Executive Summary

Introduction

The Draft Yosemite Fire Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) presents several alternatives to revise Yosemite National Park’s fire management program and to implement National Park Service and federal wildland fire policies in the park and the El Portal Administrative Site (map 1-1).  Most of Yosemite is a vast wilderness intersected by road and trail corridors and dotted with cabins, historical sites, businesses, and administrative and recreational areas.  The park is adjacent to communities, private lands, and public lands managed by other agencies.  Because of this mosaic of land uses and designations, land management policies and activities are complex.  This is especially true for fire management actions, which must be applied in different ways in the various areas of the park.  This document proposes alternatives for managing wildland and prescribed fire and for maintaining and restoring ecosystems and reducing fuels in forests and woodlands.  It also examines the environmental impacts of each alternative. 

With a revised fire management plan, Yosemite’s fire management program would employ a variety of fire management activities to accomplish land and resource management objectives and to reduce the risk of unwanted fire in and adjacent to the park.  Depending on the area needing attention, the park would use different methods (also known as treatments) to manage fire and reduce decades of buildup of burnable vegetation and woody debris (dead and down wood, leaves, duff).  Strategies for implementation would be based on knowledge gained from fire and fuels research, monitoring, and experience in the Yosemite area over the last half century. 

Fire management planning and programs have been operational since 1970, two years after the National Park Service changed its policy from controlling natural processes to allowing natural processes to occur when possible.  This means, for fire management, that the National Park Service went from suppressing all fires to letting some fires burn if they would contribute to accomplishing resource management objectives without threatening developed or populated areas or cultural sites.  Many refinements in the fire management program have been made since then—they will continue to be made as knowledge of fire ecology and fire behavior increases. 

Fire management plans are fundamental strategic documents that guide the full range of fire management related activities.  They are required by the National Park Service Director’s Order 18 which says: “Every park area with burnable vegetation must have a fire management plan approved by the superintendent,” and the 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (hereafter, 2001 Federal Fire Policy), which reiterates: “Complete, or update, Fire Management Plans for all areas with burnable vegetation.”

Purpose of and Need for the Yosemite Fire Management Plan

The purpose of the Draft Yosemite Fire Management Plan/EIS is to present and analyze alternatives for carrying out the fire management program in Yosemite National Park.  It also presents and analyzes effects that would occur as a result of implementing these alternatives in different areas of the park.  The specific purposes of the Yosemite Fire Management Plan are to:

¨       Identify and implement methods to restore and maintain park ecosystems and ecosystem processes that allow fire to play its natural role in the ecosystem, both as wildland fire and prescribed fire. 

¨       Reduce the risk of fire to cultural resources (i.e., historic buildings, pictographs) through fuels reduction, prescribed burning, or fire suppression to prevent fires from damaging cultural resources.  Fire will also be used as a tool to manage cultural landscapes.

¨       Reduce the risk of catastrophic fire, including near the wildland/urban interface (communities, government and commercial buildings, and other developed areas), while continuing to reverse the adverse effects from past fire suppression and prevention activities.

¨       Execute a fire management program that provides a safe environment for firefighters and the public, including safe operations and fire management related facilities (helibases, fire camps, fire stations).

¨       Provide a plan that is consistent with National Park Service wildland fire management policy and adheres to guiding principles from the Federal Fire Policy, which recognizes that:

·         Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in every fire management activity.

·         Wildland fire is an essential ecological process and natural change agent.

·         Fire management plans, programs, and activities support land and resource management plans and their implementation.

·         Sound risk management is a foundation for all fire management activities.

·         Fire management programs and activities are economically viable, based on values to be protected, costs, and land and resource management objectives.

·         Fire related plans and activities should be based upon the best available science.

·         Fire management plans and activities incorporate public health and environmental quality considerations. 

·         Federal, state, tribal, local, and interagency coordination and cooperation are essential.

·         Standardization of policies and procedures with other agencies is an ongoing objective. 

Need for the Plan

Since 1968, National Park Service policy has been to allow natural processes to occur.  The fire management program has pursued this policy for over three decades, yet the program, while making significant inroads, has not been able to meet park resource management objectives of restoring ecosystems and providing protection for developed areas and cultural resources.  The long-term buildup of fuels has continued under the existing plan in many areas of Yosemite National Park and the El Portal Administrative Site.  Increased application of prescribed fire and additional methods of reducing fuels are needed to restore fire to ecosystems and reduce forest fuels in at-risk areas.  A revised Yosemite Fire Management Plan is needed because:

¨       Fire has a natural role in maintaining and sustaining ecosystems in Yosemite National Park, some of which have been altered by past fire suppression activities.  Refinements to the fire management program are needed that will promote ecosystem sustainability.

