ALTERNATIVE D – MULTIPLE ACTION

[click here for a menu of this chapter]

Biological Environment

Vegetation and Fire Ecology

Potential for Impacts from Catastrophic Fire

Among the action alternatives, this alternative would accomplish more fuel reduction than the passive action alternative and less then the aggressive alternative.  This Multiple Action Alternative proposes moderate increases in the use of prescribed fire and managed wildland fire and use of all of the fire and fuel reduction techniques described (Chapter 2, table 2.6) to accomplish wildland/urban interface work.  It would restore ecosystems in 15 to 20 years and provide protection for the wildland/urban interface in 6 to 8 years.  This longer time frame indicates that the risk for catastrophic fire would remain high for longer than under the Aggressive Action Alternative, but not as long as under the No Action or Passive Action Alternative. 

The impacts would be the same as the Alternative B, except in lower montane forests.  In all action alternatives these forests would have the largest acreage targeted for prescribed fire.  The relatively short fire return intervals found in lower montane forests, combined with existing moderate to high departure from normal fire return interval and the length of time it will take to restore the fire regime under this alternative, creates the conditions for increases in the departure from the natural fire regime during most of the restoration period.  The time frame for restoration is within the range of the fire return intervals for all but three vegetation types: ponderosa pine/mixed conifer, ponderosa pine/bear clover forests, and dry montane meadows.  These areas would need to be specifically targeted for treatments.  If not, the FRID would continue to increase and the potential for catastrophic fire and type conversion would remain high.  The potential for catastrophic wildland fire would only decrease in direct proportion to the amount of burning in these three vegetation types.  Overall, the impact would be beneficial, long-term, and minor to moderate, which is an improvement over the adverse effects of Alternative A. 

Fire Management Treatments

The Multiple-Action Alternative would utilize managed wildland and prescribed fire and, in some areas, the full array of site preparation and fuel reduction techniques described in Chapter 2.  For each area, the preferred treatment would cause the least impact while allowing the objectives (safety, level of protection, time, target conditions) of the area’s implementation plan to be met.  Within the wildland/urban interface areas and along road and utility corridors mechanical tree removal equipment would be used, however, if the objectives could be met using another, less invasive technique, that technique would be seriously considered. 

Managed Wildland Fire

Impacts to each vegetation group would be the same as under Alternative B.  Maximum use of managed wildland fire to maintain vegetation in its appropriate fire regime would be a major goal in the Fire Use Unit. 

Re-ignition clause.  Same as under Alternative B—beneficial, long-term, and moderate to major. 

Holding Action and Monitoring Effects (water and retardant drops, helispots, and spike camps).  Same as under Alternative B—adverse, short-term, and negligible to minor.

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire would typically be used in the restoration of areas where the fire return interval is three or more fires out of cycle, or to maintain target conditions in areas within the Suppression Unit or similar areas of the Fire Use Unit.  The total acreage in prescribed fire units would be the same as in Alternative B, Aggressive Action, but the number of acres burned annually would be less, but still more than under Alternative A or C.

Subalpine Forests.  In all alternatives, less than 1% of subalpine forests would be in prescribed fire units.  The impacts of prescribed fire would be expected to be the same as under Alternative A—beneficial, short-term, and minor. 

Upper Montane Forests.  Less than 20% of upper montane forests would be in prescribed fire units in Alternative D.  However, it is twice the acreage as is in prescribed units under Alternative A.  The impact of prescribed fire in these forests would be expected to be the same as under Alternative A, although the larger acreage would decrease the chance of catastrophic fire.  Due to the longer fire return intervals in this vegetation group, the longer time frame for restoration would have a negligible effect.  Impacts of prescribed fire on upper montane forests would be the same as under Alternative B—beneficial, long-term, and moderate.

Lower Montane Forests.  These forests are a primary focus of the prescribed fire program.  The acreage to be restored would remain the same as in Alternative B, but fewer acres would be treated per year.  The relatively short fire return intervals, combined with the present moderate to high departure from normal fire return interval, would mean that during most of the restoration period, these forests would continue to increase in departure from normal fire regime.  The potential for catastrophic wildland fire would decrease in proportion to the amount and location of work performed in these lower montane forests.  It would be enhanced by strategic placement of the first few years of prescribed burning.  By providing breaks in the canopy and reduced surface fuels in the right areas, additional protection would be provided for forests and developed areas, especially against spread of high-intensity fire.  The impact of prescribed burns in these forests would be expected to be the same as under Alternative A, No Action.  Under this alternative, the effect of prescribed fire on lower montane forests would be beneficial, long-term, and minor to moderate.  Because of the increase in area treated, this would be an increase in intensity, compared to Alternative A. 

Meadows.  Meadows have the shortest fire return intervals of all vegetation types described for the park.  Short fire return intervals found in this group, combined with their moderate to high departure from normal fire return interval, would suggest that during most of the restoration period, the meadows would continue to increase in departure from normal fire return intervals.  Many of the meadows are included in the multi-year plan and more would be treated with maximum use of managed wildland fire.  The acreage to be restored would remain the same as in Alternative B, Aggressive Action, but fewer acres would be treated per year.  The effects of prescribed fire would be expected to be the same as under Alternative A.  Overall, the effect of Multiple Action would be beneficial, long-term, and minor to moderate.  The increase in acreage and the amount of time used to achieve restoration objectives would have benefits that would last longer and cause substantial change in community structure, composition, or fuels, compared to Alternative A.

Foothill Woodlands.  More than 75% of foothill woodlands would occur in prescribed fire units under Passive Action, the same amount as under Alternative B, Aggressive Action.  This would be nearly four times the acreage in prescribed fire units as under Alternative A.  Fire effects would be expected to be the same as under Alternative A.  Overall, the effects of Multiple Action would be the same as under Aggressive Action.  The impacts of prescribed fire in foothill woodlands would be beneficial, long-term, and major.  The increase in benefit intensity, compared to Alternative A, would be due to the increase in the amount of work and the time frame for achieving restoration.

Site Preparation Associated with Managed Wildland Fire and Prescribed Fire (hand line, snagging, mop-up)

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A—adverse, short-term, and minor. 

Fuel Reduction by Hand or Machine

Effects of Reducing or Removing Biomass from Sites

While the removal of cut trees and shrubs from treated sites can reduce the intensity of future fires, it can have other effects on ecosystems, such as a loss of nitrogen and other vital plant nutrients.  Table 4.9 under Alternative B presents a comparison of methods used to remove cut trees and shrubs and a qualitative analysis of the movement and availability of nitrogen and other nutrients.

Aggressive Reduction Techniques

Mechanical Tree and Shrub Removal.  These activities would occur primarily around the wildland/urban interface, along road and utility corridors, and in areas where plant community structure has been altered by years of fire exclusion and communities are at risk from catastrophic fire.  Less than 1% of the park or 7,664 acres is within wildland/urban interface boundaries, of this approximately 1,100 acres would be treated with various fuel reduction techniques each year.  These activities usually would be followed by prescribed fire (effects discussed above).  To restore plant community structure to within its natural range of variability, mechanical means (i.e.  feller-bunchers) would be used.  Only lower montane forest and meadows would be treated in large enough areas to have more than a local effect.  Less than 5% of lower montane forest and less than 20% of meadows would be targeted for this treatment in Alternative D. 

Effects of biomass removal would include the potential for trampling and burial of sensitive plants, disturbing sensitive ecosystems (e.g.  riparian areas), the appearance of cut stumps, and the loss of fuel ladders (see also table 4.9).  All of these impacts would be mitigated through project planning and coordination with resource management staff.  Surface and soil disturbance and compaction would also be caused by tracked vehicles and cutting, dragging, or crushing materials (depending on the treatment used).  This disturbance would provide potential sites for invasion of non-native species. 

Trees up to 31.5” dbh (diameter breast height) would be removed according to the structural target conditions for density and frequency, by vegetation type (see table 2.3).  This would alter tree density and canopy cover in the areas of treatment.  Canopy cover reduction should change fire behavior so that a fire would be more likely to move on the ground rather than to move in the canopy (crown fire).  This treatment would not reduce the surface fuel load, which can be greater than half the total down and dead fuel load on a site.  In fact, it would actually increase the surface fuel load until the area was broadcast burned.  The intensity of fires would be greater due to this loading of fuels.  Overall, the adverse effects of biomass removal by mechanical means would be short-term and minor to moderate.  Long-term impacts would be beneficial and negligible to moderate, due to the lower potential for catastrophic fire in treated areas. 

