United States Department of Agriculture

Final Environmental Impact Statement

for Revision of the

Inyo National Forest 

Land Management Plan

Executive Summary

Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region R5-MB-304-F August 2018
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

than English. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cover Photo: Mount Whitney, Inyo National Forest. Photo by Joel Sladky.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

i 

Contents 

Introduction and Background .......................................................................................................... 1

Purpose and Need for Revising the Forest Plan ............................................................................... 1

Revision Topic 1: Wildland Fire Management ............................................................................ 1

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

Revision Topic 3: Sustainable Recreation and Designated Areas ............................................... 2

Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................... 2

Public Involvement and Issues to be Resolved ................................................................................ 2

Issue 1: Ecological Resilience, Wildlife Habitats, and Wildfire .................................................. 2

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

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

Issue 4: Watershed Restoration .................................................................................................... 3

Issue 5: Protecting Aquatic Diversity .......................................................................................... 3

Issue 6: Recommended Wilderness ............................................................................................. 3

Issue 7: Smoke ............................................................................................................................. 3

Issue 8: Forest Products ............................................................................................................... 3

Alternatives ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Alternative A: Existing Plan Direction ........................................................................................ 3

Alternative B: Draft Forest Plan .................................................................................................. 4

Alternative B-modified (Preferred Alternative) ........................................................................... 6

Alternative C ................................................................................................................................ 7

Alternative D ................................................................................................................................ 8

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 9

Topic 1: Wildland Fire Management ........................................................................................... 9

Topic 2: Ecological Integrity ....................................................................................................... 9

Topic 3: Sustainable Recreation and Designated Areas ............................................................ 10

Preferred Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 10

Tables

Table S-1. Comparison of management area acreage in each alternative ...................................... 10

Table S-2. Comparison of how each alternative addresses the revision topics .............................. 12

Table S-3. Summary of consequences for the major topics addressed in this final environmental 

impact statement ............................................................................................................................ 18

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

1 

Summary

Introduction and Background

The U.S. Forest Service has prepared a final environmental impact statement for the revised Inyo 

National Forest Land Management Plan, also referred to as the forest plan. The environmental 

impact statement describes and analyzes in detail five alternatives for managing the land and 

resources of the Inyo National Forest. The final environmental impact statement describes the

affected environment and discloses the environmental effects of the proposed plan and its 

alternatives. Table S-1 and table S-2 compare alternatives, and table S-3 provides a summary of 

the potential effects of those alternatives.

The Inyo National Forest is currently being managed under the 1988 Inyo National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan, as amended. In 2012, the Inyo, Sierra and Sequoia National 

Forests began to revise their forest plans. One draft environmental impact statement was prepared 

for the three national forests and released for public comment in May 2016. Due to recent

drought-induced tree mortality on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada range, and the 

corresponding need to address the changed conditions, the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests 

are preparing a revised draft environmental impact statement. Because tree mortality was not as 

severe on the Inyo National Forest, the Forest Service decided to prepare this separate final 

environmental impact statement and plan. 

Purpose and Need for Revising the Forest Plan

The Inyo National Forest is revising its original 1988 forest plan to meet the legal requirements of 

the National Forest Management Act of 1976, address changed conditions since then, incorporate 

new scientific information, and address changes in law, regulation, and policy, including the 2012 

Planning Rule. 

Economic, social, and ecological conditions have changed during the 30 years that the current 

forest plan has been in place. The changes in ecological conditions across the landscape have 

increased the risk of large high-intensity wildfire. The ability of the Inyo National Forest to 

provide benefits to people as well as habitat for wildlife has changed. New information based on 

monitoring and scientific research helps illuminate these changes and inform contemporary 

approaches for addressing them. In addition, new laws, regulations and policies are in place. 

Several “needs for change” were identified through assessments and engagement with local

governments, state and federal agencies, tribes, and the public. The needs for change were 

grouped into three revision topics that provided a framework for the alternative development and 

analysis. These are summarized below each revision topic. 

Revision Topic 1: Wildland Fire Management

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

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

objectives;1 and reduce smoke impacts to communities.

 

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

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

people, property, and other highly valued resources.
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

2 

Revision Topic 2: Ecological Integrity

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

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

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

Revision Topic 3: Sustainable Recreation and Designated Areas

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

population demographics, reflect the desires of local communities, avoid overcrowding and use 

conflicts, minimize resource impacts, protect cultural resources, update direction for management 

of wilderness and wild and scenic rivers, and protect the values of the Pacific Crest National 

Scenic Trail.

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is the draft forest plan that was developed to address the needs for change 

and revision topics. The proposed action is alternative B and is summarized below; a detailed 

description and analysis can be found in chapter 2 of the final environmental impact statement. 

The proposed action is one of the five alternatives analyzed in detail as described below. 

Public Involvement and Issues to be Resolved

Public participation is critical to many steps in the process of revising the forest plan. Chapter 1 

of the FEIS describes the formal and informal public engagement that occurred throughout the 

process with public meetings, workshops, tribal forums, dialog sessions, document review and 

comment periods, and interagency and tribal consultations. The information shared during these 

sessions helped shape the management approaches and plan components in the revised plan. 

In addition, public review of the initial proposed action in August 2014 raised specific issues 

associated with the proposed action. Issues are defined as statements that describe potential 

unwanted effects of the proposed action. The following issues were identified from public 

engagement sessions and public comments related to the proposed action during the 2014 public 

scoping period and the comment period for the DEIS in May 2016. These issues were key to 

development of alternatives B-modified, C, and D. Chapter 1 of the final environmental impact 

statement includes specific concerns associated with these issue statements.

Issue 1: Ecological Resilience, Wildlife Habitats, 

and Wildfire

The amount, type, and location of thinning to improve ecosystem resilience to large, highintensity wildfires and to reduce the threat of wildfires to communities may not provide adequate 

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

Issue 2: Forest Resilience and Forest Density

The limitations on effectively treating enough areas to reduce the density of trees and the level of 

fuels because of concerns for wildlife habitats will leave too much of the forest at risk of loss or 

unacceptable damage from wildfires or insect attacks during droughts exacerbated by climate 

change.
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

3 

Issue 3: Fuels Treatments and Fire Management

The amount of prescribed fire and managed wildfire used to meet resource objectives may not be 

sufficient to restore fire in frequent-fire ecosystems. The amount of fire restored to the landscape 

may not be achievable without reducing existing fuels before treatment. 

Issue 4: Watershed Restoration

The amount of watershed restoration in the proposed revised plans may not keep pace with the 

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

Issue 5: Protecting Aquatic Diversity

The proposed revised plans may not adequately protect areas of high aquatic species diversity.

Issue 6: Recommended Wilderness

The proposed revised plans offer an opportunity to manage more areas as recommended 

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

additional wilderness areas in the proposed revised plans might unnecessarily prohibit and further 

geographically constrain management activities and uses, including Tribal uses that would 

otherwise be allowed.

Issue 7: Smoke

Increasing the amount of prescribed burning, and allowing the management of wildfires to meet 

resource objectives would produce more smoke that might impact human health and affect the 

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

Issue 8: Forest Products

The amount of forest management activities and forest product outputs may not adequately 

contribute to sustaining local and regional industry infrastructure needed to accomplish 

restoration objectives.

Alternatives 

Current forest plan, the proposed action, and alternatives to the proposed action comprise the 

alternatives studied in detail. In total, the final environmental impact statement documents 

analyzes five alternatives in detail (summarized below) and seven alternatives considered but not 

analyzed in detail. These are described in detail in chapter 2 of the final environmental impact 

statement.

Alternative A: Existing Plan Direction

Alternative A is the no-action alternative, which represents current management under the 1988 

forest plan, as amended. As the no action, alternative A does not address the needs for change 

that are reflected in the revision topics, or issues raised during scoping. 
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

4 

Wildland Fire Management. Hazardous fuel reduction treatments would continue to focus on 

two distance-based areas (defense and threat zones) in the wildland-urban intermix, with more 

intense thinning allowed in the defense zone (closest to structures and communities). Using 

wildfire to meet resource objectives would continue with general direction about desired 

vegetative conditions but not specifically tied to wildfire. Prescribed fire ignitions would be 

coordinated with adjacent landowners to meet ambient air quality standards. 

Ecological Integrity. Restoration treatment options would continue to be limited by standards 

and guidelines for vegetation, single-species habitat management, and aquatic and riparian 

management focusing treatments at local (stand or patch) levels rather than landscape scales. 

Dense canopy cover and large trees would be retained to meet certain species needs, and conflicts 

with habitat needs of other species would remain. Plan components and direction would limit 

impacts to critical aquatic refuges and riparian conservation areas around streams, rivers, lakes, 

meadows, bogs, and other wetland types. At-risk species consist of federally-listed species under 

the Endangered Species Act and Forest Service sensitive species. Management actions emphasize 

consistency across national forest boundaries for protection of greater sage grouse, and current 

management continues, including restrictions on operating periods and grazing as needed to 

protect California spotted owl, great gray owl, Pacific fisher, Sierra marten, Sierra Nevada 

bighorn sheep and Nelson desert bighorn sheep, willow flycatcher, and Yosemite toad. 