¨       Communities, cultural resources (i.e. historic structures, blazed trees, pictographs), campgrounds, and other developed areas of the park need protection from unwanted, high-intensity wildland fires throughout Yosemite National Park and the El Portal Administrative Site.  Fire treatments and pretreatments are needed that will reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and ensuing property loss, and begin to reverse the fuel accumulation and ecosystem changes that have created these risks. 

¨       Fire can help restore and maintain cultural and traditional landscapes valued by visitors and descendants of culturally associated American Indians.

¨       Management of wildland fires, prescribed burning, and fuel reduction treatments require up-to-date planning and preparation.

¨       Fire management activities require collaboration with federal, state, county, tribal and local agencies, and a fire management plan provides a basis for communication, coordination, and project planning with partner agencies. 

¨       Yosemite National Park must comply with the 2001 Federal Fire Policy.

¨       Safety is paramount to all fire management operations.  The use of helicopters is essential for monitoring and controlling wildland fires and to transport crews and equipment for fire management activities. Helicopters also provide emergency services for the Yosemite area.  Three of the existing helibases have marginal safety clearances, are too close to populated areas, or have poor road access. Helibase upgrades are needed to ensure continued safe operations at Crane Flat, El Portal, and Wawona Meadow helibases.

Decisions to be Made 

The Superintendent of Yosemite National Park will make a recommendation for the final decision to the Regional Director, Pacific West Region, who is the Deciding Official of the Yosemite Fire Management Plan/EIS.  They will recommend and decide upon:

1)      Whether or not to implement the proposed action, an alternative to the proposed action, or to continue current fire management operations (the No Action Alternative).

2)      What mitigation and monitoring, if any, will be included in the decision.

Issues and Concerns Used to Develop the Alternatives

Preliminary issues were identified using public and agency comments, consultations, and open house records from the public scoping periods in 1999 and 2001. 

The issues raised and comments made by the public during scoping and through the consultation process were summarized as concern statements (and are listed in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need).  The issues form much of the basis for the analysis in the Draft Yosemite Fire Management Plan/EIS; they were used in developing action alternatives and determining the scope of analysis.  The expressed concerns related to the following subjects:

Planning Direction   A number of comments addressed the process or scope of the planning effort, or suggested that certain process-related subjects should be central to the program or plan. 

Fire Management Activities   Many of the comments addressed the actual management of the fire program, or various strategies, philosophies, or goals for fire management; many comments addressed the use of prescribed fire, managed wildland fires, thinning, mechanical treatment, and other methods. 

Community Protection   Protecting communities and developed areas was a major concern to residents, while the affects of developed areas and/or protection activities concerned others.

Ecosystems (general discussions) and Fire Management   Numerous comments addressed restoration of Yosemite’s ecosystems and the role of fire as a natural process.  Other commentaries emphasized that the National Park Service should conduct studies needed to understand the fire ecology of Yosemite. 

Elements of the Natural Environment   Concerns about the effects of fire on specific natural resources (wildlife, water, soil stability, vegetation, and others) were expressed. 

Air Quality   Numerous comments were received about compliance with air quality regulations, reduced air quality from smoke, and the differing effects on air quality from various fire management techniques.

Wilderness   Comments were received on the role of fire in wilderness, as well as the appropriateness of various fire management activities.

Access   Numerous comments spoke to the appropriateness, inappropriateness, or need for roads, bridges, and trails providing access and firebreaks. 

Social Environment   Comments were received about whether or not the National Park Service should use cost recovery and other economic considerations and local labor in fuel reduction treatments.  Others expressed concerns about noise and scenic impacts. 

Communication, Coordination, and Consultation   Many comments addressed the need for and role of consultation, communication, and coordination activities between the fire management program and communities, other agencies, organizations, and other groups.

Alternatives, including the preferred alternative

Process for Formulating the Alternatives

The action alternatives considered in the Draft Yosemite Fire Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement were developed from comments and concerns expressed by the public; input from federal, state, and local agencies; guidance from existing park plans; policy guidance from the National Park Service, the 2001 Federal Fire Policy, and the National Fire Plan; and research, monitoring, and experience from the existing fire management program. 

Using the issues first identified in 1999, the fire management staff at Yosemite began consultations with fire and resource management specialists in Yosemite and in other fire and land management agencies.  Concepts for developing a range of alternatives began taking shape in December 2000, following consultations with the park’s Resource Management Division.  It was suggested that the alternatives vary in two ways:

¨       By the various combinations of wildland fire, prescribed burning, fuels treatments, and fire suppression considered in the program, and

¨       By the amount of time needed to reduce fuels in developed areas and restore or maintain the natural fire regime throughout most of the park. 

Finally, the comments received during the March and April 2001 scoping period were used to further develop the range of alternatives and identify needed analyses. 

