing 0.174 Closed Temp Use - Revert

11833F Existing 0.087 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

11833F Existing 0.142 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

11906G1 Existing 0.029 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

11906G2 Existing 0.037 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

11906G3 Existing 0.056 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

17EV11 Existing 0.906 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

17EV11 Existing 0.331 Closed (mitigation) Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

17EV11 Existing 0.066 Closed (mitigation) Reconstruct

17EV34 Existing 0.265 ALL, seasonal Temp Use - Revert Reconstruct Reconstruct

17EV438 Existing 0.168 4WD, seasonal Temp Use - Revert Reconstruct Reconstruct

18DC429 Existing 0.077 Closed Temp Use - Revert Temp Use - Revert

18DC431 Existing 0.084 4WD, seasonal Temp Use - Revert Reconstruct Reconstruct

18DC434 Existing 0.039 4WD, seasonal Temp Use - Revert Reconstruct Reconstruct

18EV274 Existing 0.795 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

18EV274 Existing 0.711 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct

18EV277 Existing 0.094 ALL, seasonal Temp Use - Revert Reconstruct Maintain

18EV400 Existing 0.571 4WD, seasonal Temp Use - Revert Reconstruct Reconstruct

18EV402 Existing 0.613 4WD, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

18EV407 Existing 0.224 ALL, seasonal Temp Use - Revert Temp Use - Revert

18EV409 Existing 0.525 Closed (mitigation) Temp Use - Revert Reconstruct Reconstruct

18EV409 Existing 0.091 Closed (mitigation) Temp Use - Revert Reconstruct Reconstruct

18EV410 Existing 0.295 4WD, seasonal Temp Use - Revert Reconstruct Reconstruct

18EV411 Existing 0.193 ALL, seasonal Temp Use - Revert Reconstruct Reconstruct

18EV420 Existing 0.587 4WD, seasonal Temp Use - Revert Reconstruct Reconstruct

18EV422 Existing 0.121 4WD, seasonal Temp Use - Revert Reconstruct Reconstruct

18EV422 Existing 0.123 4WD, seasonal Temp Use - Revert

18EV427 Existing 0.150 Closed (mitigation) Temp Use - Revert Reconstruct Reconstruct

18EV433 Existing 0.073 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

18EV435 Existing 0.511 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

18EV440 Existing 1.420 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

19DC124 Existing 0.125 4WD, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

19EV117 Existing 0.503 4WD, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

19EV129 Existing 0.229 4WD, seasonal Temp Use - Revert Reconstruct Reconstruct

19EV129 Existing 0.671 4WD, seasonal Temp Use - Revert

19EV130 Existing 0.392 4WD, seasonal Temp Use - Revert Temp Use - Revert

19EV135 Existing 0.550 4WD, seasonal Temp Use - Revert Reconstruct Reconstruct

19EV142 Existing 0.171 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

19EV142 Existing 0.099 ALL, seasonal Reconstruct

19EV148 Existing 0.443 4WD, seasonal Temp Use - Revert Reconstruct Reconstruct

19EV154 Existing 0.685 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

19EV155 Existing 0.517 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

19EV213 Existing 0.771 4WD, seasonal Temp Use - Revert Reconstruct Reconstruct

19EV214 Existing 1.263 4WD, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

19EV215 Existing 0.600 4WD, seasonal Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

519
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Route Status miles MVUM Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

1S1806A Existing 0.152 Closed Maintain Reconstruct Reconstruct

1S1824 Existing 0.361 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

1S1907A Existing 0.388 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

1S1920 Existing 0.806 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

1S1922D Existing 0.364 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

1S1928A Existing 0.115 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

1S25YB Existing 0.337 Closed Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

21709O Existing 0.284 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

21712B Existing 0.059 Closed Reconstruct

21713B Existing 0.056 Closed Temp Road

21721B Existing 0.176 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

21734D Decommissioned 0.449 Closed Reconstruct

21734D Existing 0.163 Closed Reconstruct

21801E Existing 0.052 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

21802N Existing 0.199 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

21812C Existing 0.067 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

21823M Existing 0.038 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

21831A Existing 0.066 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

21907B Existing 0.237 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

21907B Existing 0.201 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

2S1815 Existing 0.510 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

A1A New 0.926 Closed New Construction New Construction

A1B New 0.111 Closed New Construction New Construction

FR10142 Existing 0.030 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR11091 Existing 0.073 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR14878 Existing 0.561 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

FR15090 Existing 0.071 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR15120 Existing 0.119 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR15120 Existing 0.035 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR1981 Existing 0.268 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR36710 Existing 0.602 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR3993 Existing 0.065 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR4100 Existing 0.128 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

FR4875 Existing 0.076 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR5016 Existing 0.124 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

FR5230 Existing 0.678 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

FR5310 Existing 0.089 Closed Reconstruct Temp Use - Revert Temp Use - Revert

FR5318 Existing 0.049 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR5473 Existing 0.231 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

FR5474 Existing 0.280 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

FR5606 Existing 0.552 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR5766 Existing 0.151 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