Conventional Tree and Shrub Removal.  Under the Multiple Action alternative, skidders and grapplers would be used.  Surface and soil disturbance and compaction would be associated with the use of wheeled and/or tracked vehicles and dragging materials.  This would provide potential sites for the invasion of non-native species.  Skidding would be used in some locations.  Mitigation would include running the equipment over snow and restricting equipment use to certain areas and paths.  Overall, the effect of skidding and grappling would be adverse, short to long-term, and minor to moderate, depending on the intensity of treatment.

Passive Reduction and Lower Profile Techniques.

Low-Impact Skidding.  In Alternative D, this treatment would be relied upon in areas where it would be effective in restoring target conditions, areas in the wildland/urban interface needing carefully managed fuel reduction treatment such as within populations of non-native, noxious weed species.  This technique would also be used where this equipment would be successful in removing downed trees.  Draft animals and four wheel, all-terrain vehicles would be used, in combination with fetching arches, to skid trees of approximately 10 to 20” dbh.  This treatment would cause localized compaction and scarification of the upper duff and topsoil layers, less than would occur with tracked vehicles; knobby tires and the feet of draft animals would have negligible to minor local effects on topsoil and duff layers.  The most significant effect would be from dragging one end of the tree.  Skid paths would create potential sites for invasion of non-native species, however fetching arches would mitigate soil disturbance.  The extent of skidding would be apparent, but not so great as to result in changes in plant community structure.  Species composition might be affected, through invasion of non-natives, if site rehabilitation is not completed and monitored.  With rehabilitation and follow up monitoring or removal of non-natives, effects should be minor.  Other mitigation, when needed, could include skidding over snow, frozen soil, or a bed of crushed vegetation, as with heavier equipment.  Many areas would be burned subsequent to fuel reduction.  Most projects would be relatively extensive, thus effects of use would be adverse, minor, and short-term.  Note that when used in combination with heavier equipment, it should be possible to use this treatment to achieve restoration target conditions. 

Hand Cutting.  Types of effects would be the same as under Alternative A, but this activity would not be the predominant ones for restoring plant community structure in this alternative.  This work is labor intensive, which would limit the amount of cutting that could be accomplished each year.  In the wildland/urban interface, fuels would be reduced on 1,095 acres annually.  Hand-cutting work would focus on removing small diameter trees and ladder fuels which would help to reduce the risk of high-intensity fire and stand-replacing events.  .  Combining machine thinning with hand cutting would lengthen the time needed to restore wildland/urban interface areas and reduce risks compared to Alternative B, but this would still be more restoration than would occur under Alternatives A or C.  Thus, unless hand-thinned areas are also burned, the effects of hand thinning on lower montane forests would be adverse, short-term, and minor.  If thinned areas are also broadcast burned under controlled conditions, the effects of hand thinning would be beneficial, long-term, and minor to moderate.

Pile Burning.  Same as under Aggressive Action—adverse, short-term, and negligible to minor. 

Chipping.  Effects would be similar to those described under Alternative B.  Overall, the impacts of chipping on vegetation would depend on whether chips were broadcast or removed from the site.  If chips were broadcast, the impacts would be adverse, short-term, and negligible to minor, depending on the area treated.  If chips were removed, the impacts on vegetation would be adverse, short-term, and negligible.  Careful project planning and coordination with resource management staff would occur prior to project implementation, to select the appropriate treatment. 

Girdling.  The impact of girdling, to kill individual trees and create wildlife habitat, would be adverse, short-term, and negligible to minor.

Helibase Upgrades

Same as Alternative B

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects effecting vegetation at Yosemite National Park would be the same as discussed under Alternative A.  The overall effect of past activities on vegetative structure and composition and on fuel loads have been adverse, long-term, and major.  Present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would have a beneficial, long-term, and minor to moderate effect on vegetation.  When considered in combination with the minor to moderately beneficial impacts of projects on other lands in the area, the cumulative impacts of Alternative D would be beneficial, long-term, and moderate.

Conclusion

The effects of this alternative would be similar to Alternative B, Aggressive Action, but would include aspects of the approach taken under Alternative C, Passive Action.  In aggregate, the actions of Multiple Action would have beneficial, long-term and moderate to major effects.  Although the time required to restore park ecosystems (15 to 20 years) and to reduce risks in and restore wildland/urban interface (6 to 8 years) would be longer than in Aggressive Action.  The time frame for restoration is with in the normal range of fire return intervals for all but three vegetation types (ponderosa pine/mixed-conifer forest, ponderosa pine/bear clover forest, and dry montane meadows).  This will significantly reduce the threat of large, high-intensity wildfire in all areas of the park over time.  This would reduce the potential for type conversion of vegetation outside of the natural range of variability.  Effects would revert from adverse to beneficial, compared with Alternative A.  Large, high-severity fires would likely occur during the life of the plan, but the size and extent of the fires would be reduced when compared with Alternative A.  There would be no impairment from the effects of this alternative.

The Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias is one of the resources specifically identified in the enabling legislation for Yosemite National Park.  If catastrophic fire were to eliminate or severely damage this grove, the impact would be impairment. 

Wetlands

Potential for Impacts from Catastrophic Fire

Alternative D would likely result in significant amounts of change over a moderate period of time.  Effective implementation of this alternative would not eliminate the potential for catastrophic fire, but would significantly reduce the likelihood of fire events outside the range of tolerance for wetlands and associated species.  This reduction in the potential for large or unusually intense fires would result in moderate to major ecological benefits for park wetlands. 

Fire Management Treatments

Managed Wildland Fire

Same as Alternative A, No Action—beneficial, long-term, and moderate.

Re-ignition clause.  Same as Alternative B. 

Holding Action and Monitoring Effects (water and retardant drops, helispots, and spike camps).  Same as Alternative B—adverse, short-term, and negligible.

Prescribed Fire

Alternative D proposes a moderate to large amount of prescribed fire annually.  Selected units would target wetlands for treatment, given concerns of tree invasion or changes in species composition (Yosemite Valley, for example).  These treatments would provide significant ecological benefit.  Although specific fire return intervals for Sierra Nevada wetlands are not well defined, the amount of prescribed fire acreage proposed in this alternative would not likely generate adverse impacts.  Short-term fragmentation would be possible, but long-term benefits would also result. 

Wildland/urban interface areas, such as El Portal and Yosemite West, would likely receive mechanical pretreatment, followed by prescribed fire.  Treatments would be implemented with the intention of avoiding impacts to wetlands (see hand cutting, below).  Specific impacts of treatments would differ little from the No Action Alternative, but the intensity would be expected to increase because of the increase in the number of acres treated. 

Site Preparation Associated with Managed Wildland Fire and Prescribed Fire (hand line, snagging, mop-up)

Same as Alternative B—beneficial, minor to moderate, and short-term.

Fuel Reduction by Hand or Machine

Aggressive Reduction Techniques.  These techniques would not occur in wetlands. 

Passive Reduction and Lower Profile Techniques

Low-Impact Skidding.  These techniques would possibly be used in wetland areas.  If for some reason fallen debris needed removal from meadows, attempts to move the material would be done when the water table had dropped and the surface was dry enough to support the use of a fetching arch.  This method would mitigate the possibility of material digging into the soil surface and causing soil disturbance.  Impacts would be beneficial, short-term, and negligible. 

Hand Cutting.  Same as Alternative B—short-term, and minor to moderate. 

Pile burning.  Same as Alternative B—beneficial, short-term, and minor to moderate.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative effects to wetland and aquatic resources are based on analysis of additional wetlands activities within the Yosemite region and the potential effects of this alternative.  The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that would potentially effect local wetland patterns and large-scale or regional wetland patterns would be the same as evaluated in Alternative A.