An analysis of the natural fire regime for each of Yosemite’s main vegetation types combined with the known fire history yielded maps showing the number of fires areas of the park have missed (expressed in fire return intervals) because of fire suppression.  This analysis is called the Fire Return Interval Departure (FRID) analysis, and was used to identify and estimate acres of land that need the reintroduction of fire for ecosystem restoration or where high levels of fuels threaten buildings or cultural resources.

Target Conditions for Vegetation and Fuels (Chapter 2, page 8) for vegetation types of the Sierra Nevada outline sets of measurable variables through which to achieve restoration and maintenance objectives.  Restoration and maintenance targets were developed in a joint effort with Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.  They roughly describe vegetative structure and processes—using quantitative variables that can be monitored on the landscape to assess vegetative condition and thus, the effectiveness of the program. 

The action alternatives, Alternatives B, C, and D, were developed with three specific goals: to re-introduce fire into areas of Yosemite that show adverse effects of fire suppression, to maintain the natural fire regime in park ecosystems where vegetation is within its natural range of variability, and to restore forest fuels near communities, roads, and park resource values.  The sum total of fuel reduction work completed each year would include:

¨       Areas (acres) of fuel reduction in wildland/urban interface (through prescribed fire and mechanical cutting).

¨       Areas (acres) of ecological restoration and maintenance (through prescribed fire and managed wildland fire). 

¨       Areas (acres) burned by wildland fire that escapes initial control efforts in the Suppression Unit (through unwanted wildland fire or wildfire). 

Because of the variability in fire and lightning occurrence from year to year, no precise estimate can be made about the number of acres that would burn annually by managed wildland fire and unwanted wildland fire.  However, long-range estimates and goals can be made about the acreage burned for restoration and fuel reduction.

Alternatives Considered

The Alternatives considered in the Draft Yosemite Fire Management Plan/EIS are:

Alternative A:     No Action (existing program)

Alternative B:     Aggressive Action

Alternative C:     Passive Action

Alternative D:     Multiple Action

Under the action alternatives the three fire management zones currently in effect (NPS 1990) would be changed to two fire management units—a Fire Use Unit (83% of the park) and a Suppression Unit (17% of the park).  In the Fire Use Unit, managed wildland fire would be the primary tool used to achieve the land management objectives of restoration and maintenance of natural ecosystems and processes.  In a portion of the Fire Use Unit (48,912 acres), additional prescribed burning may be necessary to reduce fuel loads to a point where managed wildland fire would be safe and appropriate.

In the Suppression Unit, all wildland fires would be suppressed using the appropriate management response.  Prescribed burning and fuel reduction activities would be used to restore and maintain ecosystems and maintain target fuel loading near structures.  In this way, the park is proposing to reduce the risk of uncontrollable, wildland fires in wildland/urban interface areas and along road and utility corridors.  The areas of the park that show the greatest departure from the natural fire regime, and thus are at the greatest risk of high-intensity, difficult to control fires, are on the west side of the park at lower elevations.  Much of this area was subjected to intensive logging activity prior to being added to the national park, thus, without fire, the second growth forests have grown in even-aged stands with unnaturally high densities of forest fuels.  Tree mortality due to drought conditions, bug kill, and blowdown during the period of protection from fire has added to the buildup of hazardous fuels. 

The Multi-Year Prescribed Fire Schedule (Appendix 6) presents tables of proposed restoration burning, maintenance burning, and fuel reduction work in the wildland/urban interface.  This proposed schedule may or may not be met, depending on the availability of burn days in a given year and other factors described below.  The objective would be to meet the proposed timetable over the long run, hence the schedule would be reevaluated and updated as necessary.

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION

Under the No Action Alternative, the existing direction and level of accomplishment in Yosemite’s fire management program would continue.  This alternative would use the strategies of the existing Fire Management Plan.  These strategies include prescribed fire, management of natural ignitions (managed wildland fire), fire suppression, and hand cutting followed by pile burning and prescribed fire.  This program has not been able to meet park needs because of the limited amount of annual accomplishment.  The Fire Management Units for this alternative are the same as the “zones” used in the 1990 plan: the Fire Use Unit equals Zone I – Prescribed Natural Fire Zone; the Conditional Unit equals Zone II – Conditional Fire Zone; and the Suppression Unit equals Zone III – Suppression Zone (see map 2-12).  Under this program the park has averaged 1,472 acres of prescribed burning and 2,567 acres of managed wildland fire each year.  This does not approach the annual target of 16,000 acres that would need to burn annually to simulate natural conditions.  While over the last decade the park has reduced hazardous levels of fuels near developed areas, the goal of providing an open defensible forest in and around every community may not ever be met at the current rate of work.  Less than 25 acres per year in each of the larger wildland/urban interface areas (Yosemite Valley, El Portal, Wawona, Foresta, Hodgdon Meadow, and Yosemite West) have been treated.