FR5817 Existing 0.469 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR5818 Existing 0.270 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

FR5819 Existing 0.025 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

FR6469 Existing 0.246 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR7208 Existing 0.025 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR7209 Existing 0.039 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR7209 Existing 0.295 other public road Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct

FR7858 Existing 0.462 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR7955 Existing 0.050 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

FR7965 Existing 0.205 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR8430 Existing 0.007 Closed Maintain Maintain

FR8449 Existing 0.041 Closed Reconstruct

FR8473 Existing 0.171 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

FR8591 Existing 0.048 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR8592 Existing 0.245 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

520
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Treatments

Route Status miles MVUM Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

FR8593 Existing 0.341 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

FR8594 Existing 0.246 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR8597 Existing 0.087 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

FR8609 Existing 0.372 Closed Temp Road

FR8611 Existing 0.355 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

FR8770 Existing 0.102 Closed Reconstruct Temp Use - Revert Temp Use - Revert

FR8781 Existing 0.170 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

FR8799 Existing 0.241 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR8988 Existing 0.222 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR8990 Existing 0.305 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

FR8990 Existing 0.074 Closed Temp Road

FR8992 Existing 0.105 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

FR9175 Existing 0.476 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

FR9357 Existing 0.154 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

FR9377 Existing 0.449 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

FR9573 Existing 0.192 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

FR9582 Existing 0.230 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR9712 Existing 0.014 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

FR9713 Existing 0.254 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

FR9723 Existing 0.121 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

FR9723 Existing 0.125 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

FR9724 Existing 0.165 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

FR9725 Existing 0.135 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

FR9726 Existing 0.158 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

FR9727 Existing 0.386 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

FR9734A Existing 0.029 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

FR9771 Existing 0.065 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR9773 Existing 0.801 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

FR9777 Existing 0.123 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

FR9787 Existing 0.052 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR98493 Existing 0.023 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

FR98541 Existing 0.068 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

FR98671 Existing 0.218 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

FR99001 Existing 0.361 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR99002 Existing 0.481 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR99003 Existing 0.045 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR99004 Existing 0.114 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

FR99005 Existing 0.315 Closed Maintain Maintain Maintain

P11807A-1 Existing 0.088 Closed New Construction Temp Road Temp Road

P17EV11-1 New 1.620 Closed New Construction

P1N01-1 Existing 0.406 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

P1N01A-1 Existing 0.400 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

P1N11Y-1 Existing 0.205 Closed New Construction Temp Road Temp Road

P1N60-1 New 0.464 Closed New Construction

P1S11-1 New 1.111 Closed New Construction

P1S11-2 New 0.465 Closed New Construction

P2S30-1 New 0.035 Closed New Construction

P3N01-3 Existing 0.112 Closed New Construction Temp Road Temp Road

P3N56Y-1 New 0.194 Closed New Construction

PFR8592-1 New 0.073 Closed New Construction

PFR8592-1 Existing 0.131 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 1 New 0.658 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 10 New 0.073 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 14 New 0.206 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 14 New 0.188 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 15 New 0.249 Closed Temp Road

Temp 16 Existing 0.615 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

521
Appendix E Stanislaus

Treatments National Forest

Route Status miles MVUM Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Temp 17 New 0.181 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 18 Existing 0.602 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 19 New 0.152 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 21 New 0.130 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 23 Existing 0.273 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 24 Existing 0.192 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 28 New 0.513 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 29 New 0.214 Closed Temp Road

Temp 3 New 0.513 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 30 New 0.249 Closed Temp Road

Temp 31 New 0.496 Closed Temp Road

Temp 32 New 0.321 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 33 Existing 0.226 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 34 New 0.435 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 35 New 0.436 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 36 Existing 0.581 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 37 New 0.301 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 38 Existing 0.124 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 39 Existing 0.285 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 4 New 0.248 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 40 New 1.022 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 41 New 0.204 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 42 Existing 0.161 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 43 Existing 0.074 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 44 Existing 0.280 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 45 Existing 0.210 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 46 New 0.227 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 47 New 0.366 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 48 Existing 0.448 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 49 New 0.262 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 5 New 0.179 Closed Temp Road

Temp 50 Existing 0.100 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 51 Existing 0.739 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 52 Existing 0.377 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 53 New 0.183 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 54 New 0.242 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 55 New 0.155 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 56 New 0.487 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 57 Existing 0.031 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 58 New 0.213 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 59 New 0.163 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 6 New 0.619 Closed Temp Road

Temp 60 Existing 0.591 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 61 New 0.179 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 7 New 0.092 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 8 New 0.197 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

Temp 9 New 0.174 Closed Temp Road Temp Road Temp Road

TR333 Existing 0.455 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

TR62328 Existing 0.286 Closed Temp Road Temp Road

TR62331 Existing 0.149 Closed Reconstruct Temp Road Temp Road

4WD=4 Wheel Drive; ALL=All Vehicles; HLO=Highway Legal Only MVUM=Motor Vehicle Use Map; Temp=Temporary

Blank entries indicate the item does not apply.

522