These and park projects would result in both short-term and long-term adverse and beneficial impacts on wetlands in the areas.  Overall, these beneficial, long-term, and moderate effects for reasonably foreseeable future projects, considered in combination with the beneficial, moderate to major and long-term impacts of Alternative D would result in beneficial, moderate and long-term cumulative impacts, due to the emphasis on restoration of vegetation structure and processes through fire and the moderately aggressive approach. 

Conclusion

Alternative D would have little or no adverse impacts on wetland resources.  This moderately aggressive approach would likely generate moderate to major, long-term, and beneficial ecological benefits from the reduction of catastrophic fire threat.  The multi-strategy approach would also provide additional options for wetlands avoidance.  There would be no impairment from the effects of this alternative.

Wildlife

Potential for Impacts from Catastrophic Fire

Under Alternative D, catastrophic fire would have the same effects as described under Alternative A, but the risk of such events would be substantially reduced, because of the 15 to 20 year goal for achieving target conditions in areas that have deviated from the median fire return interval by three or more intervals.  Areas that deviate three or more intervals would be targeted for prescribed burning first, with 1,817 to 9,194 acres burned per year, depending upon the number of natural ignitions in the Fire Use Unit and the prevailing conditions that would allow prescribed or managed wildland fire.  As a result, wildlife habitat would quickly be returned to a more natural condition, and the risk of catastrophic fire, and its adverse effects on wildlife, would be greatly reduced over a relatively short period of time.  Because of this, implementation of Alternative D would result in beneficial, long-term, and major impact to wildlife and their habitat.

Fire Management Treatments

In Yosemite and in surrounding forests, many mid- to low-elevation forests are overgrown with dense shrubs and young trees because of a history of fire exclusion.  At the same time, as explained above, some areas are at high risk of unnatural high-intensity fire events.  These conditions affect the abundance and diversity of wildlife species directly by creating unfavorable habitat conditions for some species.  For example, dense understory growth may adversely affect habitat quality for California spotted owls and northern goshawks by limiting their access to prey (Weatherspoon et al. 1992, Maurer 2000, respectively).  The combination of fire and fuel reduction proposed in this alternative would result in increased habitat and species diversity as gaps would be created in continuous forest and the edge along the forest/gap interface recovered with important understory plants that had been crowded out by shade tolerant species. 

Managed Wildland Fire

Under Alternative D, the average annual number of acres burned by managed wildland fire would increase over current burning rates, in order to reach target conditions in 15 to 20 years.  Under Alternative D, managed wildland fire would be a valuable tool in restoring natural, fire-influenced wildlife habitat.  Conditions for wildland fires would vary among years, with little burning occurring in some years, and much burning occurring in others, in order to reach management goals.  In years of high wildland fire activity, large areas of habitat would likely be affected, changing their suitability for species favored under the altered forest conditions created by a history of fire suppression. 

Because natural ignitions are somewhat random events, areas burned would not be those of highest management priority (i.e., furthest from the natural fire regime).  Also, some areas would likely burn at higher than natural intensities due to current levels of fuel accumulation, even when prescriptions were designed to minimize these effects.  As a result, forest gaps and consumption of large woody debris (which provides habitat diversity), would be greater than typically found within the natural range of variation for an area.  Potentially this would adversely affect species that favor dense forests, such as hermit thrush, northern flying squirrel, and marten.  These effects would be greater under Alternative D, compared to Alternative A.  Such impacts, however, must be weighed against the benefit of reduced risk of catastrophic fire that would cause much greater detriment to the park’s wildlife habitat.  Under Alternative D, impact to wildlife of managed wildland fire would be beneficial, long-term, and major due to the restoration of wildlife habitats and reduction in the threat of catastrophic fire.  Mitigation: Use MIMT for fire management; identify sensitive wildlife resources to minimize adverse impacts.

Re-ignition.  Effects would be the same as under Alternative B.

Prescribed Fire

The use of prescribed fire provides the greatest potential for focused work to restore wildlife habitat and reduce the threat of catastrophic fire.  Areas furthest from the natural fire regime with identified threats to wildlife and habitat, can be targeted for treatment.  Fire can be planned to occur under conditions that maximize benefit to resources, including wildlife and habitat, and minimize fire-related impacts to sensitive wildlife resources (e.g., spotted owl nesting sites).

Under Alternative D, prescribed fire would be used mainly in the Suppression Unit where forests are furthest from the natural fire regime.  Much of this area is in mid-elevation mixed conifer habitat, which is among the most productive and diverse wildlife habitat in the park.  High levels of fuel loading would cause some prescribed fires to burn at higher than natural intensities, even when fire prescriptions were designed to minimize these effects.  As a result, forest gaps and consumption of large woody debris (which provide habitat diversity) would be greater than might occur under the natural range of variability.  This would adversely affect species such as hermit thrush, northern flying squirrel, and marten.  Such impacts, however, must be weighed against the benefit of reduced risk of catastrophic fire, which would be of much greater detriment to wildlife habitat.  As described in Alternative B, burning in the shoulder season would have an adverse effect on some species of wildlife that are adapted to the natural timing of fires. 

In habitats near developed areas, where protection of human-built structures and facilities is a concern, prescribed fire would be used to reduce fuel loads to the lower end of the natural variability.  If forests became more open (less understory vegetation) and contained less down wood, the effect on animal species that depend on these features, such as salamanders, small mammals, and ground-nesting birds, would be adverse.  However, overall a larger number of species would benefit from restoration of forests to a more natural condition. 

Conditions for prescribed fires would vary among years so that little burning occurs in some years, and, when conditions were favorable, many prescribed burns take place.  In years favorable to prescribed fire activity, large areas would likely be affected.  Habitat would be no longer suitable to species that favor dense forest structure but would be more suitable to species that favor open forests and more diverse habitat.  Under Alternative D, impact of prescribed fire on wildlife would be beneficial, long-term, and major due to the restoration of wildlife habitats and reduction in the threat of catastrophic fire.  Mitigation: Use MIMT for fire management; identify sensitive wildlife resources to minimize adverse impacts; where possible, limit fire size and/or burn intensity heterogeneity and maintain wildlife species diversity.

Holding Action and Monitoring Effects (water and retardant drops, helispots, and spike camps) and Site Preparation Associated with Managed Wildland Fire and Prescribed Fire (hand line, snagging, mop-up)

Actions such as hand line construction, snagging, and water drops would be employed before and during prescribed fire and during management of wildland fires.  Effects, concerns, and mitigations would be those described in Alternative A.  Some adverse effects on wildlife would occur from these actions because of the increased use of prescribed fire under this alternative.  These impacts, however, would be offset by the long-term benefits of fires on ecosystems.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative B—adverse, short-term, and minor.

Water Drops: The types of impacts associated with water drops would be the same as described under Alternative A, but the increased use of wildland fire under this alternative could increase the need for water drops.  Impacts to wildlife could therefore, be greater than under Alternative A.  Adherence to mitigation measures would limit impacts.  Actions would result in minor, adverse, long-term impacts.  Mitigation: Avoid dipping from waters known to contain mountain yellow-legged frogs; avoid dipping from shallow bodies of water.

Helispot Construction: The types of impacts associated with helispot construction would be the same as under Alternative A, but the greater use of managed wildland fire under Alternative D could result in a greater chance of impacts on wildlife through habitat destruction and direct disturbance.  Impact under this alternative would be adverse, long-term, and negligible.  Mitigation: Limit helispot construction; site helispots away from sensitive resources; use natural clearings for helispots.

Spike Camps: Under Alternative D, the types of impacts associated with the establishment and use of spike camps would be the same as under Alternative A.  The greater use of wildland fire, however, could result in more spike camps to manage and monitor fires.  Use of standard mitigation measures would result in negligible, adverse, short-term impacts to wildlife.  Mitigation: site spike camps away from sensitive resources; maintain strict control over the availability of food to wildlife at camps.

Hand Lines.  Impact from hand line construction under Alternative D would have the same types of impacts as under Alternative A, but given the greater use of prescribed fire the level of such impacts would likely be higher.  Such impacts would have to be weighed against the reduction in the risk of high-intensity fire that would be achieved under Alternative D.  This includes a likely reduction in the use of hand lines that would be necessary during suppression of unwanted wildland fires.  Impact of hand line construction under Alternative D would be adverse, short-term, and minor.  Impacts would be mitigated by use of MIMT, identification and avoidance of sensitive wildlife resources, and rehabilitation of areas disturbed by hand lines. 