Sustainable Recreation and Designated Areas. Direction that was developed in the 1980s 

would continue, focusing on the maintenance, development, adaptation, or alteration of dispersed 

and developed recreation sites consistent with the recreation opportunity spectrum class of the 

area, including increasing the amount of trails and facilities. Scenic character is managed using 

the 1986 Visual Management System with assigned visual quality objectives. No additional areas 

would be recommended for designation in the national wilderness preservation system, and 

management of designated wilderness is guided by specific guidance in wilderness management 

plans. Management direction for protecting the scenic and recreational values of the Pacific Crest 

National Scenic Trail outside of designated wilderness is limited.

Alternative B: Draft Forest Plan

Alternative B includes proposed changes in management to address the needs for change, which 

are organized by revision topics, as follows:

Wildland Fire Management. Alternative B includes four strategic fire management zones that 

replace the two distance-based wildland-urban intermix areas in the current plan. The fire

management zones are based on fire risk assessment consistent with the National Cohesive 

Wildland Fire Management Strategy.2 There is an emphasis on managing naturally ignited fires to 

achieve resource objectives, and mechanical treatments and prescribed fire are used as well. The 

four fire management zones are:

• Community wildfire protection zone. This zone is based on modeling potential spread and 

intensity of wildfires that have a very high likelihood of burning into and negatively 

impacting communities and community assets. Active management (thinning and prescribed 

fire) would be used to reduce fuels throughout the zone, and snags, logs, and fuels would be 

 

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

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

communities, and safe and effective wildfire response.
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

5 

managed for safe wildfire operations. In most cases, wildfire would be suppressed unless 

specific conditions allowed for safe use of wildfire to meet resource objectives.

• General wildfire protection zone. This zone is delineated where wildfire has a very high 

likelihood of burning toward and negatively impacting communities and assets as well as 

negatively impacting natural resources. Active fuel reduction treatments would occur along 

ridgetops, roads, and other natural and manmade features that can serve as strategic anchor 

points for larger prescribed burns and to create areas of low fuel that can be used to manage 

wildfires. Wildfires would most often be suppressed to reduce the threat to communities and 

assets unless specific conditions allowed for safe use of wildfire to meet resource objectives.

• Wildfire restoration zone. This zone encompasses areas of low to moderate risk for 

communities, structures, and other resource values. Wildfires pose a mix of positive and 

negative effects to resources and isolated assets. Strategically-placed fuels reduction (thinning 

or prescribed fire) treatments would allow for larger prescribed burns and ultimately 

restoration of fire as a component of the ecosystem. Many wildfires in this zone would be 

managed to meet resource objectives. 

• Wildfire maintenance zone. This zone is typically high elevation, wilderness, and remote 

areas where wildfire poses a very low risk to communities and assets, and mostly positive 

effects to resources. Prescribed burning would be used to increase the opportunity to manage 

wildfires and restore fire-adapted ecosystems.

The forest plan desired conditions and resource objectives would differ across fire management 

zones and would emphasize project designs to strategically reduce fuels and increase 

opportunities to manage unplanned wildfire starts. Smoke impacts from prescribed fire and 

managed wildfire would continue to be evaluated. 

Ecological Integrity. Alternative B emphasizes restoration of vegetation and watersheds based 

on descriptive vegetation-based desired conditions that characterize resilient and sustainable 

vegetation conditions by major vegetation and habitat types. Like the other action alternatives that 

follow, it replaces plan direction focused on Forest Service sensitive species with plan direction 

for at-risk species, which include federally-listed species and species of conservation concern. 

Species of conservation concern are native, known to occur in the plan area, and have a 

substantial concern for their capability to persist over the long term in the plan area. 

This alternative proposes to increase restoration treatments to move terrestrial habitat toward the 

desired conditions at a moderate pace. There is an increased emphasis on restoring fire as an 

ecosystem process in fire-adapted ecosystems with frequent fire-return. Additional desired 

conditions for vegetation provides for increased habitat heterogeneity for multiple species at both 

the fine and landscape scales. Specific desired conditions and guidelines for individual vegetation 

types, old forest, and sagebrush provide ecological integrity of habitat for multiple species. Plan 

direction provides protection for California spotted owl, great gray owl, Pacific fisher, Sierra 

marten, Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep and Nelson desert bighorn sheep, willow flycatcher, and 

Yosemite toad.

In aquatic and riparian ecosystems, prescribed burn ignitions and, where necessary, mechanical 

and hand treatments would occur to restore ecological integrity and improve the resilience of 

riparian ecosystems to fire, drought, and climate change. One additional critical aquatic refuge is 

added to the 17 in alternative A.
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

6 

Sustainable Recreation and Designated Areas. Alternative B integrates consideration of the 

recreation opportunity spectrum and desired scenic integrity objectives with restoration desired 

conditions and design criteria. This alternative would establish four management areas totaling 

37,039 acres (South Sierra; Piper Mountain Addition; White Mountains East; and White 

Mountains West), recommended for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. It 

defines the management area for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail to be up to one-half mile 

from the centerline of the trail. Like the other action alternatives that follow, it recognizes the 

importance of partnerships and encourages more partnerships to support ecological restoration.

Alternative B-modified (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative B-modified was developed to address public comments and improve upon the draft 

forest plan. Alternative B-modified includes the following proposed changes from alternative B, 

which are organized by revision topics, as follows: 

Wildland Fire Management. In alternative B-modified, we corrected and adjusted variables in 

our modeling, such as the low elevation sagebrush because fire can exacerbate spread of invasive 

cheatgrass in the sagebrush ecosystem. This resulted in some adjustments to the mapping and 

acreage of the strategic fire management zone boundaries and classifications. We clarified that the 

boundaries of the fire zones are determined by conditions on the ground and may be updated 

administratively to reflect new developments or disturbances. The current updated maps are 

provided in the final environmental impact statement. 

Ecological Integrity. Alternative B-modified identifies how the water, watershed, riparian 

conservation area, and conservation watershed direction are integrated and how the use of these 

components, along with restoration efforts and monitoring provide an overall aquatic and riparian 

strategy. These elements work together to achieve desired conditions across the plan area.

We replaced 17 small critical aquatic refuges with four larger conservation watersheds. 

Conservation watersheds are a subset of watersheds that are prioritized to provide for persistence 

of both plant and animal at-risk species as well as other beneficial uses of water.

We also updated plan components to better provide ecological conditions for the bi-state greater 

sage-grouse population. 

Sustainable Recreation and Designated Areas. This alternative modified the framework for 

recreation management based on public comments suggesting that more clear direction be 

developed. 

The concept of recreation “places” from alternatives B, C, and D is modified to three 

management areas that integrate with the recreation opportunity spectrum settings and provide the 

overall management direction for activities and uses: 

• Destination Recreation Area is the most developed of the three zones, with high-density 

visitor use and a variety of recreation opportunities. These areas emphasize facilities and are 

primarily in the roaded natural, semi-primitive motorized, and semi-primitive nonmotorized 

recreation opportunity spectrum classes.

• General Recreation Area encompasses the multiple-use, working landscape which may be 

modified further to meet social, economic, and ecological objectives. The recreation 

opportunity spectrum classes are primarily rural with a mix of semi-primitive motorized and 

semi-primitive nonmotorized classes. 
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

7 

• Challenging Backroad Recreation Area is the zone of undeveloped, natural landscapes with 

low visitor use, few amenities, and limited management and Forest Service presence. These 

areas are suited for challenging, dispersed recreation and are in the semi-primitive motorized, 

semi-primitive nonmotorized, and roaded natural recreation opportunity spectrum classes. 

Alternative B-modified is mostly the same as alternative B in terms of recommended wilderness, 

and wild and scenic river eligibility, although we updated supporting information between the 

draft and final environmental impact statements.

Alternative C

Alternative C includes proposed changes in management to respond to public issues, emphasizing 

wilderness values and a passive management approach to restore fire as an ecosystem process, 

primarily using prescribed fire and natural disturbance processes (such as managing wildfire for 

resource benefit) to achieve landscape-level desired conditions. 

Wildland Fire Management. Fire management in this alternative combines elements of current 

management (distance-based zones described in alternative A) with the strategic fire management 

zones based on fire risk assessment 

• The distance-based defense zone around communities would remain in place. 

• The maintenance zone is identified using the same risk-based methodology used to create the 

wildfire maintenance zones as alternative B-modified and D. 

• The general wildfire zone consists of the restoration zone, general wildfire protection zones, 

and portions of the community wildfire protection zone. 

• The updated modeling as described in alternative B-modified is applied. 

Alternative C would include the same guidance for designing projects to minimize the impacts of 

smoke on communities as alternatives B and B-modified. 

Ecological Integrity. Alternative C is designed to manage the forest landscape to minimize shortterm impacts on habitats from management activities while accepting the risk of large highintensity wildfires that could affect mature and old forests. Alternative C focuses vegetation and 

fuel reduction treatments within the wildland-urban intermix defense zone and seeks to restore 

vegetation desired conditions in the larger landscape with limited, strategic use of mechanical 

thinning and a heavier emphasis on the use of prescribed fire and wildfire managed primarily for 

resource objectives where safe and consistent with desired conditions. Alternative C would not 

use the focused landscapes approach described in alternatives B and D.

Alternative C emphasizes restoration of sagebrush habitats and retaining large trees and other

habitat components such as high densities of snags and downed logs. It would continue to provide

protection for riparian conservation areas and would add eight critical aquatic refuges. 