ALTERNATIVE B – AGGRESSIVE ACTION

Under Alternative B, aggressive techniques would be used to reduce fuels in and near developed areas (wildland/urban interface) within a period of 5 years and accomplish fire-related ecosystem restoration goals within 10 to 15 years.  This alternative would reduce fuels on an average of 1,533 acres per year in the wildland/urban interface (maps 2-6 through 2-11) over 5 years (7,664 acres total).  Aggressive fuel reduction methods would be used on less than 1% of the park acreage.  The natural fire regime would be restored to between 2,520 and 12,872 acres per year, for a total of between 31,503 and 160,894 acres. 

This alternative would treat wildland/urban interface areas and accomplish restoration goals in the least amount of time compared to the other alternatives.  Prescribed burning would be increased dramatically over present levels and lightning fires would be allowed to burn where practicable.  Median and maximum fire return interval departure analyses were used to determine locations and set annual goals (range of acres) for treatments, using the various restoration, maintenance, and fuel reduction strategies (maps 2-4 and 2-5, table 2.5). 

Table ES.1   Fire and Mechanical Treatments Used in Alternative B by Unit   Xs in bold denote main treatment strategy for that area.

ALTERNATIVE C – PASSIVE ACTION 

Under the Passive Action Alternative, efforts would be taken to decrease fuels in wildland/urban interface areas within a period of 10 years, and accomplish ecosystem restoration goals in 25 years.  Because of this time frame, the number of acres to be treated each year would be the least among the action alternatives.  Fuels would be reduced in wildland/urban interface areas by an average of 766 acres per year (7,664 acres total) and the fire regime would be restored in areas having missed three or more fire return intervals by treating between 1,260 and 6,436 acres per year (31,503 to 160,894 acres over 25 years).  Prescribed burning would be increased over what the current program accomplished but not as much as under Alternative B. 

Because of the extended time frame, this alternative would depend on nature to play a bigger role in ecosystem restoration.  However, more areas would be consumed by large, high-intensity (and unwanted) wildland fires, because of the hazardous levels of fuels that would remain for a longer period.  Under this alternative, it would take more time than under Alternative B but less than would be needed under Alternative A to accomplish the park’s minimum goals.  By the time all areas were treated, however, many areas would have missed another fire return interval or two, thus, the risk of stand replacement fire would remain high throughout the restoration period. 

Table ES.2   Fire and Mechanical Treatments Used in Alternative C by Unit and Area   Xs in bold denote main treatment strategy for that area.

ALTERNATIVE D – MULTIPLE ACTION

Alternative D uses a combination of aggressive and passive fuel reduction techniques in order to quickly and effectively achieve protection, fuel reduction, and ecosystem restoration goals.  Under this alternative, aggressive treatment strategies would be used in the wildland/urban interface if needed, while prescribed fire and passive reduction techniques would be used to achieve ecosystem restoration goals in other areas.  Alternative D would utilize different treatments depending on the level of risk, sensitivity of the area, and the associated values to be protected.  This alternative would reduce fuels on approximately 1,095 acres per year for 6-8 years in the wildland/urban interface (7,664 acres total) and restore the natural fire regime to areas that have missed three or more fires by treating between 1,817 and 9,194 acres per year for 15-20 years (31,503 to 160,894 acres total). 

This alternative would require more time to accomplish wildland/urban interface protection and ecosystem restoration than under Alternative B but less than under Alternatives A and C.  It would accomplish the work with a combination of National Park Service and other agency fire crews, the park forestry crew, and some contract labor. 

Table ES.3   Fire and Mechanical Treatments Used in Alternative D by Unit and Area   Xs in bold denote main treatment strategy for that area.

Actions Common to All Alternatives

Fire Management Units

The park is divided into fire management units based on the relative need for both ecosystem restoration and protection of homes, businesses, historic buildings, and other developments.  Under the No Action Alternative the unit boundaries would remain the same as the three “zones” (map 2-12) approved under the previous Fire Management Plan (NPS 1990).  The original plan intended that these boundaries would be dynamic—to be relocated as work was accomplished.  Because of the amount of burning from prescribed fire and wildland fires over the last decade, and because of the direction received from the National Fire Plan, only two units, a large Fire Use Unit and a Suppression Unit, are proposed under Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Special Management Areas

These areas would occur within both Fire Use and Suppression Units.  They are defined as areas requiring management that differs from the general objectives of the two fire management units.  Special Management Areas include wildland/urban interface areas, giant sequoia groves, and the park boundary.  These areas are singled out because of special complexities or because they have been generally recognized as areas that wildland fire could alter significantly, with possibly irretrievable results.

