Social and Economic Conditions

INYO NATIONAL FOREST ASSESSMENT TOPIC PAPER
(MAY 2013 DRAFT)
Chapter 6: Social, Cultural, and Economic Conditions
Introduction
The first part of this chapter describes the social, cultural, and economic context of the
Inyo National Forest (Inyo NF or Forest) and how that influences plan area
management. The second part identifies key social, cultural, and economic conditions
that the plan area influences, as well as trends affecting these conditions. At the end of
this chapter, we describe potential areas of opportunity for forest management to
contribute to social, economic, and ecological sustainability. Forest Service proposed
directives were used to provide guidance for assessing social, cultural, and economic
conditions related to the Inyo National Forest (Inyo NF or Forest) (see Forest Service
Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 10, section 13.1).
Process and Methods
Scale of Assessment
Area of Influence
The area of influence for the Inyo NF is the set of census county divisions (CCDs) that
intersects the forest administrative boundary. As shown in the table below, the area of
influence includes a total of 6 CCDs from 3 counties in California and 2 CCDs from 2
counties in Nevada.
Table 1. Area of influence for the Inyo National Forest
State County Census County Division (CCD) Acres Population*
CA Inyo Bishop 470,805 12,859
CA Inyo Independence 1,679,636 2,316
CA Inyo Lone Pine 1,375,941 2,867
CA Mono Mammoth Lakes 1,331,033 12,060
CA Mono North Mono 673,371 1,845
NV Esmeralda Silverpeak 1,321,474 566
NV Mineral Mina 1,056,186 107
Total 9,657,552 51,947
*From the American Community Survey (ACS) of the Census Bureau using annual surveys conducted during 2006-
2010. Number represent an average during this period. See below for more information on data sources.
Page 1 of 83

Figure 1. Inyo National Forest county census divisions and gateway communities
Census county divisions are county subdivisions delineated by the U.S. Census Bureau
in cooperation with state, tribal, and local officials for statistical purposes (U.S. Census
Bureau 2010). Using CCDs rather than entire counties provides a closer fit to the
geographical footprint of the plan area. However, we also present data for the set of
counties that intersects the Inyo NF to compare how these two footprints may differ. In
some cases, such as with the economic portions of this chapter, CCD-level data are not
Page 2 of 83

available and county-level data will be used. Counties represent a good economic study
area for examination since much of the economic activity associated with the forests will
be occurring in these areas both near the forest and in the larger cities.
Approximately 87 percent of the Inyo NF lies within Mono, Inyo, Mineral, and
Esmeralda Counties, with more than 80 percent in Inyo and Mono Counties (USFS 2009).
While the western side of the Inyo NF borders or partially lies within Tuolumne,
Madera, Fresno, and Tulare Counties, these counties are generally considered to be more
socially and economically tied to areas on the west side of the Sierra Nevada (Sierra
Nevada Ecosystem Project Science Team 1996) and, therefore, were not included in the
analysis of socioeconomic data. The small, southeastern portion of Tulare County may
have some associations with the east side; however, most of Tulare County lies west of
the Sierra Nevada and is more associated with the Sequoia National Forest and Sequoia
and Kings Canyon National Parks, which have large areas located within the county. In
general, the Forest has limited interaction with the west side due to the vast wilderness,
high mountains, and long and difficult travel required. There is some access to and from
the west side through the use of these wilderness areas, which connect many of the
national forests and national parks in the region. Seasonal roads through Mariposa and
Tuolumne Counties also provide critical travel routes to the Inyo NF, particularly for
visitors and tourists.
This chapter primarily focuses on assessing social, cultural, and economic conditions in
the Inyo NF’s area of influence. However, conditions far beyond the area of influence
can also impact the Forest and vice versa, for example, demand for water and recreation
activities. Influences beyond the area of influence will be considered throughout the
chapter where applicable. In the first part of this chapter, we compare socioeconomic
data for the area of influence to the Sierra Nevada bioregion, California, and U.S. as a
whole. A separate chapter is also available that assesses social, cultural, and economic
conditions at the bioregional scale. A layering of scales will provide a more complete
picture of the socioeconomic conditions related to the Inyo NF.
Gateway Communities
We also present socioeconomic data for gateway communities in the area of influence.
Gateway communities are communities that exist in close proximity to a unit of the
national forest system whose residents and elected officials are often affected by the
decisions made in the course of managing the forest, and whose decisions may affect the
resources of the forest. Because of this, there are shared interests and concerns regarding
decisions. Gateway communities usually offer food, lodging, and other services to forest
visitors. They also provide opportunities for employee housing, and a convenient
location to purchase goods and services essential to forest administration (definition
adapted from the National Park Service) (National Park Service 2006).
Gateway communities for the Inyo NF include: Lee Vining, June Lake, Mammoth Lakes,
Bishop, Big Pine, Independence, and Lone Pine.
Page 3 of 83