This alternative emphasizes the role of natural processes in restoration, primarily through 

prescribed fire and natural disturbance processes (such as managing wildfire for resource benefit) 

to achieve landscape-level desired conditions. Mechanical treatments (such as mechanical 

thinning, timber harvest, and fuels reduction) would be used to move the Inyo National Forest 

toward social, economic and ecological sustainability, but there would be fewer suitable acres for 

timber production than in other alternatives. In general, mechanical treatment methods would be 

used less than in the other alternatives and would be limited in riparian conservation areas. 
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

8 

This alternative includes the same direction for the bi-state greater sage-grouse as alternative B 

but with slightly more habitat maintained, improved, or restored. Direction for the great gray owl 

and Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep and Nelson desert bighorn sheep would be same as alternative 

B-modified. Species-specific plan direction for Yosemite toad would be the same as alternative A, 

and direction for willow flycatcher would focus on maintaining and restoring nesting habitat in 

the Mono Lake basin. 

Sustainable Recreation. In alternative C, the range of recreation opportunity spectrum classes 

would shift with larger areas allocated to primitive and semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation 

settings and less area allocated to motorized recreation settings, in large part due to 24 additional 

areas of recommended wilderness that would comprise an additional 325,359 acres on the Inyo

National Forest. The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail corridor would be up to one-half mile 

from the centerline of the trail as in alternatives B and B-modified, but expands to include areas 

within iconic viewsheds along the trail up to four miles from the centerline of the trail. 

Alternative D

Alternative D includes proposed changes in management to respond to the issues identified 

during scoping. Alternative D includes proposed changes in management that would increase the 

pace and scale of treatments to actively improve ecological resilience to wildfire and reduce 

smoke from future wildfires. It is designed to reduce forest density and increase forest resilience

to drought, improve the sustainability of recreation, and increase the amount of forest products 

produced to better contribute to economic and social well-being. 

Wildland Fire Management. Alternative D uses the same four risk-based wildfire management 

zones as in alternatives B and B-modified, and updated modeling as in alternative B-modified. It 

emphasizes strategic use of mechanical treatments and increases strategic treatments along roads 

and ridgelines to support larger landscape prescribed burning and to increase the opportunity to 

use these treated areas to manage wildfires to meet resource objectives. Pre-treating areas prior to 

prescribed burning would reduce the potential for smoke impacts to communities from 

uncharacteristic wildfire.

Ecological Integrity. Alternative D applies similar direction as alternatives B and B-modified, 

but doubles the pace and scale of restoration to have greater likelihood of reducing the impact of 

future high-intensity wildfires. There would be more emphasis on providing variability within 

tree patches during treatments to increase stand heterogeneity and increase resilience to drought. 

While doubling pace and scale, this alternative would include plan components to provide for 

complex early seral habitat and at-risk species while accepting some short-term risks to species to 

manage more areas for vegetation desired conditions over the long term. Species-specific plan 

direction is added for the bi-state greater sage-grouse, with acres habitat maintained, improved, or 

restored increased the same as alternative C. Direction for California spotted owl, great gray owl, 

Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, and Nelson desert bighorn sheep would be the same as alternative 

B-modified. 

Yosemite toads would be protected using grazing management strategies that consider meadow 

habitat conditions, known and probable occurrences, and designated critical habitat. These 

strategies would range from no grazing to the current forestwide grazing standards in the existing 

forest plan.

The aquatic management strategy and direction for aquatic and riparian conservation areas and 

critical aquatic refuges would be the same as in alternative B. 
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

9 

Sustainable Recreation. Alternative D does not make any additional preliminary administrative 

recommendations for wilderness. It defines the management area corridor for the Pacific Crest 

National Scenic Trail as one-quarter mile from the centerline. It integrates consideration of 

recreation opportunity, scenic character and scenic character stability into restoration desired 

conditions and design criteria as in alternative B. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This section includes summary conclusions of expected environmental outcomes in response to 

changes in management under the different alternatives. A comparison of how each alternative is 

expected to affect trends in key environmental indicators is also summarized in the “summary of 

consequences” table below and is the focus of chapter 3 of the final environmental impact 

statement. 

Topic 1: Wildland Fire Management

The Inyo National Forest is applying a zoned risk management approach to wildland fire 

management in alternatives B, B-modified, and D that gives the national forest staff and fire 

managers more latitude to proactively plan and restore the landscape by managing wildfire to 

meet resource objectives. The risk assessment includes contemporary geospatial information that 

considers highly valued resources and assets. These alternatives favor more mechanical treatment 

in sagebrush ecosystems where fire is known to lead to expansion of cheatgrass, an invasive 

species that degrades habitat quality. These alternatives would facilitate higher rates of restoration 

in the places with high risk and highly valued resources and assets compared to alternatives A and 

C. Air quality would be affected under all alternatives, with increases in smoke and emissions 

resulting from fires of all sizes, but reduced fuel loading from the increased restoration activities 

under the action alternatives could result in reductions in emissions over the long term. Fire 

management under alternatives B and B-modified include a more balanced mix of mechanical 

treatments, prescribed fire, and wildfire managed for resource objectives than alternative D, 

which emphasizes more mechanical treatments in forested areas. 

Topic 2: Ecological Integrity

Restoring forest health is a key focus of the forest plan, and ecological integrity of terrestrial 

systems is closely tied to the levels of restoration that would be achieved under the alternatives. 

All plan action alternatives (B, B-modified, C, and D) increase the rates of restoration, with 

alternative D likely to lead to the highest rates. However, because 46 percent of the Inyo National 

Forest is designated wilderness, cost, feasibility, and short-term ecological impacts to wildlife and 

aquatic systems associated with mechanical treatments may be an unacceptable trade-off. While 

alternative C facilitates more extensive use of fire (except in sagebrush), where there is no 

mechanical pre-treatment, fire may not yield all the desired resource outcomes in the right places. 

Alternatives B and B-modified present a more balanced approach to restoration, as noted above, 

and are believed to contribute to long-term resilience of forests by restoring a more heterogeneous 

structure, addressing the negative impacts of invasive species, and providing better connectivity 

in the short and long terms. 

In aquatic and riparian ecosystems, alternative B-modified presents the most integrated approach 

to achieve resource benefits at both landscape and local scales. While direction for riparian 

conservation areas is fairly consistent across all action alternatives, the addition of conservation 

watersheds in alternative B-modified responds more effectively to maintaining and restoring 

resilience in the face of large-scale disturbances and unpredictable events that are currently 
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

10

occurring. In alternative B-modified, conservation watersheds replace critical aquatic refuges, 

which continue to be present in the other alternatives. The aquatic strategic approach in 

alternative B-modified includes plan components that range from those maintaining and restoring 

landscape connectivity to those that are species-specific. The larger landscape approach that 

addresses connectivity is expected to be more effective at restoring resilience. All action

alternatives continue a trajectory of improvements in health of aquatic and riparian ecosystems, 

including meadows and fens.

All alternatives contribute to providing ecological conditions to support wildlife, fish and plants 

to varying degrees without major differences for federally listed species. For species dependent 

on sagebrush, alternative B-modified results in the most improvements to those habitats because 

of fire management and restoration practices. There are additional plan components focused on 

aquatic and riparian-dependent species in alternative B-modified that provide for species-specific 

requirements.

Topic 3: Sustainable Recreation and Designated Areas 

There is a need to adapt to and accommodate the increasing demand for recreation on the Inyo

National Forest, balancing it with protection of natural resources. Alternative B-modified 

responds to public input for more clear direction to manage recreation uses and activities into the 

future. The three sustainable recreation zones serve as a framework that best accommodates 

current and potential future uses and opportunities by addressing visitor uses with a management 

area approach that identifies areas of highly concentrated and diverse activities that will require 

more intensive management to areas where more development may occur if needed, to areas 

where a low density of use and limited infrastructure will be maintained. Alternatives B, C and D 

rely completely on the recreation opportunity spectrum to manage visitor use, and were therefore 

not as adaptive to meeting future desires for recreational use. 

Preferred Alternative 

Based on public input, our analysis of the alternatives, and what we think responds best to the 

issues, we have chosen alternative B-modified as the preferred alternative for the Inyo National 

Forest’s revised land and resource management plan. Alternative B-modified best meets the 

purpose and need, is broadly supported by state and local governments, tribes, other Federal 

agencies, local communities, and other stakeholders, and represents a balanced approach to 

meeting resource goals, and achieving ecological, social and economic sustainability. The 

following tables provide a summary of how the alternatives compare by acreage in management 

areas (table S-1), how each addresses the revision topics (table S-2), and the predicted 

environmental effects of each alternative (table S-3).