Public Safety

Public and firefighter safety is the number one priority of all alternatives.  The 2001 Federal Fire Policy states: “Firefighter and public safety is the first priority, and all fire management plans and activities must reflect this commitment.” National Park Service Wildland Fire Policy (Director’s Order 18) echoes this direction: “The National Park Service is committed to protecting park resources and natural ecological processes, but firefighter and public safety must be the first priority in all fire management activities.” The Yosemite Fire Management Plan, regardless of what alternative is selected, would enact necessary measures and direction to ensure the safety of firefighters and the public.

Public Information and Education

An active partnership in fire education would be a component of the yearly planning for park staff in the divisions of Interpretation and Resources Management and in the branch of Fire and Aviation.  Fire education would be a component of the park’s interpretation program.  In addition, the Office of Media Relations would notify adjacent communities by press release before some prescribed fires are implemented.  Media Relations would work closely with visiting Fire Information Officers who may be part of an Incident Management Team or Fire Use Management Team, to assure the park message is delivered effectively.  During emergency wildland fire situations, park interpretive staff would assist in providing information to visitors and in assisting the incident information officer.  A smoke communication strategy (Appendix 4) would be used during fire management activities as a blueprint for managing smoke events and communicating with communities and other agencies.

Mitigation Measures

To ensure that implementation of any action alternative protects natural and cultural resources and the quality of the visitor experience, a consistent set of mitigation measures would be applied to actions implemented under this plan.  These mitigation measures would also be applied to other future actions that are guided by this plan.  Mitigations have been identified that relate to safety and human impacts, natural resources, cultural resources, treatment of snags and slash, visual quality, and communication/coordination. 

Protection of Sensitive Resources

Yosemite National Park has a variety of special places and sensitive cultural and natural resources.  The sensitive resources that are known would be protected.  For example, if known habitat for a special-status species is within any proposed prescribed fire or managed wildland fire area, the habitat would be evaluated and appropriate mitigation measures would be applied, if necessary.  Resource specialists would be involved in prescribed fire planning according to fire management protocols.  On-the-ground inventory of the prescribed fire unit would be specifically requested if sensitive resources were within the unit, so that appropriate protection measures could be taken.

Non-Native Plant Species Management Activities

Fire would be used as a tool, when needed, in managing invasive non-native species, as prescribed in other action planning.  In some areas, the timing of prescribed burns has contributed to the invasion of non-native thistle.  As a result of knowledge gleaned through monitoring, prescribed burns in these areas would be scheduled for seasons when propagation would not enhanced by fire.

Air Quality/Smoke Management

With all treatments involving fire, there would be strict adherence to state and federal regulations.  This process mandates consultation with California Air Resources Board (CARB) and local (county) Air Pollution Control Officers (APCO), and other federal and state agencies that are involved with similar land treatments.  Ignition of prescribed fires would only be done on “burn days” or would be allowed by a variance from the county air pollution control officer.  Monitoring would accompany all prescribed fires by documenting visual aspects of the smoke column or particulate monitoring with specialized equipment. 

Air Quality Watershed Strategy

Smoke movement patterns have a direct relationship to watersheds, especially below 7,500 feet.  If several fires were burning simultaneously in the same air-quality watershed, down-valley smoke might be extreme.  Because of this, the park would potentially control additional starts within an air-quality watershed that already had a fire burning within it.

Research and Monitoring

Fire monitoring would include monitoring of wildland and prescribed fires and the systematic collection and recording of data on fuels, topography, weather, air quality, fire behavior, and ecosystem response.  For cultural resources, cultural resource specialists (usually a fire archeologist) would identify any necessary pre-burn mitigation, resource protection measures, and the most appropriate monitoring strategy for the planned and unplanned burns. 

The current fire management program is based on more than 30 years of scientific studies and research. As the program continues to mature, additional information will be needed to refine objectives and meet new challenges. New research needs and priorities would be identified by the Fire Management Office in conjunction with Yosemite’s Resources Management Division and the research scientist from the USGS Western Ecological Research Center, Yosemite Field Station.  Adaptive Management would be used at Yosemite National Park to guide fire management activities while drawing on the best available science, emergent technologies, and an ever-increasing database on the role and effects of fire on park resources. 

Roads and Trails Used for Fire Protection

Roads, trails, and utility corridors within the park would provide access for monitoring and control of wildland fires (map 2-17).  Roads and trails would be used as boundaries for prescribed burns, anchor points for constructing fire line, and as fire line.  They would provide access for engines and crew transports trying to get to an unwanted fire rapidly.

Yosemite Fire Management Organization and Responsibilities

The fire management program in Yosemite National Park is directed by the Fire Management Officer (FMO).  The Fire Management Officer works for the Chief, Division of Visitor Protection and supervises four specialists in charge of four functional areas.  These are: wildland fire suppression/aviation, structural fire, prescribed fire/fire use, and telecommunications.