Snagging.  Impacts from would be of the same type as in Alternative A.  Because of the increase amount of prescribed fire, snagging would likely increase under Alternative D.  This could have a local, adverse impact on species (i.e., bats and woodpeckers) that rely on snags.  Prescribed fire, however, is likely to generate additional snags that in time would benefit snag reliant species.  In addition, the reduction in threat from catastrophic fire from prescribed fire, would benefit a wide range of wildlife species.  Impact would be adverse, minor, and short-term, due to the increased number of snags that would be cut but the relatively small area that is likely to be affected.  Impacts would be mitigated through use of MIMT, limiting the removal of snags to those identified as a clear threat to human safety and fire line integrity, identifying and avoiding sensitive wildlife resources to the extent possible.

Mop-up.  The impacts associated with mop-up are expected to be similar to those described in Alternative A although the greater use of prescribed fire would increase the areas of impact.  The small, disperse areas that are likely to be affected would limit adverse impacts to wildlife.  Impacts would be adverse, negligible, and short-term and would be mitigated by use of MIMT and identification and avoidance of sensitive wildlife resources to the extent possible. 

Fuel Reduction by Hand or Machine

Fuel reduction under Alternative D, Multiple Action, would be a combination of techniques described in Alternatives B and C to achieve target habitat conditions in areas near the wildland/urban interface, roads, and utility corridors.  It is proposed for less than 1% of the park.  The aggressive actions of Alternative B, using heavy machinery would be used in close proximity to development, whereas, the more passive methods of Alternative C would be used further from these areas.  Treatment acres in wildland/urban interface areas would be approximately 1,095 acres per year for 6 to 8 years for a total of 7,664 acres. 

To provide protection for developed areas, prescriptions for wildland/urban interface areas close to development would produce forest habitat at the lower end of the natural range of variability (for target values for tree density and fuel loading).  This would affect the species composition of wildlife in these areas.  For example, species that depend upon habitat complexity on the forest floor and in the understory, such as marten and some small mammals, would be adversely affected.  The conditions achieved, however, would, benefit a larger number of species by restoring a forest structure that is within the range of natural variability for fire-influenced habitat.  Farther out from development, reliance primarily on hand thinning and other passive reduction techniques would maintain denser forest structure favorable to other species.

Aggressive Reduction Techniques

Effects of mechanical and conventional tree and shrub removal would be similar to that described in Alternative B, although aggressive reduction would be used in fewer areas.

Mechanical Tree and Shrub Removal.  Heavy equipment would be used where critical fuel conditions demand immediate, efficient action, and where natural resources can acceptably withstand the impacts associated with this method.  Feller-bunchers, and other tracked or wheeled vehicles in forest habitat would create ground disturbance that would affect animals that live in the forest litter, such as salamanders, reptiles, and small mammals.  Adjacent habitat would remain unaffected, allowing recolonization.  The noise of heavy machinery would cause some short-term disturbance of wildlife in treatment sites, and in adjacent areas.

Under Alternative D, biomass removal by feller-bunchers would result in minor, beneficial, long-term impact to wildlife due to the rapid return of forest structure to a more natural, open condition in the vicinity of developed areas.  These areas would be relatively small on a landscape scale, and some adverse, short-term impacts would occur from use of heavy machinery.  Mitigation: avoid use of machinery in wet areas, or during times of year when the forest floor is moist; identify sensitive wildlife resources in treatment areas and avoid impact to them; allow snag retention where possible.

Conventional Tree and Shrub Removal.  Same as Alternative B—adverse, short-term, and minor.  Mitigation: Avoid sensitive habitats, such as wetlands; identify and avoid sensitive wildlife resources.

Passive Reduction and Lower Profile Techniques.

Low-Impact Skidding.  Low-impact skidding would be used to reduce fuels in wildland/urban interface areas and corridors that would be less tolerant of heavy machinery use.  Low-impact techniques cause less ground disturbance than is associated with use of heavier equipment described above.  Under Alternative D, low-impact methods would be used in areas where there are wildlife concerns yet it is deemed beneficial to remove trees.  Fewer large trees would be removed and those trees already on the ground would be partially or completely consumed when subsequent prescribed burns were conducted.  Some drag paths would be created by low-impact skidding, but the use of fetching arches would reduce the impacts of logs being mechanically skidded across the ground.  Drag trails and other disturbance would be raked out following the work.  Few tire and track scars would be evident and the effects on small mammals and reptiles associated with the forest floor would be minor.  Given the limited scope of area that will be treated, the impacts associated with these techniques, as the forest was brought closer to natural stand structure, would be beneficial, long-term, and minor.

Hand Cutting.  Thinning of trees and other vegetation in wildland/urban interface areas and along road and utility corridors under Alternative D would be accomplished through a variety of methods, including hand cutting.  This would allow the application of hand cutting in areas where damage to the forest floor associated with use of tracked or wheeled equipment is determined to be unacceptable.  This would delay achievement of target habitat conditions in some areas, and limit the number of large trees removed.  Such management would have different effects on wildlife.  On one hand, delay in achieving target conditions would allow altered habitat conditions to continue and extend the threat of high-intensity fire in those areas.  On the other, retention of more large trees in treatment areas would keep these areas more in the middle-range of target conditions, and benefit species that prefer denser forest conditions, such as spotted owls.

Under Alternative D, the types of impacts to wildlife associated with hand cutting would be the same type as would occur under Alternative A.  Because of the use of heavy machinery in some areas it would be used to a limited extent.  Impact to wildlife from hand cutting would be beneficial, long-term, and minor, because habitat affected by fire suppression would be returned to a more natural condition, and threat of catastrophic fire would be reduced in these areas.  Mitigation: Identify and avoid sensitive wildlife resources.

Pile Burning Same as Alternative B—adverse, short-term, and negligible.  Mitigation: burn piles as soon as possible to minimize the number of animals living in them.

Chipping.  Same as Alternative B—negligible; adverse, and short-term.  Mitigation: Follow established protocols for limiting the depth of chips distributed on a site.

Girdling.  Same as Alternative B—beneficial, long-term, and minor. 

Peregrine Falcon

Same as Alternative A—adverse, short-term, and negligible

Helibase Upgrades

Same as Alternative B.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that would have the most direct relationship to Alternative D, would be the same as listed under Alternative A.  The impacts of these actions, considered in combination with the impacts of Alternative D, would result in cumulative effects on park wildlife and habitat that would be beneficial, long-term, and minor.  This is because beneficial projects would affect large areas of habitat in the central Sierra Nevada in ways that would compliment the beneficial effects of the Yosemite Fire Management Plan.  The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment would affect virtually all U.S. Forest Service land around the park by more ecosystem-based management.  In comparison, projects with adverse impacts involve small areas and/or have minor effects over larger areas.

Conclusion

Alternative D would result in major, long-term, beneficial impacts to wildlife and habitat by rapidly restoring a more natural forest structure to areas of the park that have severely deviated from a natural fire return interval.  The threat of catastrophic fire and its impacts on wildlife and habitat would be greatly and quickly reduced under this alternative.  Use of a full range of fuel-reduction techniques would allow flexibility in achieving habitat restoration goals while minimizing adverse impacts.  There would be no impairment from the effects of this alternative. 

Special-Status Species – Plants

The four California rare plant species grow within the lower montane forest and foothill woodland vegetation zones, where fires frequently occur.  These plants grow within the El Portal Administrative Site, although isolated populations of the Yosemite onion have been found within the park.  Threats to these species are from suppression-related impacts and the establishment of non-native plant species in areas that have been severely burned (Hessl and Spackman 1995).  As fire lines are tied into creek bottoms and moist areas, populations occurring in those sites may be affected.  These impacts can be mitigated by avoidance of known populations and habitats of these species.  Soil and substrate disturbance from line construction and trampling is especially harmful to perennial species—in this case Yosemite onion, Tompkin’s sedge, and Congdon’s lewisia. 