Table S-1. Comparison of management area acreage in each alternative

Management Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative Bmodified Alternative C Alternative D

Wildland-urban Intermix 

Defense Zone (acres) 21,940 Not applicable Not applicable 21,940 Not applicable

Wildland-urban Intermix 

Threat Zone (acres) 191,616 Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Community Wildfire 

Protection Zone (acres) Not applicable 170,572 116,146 Not applicable 116,146
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

11

Management Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative Bmodified Alternative C Alternative D

General Wildfire 

Protection Zone (acres) Not applicable 371,596 559,513 Not applicable 559,513

Wildfire Restoration 

Zone (acres) Not applicable 568,685 533,233 Not applicable 533,233

General Wildfire Zone 

(acres) Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 1,155,557 Not applicable

Wildfire Maintenance 

Zone (acres) Not applicable 872,106 774,070 805,462 774,070

General Forest 

“Other” 1,769406 Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Designated Wilderness 

(acres) 967,039 967,039 967,039 967,039 967,039 

New Recommended 

Wilderness (acres) 0 37,029 37,029 325,359 0 

Designated Wild and 

Scenic Rivers (miles) 90 90 90 90 90

Existing Recommended 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

(miles)

16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5

Eligible Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (miles) 128.3 241.2 241.2 241.2 241.2

Pacific Crest National 

Scenic Trail (miles) 86 86 86 86 86

Pacific Crest National 

Scenic Trail Corridor 

(acres) 

116 39,973 39,973 130,350 22,053

Critical Aquatic Refuges 

(acres) 170,600 191,567 0 322,518 191,567

Conservation 

Watersheds 0 0 387,678 0 0 

Challenging Backroad 

Area (Low Use) 0 0 543,938 0 0 

General Forest 

Recreation Area 

(Mixed/Moderate Use)

0 0 327,622 0 0 

Destination Recreation 

Area (High Use) 0 0 45,585 0 0 
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

12

Table S-2. Comparison of how each alternative addresses the revision topics

Revision Topic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Fire Management Management focuses 

hazardous fuel reduction 

treatment in two distancebased areas surrounding the 

wildland-urban intermix 

defense zone and wildlandurban intermix threat zone. 

Naturally ignited wildfires are 

evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis to determine if they can 

be managed to meet resource 

objectives.

Replaces alternative A zones 

with four management areas 

based on a fire risk 

assessment consistent with 

the National Cohesive Fire 

Strategy: community wildfire 

protection zone, general 

wildfire protection zone, 

wildfire restoration zone, and 

wildfire maintenance zone.

Strong emphasis on 

managing naturally ignited 

wildfires in the wildfire 

maintenance zone and 

strongly encouraged in 

wildfire restoration zone 

where some mechanical and 

burning treatments may be 

needed first.

Same as alternative B except 

modelling variables for 

wildland fire risk were 

updated. 

Emphasis on managing 

naturally ignited wildfires to 

achieve resource objectives 

for resource benefits same as 

alternative B.

Fire management zones 

consist of a combination of 

alternative A distance-based 

wildland-urban interface 

defense zone and the 

alternative B risk-based 

wildfire maintenance zone. 

The remainder of the Inyo 

would be called the general 

wildfire zone.

Updated fire risk assessment 

modelling was applied as in 

alternative B. 

Emphasis on managing 

naturally ignited wildfires in 

the wildfire maintenance 

zones same as alternative B. 

In the general wildfire zone, 

naturally ignited wildfires 

strongly encouraged but 

prescribed burning may be 

needed first.

Fire management zones and 

approach to managing 

naturally ignited wildfires 

same as alternative B.

Updated fire risk assessment 

modelling was applied as in 

alternative B.
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

13

Revision Topic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Ecological 

Integrity –

Vegetation 

management

Management emphasis on 

short-term retention of mature 

forest habitat for old forest 

associated wildlife species. 

Vegetation and fuels 

management treatments 

prioritized in the wildlandurban intermix and elsewhere 

in a roughly geometric pattern 

of strategically placed area 

treatments. 

In the wildland-urban 

interface defense zone (the 

area closest to structures and 

communities), there are fewer 

restrictions on the intensity of 

thinning. 

There is a forestwide 

standard and guideline 

limiting tree removal to less 

than 30 inches in diameter.

Management emphasis on 

restoration of vegetation 

desired conditions based on 

natural range of variation and 

habitat elements for at-risk 

species. 

Treatments continue to 

reduce fire risk near 

communities. Strategically 

located mechanical and 

prescribed burning treatments 

along roads and ridges are 

designed to support larger 

landscape-scale prescribed 

burning and greater 

opportunity to manage 

wildfires to meet resource 

objectives.

Forestwide direction for 

limiting removal of trees 

larger than 30 inches in 

diameter applies to the 

wildfire restoration zone and 

wildfire maintenance zone. 

Elsewhere, desired conditions 

for number of large trees by 

vegetation type guides 

retention levels.

Similar to alternative B except 

133,490 acres (7% of total 

acres in the planning area) 

will be reclassified from 

Maintenance or Restoration 

Fire Management Zone to the 

General Wildfire Protection 

Zone. Nearly all these acres 

are located in lower 

elevations of the sagebrush 

vegetation type, where the 

primary restoration 

approaches will rely on 

methods other than wildfires 

managed to achieve resource 

objectives. Some adjustments 

also made to account for 

infrastructure. 

Forestwide direction for 

limiting removal of trees 

larger than 30 inches in 

diameter clarified to allow 

some removal for ecological 

restoration and to benefit old 

forest conditions.

Use of fire to meet desired 

conditions provides direction 

for managing long-term 

functionality of aquatic, 

riparian, and terrestrial 

systems in conservation 

watersheds and also provides 

flexibility with the intent to 

increase the pace and scale 

of restoration in riparian 

areas, meadows, and 

streams.

Mechanical treatments are 

focused on the wildland-urban 

interface defense zone, with 

limited mechanical treatment 

elsewhere. There is an 

emphasis on prescribed 

burning as the primary 

restoration method and an 

emphasis on managing 

wildfires to meet resource 

objectives where feasible.

Forestwide direction for 

limiting removal of trees 

larger than 30 inches is same 

as alternative A except in the 

portion of the Inyo with 

California spotted owl habitat 

where smaller diameter limits 

exist in suitable habitats.

Management emphasis is 

similar to alternative B but 

there is more focus on 

increasing the area treated to 

improve the long-term 

sustainability and resilience of 

forests and watersheds.

Desired conditions for number 

of large trees by vegetation 

type guides retention levels 

forestwide. There are no 

diameter limits for removing 

large trees. 
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

14

Revision Topic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Ecological 

IntegrityAquatic and 

riparian resources 

(critical aquatic 

refuges, 

conservation 

watersheds and 

riparian 

conservation 

areas)

Identifies riparian 

conservation areas, a buffer 

area around streams, rivers, 

lakes, meadows, bogs, and 

other wetland types. The 

riparian conservation area is 

wider for perennial streams 

than for intermittent and 

ephemeral streams and can 

be adjusted smaller or larger 

based upon site conditions. 

Prescriptive standards and 

guidelines avoid, minimize or 

mitigate activities and actions 

that could adversely affect 

riparian vegetation or aquatic 

conditions. 

Identifies a set of 17 critical 

aquatic refuges focused on 

areas with threatened and 

endangered species or areas 

of other species with 

population concerns. The 

direction that applies to 

riparian conservation areas 

applies to the critical aquatic 

refuges.

Direction is functionally 

similar to that contained in 

alternative A, except for: 

a) streamlining and 

consolidating direction;

b) removal of direction that 

repeats laws, regulations, or 

policies; 

c) changing “riparian 

conservation objectives” from 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment to other plan 

components for consistency 

with 2012 Planning Rule 

requirements; and

d) modifying the direction to 

allow prescribed burn 

ignitions and, where 

necessary, mechanical and 

hand treatments to restore 

ecological integrity.

One additional critical aquatic 

refuge would be added to the 

17 in alternative A. 

Similar direction for riparian 

conservation areas as 

alternative B with some 

clarification, refinements, and 

reorganization.

Switches approach of 

managing 17 small scattered 

critical aquatic refuges that 

provide for aquatic species 

with approach managing 4 

larger conservation 

watersheds.

Conservation watersheds are 

a subset of watersheds that 

are prioritized to provide for 

persistence of both plant and 

animal at-risk species 

(biodiversity focus) as well as 

other beneficial uses of water. 

Because of their scale, they 

provide cumulative beneficial 

effects on connectivity, 

integrity, and refugia for atrisk species in the face of 

large-scale unpredictable 

events.

Direction for riparian 

conservation area and critical 

aquatic refuges would be the 

same as alternative B.

Adds 8 new critical aquatic 

refuges to the 17 in 

alternative A. 

Alternative D includes the 

same direction for riparian 

conservation areas and 

critical aquatic refuges as 

alternative B. 
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

15

Revision Topic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Ecological 

integrity – 

Wildlife

Plan direction for 

management of federally 

listed species and Regional 

Forester designated sensitive 

species.

Limited forest plan direction 

for management of sagebrush 

and sage-grouse habitat. 

Management guided by 

agreements to implement 

direction in interagency action 

plans.

Direction for forest 

management primarily 

focused on the short-term 

retention of dense canopy 

cover and restricts removal of 

large trees to provide mature 

forest habitat for species like 

the California spotted owl and 

Sierra marten.

The 2012 Planning Rule 

manages for at-risk species, 

which are federally listed 

species and species of 

conservation concern. 

Species of conservation 

concern are designated by 

the Regional Forester and 

replace Regional Forester 

sensitive species.

Adds specific forest plan 

direction focused on 

restoration of sage-grouse 

habitat

The Draft EIS alternative 

mistakenly dropped plan 

direction for California spotted 

owl and great gray owl. The 

Final EIS corrects this error 

and applies the same plan 

direction developed for the 

Sequoia and Sierra National 

Forests in the Draft EIS for 

alternative B but limits it to the 

same spatial area on the Inyo 

National Forest as in 

alternative B-modified.

The at-risk species approach 

is the same as alternative B.

Modifies some of the strategic 

fire management zones from 

alternative B to reclassify 

areas dominated by 

sagebrush to the general 

wildfire protection zone to 

limit impact of fire on sagegrouse habitat. (Fire 

suppression of most fires in 

sagebrush helps prevent 

cheatgrass invasion.) 