Tribal Communities
Tribal social, cultural, and economic conditions may be uniquely impacted by forest
management decisions that warrant a separate examination. Tribal communities may
also function as gateway communities. We present an overview of tribes associated with
the plan area. They include the Antelope Valley Indian Community, Big Pine Paiute
Tribe of Owens Valley, Bishop Paiute Tribal Council, Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone
Reservation, Timbisha Shoshone of Death Valley, Fort Independence Community of
Paiute Indians, Timbisha Shoshone Tribe (Bishop), Mono Lake Kutzadika, Bento Paiute
Reservation—Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe, Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony, California
Indian Basket Weavers, Tubatulabals of Kern Valley, Walker River Paiute Tribe,
Yosemite-Mono Lake Paiute Indian Community, and Washoe Tribe of Nevada and
California. In addition, conditions and trends for tribal communities are integrated
throughout this chapter.
Information Sources
The primary source of socioeconomic data for the area of influence, including
population, age, gender, race, ethnicity, language, education, housing, poverty levels,
household earnings, and employment were taken from the Economic Profile System –
Human Dimension Toolkit (EPS-HDT) developed by Headwaters Economics (2012a) in
partnership with the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service
(http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt). EPS-HDT is a free software
application that runs in Microsoft Excel and produces detailed socioeconomic reports of
communities, counties, states, and regions, including custom aggregations and
comparisons. EPS-HDT uses published statistics from federal data sources, including the
Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce;
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor; and others.
EPS-HDT develops CCD- and county-level reports using data from the Census Bureau's
American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a nation-wide survey conducted every
year by the Census Bureau that provides current demographic, social, economic, and
housing information about communities every year, information that until recently was
only available once a decade. The ACS is not the same as the decennial census, which is
conducted every ten years (the ACS has replaced the detailed, Census 2000 long-form
questionnaire). One disadvantage of using this data is that the data for smaller scale
geographies are presented as multiyear estimates and cannot be used to describe any
particular year in the period, only what the average value is over the full period. Thus,
2010 ACS data presented here represent an average during the period from 2006 to 2010,
and will be different than data from the 2010 decennial census. In addition, because the
ACS collects data from a sample of the population, it is subject to error. For details on
the accuracy of the data see the U.S. Census Bureau’s (2011) document “American
Community Survey Multiyear Accuracy of the Data.” Less populated areas tend to have
lower accuracy. Data presented for the Silverpeak CCD, North Mono CCD, and, in
particular, the Mina CCD have high variability and may not accurately represent the
population in these areas. In addition, as demographic data are broken down into
Page 4 of 83

subpopulations and sample size decreases, accuracy also decreases.
The "Science Synthesis to Support Land and Resource Management Plan Revision in the
Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades" (Science Synthesis), developed by the USDA
Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station (Long et al. 2013), provided most of
the scientific, peer reviewed information that we included here. While the synthesis area
does not cover the drier parts of the Inyo NF that are more representative of the Great
Basin, many of the broader concepts are still useful beyond this area. This synthesis
focused on peer-reviewed science that has become available since the development of
existing land management plans in the Sierra Nevada.
Other major sources of information that we used to describe conditions in the area of
influence and beyond include: Images of America Inyo National Forest by Andy Selters for
the Eastern Sierra Interpretive Association, the 1996 Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project
(SNEP) final report to Congress, data from the California Employment Development
Department, data from the California Department of Finance, the California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection’s 2010 assessment of California’s forests and rangelands,
the Sierra Nevada Conservancy 2011 Strategic Plan and 2011 System Indicators Report
for Demographics and the Economy, and Sierra Business Council documents.
Indicators
Below is the list of measurement indicators used to assess or “measure” the condition
and trends of social, cultural, and economic conditions that the Inyo NF influences.
Table 2. Measurement indicators for the assessment of social, economic, and cultural cconditions
Characteristic
or attribute
being
measured or
assessed
Connections
with the land
Visitor Satisfaction
Indicator Measure or Unit
Social Conditions
(looks at people’s ability to connect to the land
through the quality of their experiences)
Youth Connection to Nature
(an emotional affinity to nature has numerous
social/ecological benefits and if developed early in
life, can remain a stable trait)
Diversity of Visitors
(looks at who is connecting with the forests through
direct interactions)
Page 5 of 83
NVUM data
NVUM youth visitation
data
NVUM data