Non-native plants have become established throughout the lower elevations of Yosemite and are concentrated in areas that receive constant disturbance and/or a constant influx of seed and plant material—e.g. along transportation corridors and drainages (Gerlach et al. 2001).  As fires burn they open up habitat that may be taken over by non-native plant species.  These plants are aggressive colonizers, have a phenology different than natives, and may be favored by fire-caused changes in the soil.  Fires started in the shoulder seasons for hazard fuel reduction or other management reasons may actually exacerbate this problem, favoring non-native plants over the native suite of species.  In addition, these fires may negatively affect the rare plants themselves, which are adapted to fires occurring during the normal fire season—May through October at these elevations.  For example, Congdon’s woolly-sunflower blooms into May and sometimes into June.  Prescribed fires held earlier in the year will destroy mature plants and their potential to produce seed for the following season—thereby harming population size and viability.

Potential for Impacts from Catastrophic Fire

Wildland/urban interface fuel reduction treatments around the El Portal Administrative Site would reduce the potential for high-intensity fire in areas where the California rare plants exist, and burning for ecological restoration would reduce the potential for high-intensity fire beyond the bounds of the administrative site.  The probability of encroachment of exotic species into areas burned by catastrophic fires would be high under any of the alternatives because of the impacts on soils and understory and overstory vegetation caused by high-intensity burning.  Regardless of treatment methods, if a catastrophic fire were to occur, there would be adverse impacts from non-native species encroachment.  The probability of non-native species encroachment into sites burned by catastrophic fire would remain high, as in Alternative A, due to the impacts of high-intensity burning on soils and on understory and overstory vegetation.  However, under this alternative, the potential for catastrophic fire would be reduced, therefore the amount of non-native species encroachment would likely be less.  Compared to Alternative A, the impacts to special-status plant species would be adverse, long-term, and negligible to minor. 

Fire Management Treatments

Managed Wildland Fire

Under the Multiple Action Alternative, all of the plant special-status species described in this document would occur within the Suppression Unit, and only isolated populations of Yosemite onion would occur in the Fire Use Unit.  During fire events, input from a Resource Advisor would continue to be used to minimize or eliminate impacts to these species (see Chapter 2, Mitigation and Appendix 3).  The departure from natural fire return intervals in areas inhabited by these species would quickly approach the natural range in variability over the landscape, and there would be a reduced potential for catastrophic fire events (with associated impacts – see above).  Therefore, impacts associated with managed wildland fire to special-status species under this alternative would be the same as for Alternative B—beneficial, long-term, and minor. 

Re-ignition clause.  Re-ignition effects on special-status plants would only apply to isolated populations of Yosemite onion within the Fire Use Unit.  This species neither would benefit nor be adversely affected by re-ignition, due to its isolated locations on sparsely vegetated outcrops.  Actions during re-ignition procedures would adhere to mitigation measures and avoid these populations or habitats (see Chapter 2, Mitigation Measures).

Holding Action and Monitoring Effects (water and retardant drops, helispots, and spike camps).  These special-status species are in areas that would be minimally affected by the proposed actions.  These actions would have effects similar to Alternative A, despite increased burning and associated activities.  Mitigations would be as described in Alternative A (see also Chapter 2, Mitigation Measures).  Impacts of these actions taken in conjunction with mitigation measures would be adverse, short-term, and negligible. 

Prescribed Fire

Under the Multiple Action alternative, potential effects to special-status species through prescribed burning would increase with the creation of a larger defensible perimeter around development areas (specifically El Portal).  Species would be potentially affected by burning in the shoulder seasons and the probability of non-native species encroachment into sites burned out of season would remain high, as in Alternative A.  Appropriate mitigation measures would be developed by the park Vegetation Ecologist and Fire Ecologist.  Mitigation Measures Common to All Alternatives (Chapter 2) discusses the common practices for dealing with these situations.  Park vegetation personnel may recommend that some areas not be burned.  Impacts would be adverse, long-term, and minor to moderate.

Site Preparation Associated with Managed Wildland Fire and Prescribed Fire (hand line, snagging, mop-up)

Same as Alternative A—adverse, short-term, and negligible to minor.

Fuel Reduction by Hand or Machine

Aggressive Reduction Techniques.

Mechanical Tree and Shrub Removal.  Feller-buncher activities would not occur in the areas inhabited by special-status species, therefore there would be no effect.

Conventional Tree and Shrub Removal.  Skidding and grappling activities would not occur in the areas inhabited by special-status species, therefore there would be no effect.

Passive Reduction and Lower Profile Techniques.

Low-Impact Skidding.  Would not occur in areas inhabited by special-status plant species.

Hand Cutting.  Hand cutting actions would be likely to affect special-status plant species only within the El Portal Administrative Site.  Mitigations would remain the same as under the existing program.  Yosemite onion and Congdon’s lewisia would not be impacted by these activities due to their locations.  Both Tompkin’s sedge and Congdon’s woolly-sunflower would potentially have increased levels of impact under this alternative, due to treatments in wildland/urban interface with greater amounts of ground disturbance (through foot traffic, dragging cut materials) and subsequent changes in species composition if non-native species became established within rare plant populations.  Therefore, the impact of hand cutting (with mitigations) would be adverse, long-term, and minor.

Pile burning.  More pile burning would occur under this alternative than under Alternative A, thereby increasing the potential to affect both Tompkin’s sedge and Congdon’s woolly-sunflower, due to the location of some populations and individuals of these species.  Yosemite onion and Congdon’s lewisia would not be impacted by these activities due to their locations.  The expanded area of intensively managed vegetation surrounding El Portal would result in increased levels of disturbance in sites that currently receive no management attention.  Efforts would continue to be made to avoid individual plants and populations during planning for the activity, and piles would continue to be placed in sites that would be unlikely to support these species.  Therefore, impacts of pile burning on plant special-status species under this alternative would be minor, adverse, and potentially long-term due to the larger area of disturbance and increased potential for spread and establishment of non-native plant species.  Appropriate mitigations as described in Alternative A and Chapter 2 (Mitigation Measures) would be applied prior to execution of each project.

Chipping.  Same as Alternative B—adverse, short-term, and negligible to minor.

Girdling.  This action would not occur in the areas inhabited by special-status species, therefore there would be no effect.

Helibase Upgrades

Same as Alternative B.

Cumulative Impacts

Projects generating cumulative effects that would affect special-status plants would be the same at identified in Alternative A.  Impacts of increased mechanical treatments within known and potential habitats for plant special-status species, as well as actions associated with implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan in El Portal, would have increased impacts from non-native plant species introduction and alteration of native plant habitat.  Overall, these effects, in combination with the effects of Alternative D, would result in adverse, long-term, and minor cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion

Implementation of Alternative D, with increased mechanical thinning and removal, increased management of fuels around developed areas and increased burning would have an overall minimal effect on these species, due to their relative isolation, sparsely vegetated habitats, and occurrence beyond areas that would be managed aggressively.  The effect of Alternative D would be adverse, long-term, and minor.  There would be no impairment of the park’s resources or values. 

Special-Status Species – Animals

Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis sierrae) - Federal Endangered

Potential for Impacts from Catastrophic Fire

Same as Alternative A, No Action—beneficial, long-term, and negligible.

Fire Management Treatments

Managed Wildland Fire

Although use of wildland fire would greatly increase under Alternative D, its application on bighorn habitat would be limited since these areas are well within the natural fire return interval.  The impact would be the same as under Alternative A—beneficial, long-term, and negligible. 

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire in bighorn sheep habitat would be unlikely as explained under Alternative A.  The impact would be the same as under Alternative A—beneficial, long-term, and negligible.

Site Preparation Associated with Managed Wildland Fire and Prescribed Fire (hand line, snagging, mop-up)

Same as under Alternative A—adverse, short-term, and negligible. 

Fuel Reduction by Hand or Machine

Aggressive Reduction Techniques.  These activities not occur in bighorn sheep habitat. 

Passive Reduction Techniques.  These activities would not occur in bighorn sheep habitat.