Refines the plan direction for 

California spotted owl from 

alternative B to reflect the 

limited amount of suitable 

habitat adjacent to the Sierra 

and Sequoia National 

Forests. Modifies plan 

direction for the great gray 

owl from alternative B to drop 

direction for pre-defined 

protected activity centers to 

allow establishment of 

necessary protective 

measures based upon other 

forestwide direction for at-risk 

species.

The at-risk species approach 

is the same as alternative B.

Increased restoration of sagegrouse habitat similar to 

alternative B.

Retains emphasis on shortterm habitat protection for 

California spotted owl and 

Sierra marten in forested 

habitats by applying the same 

direction developed for the 

Sequoia and Sierra National 

Forests for alternative C to 

the same limited area as 

alternative B.

Same as alternative B.

Recommended 

Wilderness

No additional recommended 

wilderness areas

Makes a preliminary 

administrative 

recommendation to include 4 

additional areas in the 

National Wilderness 

Preservation System (South 

Sierra; Piper Mountain 

Addition; White Mountains 

East; and White Mountains 

West); 37,029 acres.

Same as alternative B Alternative C would make a 

preliminary administrative 

recommendation to include 

24 additional areas totaling 

325,352 acres in the National 

Wilderness Preservation 

System.

No additional recommended 

wilderness areas
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

16

Revision Topic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Wild and Scenic 

River Eligibility

Includes current inventory of 

128.3 miles of wild and scenic 

rivers. 

The updated miles 

determined to be eligible for 

inclusion in the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System is 

approximately 241.2 miles.

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B.

Pacific Crest Trail The current forest plan 

manages the Pacific Crest 

Trail according to direction 

provided by a 1982 

Comprehensive Management 

Plan and direction is focused 

on the trail tread and 

immediate surroundings

Width of management area is 

6 feet.

Creates a management area 

allocation for the Pacific Crest 

Trail by defining a corridor of 

the visual foreground 

landscape zone as defined by 

the Scenery Management 

System, (up to one-half mile 

from the centerline on both 

sides of the trail where 

visibility is not obscured by 

terrain).

Width of management area is 

up to one-half mile of each 

side of centerline.

Creates a management area 

and sets direction the same 

as in alternative B.

Creates a management area 

allocation for the Pacific Crest 

Trail by defining a corridor 

that includes the same visible 

foreground (up to one-half 

mile of centerline of the trail 

where visibility is not 

obscured by terrain) as 

alternative B and also 

includes lands inventoried as 

“Scenic Attractiveness A” in 

the Scenery Management 

System within the trail’s 

viewshed.

Width of management area 

up to 4 miles each side of 

centerline of trail.

Creates a management area

allocation for the Pacific Crest 

Trail by defining a corridor 

one-quarter mile from the 

centerline of the trail. The 

plan direction assigned to the 

corridor would be the same 

as alternative B.

Width of management area 

one-quarter mile each side of 

centerline.

Scenery 

Management

Scenic character is managed 

using the 1986 Visual 

Management System.

Identifies scenic integrity 

objectives for the plan areas 

using the Scenery 

Management System.

Same as alternative B Same as alternative B Same as alternative B
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

17

Revision Topic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Sustainable 

Recreation and 

Recreation-based 

Management 

Areas

The emphasis is on improving 

recreation opportunities by 

focusing on the maintenance, 

development, adaptation, or 

alteration of dispersed and 

developed recreation sites 

consistent with the recreation 

opportunity spectrum class of 

the area.

Recreation opportunity 

spectrum classes are updated 

to reflect existing 

management and to consider 

recommended wilderness. 

The management approach 

for recreation settings is 

integrated with ecological 

restoration approaches.

A concept of “places” is used 

to guide management efforts 

to sustain scenery, settings 

and opportunities. 

The concept of recreation 

places in alternatives B, C, 

and D is replaced by a zone 

concept and integrates with 

the settings described by the 

recreation opportunity 

spectrum. 

The three zones span a 

continuum from areas of more 

concentrated recreation to 

areas of remote, lessconcentrated, low density 

recreation.

Similar to alternative B except 

the range of recreation 

opportunity spectrum classes 

would shift based on 

recommended wilderness 

areas.

Similar to alternative B except 

the range of recreation 

opportunity spectrum classes 

would shift with fewer areas 

allocated to primitive and 

semi-primitive nonmotorized 

recreation settings and more

area allocated to motorized 

recreation settings due to 

recommended wilderness.

Production 

Livestock Grazing

Grazing direction includes 

1988 Forest Plan and 1995 

Forest Plan Amendment 6 – 

Forestwide Range Utilization 

Standards. 

Amendment 6 references 

some outdated methods and 

includes process and 

protocols for determining 

allowable grazing utilization 

standards as part of forest 

plan direction.

Several updates to existing 

management direction as 

compared to alternative A. 

Amendment 6 (1995) 

removed from forest plan. 

Process and protocols would 

be located in a technical 

guide residing outside the 

plan called “Forest 

Supplement to Rangeland 

Analysis and Planning 

Guide.” [2012 planning rule 

guidance suggests 

methodologies for 

assessment processes not be 

included in plan content.

Same as alternative B Same as alternative B Same as alternative B 

Timber Suitability 85,025 acres suitable for 

timber production

72,234 acres suitable for 

timber production

Same as alternative B 70,608 acres suitable for 

timber production

Same as alternative B
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

18

Table S-3. Summary of consequences for the major topics addressed in this final environmental impact statement

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Agents of 

Change

Combined 

effects of 

climate, fire, 

insects, and 

pathogens

Relatively low to moderate 

restoration treatment rates 

will somewhat reduce the 

combined impacts of climate 

change, fire, insects, and 

pathogens, but only in a 

limited number of treated 

areas within the larger 

landscape. Conservation of 

moderate to high-density 

canopy cover in late seral 

forest habitat would result in 

low resilience to highintensity fires, drought and 

temperature increases.

Moderate restoration 

treatment rates will reduce 

the combined impacts of 

climate change, fire, insects, 

and pathogens in more 

areas than in alternative A. 

Treated forest, sagebrush, 

and pinyon juniper 

ecosystems will have 

enhanced capacity to resist 

the interactive effects of 

multiple stressors. This 

alternative emphasizes 

climate adaptation strategies 

across larger landscapes. 

Similar to alternative B but 

with a marginally lower 

combined impact of climate 

change, fire, insects, and 

pathogens due to slightly 

higher restoration treatment 

rates. 

Similar to alternative A, but 

with greater resilience to 

combined stressors resulting 

from higher fire restoration 

(prescribed fire, wildfire 

managed for resource 

objectives) treatment rates.

Similar to alternative B but 

has greater amount of 

restoration treatment across 

the landscape, resulting in 

the lowest combined impacts 

of climate change, fire, 

insects, and pathogens. 

Treated forest, sagebrush, 

and pinyon juniper 

ecosystems will have a 

higher capacity to resist the 

interactive effects of multiple 

stressors.

Wildland Fire 

Management

Does not proactively analyze 

fire risk with a spatial risk 

assessment, which limits the 

restoration and maintenance 

of landscapes through 

managing wildfire to meet 

resource objectives, and the 

safe and effective fire 

responses due to the 

uncertainty of the location of 

assets and resource at risk. 

This results in limits to the 

restoration and maintenance 

of landscapes through the 

use of wildfire, both with 

strategically located 

prescribed burning and 

wildfires managed to meet 

resource objectives.

Risk assessment provides 

information that reduces 

uncertainties and allows 

forest and fire managers to 

have more latitude to 

proactively plan and restore 

the landscape by managing 

wildfire to meet resource 

objectives and using 

prescribed fire. 

Applies risk management 

explicitly and has the 

greatest amount of 

ecological restoration that 

reduces risk and provides 

resource benefits. This 

greater amount of projects 

and the enhancement of 

strategic fire management 

features would provide the

greatest likelihood of 

implementing large 

prescribed fires or managing 

wildfires to meet resource 

objectives.

Same as alternative B, but 

there is a reduced amount of 

low elevation sagebrush in 

the Wildfire Restoration 

Zone. Instead, most low 

elevation sagebrush is 

changed to the General 

Wildfire Protection Zone. 

This will reduce the negative 

impacts of wildfires on 

sagebrush where expansion 

of cheatgrass is a risk. 

This alternative uses a more 

simplified 3-zone approach 

that will make it more difficult 

and uncertain to make fire 

management decisions that 

minimize the negative 

impacts of wildfires on highvalued resources and 

assets. This alternative 

emphasizes the use of 

prescribed fire and limits 

mechanical treatment of 

medium and large conifers 

for vegetation management. 

This could limit the amount 

of projects and the 

enhancement of strategic fire 

management features to 

meet resource objectives. 

Same as alternative Bmodified.
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

19

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Air Quality Increases in emissions and 

other cumulative effects 

would make long-term 

attainment of emissions

goals unlikely under 

alternative A.

Restoration activities would 

increase emissions and 

affect air quality in the short 

term, but the degree of 

increase is dependent on the 

amount of treatment. In the 

long-term, restoration 

activities would reduce 

emissions from wildfires. 

Same as alternative B Same as alternative B 

except emissions, given the 

focus on managed and 

prescribed fire for 

restoration, would have the 

potential for higher expected 

short-term emissions. To the 

extent that prescribed 

burning and wildfires 

managed to meet resource 

objectives occur, a reduction 

in wildfire smoke would 

make long-term attainment 

of visibility goals more likely 

than under alternative A but 

less likely than under 

alternatives B-modified, B 

and D.