Social
Interactions
Human
Health, Safety,
and Education
Community
Values
Cultural
Connections
Traditional
Uses
Scenic Integrity
(departure from natural appearing conditions is one
factor that can influence sense of place and is
especially important for tribal communities)
Opportunities for Socializing
(role that forest plays in providing opportunities for
spending time with friends and family)
Collaboration in Management Processes
(forests help establish community identity, inspire
civic involvement, and collective action by bringing
people together through collaborative processes)
Health
(forests provide physical and mental health benefits,
provision of basic necessities of life)
Safety
(identifies how forests help communities stay safe
through wildfire prevention and suppression)
Educational and Skill-Building Opportunities
(looks at how forests provide opportunities for
people, especially youth, to learn about
forests/management and build skills)
Cultural Conditions
Diversity of Values
(identifies how forests support and influence the
wide range of values and interests that community
members have)
Artistic Inspiration
(identifies activities and events in the arts that are
inspired by a forest, contributing to the area’s culture
and future legacy)
Opportunities to Connect with History and Culture
(identifies range of opportunities offered on a forest
through its cultural and historical resources and
activities)
Tribal Concerns
(how forests support and protect the rights and
privileges of tribes in order for them to maintain
their culture)
Page 6 of 83
Existing Visual
Condition data
Qualitative description
of information from
Roberts et al. (2009) and
Long et al. (2013)
Qualitative description
about the general role
that forests play from
Long et al. (2013)
Qualitative description
of general role that
forests play from Long
et al. (2013)
Qualitative description
of general role that
forests play in fire risk
management from Long
et al. (2013)
Qualitative description
of general role that
forests play in California
Long et al. (2013)
Qualitative description
from Long et al. (2013),
other chapters, Sierra
Business Council survey
(1997)
Qualitative description
from the public, staff
expertise
Chapters 13 and 9,
NVUM
Qualitative description
from Chapter 12 and
Long et al. (2013)

Economic
Sectors
Dependent on
Forest
Management
Fiscal
Conditions
Level of Forest
Investment in
the Economy
NTFP Harvesting
(looks at tribal and non-tribal harvesting, which is a
culturally important activity provided by forests)
Economic Conditions
Forest Related Sector Employment
(identifies employment in the key forest related
sectors and the extent to which these sectors drive
the economy)
Forest Related Sector Wages (Annual Salary)
(identifies wages in the key forest related sectors and
extent to which they represent relatively higher or
lower paying jobs in the economy)
Forest Land Use Receipts
(economic activity that is generated on forest lands)
Timber Yield Tax Revenue (Dollars)
(county revenues generated from timber)
Transient Lodging Tax Revenue (Dollars)
(county revenues generated from visitor lodging).
PILT and SRS Payments to Counties (Dollars)
(county payments received for reductions to
property tax bases due to the presence of federal
land)
Forest Service Spending (Dollars)
(level of forest investment/spending in the local
economy)
Social, Cultural, and Economic Context
Page 7 of 83
NVUM, permit data
EPS-HDT data
Census Bureau data
Bureau of Economic
Analysis data
Department of Labor
data
USFS FY 2012 Receipts
CA State Controller’s
Office
CA State Controller’s
Office
EPS-HDT data
USFS PBA Monitoring
Reports
The focus of this section is to provide the social, cultural, and economic context of the
Inyo National Forest. It includes information on history and culture, population,
demographics, settlement patterns and housing, human well-being, the political
environment, economic health, and economic diversity. This context is important to
understand because it influences national forests and forest management. While forest
management can, to an extent, influence social, cultural, and economic conditions
(discussed in the second part of this chapter), larger socioeconomic forces may be at play
that influence the agency’s management decisions and outcomes and, thereby, its ability
to influence some of these conditions.

History and Culture
Historic Context
Similar to the bio-region, the Inyo NF has a rich history and culture that has always been
deeply connected to the land and its natural resources (Chapter 13). As described in
Selters (2012), Paiute people have been living in the area for over 600 years. They had a
successful, seminomadic lifestyle, hunting deer, bighorn sheep, and small game, and
gathering plants, especially piñon nuts. They were known for thei basketry and also
crafted small pots and practiced basic cultivation. White settlers first showed up in the
1850s, driving the Paiutes off of their ancestral homeland. During the same time,
prospectors were moving into the area, and boomtowns and mining districts began to
sprout. Around the turn of the 20 th century, Los Angeles began looking toward water
from the Owens River to grow their city into a thriving metropolis. The city began
acquiring as much private land and water rights as they could along the river. In 1907, to
help in this effort, President Theodore Roosevelt set aside land along the Owens River
above Bishop to help ensure the river would be diverted to Los Angeles. Thus began the
origin of the Inyo NF, which eventually became the forest as we now know it around
1920. The aqueduct opened its gates in 1913, and Los Angeles’ population grew to five
times its size within the next 20 years. With limited water, the Owens Valley became
nearly depopulated. However, the public eventually found the Inyo NF a haven for
recreation. It eventually became one of the Forest Service’s flagship national forests for
non-timber goals.
Cultural Context
The current cultural conditions in the Sierra Nevada in general are deeply tied to the
region’s rich past and can influence how national forest system (NFS) lands in the bioregion
are used and managed. Sierra Nevada residents take pride in their history and
the lasting presence of that history in the region’s small towns and historic sites (Sierra
Business Council 1997). In a 1995 poll of Sierra Nevada voters, 62 percent of Sierra
Nevada voters agreed that their counties should be doing more to preserve historic
places and resources (Sierra Business Council 1997). These historic places play a valuable
role in defining the distinct character of Sierra Nevada communities for both residents
and visitors, yet are impacted by new development that detracts from the unique
character of these communities (Sierra Business Council 1997). The values that people in
the Sierra Nevada hold have been passed on through generations. However, values have
also been changing over time due to new knowledge, recreation and tourism growth,
migration from urban areas, as well as demographic shifts. Both cultural legacy and
change influence how people value and use national forests and expectations regarding
how NFS lands in the bio-region should be managed.
Humans have cared for and lived on the land within the plan area for as long as 10,000
years, though the Numic people known today as the Owens Valley Paiute first became
identifiable archaeologically at around A.D. 600 to 1000 (Dean et al 2004; Chapter 13). In
Native American culture, humans are viewed as part of the natural system, helping to
Page 8 of 83