Cumulative Impacts

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be the same as considered in Alternative A.  Impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable actions, considered in combination with the impacts of Alternative D would result in beneficial, long-term, and negligible cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion

The impact of Alternative D on Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep would be beneficial, long-term, and negligible based primarily on the continued, though rare, influence of fire on their habitat.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) – Federal Threatened

Distribution of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle in the area administered by Yosemite National Park is restricted to the El Portal Administrative Site.  The entire life cycle of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle is connected to the elderberry plant (Sambucus sp.).  Adverse effects on elderberry plants would therefore have an adverse effect on this beetle.  Current management of vegetation in El Portal follows U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines for protection of valley elderberry longhorn beetle and their host plants (USFWS 1999). 

 Potential for Impacts from Catastrophic Fire

In the chaparral and oak woodland communities where elderberry plants are found, accumulations of fuel in some areas of El Portal could lead to high-intensity fires that would have an adverse effect on valley elderberry longhorn beetles and their host plants.  Valley elderberry longhorn beetles and elderberry plants have existed under natural fire regimes for thousands of years, but fires of large extent and high intensity may result in high mortality of valley elderberry longhorn beetles and elderberry plants.  Actions taken under Alternative D with a goal to treat wildland/urban interface areas within 6 to 8 years through mechanical fuel reduction and prescribed fire would greatly reduce the chance of catastrophic fire in El Portal.  Impact of catastrophic fire would, therefore be beneficial, long-term, and moderate.

Fire Management Treatments

Managed Wildland Fire

Would not occur in valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat.  El Portal Administrative Site, where valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat occurs, is entirely within the Suppression Unit. 

Prescribed Fire

Effects of prescribed fire use, when used, would be similar to Alternative A, but under Alternative D prescribed fire use in El Portal would be greater, with a goal of achieving target conditions in all wildland/urban interface areas within 6 to 8 years.  Its effect on the valley elderberry longhorn beetle would therefore be beneficial, long-term, and moderate through the reduction in the chance of catastrophic fire and because long-term benefit to elderberry plants through regeneration and reduced fuel loads would offset the unintentional, short-term impacts from beetle mortality.  Mitigation: Follow U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines for protection of valley elderberry longhorn beetle and their host plants (e.g. see Alternative A).

Holding Action and Monitoring Effects (water and retardant drops, helispots, and spike camps) and Site Preparation Associated with Managed Wildland Fire and Prescribed Fire (hand line, snagging, mop-up)

With the greatly increased use of prescribed fires in areas of valley elderberry longhorn beetle under Alternative D, impacts associated with management of these fires is likely to increase, compared to Alternative A, No Action.  Effects of Alternative D would be the same as under Alternative B—adverse, short-term, and negligible, based upon their increased use, and therefore, greater chance of inadvertent impacts, and the application of mitigation measures in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife guidelines.

Fuel Reduction by Hand or Machine

Aggressive Reduction Techniques.

Mechanical Tree and Shrub Removal.  Heavy machinery, such as feller-bunchers would be used to achieve target conditions near developed areas but would not be used in areas inhabited by valley elderberry longhorn beetles.  Effects would be the same as under Alternative B—adverse, short-term, and minor.

Conventional Tree and Shrub Removal.  After plant and fuel removal and reduction, cut and already down materials would be removed through skidding and grappling.  Skidding would not be used in areas inhabited by valley elderberry longhorn beetles.  Effects would be the same as in Alternative B—adverse, long-term, and negligible.

Passive Reduction and Lower Profile Techniques 

Low-Impact Skidding.  Would not be used in valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat.

Hand Cutting.  Effects and mitigation would be as in Alternative B.  Overall, the reduction in fuels by hand cutting would help reduce the threat of catastrophic fire, which would help protect valley elderberry longhorn beetles and their host plants.  Impact on valley elderberry longhorn beetles would be expected to be beneficial, long-term, and moderate.

Pile Burning.  Cut materials would, in some cases, be piled and burned.  Effects would be the same as described in Alternative B—adverse, short-term, and negligible. 

Chipping.  In some cases, cut materials would be chipped, when logistical, administrative, or ecological reasons made on-site burning unsuitable.  Effects would be the same as described in Alternative B—adverse, long-term, and negligible.

Girdling.  Effects of girdling trees would be the same as under Alternative B—beneficial, long-term, and negligible. 

Cumulative Impacts

Specific past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that could adversely affect valley elderberry longhorn beetles in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would be the same as in Alternative A.  Impacts to valley elderberry longhorn beetle from present and reasonably foreseeable actions would be beneficial, long-term, and minor.  Considered in combination with the effects of Alternative D, the cumulative impacts to valley elderberry longhorn beetle would be beneficial, long-term, and minor.

Conclusion

Impact of Alternative D on valley elderberry longhorn beetles would be expected to be beneficial, long-term, and minor due primarily to the reduction in the threat of catastrophic fire through an intensive program of prescribed fire and mechanical fuels management.

California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) - Federal Threatened

California red-legged frogs have disappeared from nearly the entire Sierra Nevada, including Yosemite National Park—only two populations are known to exist in the northern Sierra.  The most significant cause of this decline is alteration and destruction of habitat from activities such as urban development, dams, sediment from roads and mines, grazing, and timber harvest (USFWS 1996).  Pesticide contamination and non-native predators have also been implicated in the frog’s demise.  Predation by bullfrogs is thought to have caused the disappearance of red-legged frogs from Yosemite, where red-legged frogs were last seen in 1984.  Recent surveys have found none (Knapp 2000).  Red-legged frog habitat was identified through wildlife habitat relationships analysis (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

Potential for Impacts from Catastrophic Fire

Same as Alternative B—beneficial, long-term, and negligible.

Fire Management Treatments

Managed Wildland Fire

Effects would be similar to those under Alternative B.  Under Alternative D, managed wildland fire would have a minor, beneficial, long-term impact on California red-legged frog habitat by helping to restore the natural structure and fuel loading in riparian areas, and quickly reducing the threat of catastrophic fire. 

Prescribed Fire

Same as Alternative B—beneficial, long-term, and minor. 

Holding Action and Monitoring Effects (water and retardant drops, helispots, and spike camps) and Site Preparation Associated with Managed Wildland Fire and Prescribed Fire (hand line, snagging, mop-up)

 Same as Alternative B—adverse, long-term, and minor.  Mitigations would be the same as under Alternative A.

Fuel Reduction by Hand or Machine

Aggressive Reduction Techniques

Mechanical Tree and Shrub Removal.  Under Alternative D, the use of feller bunchers and other heavy machinery would be the primary method for achieving target conditions in wildland/urban interface and other special treatment areas associated with development and roads through forest thinning.  The effects on red-legged frog would be the same as described in Alternative B, beneficial, long-term, and negligible.

Conventional Tree and Shrub Removal.  .  Under Alternative D, cut and down materials would be removed from some treatment sites through the use of grappling and skidding equipment.  Impact, however, would be negligible, because no red-legged frogs are known to occur in the park.  The habitat would benefit from the reduction in fuel loading and restoration of a more natural forest structure.  Impact of grappling and skidding on red-legged frogs under Alternative B would be beneficial, long-term, and negligible. 

Passive Reduction and Lower Profile Techniques.

Low-Impact Skidding.  Would not be used in red-legged frog habitat.

Hand Cutting.  Same as Alternative B—beneficial, long-term, and minor.

Chipping.  Same as Alternative B—negligible impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that would have a potential effect on red-legged frogs would be the same as in Alternative A.  Beneficial impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable projects in combination with effects of Alternative D would result in beneficial, long-term, and minor cumulative impacts, due to implementation of land management plans that would protect habitat and species conservation plans that would protect the species. 

Conclusion

Impact of Alternative D on California red-legged frogs would be beneficial, long-term, and minor, due primarily to a rapid reduction in the threat of catastrophic fire through liberal use of prescribed and wildland fires.

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - Federal Threatened

Bald eagles are rare and transient in the Yosemite area, and while they have been seen in many areas of the park, they are most frequently seen near large rivers and lakes.  Nesting by bald eagles is not known to occur in the park or El Portal.  Fish are the primary prey of bald eagles in these areas, and large trees and snags for perching are important habitat components.  Bald eagle habitat was identified through wildlife habitat relationships analysis (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

Potential for Impacts from Catastrophic Fire

Impact of Alternative D would be similar to Alternative B—beneficial, long-term, and moderate.