Fire Reporting

Fire reporting follows guidelines established by National Park Service policy and Directors Order 18 and the associated reference manual, RM-18 (NPS 1998, 1999b).  All fires, regardless of type, are required to have a written report, which is tracked at the park and at national levels.

For any project or activity in Yosemite National Park or the El Portal Administrative Site, a number of alternative actions could be considered.  During the course of the public scoping process for the Draft Yosemite Fire Management Plan/EIS, several alternative actions were recommended by members of the public.  Others were suggested by scientists, technical specialists, and National Park Service employees.  While all were considered, and many were included as alternatives or elements of alternatives, some were eliminated from detailed study per 40 CFR 1504.14(a).  Reasons for dismissing individual actions include:

¨       Technical or economic infeasibility.

¨       Inability to meet project objectives or resolve need for the project. 

¨       Duplicative with other less environmentally damaging or less sensitive alternatives.

¨       In conflict with an up-to-date and valid plan, statement of purpose and significance, or other policy, and therefore, would require a major change in that plan or policy to implement.

¨       Environmental impacts are too great. 

Alternatives that were considered but dismissed include:

Suppress All Fires   This alternative was dismissed for several reasons, including its inconsistency with National Park Service and federal wildland fire management policy and Yosemite’s General Management Plan, which calls for allowing natural processes, including fire, to prevail.

Disallow the Use of Mechanical Fuels Treatment   This alternative was dismissed because of the need to retain options when developing strategy for the reduction of fuels and the risk of harmful wildland fire along the wildland/urban interface.  Years of fire suppression activity in Yosemite have resulted in the buildup of fuels and a change in the forest structure in many locations.  In some areas, even the use of prescribed burning to simulate the role of fire would likely be ineffective because changes in forest structure would be difficult to reverse through the use of fire alone.

Use Mechanical Treatments Only   This alternative was dismissed because of its inability to meet park objectives and because it would be in conflict with federal and National Park Service policies.  Even where effective in restoring forest structure and reducing risks near wildland/urban interface, prescribed burning and other treatments are needed.  Mechanical treatments would rarely meet the minimum tool requirement in the wilderness portions of the Fire Use Unit, since managed wildland fire and prescribed fire can meet objectives in most of these areas.  Thinning, and particularly mechanical treatment, would not be needed in most areas.

Affected Environment

A list of specific resource topics was developed to focus on and compare environmental impacts of fire management activities among alternatives.  These resource topics were selected based on federal law, regulations, and executive orders; National Park Service management policies; National Park Service and federal wildland fire management policies; National Park Service subject-matter expertise; and concerns expressed by the public or other agencies during the public scoping periods. 

The existing environment that could be affected by actions proposed in this Draft Yosemite Fire Management Plan/EIS is described in Chapter 3.  These conditions establish the baseline for the analysis of effects found in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.  None of the action alternatives considered in the Draft Yosemite Fire Management Plan/EIS would appreciably affect these resources. 

Environmental Consequences

An impact analysis for each of the impact topic areas (listing above) has been completed for each of the four alternatives in the Draft Yosemite Fire Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement.  Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, describes both beneficial and adverse effects in detail. 

Alternative A, No Action

Biological Environment   Adverse, long-term, and minor to moderate effects upon vegetation park-wide, but high potential for catastrophic fire, including stand-replacement fires, in upper and lower montane forests.  Effects upon wildlife potentially adverse, long-term, and major, because of the loss of habitat through changes in vegetation structure and fuel loading, potential for catastrophic fire and type conversion.  Typically minor, adverse, and long-term effects on plant special-status species, because of the location of populations.  Greater effects upon animal special-status species (including moderate and major effects for some species) because of potential adverse effects from catastrophic fire in upper and lower montane forests.  Negligible to minor, adverse, and long-term effects on wetlands because of fragmentation and creation of barriers from high-intensity fire.

Physical Environment   Adverse, long-term, and moderate effects from a combination of beneficial, long-term, and moderate to major effects in the Fire Use and Conditional Units and the potential for major, adverse, and long-term effects from catastrophic fire in the western portions of the park.  Fires would potentially affect ridge, mid-slope and bottom slope areas of watersheds, increasing water yield, peak flows, nutrient yield sediment yield, and stream system response.  Lesser effects from prescribed fire activity.  Events with major, adverse, and short-term impacts on air quality because of continuing risk of unwanted catastrophic fires consuming areas of high fuel loadings. 

Cultural Environment   Major, adverse, and long-term impacts to archeological resources mainly due to the increased likelihood of catastrophic fire and emergency response actions and their effects upon surface and subsurface materials.  Minor to moderate, adverse, and short-term impacts to ethnographic resources, mainly due to the increased likelihood of catastrophic fire and its effects upon traditionally gathered plant materials.  Major, adverse, and long-term affects on cultural landscape resources, including significant historic structures and other elements on the landscape.