Same as alternative B 

except, given the highest 

pace and scale of restoration 

activity, in the long-term 

alternative D has the 

greatest potential to reduce 

emissions from wildfires. The 

restoration treatments would 

result in the greatest 

reduction in wildfire 

emissions. This alternative 

has the greatest likelihood of 

long-term attainment of 

visibility.

Terrestrial 

Ecosystems 

Sierra Nevada 

zones and 

habitats

Fewer opportunities for 

restoration including use of 

wildfire to achieve resource 

objectives results in slower 

return to desired conditions 

than in the plan revision 

alternatives. 

Somewhat higher restoration 

rates across larger 

landscapes primarily through 

increased use of wildfire to 

meet resource objectives. 

Results in better adaptive 

capacity, but large highintensity fire is likely to 

continue. There will be 

moderated effects in treated 

landscapes.

Same as alternative B Increased emphasis on 

prescribed fire and wildfire 

managed for resource 

objectives, which may result 

in increased restoration. 

Because of lower level of 

mechanical treatment in 

these habitat types, there 

may be fewer opportunities 

to manage wildfire for 

resource objectives. 

Similar to alternative B 

except with greater rates of 

restoration toward desired 

conditions in vegetation 

structure and composition.
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

20

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Terrestrial 

Ecosystems 

Great Basin 

zones and 

habitats

Lower rates of restoration 

than the plan revision 

alternatives and slower to 

achieve desired conditions 

across these habitat types.

Increased rates of treatment 

compared to the current plan 

would move these habitat 

types toward desired 

conditions across the 

landscape. Main effects 

would be to achieve less 

dense and more 

heterogeneous structure, 

and reduce nonnative 

invasive plants. These 

changes would increase the 

resilience to drought, insects 

and pathogens, climate 

change, and fire.

Same as alternative B There would be greater 

mechanical restoration 

treatment rates in sagebrush 

than in alternative B and Bmodified. Great Basin 

habitats other than 

sagebrush would only have 

slightly more restoration than 

in the current plan and would 

be slower to reach desired 

conditions.

Given the higher pace and 

scale of restoration, this 

alternative would be 

expected to move the 

greatest amount of 

sagebrush shrublands 

toward the desired 

conditions, especially in 

areas of sage-grouse 

habitat. Other Great Basin 

habitats, like pinyon-juniper, 

would progress toward 

desired conditions at a 

slightly higher rate than 

under alternative B.

Terrestrial 

Ecosystems 

Landscape 

connectivity

Provides low to moderate

connectivity for forestassociated and other wildlife 

species under both shortand long-term horizons. 

Alternative A promotes lower

restoration treatment rates 

and lacks some 

management approaches 

that are specifically focused 

on habitat linkage and 

dispersal corridor areas. 

Provides for moderate levels 

of short- and long-term 

habitat connectivity, 

especially for forestassociated species such as 

marten. Includes a greater 

number of management 

approaches focused on 

maintaining habitat linkages

than alternative A.

Same as alternative B Provides the greatest shortterm connectivity but at the 

cost of higher exposure or 

sensitivity to 

uncharacteristically severe 

fire, climate change, and 

other stressors that reduce 

long-term habitat 

connectivity. 

Supports somewhat greater 

long-term habitat 

connectivity than alternative 

B, but at the cost of 

significantly reduced shortterm habitat connectivity 

resulting from elevated 

mechanical and prescribed 

fire treatment rates in the 

next 10 to 20 years.
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

21

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Terrestrial 

Ecosystems 

Old forest

Same as alternative B 

except there would be 

slightly lower levels of 

benefit from restoration 

because treatments would 

be less intense and less 

extensive. 

There would be slightly more 

old forests restored to

desired tree densities, 

heterogeneity, tree canopy 

cover, fire regime integrity, 

and fire as an ecosystem 

process. This would restore 

old forests toward conditions 

reflecting the natural range 

of variation. In treated areas, 

large, old trees would have

substantially increased 

resilience to moisture stress, 

drought, insects and 

pathogens, ozone, and 

large, high-intensity fires.

There would also be reduced

vulnerability to future 

drought, insect, and 

pathogen-related large tree 

mortality because the 

greatest intensity of forest

thinning across large areas 

and greater levels of fire 

restoration would occur.

Same as alternative B Same as alternative B 

except there would be 

slightly lower levels of 

benefit from restoration 

because treatments would 

be less intense and less 

extensive. 

Same as alternative B 

except there would be 

somewhat higher restoration 

treatment rates and 

associated expected benefits 

to old forest structure and 

resilience.

Terrestrial 

Ecosystems 

Complex early 

seral forest

There is a low to moderate

increase in complex early 

seral forest in alternative A. 

The proportion of complex 

early seral forest will be 

slightly higher than the 

natural range of variation.

There is a moderate

increase in complex early 

seral forest that is greater 

than alternative A but less 

than alternative C. Specific 

plan components in 

alternative B provide for 

greater protection of 

complex early seral forest. 

The proportion of complex 

early seral forest will be 

more similar to natural range 

of variation than alternative 

A. 

Same as alternative B The increase in complex 

early seral forest would be 

the highest in alternative C. 

The proportion of complex 

early seral forest may be 

within or exceed the natural 

range of variation in some 

forest landscapes.

Same as alternative B
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

22

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Aquatic and 

Riparian 

Ecosystems

Management direction does 

not explicitly address climate 

change. Riparian 

conservation areas provide 

ecological connectivity 

across larger landscapes.

Proposes the fewest number 

of meadows maintained, 

enhanced or improved and 

has more restrictive

constraints on use of 

restoration tools.

There would continue to be 

limited restoration of riparian 

vegetation and limited ability 

to adequately reduce fuel 

volumes in riparian 

conservation areas. As a 

result, aquatic habitat under 

this alternative would be at a 

greater risk to degradation 

from untreated stressors and 

large-scale disturbances.

This alternative addresses

ecological connectivity, 

species diversity and 

resilience to climate change

more explicitly and includes 

direction that will help reduce 

fuel loads, restore fire, and 

manage riparian vegetation 

species composition, 

structure, and function, while 

reducing soil disturbance. 

Direction emphasizes 

desired conditions and 

management of riparian 

conservation areas to 

provide flexibility of 

management using a variety 

of tools. 

More meadows would be 

maintained, enhanced or 

improved than in alternative 

A. 

Restoration activities create 

a fire regime more aligned 

with historic patterns, thus 

improving riparian area 

resilience to fire.

Same as alternative B, but 

incorporates a larger 

landscape approach by 

using conservation 

watersheds. It replaces 17 

critical aquatic refuges 

(typically 10,000-40,000 

acres each) with four 

conservation watersheds 

(typically larger than 80,000 

acres) in areas prioritized for

conservation of at-risk 

species, their habitats, and 

headwaters providing highquality water for beneficial 

uses. 

Complementary approach 

among riparian conservation 

areas, conservation 

watersheds, and forestwide 

direction for at-risk species 

and watersheds provides 

protections and allows 

latitude and flexibility to 

increase the pace and scale 

of restoration in riparian 

areas, meadows, and 

streams. 

Alternative C adds 8 critical 

aquatic refuges. It would 

have fewer disturbances to 

the riparian conservation

areas than alternatives B 

and D with more restrictions 

on mechanical treatments 

overall.

Maintains, enhances or 

improves more meadows 

than alternative A and would 

move vegetation toward 

desired conditions and 

reduce the ingrowth of 

conifers. 

Similar to alternative B 

except that the high number 

of treatments proposed 

translates into a higher risk 

of short-term disturbance to 

aquatic species and 

temporary disturbance to 

aquatic habitat conditions 

from mechanical and 

prescribed fire treatment 

actions until the habitat 

recovers.

Water Quality 

and Quantity, 

and Watershed 

Condition 

Water quality

No change in current 

management direction and 

therefore continued trends in 

water quality are expected.

Emphasizes a long-term 

approach through increased 

pace and scale of ecological 

restoration across the 

landscape and reduces the 

overall risk of high-intensity 

wildfire. Short-term impacts 

would be similar to 

alternative A because 

riparian conservation areas 

would be carried forward and 

best management practices 

would minimize these 

impacts. 

Same as alternative B. Similar to alternative B in 

effects except alternative C 

includes more recommended 

wilderness, and therefore 

would use less mechanical 

pre-treatments. As a result, 

restoration activities may not 

be applied to the extent 

needed, which could lower 

long-term benefits to water 

quality compared to other 

action alternatives. 

Same as alternative B 

except that alternative D 

best reduces the overall risk 

of high-intensity wildfire over 

the long-term, thus 

potentially providing the 

most long-term benefits. 
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

23

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Water Quality 

and Quantity, 

and Watershed 

Condition 

Water quantity

Would likely maintain 

shallow groundwater at 

current levels if not for the 

changing climate trending 

toward warmer and drier 

conditions in the Sierra 

Nevada. Even if precipitation 

remains the same, more rain 

and less snow would reduce 

recharge and storage and 

increase runoff. Combined 

with greater 

evapotranspiration, the 

precipitation provides less 

soil moisture for healthy 

forest vegetation, soil 

infiltration, and recharging 

the shallow groundwater.

Would reduce 

evapotranspiration at a 

landscape scale and would 

likely increase the 

opportunities for infiltration 

across many watersheds. 

Same as alternative B Same as alternative A Same as alternative B

Water Quality 

and Quantity, 

and Watershed 

Condition 

Watershed 

conditions

Would take longer to restore 

the fire regime and forest 

health at a landscape level.