Fire Management Treatments

Managed Wildland Fire

Similar effects as under Alternative B.  Impact of managed wildland fire on bald eagles under Alternative D would be beneficial, long-term, and major, due to the relatively rapid rate at which the threat of catastrophic fire would be reduced.

Prescribed Fire

Same as Alternative B—beneficial, long-term, and major, due to the relatively rapid rate at which the threat of catastrophic fire would be reduced, and natural forest structure restored.

Holding Action and Monitoring Effects (water and retardant drops, helispots, and spike camps) and Site Preparation Associated with Managed Wildland Fire and Prescribed Fire (hand line, snagging, mop-up)

Same as Alternative B—adverse, short-term, and minor, primarily from actions that would potentially affect snags.

Fuel Reduction by Hand or Machine

Aggressive Reduction Techniques

Mechanical Tree and Shrub Removal.  Use of tracked tree cutting machinery, such as feller-bunchers would be the method used for forest thinning in wildland/urban interface and other special treatment areas.  Use of this technique would be restricted to areas of extreme stem density where no other tool was economically feasible.  The effects would be the same as in Alternative B—negligible, adverse, long–term.

Conventional Tree and Shrub Removal.  Impact of skidding and grappling on bald eagles under Alternative D would be the same as under Alternative B—beneficial, long-term, and negligible.

Passive Reduction and Lower Profile Techniques

Low-Impact Skidding.  Effects from low-impact skidding would be similar to Alternative C but the techniques would be used to a smaller extent in Alternative D.  Mitigations would be the same as well.  These techniques are generally quieter, less intrusive then techniques described under Aggressive Reduction, above.  Impacts associated with these techniques are minor, beneficial, and short- to long-term, if areas continue to be maintained with prescribed fire following initial thinning treatments.

 Hand Cutting.  Same as Alternative B—negligible, adverse, short-term.

Girdling.  Same as Alternative B—negligible, beneficial and long-term.

Cumulative Impacts

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would be the same as under Alternative A.  Impacts from these projects would be beneficial, long-term, and minor, based upon the continuing recovery of the species, and implementation of broad-ranging plans that would further benefit bald eagles.  Considered in combination with the effects of Alternative D, cumulative impacts would be beneficial, long-term, and moderate.

Conclusion

Alternative D would have a moderate, beneficial, long-term effect on bald eagles, primarily from a rapid reduction in the threat of catastrophic fire that exists over much of their habitat. 

Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana muscosa) - Under Review for Federal Listing

Potential for Impacts from Catastrophic Fire

Conditions would be the same as in Alternative A.  Effects would be beneficial, short-term, and negligible, due to the gradual reduction in the risk of catastrophic fire. 

Fire Management Treatments

Managed Wildland Fire

Same as Alternative B—beneficial, long-term, and minor.

Prescribed Fire

Same as Alternative B—beneficial, long-term, and minor.

Holding Action and Monitoring Effects (water and retardant drops, helispots, and spike camps) and Site Preparation Associated with Managed Wildland Fire and Prescribed Fire (hand line, snagging, mop-up)

Same as Alternative A—adverse, long-term, and minor, due primarily to the risk to remaining populations from water drops.  Effects from water dipping and drops would be mitigated by avoiding dipping from waters containing mountain yellow-legged frogs or non-native fish and complying with established protocols to protect resources, identifying locations of sensitive resources to avoid impacts, and use of MIMT.

 Fuel Reduction by Hand or Machine

Aggressive Reduction Techniques.

Mechanical Tree and Shrub Removal.  Impacts would be adverse, short-term, and negligible but these techniques would not be used near .  mountain yellow-legged frog habitat.

Conventional Tree and Shrub Removal.  .  These techniques would cause considerable ground disturbance, but would be unlikely to affect mountain yellow-legged frogs because they would not be used in wetland areas.  Impact to mountain yellow-legged frogs from skidding and grappling under Alternative D would be adverse, short-term, and negligible.

Passive Reduction and Lower Profile Treatment.

Low-Impact Skidding.  Would not be used in mountain yellow-legged frog habitat.

Hand Cutting.  Same as Alternative A—no effect on mountain yellow-legged frogs.

Cumulative Impacts

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would be the same as in Alternative A.  Impacts from these projects would be beneficial, long-term, and moderate, based primarily on active efforts to protect and restore the species, and the implementation of land management plans that would provide more ecosystem-based management of habitats.  In combination with the effects of Alternative D, cumulative impacts would remain moderate, beneficial and long-term.

Conclusion

Impact to mountain yellow-legged frogs from Alternative D would be beneficial, long-term, and minor, due primarily to the return of a natural fire regime to the small area of habitat that has departed from a natural fire return interval.

Yosemite Toad (Bufo canorus) - Under Review for Federal Listing

Potential for Impacts from Catastrophic Fire

 Same as Alternative B—beneficial, short-term, and negligible effects.

Fire Management Treatments

 Managed Wildland Fire

 Same as Alternative B—beneficial, long-term, and minor.

Prescribed Fire

 Same as Alternative A—beneficial, long-term, and negligible.

Holding Action and Monitoring Effects (water and retardant drops, helispots, and spike camps) and Site Preparation Associated with Managed Wildland Fire and Prescribed Fire (hand line, snagging, mop-up)

Overall impact of prescribed and wildland fire management actions on toads under Alternative D would be the same as in Alternative B—adverse, long-term, and minor, due primarily to the risk to remaining populations from water drops and retardant contamination.  Mitigation: Identify locations of Yosemite toad and mountain yellow-legged frog populations and avoid involvement of these areas in water and retardant drops.

Fuel Reduction by Hand or Machine

Aggressive Reduction Techniques.  These techniques would not be used in Yosemite toad habitat.

Passive Reduction and Lower Profile Techniques.

Low-Impact Skidding.  Would not be used in toad habitat.

Hand Cutting.  Same as Alternative A—beneficial, long-term, and negligible.

Cumulative Impacts

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would be the same as under Alternative A.  Impacts on Yosemite toad from these projects would be beneficial, long-term, and moderate, based primarily on active efforts to protect and restore the species, and the implementation of land management plans that would provide more ecosystem-based habitat management.  Considered in combination with the impacts of Alternative D, cumulative impacts would be beneficial, long-term, and moderate.

Conclusion

Impact to Yosemite toads from Alternative D would be beneficial, long-term, and minor due primarily to the return of a natural fire regime to the area of habitat that has departed from a natural fire return interval, although the wet habitats of Yosemite toads would be unlikely to be directly affected.

California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) - Under Review for Federal Listing

California spotted owls are found throughout the Sierra Nevada, from lower elevation oak and ponderosa pine forests up to 7,600 feet elevation red fir forests.  There are approximately 100 known and probable spotted owl sites in Yosemite National Park.  While spotted owls can coexist with extensive fires of varying intensities within their habitats, severe wildland fire in mixed-conifer forests may represent the greatest threat to existing spotted owl habitat in Yosemite (Weatherspoon et al.  1992).  California spotted owl habitat was identified through wildlife habitat relationships analysis (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

Potential for Impacts from Catastrophic Fire

Effects would be similar to those described under Alternative B.  Under Alternative D, these conditions would be rapidly reduced through prescribed and managed wildland fire, with a goal of reaching target conditions within 15 to 20 years.  Effects of Alternative D in regards to catastrophic fire and California spotted owls would be beneficial, long-term, and moderate.

Fire Management Treatments

Managed Wildland Fire

Effects would be similar to those described in Alternative A, except under Alternative D, managed wildland fire would increase.  Adverse effects from wildland fire could be minimized through reduction of fuel loading in known spotted owl nesting and roosting areas through the use of spring prescribed fires, which would disrupt fuel continuity and reduce the chance of stand-replacing fires in these areas (Weatherspoon et al. 1992). 

The impact of managed wildland fire on California spotted owls under Alternative D would be beneficial, long-term, and moderate to major, based upon the mitigation of the threat of catastrophic fire, primarily through the use of managed wildland fire, over a 15 – 20-year period.