Social Environment   Adverse, short-term, and minor effects upon recreation from short-term closures and restrictions because of fire management treatments, including prescribed fire and thinning.  During large, catastrophic fire events, closures and other needed actions would result in major, short-term, and adverse effects.  Major, adverse and long-term effects upon scenic resources from high-intensity fires.  Short-term, adverse, and moderate to major effect on ambient noise levels, especially in wildland/urban interface areas and particularly during large, catastrophic fire events.  In wilderness, helicopter and chainsaw noises would continue to introduce short-term intrusions, with adverse and major effects.  Beneficial, long-term, and minor effects by reducing risks in local communities, although potential for catastrophic fire would remain high in this alternative.  Risk for direct effects (loss of property during fires) and indirect effects (loss of business during fire-related closures) would be highest among the alternatives.  Beneficial, long-term, and minor effects upon minority and low income populations in park communities due to risk of reduction in work.

Special Designations   Wild and Scenic Rivers are discussed in Chapter 5.  Beneficial, long-term, and minor to moderate effects on wilderness through actions that would maintain plant communities within their natural range of variability and reduce likelihood of having large, high intensity fires that could spread into wilderness.  In wilderness, helicopter and chainsaw noises would continue to introduce short-term intrusions, with adverse and major effects. 

Energy Consumption   Adverse, long-term, and negligible effects on the park’s energy consumption, based on an estimate of 9,683 gallons of various fuels used in fire management activities in an average year.

Alternative B, Aggressive Action

Biological Environment   Beneficial, long-term, and moderate to major effects upon Vegetation, due the amount of area treated by prescribed fire and biomass removal, especially in upper and lower montane forests, and from maximizing wildland fire use.  Reduced threat of large, high-severity wildland fires in all areas of the park over time.  Major, long-term, and beneficial impacts on wildlife and habitat because of the rapid restoration of forest structure to areas of the park that are severely deviated from their natural fire regime because of fire exclusion.  The threat of catastrophic fire and its impacts on wildlife and habitat would be greatly and quickly reduced. 

Impacts to special-status species would be, in general, beneficial and minor to major.  Some mitigation would be required to limit adverse effects of some more aggressive treatments.  The potential exists for adverse effects on special-status plant species from mechanical treatments, however, mitigations would limit these impacts.  Moderate, long-term, benefit to wetlands from aggressive treatment to reduce catastrophic fire threat.

Physical Environment   Beneficial, long-term and major effects, based on a combination of beneficial, long-term, moderate to major effects in Fire Use Units, and the potential for areas of major, beneficial, and long-term effects in Suppression Units, compared to Alternative A.  Fires would likely burn only a portion of any one slope rather than the entire vertical gradient which would help limit impacts.  Compared with the No Action Alternative, the effects on water yield, peak flows, nutrient yield, sediment yield, and stream system response would be less.  Largest quantity of emissions among all the alternatives would produce major, adverse, and short-term impacts.  The intensity of the impact of Alternative B would be well above 50% greater than Alternative A, because of prescribed fire activity. 

Cultural Environment   Moderate, beneficial, and long-term effects on cultural resources in general.  Reduces to the greatest extent, compared with Alternative A, the potential for catastrophic fire and its effects upon archeological material, ethnographic resources, and cultural landscape resources.  At the same time this alternative poses the greatest potential for adverse impacts to cultural resources due to the use of heavy equipment to reduce fuel loads and the potential for high-intensity prescribed fire.  Mitigations to reduce effects would be used. 

Social Environment   Adverse, short-term, and minor effects upon recreation, due to greater area of treatment, compared to Alternative A.  Under this alternative, there would be less likelihood of having high-intensity, catastrophic fires with effects as major as the A-Rock Fire.  Thus, the potential for area or park closures would be reduced.  Effects of catastrophic fire on recreation would likely drop to moderate, short-term, and adverse.  Effects on scenic resources would be beneficial, long-term, and major, if fire is used as a tool to restore and maintain open vistas.  During fuel reduction work there would be short-term, adverse, and major impacts to ambient noise levels, especially near wildland/urban interface areas.  The noise events would be similar to those found under Alternative A, but the number of events and the duration of fuel treatment operations would be substantially greater than under Alternative A.  Noise impacts on wilderness would be the same as under Alternative A. 

Impacts to communities would be beneficial, long-term, and moderate to major, because prescribed fire and mechanical thinning would restore plant community conditions in and near communities and developed areas.  Risks associated with large, catastrophic fires would be greatly reduced in this alternative; direct effects (loss of property during fires) and indirect effects (loss of business during fire-related closures) would be greatly reduced compared to Alternative A; effects on minority and low income populations in and near the park would be similar to effects on local communities. 