Alternative B would move 

the national forest towards 

desired conditions at a faster 

pace than alternatives A and 

C through restoration of fire 

regimes and improving forest 

health at a landscape level. 

Long-term water quality and 

quantity are closely linked to 

these indicators. 

Similar to alternative B. In 

addition, conservation 

watersheds represent a 

long-term prioritization for 

maintenance and restoration 

of watersheds and 

particularly focus on aquatic 

resources and water quality. 

This alternative will maintain 

and in some cases improve 

the functional rating of some 

Watershed Condition 

Framework indicators such 

as but not limited to, fire 

regime, wildfire, water 

quality, and riparian/aquatic 

habitat over the long term. 

Restoration of fire regimes 

and restoring forest health at 

a landscape level would be 

achieved at a faster pace 

than alternatives A or C.

Same as alternative B but 

would take longer than to 

restore fire regime and forest 

health at a landscape level.

Alternative D restoration 

treatments would provide 

benefits to maintaining water 

and soil quality and 

watershed condition over the 

long term as compared to 

the other alternatives. 

Alternative D would increase 

the pace and scale of acres 

of riparian vegetation 

improved and meadows 

restored compared to 

alternative A. The pace and 

scale is similar to 

alternatives B and Bmodified for restoration of 

fire regimes and restoring 

forest health. 
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

24

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Wildlife, Fish 

and Plants 

At-risk terrestrial 

species

Continues to manage 

federally listed species 

through project-level 

consultation and 

consideration of recovery 

actions in approved recovery 

plans.

Manages for Regional 

Forester sensitive species 

through project-level design 

and analysis of 

consequences.

Continues to manage limited 

amounts of sagebrush 

habitats for sage-grouse 

through project level actions 

identified in the Bi-State 

Action Plan.

Has the most limited ability 

to mitigate the continuing 

increase in large, highintensity wildfires and build 

adaptive capacity of 

ecosystems to climate 

change. Therefore, presents 

a greater risk to the quantity 

and condition of habitat to 

contribute to the recovery of 

threatened and endangered 

species, conservation of 

proposed species, and 

support the persistence of 

species of conservation 

concern.

Stronger emphasis on 

coordination with U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and CA 

Dept. of Fish and Wildlife for 

species protection and 

recovery than alternative A. 

Stronger protection for Sierra 

Nevada bighorn sheep 

reduces risk of disease 

transmission.

Manages for species of 

conservation concern 

through combination of 

ecosystem and some 

species-specific plan 

components to provide 

ecological conditions and 

reduce impacts from threats. 

More sagebrush habitats 

improved for sage-grouse 

than alternative A.

Alternative B is designed to 

achieve desired conditions in 

less time than alternative C 

by focusing on restoring 

large landscapes using a 

variety of tools, decreasing

crown fire and moving highseverity fire effects toward 

natural range of variation. 

The treatment pace and 

scale is expected to move 

the landscape to moderate 

fire resilience within the first 

10 years of plan adoption. 

Alternative B provides a 

more cautious approach 

than alternative D by 

tempering the pace of 

restoration. Habitat for these 

species would continue to be 

at risk due to large, highintensity wildfires.

Effects similar to alternative 

B for federally listed species. 

Consequences for species of 

conservation concern similar 

to alternative B. 

Emphasis on sagebrush 

restoration similar to 

alternative B, but strategic 

fire management zones 

changed to recognize 

foothills sagebrush as 

general wildfire protection 

zone where most fires will be 

suppressed to protect 

sagebrush habitats.

Similar to alternative B in the 

pace and scale to restore 

resilience at a large 

landscape scale. 

Effects similar to alternative 

B for federally-listed species.

Substantially increases the 

amount of sagebrush 

restoration, but some 

mechanical restoration may 

be slightly more difficult to 

implement with new 

recommended wilderness in 

the Glass Mountains. 

Direction allows some nonconforming uses for 

restoration to be allowed in 

recommended wilderness.

Similar to alternative A in the 

limited ability to mitigate the 

continuing increase in large, 

high-intensity wildfires and 

build adaptive capacity of 

ecosystems to climate 

change. Alternative C is 

better than alternative A at 

addressing climate change.

Effects similar to alternative 

B for federally-listed species.

Amount of sagebrush 

restoration for sage-grouse 

the same as alternative C 

but not as restricted using 

mechanical treatments in the 

habitats near the Glass 

Mountains.

Similar to alternative B 

except that the pace and 

scale of restoration proposed 

under alternative D is 

expected to more quickly 

achieve resilience of the 

landscape to large-scale 

disturbances (such as insect 

outbreaks, high-severity 

wildfire effects, and droughtrelated tree mortality), 

thereby providing a greater 

long term benefit to 

terrestrial wildlife habitat 

quantity and condition. 

However the management 

approach has greater 

potential for short-term 

impacts to achieve improved 

habitat condition.
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

25

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Wildlife, Fish 

and Plants 

At-risk aquatic 

species

Limited implementation of 

restoration is expected to 

leave many areas containing 

native at-risk aquatic species 

vulnerable to impacts like 

sedimentation from large 

uncharacteristic fires. 

Expanded direction related 

to invasive species should 

benefit aquatic species 

across all plan revision 

alternatives. 

While the negative effects of 

large-scale wildfires are 

expected to be significantly 

reduced, the increased pace 

of treatments translates into 

a higher risk of short-term 

disturbance to aquatic 

species and habitat 

conditions from mechanical 

and prescribed fire treatment 

actions until the habitat 

recovers. In the long term, 

the direction is expected to 

improve the resilience of the 

overall landscape to wildfire, 

result in more long-term 

beneficial effects to aquatic 

species, and better promote 

the long-term sustainability 

of aquatic habitats and 

greater ability of these 

habitats to adapt to climate 

change.

The emphasis in this 

alternative is building larger 

landscape-scale resilience to 

unpredictable events, to help 

species adapt. Connectivity 

in this and all alternatives is 

achieved through riparian 

conservation areas, and in 

this alternative through 

conservation watersheds 

provides increased upland 

connectivity for species.

Additional direction to 

provide for at-risk species 

has been added where 

needed to complement the 

landscape scale approach. 

Direction focuses on 

restoration aimed to maintain 

or improve connectivity and 

refugia.

The additional critical aquatic 

refuges are intended to 

provide species protections 

but their management 

direction is restrictive, which 

could affect pace and scale 

of restoration in habitats 

important for at-risk aquatic 

species. 

The emphasis on low- and 

medium-intensity fires 

across the landscape would 

improve long-term potential 

for improved habitat for 

aquatic species. Short-term 

impacts from mechanized 

treatments from grounddisturbing activities would be 

likely on the aquatic systems 

but it is expected there 

would be long-term benefits 

to these habitats.
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

26

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Wildlife, Fish 

and Plants 

At-risk plant 

species

The current forest plan for 

the Inyo National Forest 

does not include direction 

calling for the development 

of a whitebark pine 

conservation and restoration 

strategy. Inyo manages for 

whitebark pine as a sensitive 

species. Provides the 

necessary ecological 

conditions to maintain viable 

populations of plant species 

of conservation concern by 

relying primarily on projectlevel surveys and mitigations 

of adverse effects.

Restoration activities aimed 

at maintaining a viable 

population of whitebark pine 

would provide for the 

persistence of that species. 

Species monitoring from the 

regional ecology program 

would assist with developing 

management strategies. 

Alternative B would have 

more beneficial short- and 

long-term effects for 

whitebark pine than 

alternative A, due to the 

emphasis on forest 

restoration. 

Provides long-term benefits 

to plant species of 

conservation concern habitat 

extent and quality, resulting 

from ecological and 

hydrologic restoration, 

invasive species control, 

recommendation of 

wilderness that would protect 

some species of 

conservation concern plants, 

and from the emphasis on 

ecosystem resilience to 

climate change. Would also 

provide for persistence of 

plant species of conservation 

concern that occur in special 

habitats and address 

identified threats to special 

habitats. 

Similar direction to 

alternative B (very minor 

editorial changes). 

Restoration effects are 

similar to alternative B.

Some potential for more 

impacts in destination 

recreation areas but design 

of projects still emphasizing 

conservation of species.

Same as B-modified. Same as B-modified 
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

27

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Sustainable 

Recreation 

Recreation 

development 

and visitor use

Does not provide an 

integrated and adaptive 

approach to managing and 

operating sustainable 

recreation facilities, 

protecting sensitive 

resources or managing 

visitor use. Potential 

negative impacts to visitor 

expectations and 

experiences would be the 

highest without responding 

to visitor conflict, crowding, 

or changing uses.

Increased restoration 

activities means all plan 

revision alternatives provide

greater potential to improve 

long-term sustainability of 

recreational opportunities 

and settings (even with 

short-term impacts). This 

alternative more effectively 

addresses recreation 

development than alternative 

A, but does not provide 

specific direction for an 

integrated and adaptive 

approach. Visitor use will 

continue to increase and 

because direction is based 

on recreation opportunity 

spectrum alone, but 

approach would be less 

adaptive. Visitor experiences 

and expectations could be 

negatively impacted without 

specific direction that 

prioritizes where staff 

manages visitor use and 

facilities. 

Designation of Sustainable 

Recreation Zones provides 

direction to effectively 

manage recreation 

development in a changing 

environment. It recognizes 

there will be new and 

changing uses; and it uses 

an adaptive and integrated 

approach to designing and 

managing recreation 

infrastructure while 

protecting resources. 