Prescribed Fire

The use of prescribed fire under Alternative D would be the same as in Alternative B, and would have moderate to major, beneficial, long-term impact on California spotted owls, primarily through the reduction in the threat of catastrophic fire and the restoration of a more natural forest structure over a 15 – 20-year period.  Reduction of fuels in spotted owl roosting and nesting habitat through low-intensity burns or mechanical thinning at appropriate times of the year would minimize adverse impacts.

Holding Action and Monitoring Effects (water and retardant drops, helispots, and spike camps) and Site Preparation Associated with Managed Wildland Fire and Prescribed Fire (hand line, snagging, mop-up)

 Same as Alternative A.  Overall, actions taken to manage wildland and prescribed fire under Alternative D would have a minor, adverse, long-term effect on spotted owls through possible disturbance and habitat alteration in roosting and nesting sites.  Such impacts would be mitigated by locating all spotted owl sites in a treatment area and avoiding impacts to them.

Fuel Reduction by Hand or Machine

Aggressive Reduction Techniques

Mechanical Tree and Shrub Removal.  Under Alternative D, forests in wildland/urban interface areas and along road and utility corridors would be thinned and biomass would be reduced with the use of tree cutting machinery where stand density was extreme.  The reduction in canopy cover and number of snags would affect the quality of these areas to spotted owls but these effects are small areas in relation to the park landscape.  Effects of biomass removal on spotted owls under Alternative D would be the same as in Alternative B, with adverse, long-term, and minor impacts.

Conventional Tree and Shrub Removal.  This technique utilizes tracked and rubber tired equipment to remove fresh cut and down and dead material from wildland/urban interface areas and along roads and utility corridors.  Adverse effects on spotted owls would occur if many large, downed logs were removed from the forest, because this could result in a decrease in northern flying squirrel, an important prey of spotted owls.  This is offset by the small area that work is performed and the benefits that result from reducing the risk of high intensity fire in developed areas.  The impacts are minor, adverse and long-term.

Passive Reduction and Lower Profile Techniques.

Hand Cutting.  Same as Alternative B.  Impact of hand Cutting and burning on California spotted owls under Alternative D would be beneficial, long-term, and minor, based upon possible return of treated areas to a more natural forest structure.

Chipping.  Same as Alternative B, the equipment used to chip material is extremely loud, and would potentially cause disturbance of any nearby spotted owls.  Such impact, however, would be adverse, short-term, and negligible.

Girdling.  Same as Alternative B, adverse effect if the snags were removed while the owls are using them. 

Cumulative Impacts

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would be the same as described in Alternative A.  Impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable projects would be beneficial, long-term, and moderate.  Considered in combination with the effects of Alternative D, cumulative impacts would be beneficial, long-term, and moderate to major.

Conclusion

Alternative D would have moderate to major, beneficial, long-term impact on spotted owls from a rapid reduction in the threat of catastrophic fire and restoration of natural fire structure through liberal use of wildland and prescribed fire.  Care, however, would have to be taken with fuels management in spotted owl roosting and nesting habitat to minimize adverse impacts.  This would require extensive knowledge of the occurrence of spotted owls in the park.

Pacific Fisher (Martes pennanti) - Under Review for Federal Listing

Potential for Impacts from Catastrophic Fire

As in Alternative B, under Alternative D the potential for high-intensity fire would be reduced through the liberal application of managed wildland and prescribed fire to reduce critical fuel loading, restore natural forest structure over a 15 – 20-year period, and maintain a natural fire regime.  Impact of Alternative D from the threat or effects of catastrophic fire would be beneficial, long-term, and major.

Fire Management Treatments

Managed Wildland Fire

Effects would be similar to Alternative B.  Under Alternative D, managed wildland fire would have a moderate to moderate to major, beneficial, long-term effect on fishers.

Prescribed Fire

Use of prescribed fire would greatly increase under Alternative D, with effects similar to Alternative B, but fewer acres would be treated.  Impact of prescribed fire on fishers under Alternative D would be beneficial, long-term, and moderate to major, based upon a rapid reduction in the threat of catastrophic fire, and restoration of a more natural forest structure.  Care, however, must be taken to preserve habitat features that are important to fishers.

Holding Action and Monitoring Effects (water and retardant drops, helispots, and spike camps) and Site Preparation Associated with Managed Wildland Fire and Prescribed Fire (hand line, snagging, mop-up)

 Same as Alternative A.  In total, actions taken to manage wildland and prescribed fire under Alternative D would have a minor, adverse, long-term effect on fishers, primarily from possible reduction in the number of snags.

Fuel Reduction by Hand or Machine

Aggressive Reduction Techniques.

Mechanical Tree and Shrub Removal.  Same effects as in Alternative B.  Biomass removal under Alternative D would have adverse, long-term, and minor effects on fishers.

Conventional Tree and Shrub Removal.  The use of skidding and grappling machinery to remove large, woody debris would have an adverse effect on fishers by reducing habitat complexity; especially from the loss of large, down trees.  There would also be a reduction in the threat of catastrophic fire from the resulting fuel reduction.  Because the areas where this treatment is proposed in not suitable habitat due to human development the impacts would be adverse, long-term, and negligible.

Passive Reduction and Lower Profile techniques.

Low-Impact Skidding.  These techniques are generally quieter, less intrusive then techniques described under Aggressive Reduction.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative C yet these techniques would be used less often in this alternative.  Impacts to fishers associated with these techniques are minor, beneficial, and short- to long-term, if areas continue to be maintained with prescribed fire following initial thinning treatments.

Hand Cutting.  Same as Alternative A—adverse, long-term, and negligible.

Cumulative Impacts

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would be the same as in Alternative A.  Impacts of reasonably foreseeable actions would be, beneficial, long-term, and moderate for Pacific fishers.  Considered in combination with the impacts of Alternative D, the cumulative impact would be moderate to beneficial, long-term, and major.

Conclusion

Overall, Alternative D would have a moderate to major, beneficial, long-term effect on Pacific fishers by reducing the threat of catastrophic fire and restoring natural forest structure through the use of wildland and prescribed fires, especially in the southwest part of the park where fisher densities are believed to be highest, and fuel loading has reached critical levels.  Fuel-reduction actions, however, would take into account preservation of habitat features that are important to fishers, such as snags and large down woody debris.

Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) – California Endangered

Potential for Impacts from Catastrophic Fire

Effects would be similar to those in Alternative B.  Through the use of prescribed and wildland fires, the treatment of accumulated fuels under Alternative D would reduce the threat of catastrophic fire over a 15 – 20-year period.  The impact of Alternative D would be beneficial, long-term, and moderate, given the substantial portion of great gray owl habitat over which threat of catastrophic fire would be reduced.

Fire Management Treatments

Managed Wildland Fire

Effects would be similar to those in Alternative A, except under Alternative D managed wildland fire would be greatly increase.  The effect of managed wildland fire on great gray owls under Alternative D would be beneficial, long-term, and moderate to major, based upon the amount of managed wildland fire that would occur, the large amount of great gray owl habitat that has deviated from the median fire return interval, and the treatment of this habitat that would occur. 

Prescribed Fire

Effects would be similar to those described in Alternative B.  Under Alternative D, use of prescribed fire would be substantial, and concentrate on areas that have most severely deviated from the natural fire cycle.  Impact of prescribed fire on great gray owls under Alternative D would be beneficial, long-term, and moderate to major, based upon the improvement of habitat, and the reduction in the threat of catastrophic fire that would occur.  Prescriptions for fires in great gray owl habitat must take into consideration the preservation of large, old snags that are important to the owls.

Holding Action and Monitoring Effects (water and retardant drops, helispots, and spike camps) and Site Preparation Associated with Managed Wildland Fire and Prescribed Fire (hand line, snagging, mop-up)

Same as in Alternative B.  Overall, actions taken to manage wildland and prescribed fires would have a minor, adverse, long-term effect on great gray owls under Alternative D.  This is primarily based upon possible impacts associated with snag removal, which would be mitigated to protect the owls through avoidance of snags used by great gray owls the extent possible.

Fuel Reduction by Hand or Machine