Special Designations   Wild and Scenic Rivers are discussed in Chapter 5.  Effects on wilderness would be beneficial, long-term, and moderate to major, through actions that would be generally beneficial in maintaining plant communities within their natural range of variability, and thus maintain wilderness values, especially in the Fire Use Unit.  Benefits in the Suppression Unit would be greater than under Alternative A, due to the large amount of fuels treatment and prescribed fire, and lower potential of large, high-intensity fires in wilderness.  Helicopter and chainsaw noises would continue to introduce short-term intrusions, with adverse and major effects, the same as under Alternative A.

Energy Consumption   Adverse, long-term and major impacts to the park’s use of energy, with approximately 250,330 gallons of various fuels used in fire management activities, in an average year.

Alternative C, Passive Action Alternative

Biological Environment   The impacts to the biotic community would be beneficial, long-term, and minor to major.  This is based upon on an increase in the area treated by prescribed fire and the increase in managed wildland fire, compared to Alternative A, but with a potential for catastrophic fire during much of the restoration period.  The time frame for restoration is within the normal range of fire return intervals for all but five vegetation types.  Moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on wildlife and habitat through eventual restoration of park habitats to a more natural, fire-influenced condition, that would support a more natural abundance, diversity, and distribution of species.  The long period of time (25 years) for reducing the threat of catastrophic fire could lead to unwanted wildland fires, resulting in adverse effects on flora and fauna.  Effects on special-status plant species would be similar to Alternative A, due to the locations of these plants.  Effects upon special-status animal species would be beneficial, compared to Alternative A, because of the reduced potential catastrophic fire.  Individual wetlands would be expected to incur minor to moderate, long-term, and beneficial impacts, but park wetlands would see only negligible ecological benefits. 

Physical Environment   Beneficial, long-term, and moderate effects upon watersheds and soils, based on a combination of beneficial, long-term, moderate to major effects in the Fire Use Unit and the potential for areas of moderate, beneficial, and long-term effects in Suppression Unit.  Large, high-severity fires would likely occur during the life of the plan, but the treatments proposed would reduce their effects upon soils and watersheds, including the potential for adverse effects upon water yield, peak flow, nutrient yield, sediment yield, and stream system response.  Air quality impacts would be major, adverse, and short term; increases would be slightly above 50% of Alternative A for all emissions except volatile organic compounds (VOC).  The impact on VOC emissions would be moderate. 

Cultural Environment   Minor to moderate, beneficial, and long-term effects on archeological materials, ethnographic resources, and cultural landscape resources.  Similar to Alternative B, but with greater potential for catastrophic fire effects. 

Social Environment   Alternative C would cause adverse, short-term, and minor effects upon recreation from short-term closures and restrictions because of fire management treatments, including prescribed fire and thinning.  The potential for large, catastrophic fire events and their likely effect upon recreation would be similar to but less than under Alternative A.  Beneficial, long-term, and moderate effects on scenic resources, because of more annual accomplishment in prescribed fire and fuel reduction than under Alternative A.  However, the potential for large, high-intensity fires would become less than under Alternative A only near the end of the 25-year period for restoration.  Effect on ambient noise levels would be short-term, adverse, and major, especially near the wildland/urban interface.  The noise events would be similar to those described under Alternative A.  Risks associated with large, catastrophic fires would be reduced in this alternative, compared to Alternative A, producing beneficial, long-term, and moderate effects upon local communities.  Direct effects (loss of property during fires) and indirect effects (loss of business during fire-related closures) would be the highest among the action alternatives.  This is because of a smaller amount of annual prescribed fire and mechanical thinning to restore plant communities in developed areas and elsewhere in the Suppression Unit.  Effects on minority and low income populations in and near the park would be the same as on local communities. 

Special Designations   Wild and Scenic Rivers are discussed in Chapter 5.  Wilderness impacts would be beneficial, long-term, and minor to moderate, similar to Alternative A.  The potential of large, high-intensity fires in wilderness would remain fairly high during the life of the plan. 

Energy Consumption   Impact on the park’s energy consumption would be adverse, long-term, and major because of the annual use of 22,368 gallons of various fuels used in fire management activities.

Alternative D, Multiple Action

Biological Environment   Beneficial, long-term, and moderate to major effects upon vegetation, due the amount of area treated by prescribed fire and biomass removal, especially in upper and lower montane forests, and from maximizing managed wildland fire.  A reduced threat of large, high-severity wildland fires in all areas of the park and a reduced potential for type conversion of vegetation would be beneficial.  Impacts on wildlife and habitat by rapidly restoring a more natural forest structure to areas of the park where fire has been excluded would have major, long-term, and beneficial effects.  The threat of catastrophic fire and its impacts on wildlife and habitat would be greatly and quickly reduced under Alternative D.  Generally, effects would be beneficial and minor to major for