Sustainable Recreation 

Zones provide the most

benefits to managing visitor 

use and ensuring quality

visitor experiences and 

expectations would be met 

while protecting natural and 

cultural resources. Visitor 

use would be managed 

adaptively to prevent 

impacts to other resources.

Same as alternative B Same as alternatives B and 

C 
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

28

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Recommended 

Wilderness 

Potential effects 

on recreation 

settings and 

opportunities, 

access, and 

recreation 

management

No impact to existing 

motorized or mechanized 

(mountain bike) 

opportunities; however, 

without new wilderness 

recommendations, there 

would not be additional longterm social or ecological 

benefits derived 

recommendations, and no 

increase in wilderness 

recreation opportunities for 

nonmotorized users. 

No impact to existing 

motorized or mechanized 

(mountain bike) 

opportunities; however, 

wilderness additions would 

limit future development of 

mountain bike and offhighway vehicle 

opportunities. There would 

be expanded wilderness 

recreation opportunities for 

nonmotorized users seeking 

backcountry day-use and 

overnight opportunities. 

Same as alternative B The most beneficial to 

nonmotorized recreation 

opportunity settings. Some 

existing mountain bike use 

would be affected where 

recommended wilderness 

areas include existing 

mechanized trails. Would 

have greatest impact to 

limiting future development 

of mountain bike and offhighway vehicle 

opportunities. 

The trade-off to the 

increased pace and scale of 

restoration activities is that 

there would not be additional 

long-term social and 

ecological benefits in the 

absence of recommending 

new wilderness areas. 

These lands could be 

susceptible to uses that 

would be incompatible with 

wilderness designation if 

kept in the existing 

management status, even 

though currently managed 

as inventoried roadless 

areas.

Recommended 

Wilderness 

Potential effects 

on vegetation, 

fire, wildlife 

habitat, and 

watershed 

management

A full suite of management 

tools would be available to 

conduct fuels, fire 

management, and 

restoration activities; 

however, without

recommending wilderness 

areas, there would not be 

additional social and 

ecological benefits.

Large-scale fuels treatments 

and restoration activities 

would be more limited in 

areas recommended for 

wilderness; however, the 

ecological and social 

benefits of adding adjacent 

wilderness areas would 

outweigh the management 

challenges of conducting 

fuels and vegetation 

management activities. The 

impacts of managing sagegrouse habitat on wilderness 

character would be minimal 

given the small amount of 

habitat inside the wilderness 

addition.

Similar to alternative B, 

except there would be 

beneficial effects to 

Cottonwood-Crooked Creek 

Headwaters Conservation 

Watershed in the proposed 

White Mtn. east and west 

additions. Future 

development would be 

prohibited, which would 

maintain the watershed 

condition rating of relevant 

indicators. 

The challenges of managing 

habitat for sage-grouse and 

conducting other restoration 

activities would outweigh the 

potential ecological benefits 

in this alternative due to the 

large amount of 

recommended wilderness 

acres recommended. A lack 

of restoration activities due 

to these management 

challenges could ultimately 

put resources at risk within 

recommended wilderness. 

A full suite of management 

tools would be available to 

conduct fuels, fire 

management, and 

restoration activities at an 

increased pace and scale; 

however, there would not be 

additional ecological or 

social benefits derived from 

recommending wilderness 

areas. 
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

29

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Recommended 

Wilderness 

Potential effects 

on other uses 

No adverse impacts would 

occur since no wilderness 

would be recommended.

No adverse impacts to water 

rights, water uses, grazing, 

Tribal uses, or mining claims 

since these uses would be 

allowed to continue in 

recommended wilderness. 

The tradeoff would be that 

wilderness recommendation

could increase the cost and 

complexity of maintaining 

facilities or uses because of 

the need to use 

nonmotorized access and 

nonmechanized means of 

maintenance. As a result, 

the annual operating costs 

for these uses would have 

the potential to increase. The 

extent of potential cost 

increases is uncertain at 

programmatic level. 

Management of 

recommended wilderness 

would prohibit access by 

motorized vehicle and 

mechanized equipment for 

maintenance of stock water 

developments, salt 

placement and potentially 

restrict installation of new 

range improvements (water 

troughs) and could increase 

costs for ranchers.

Same as alternative B Same as alternative B, but 

annual operating costs 

would have the potential to 

increase to the greatest 

extent under alternative C 

due to greater amounts of 

recommended wilderness.

The extent of potential cost 

increases is uncertain at 

programmatic level. 

Same as alternative A
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

30

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Recommended 

Wilderness 

Wilderness 

character

No impacts since no new 

wilderness recommended

The impacts of managing 

sage-grouse habitat on 

wilderness character would 

be minimal given the small 

amount of habitat inside the 

addition.

Same as alternative B Would likely be impacts to 

wilderness character from 

restoration activities required 

to adequately maintain sagegrouse habitat and conduct 

other restoration activities, 

which would likely impact the 

untrammeled quality of 

wilderness character

because conifer removal and 

prescribed fire activities 

would be evident, at least for 

short-term periods. 

No impacts since no new 

wilderness recommended

Pacific Crest 

National Scenic 

Trail Corridor 

No changes Provides protection for the 

resources, qualities, values, 

and associated settings and 

primary uses of the Pacific 

Crest National Scenic Trail. 

No system roads or trails are 

proposed to be closed or 

changed in management or 

use on trail related to the 

Pacific Crest Trail Corridor. 

Since there are no existing 

permits for recreation events 

on the Pacific Crest Trail, 

there would be no 

displacement of permittees. 

The prohibition of new 

events would decrease the 

potential for displacement of 

and conflict with the primary 

Pacific Crest Trail users, 

hikers (including individual 

trail runners) and 

equestrians. Three miles of 

the Pacific Crest Trail

outside of wilderness would 

be closed to recreation 

events. Recreation events 

could occur on the remaining 

587 miles of trails outside of 

wilderness on the Inyo.

Same as alternative B Same as alternative B but 

given the number of acres in 

the management area, 

provides the most protection 

for the resources, qualities, 

values, and associated 

settings and primary uses of 

the Pacific Crest National 

Scenic Trail. 

Same as alternative B
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

31

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Forest Products Would continue 

management at current 

levels of mechanical 

treatments, with limited 

improvements in forest 

health and resilience to 

disturbance agents and 

climate change at the project 

(stand) level. Landscape 

resilience would continue to 

decline.

Could potentially increase 

pace and scale of 

mechanical treatments from 

the existing conditions, 

incrementally improving 

forest health and resilience 

to disturbance agents and 

climate change. Would 

increase fuelwood 

availability.

Same as alternative B Would decrease the pace 

and scale of mechanical 

treatments from the existing 

conditions thereby 

decreasing forest products 

production; however, small 

improvements in forest 

health and resilience would 

be expected to occur in the 

short term at the project 

(stand) level, similar to 

alternative A.

Would increase pace and 

scale of mechanical 

treatments from the existing 

conditions, improving forest 

health and resilience to 

disturbance agents and 

climate change. However, 

the absence of infrastructure 

may limit achievement of 

desired objectives. Would 

increase fuelwood 

availability.

Production 

Livestock 

Grazing

Gradual improvement in 

ecological conditions in 

allotments likely to continue 

in this and the action 

alternatives based on current 

direction. 

Modernizes current direction 

and analysis procedures 

(now found as a technical 

guide outside of the plan) to 

provide modest 

improvements in riparian 

conservation areas and 

resilience to disturbance and 

climate change at the 

allotment level.

Same as alternative B Same as alternative B Updates same as alternative 

B. There would be no effects 

related to recommended 

wilderness. 

Economic 

Conditions

The continuation of current 

management activities in the 

face of current resource 

conditions (such as 

vegetation) and trends is 

expected to result in more 

disruptive events, such as 

uncharacteristic wildfire, and 

additional declines in forest 

health. This could have 

adverse short- and long-term 

effects on economic benefits 

to local communities, and 

could affect opportunities in 

terms of recreation and other 

economic benefits. 

Alternative B would have 

long-term beneficial effects 

on economic conditions in 

local communities and on 

the Inyo National Forest. In 

the short term, there is the 

potential for disruption to 

some of these benefits from 

increased activities. 

Same as alternative B Alternative C would have 

some long-term beneficial 

effects on economic 

conditions in local 

communities and on the 

Inyo’s benefits to people’s 

lives. However, there is a 

long-term loss of the 

opportunities for developing 

local biomass industries as a 

result of this alternative.

Would be similar to 

alternative B. The increased 

pace and scale of restoration 

could potentially provide 

even greater benefits; 

however, it could also lead to 

potential increases in the 

short-term adverse effects 

resulting from these 

restoration activities.
Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan

32

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B-modified Alternative C Alternative D

Social 

Conditions

Contributes to sustaining a 

diverse set of forest-related 

values in the long term, but 

is not as integrated as the 

plan revision alternatives. 

Supports a diverse set of 

forest-related values in the 

long term through increased 

ecological restoration that 

moves forest conditions 

closer to ecosystem desired 

conditions and fire-resilient 

landscapes. By moving 

toward these desired 

conditions, aesthetic, 

biodiversity, cultural, 

economic, learning, 

recreation, and well-being 

values are sustained over 

the long term.

Same as alternative B Values are more at risk to 

negative impacts over the 

long term given limited 

ecological restoration 

treatments.

Same as alternative B.