ensure abundance and diversity of plant and animal life (Sierra Nevada Ecosystem
Project Science Team 1996). Archaeological evidence and historical and ethnographic
accounts attest to the diversity, longevity, and importance that Native American groups
have had in this area. Today, while most of their ancestral lands are occupied by others,
tribal groups throughout the Sierra Nevada have maintained distinct ethnic identities.
In 2010, the Native American population accounted for 7.8 percent of the total
population in the Inyo NF’s area of influence, which is greater than the percentage of
Native Americans in the total population at bio-regional, state, and national levels. The
Native American population in the area of influence accounted for 5.6 percent of the
total Native American population in the Sierra Nevada bio-region. Fifty-five percent of
the Native American population in the area of influence is located in the Bishop CCD in
Inyo County; 23 percent is located in the Mammoth Lakes CCD in Mono County.
Table 3. Native American population in the Inyo NF’s area of influence compared to the bio-region,
California, and U.S., 2010 (Source: EPS-HDT)
Total Native
American
Population
Page 9 of 83
Percent of
Total
Population
Bishop CCD (Inyo) 1,402 10.9%
Independence CCD (Inyo) 225 9.7%
Lone Pine CCD (Inyo) 224 7.8%
Mammoth Lakes CCD (Mono) 591 4.9%
North Mono CCD (Mono) 87 4.7%
Silverpeak CCD (Esmeralda, NV) 23 4.1%
Mina CCD (Mineral, NV) - 0.0%
Area of Influence (CCDs) 2,551 7.8%
Four County Area 3,052 8.0%
Sierra Nevada Bio-Region (CCDs) 45,208 1.4%
California 283,628 0.8%
U.S. 2,480,465 0.8%

23%
9%
9%
3%
1%
Figure 2. Distribution of the Native American population in the area of influence across CCDs
(Source: EPS-HDT)
55%
Because most of the tribes in the Sierra Nevada have a small land base or none at all,
they have to do most of their gathering on public lands (Sierra Nevada Ecosystem
Project Science Team 1996). Native American culture is inextricably connected to the
land and relies on the forest and its resources to maintain that culture. As described in
Chapter 12, the tribal communities in the plan area continue to use Forest lands as
traditional sources for food, fuel, and materials for basketry and other traditional arts.
Tribal members collect pine nuts for personal and extended family use on Forest lands.
Collecting firewood for individuals, elders and extended family and is an annual
activity that brings tribal members to the Forest. Basketry and other traditional crafts
require plant materials that frequently are only available on Forest lands. Other
traditional uses of the forest include hunting, fishing, and sites for educational,
ceremonial, and religious purposes.
The Forest Service shares in the federal government's overall trust responsibility for
federally recognized American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. Tribes throughout
California have the right to hunt, fish, and gather on tribal lands as well as have access
to water associated with providing adequate supplies for direct consumption,
agricultural purposes, or protecting existing resources. Some tribes have rights
associated with treaties, and some tribes have other reserved rights. Forests need to
consult with federally recognized tribes that have rights and interests within forest
boundaries to determine how those rights may affect management decisions. See
Chapter 12 for further information.
The extent of Native American influences on the landscape has been debated, and
estimates range from localized (Skinner and Chang 1996) to widespread (Anderson and
Page 10 of 83
Bishop CCD (Inyo)
Independence CCD (Inyo)
Lone Pine CCD (Inyo)
Mammoth Lakes CCD (Mono)
North Mono CCD (Mono)
Silverpeak CCD (Esmeralda,
NV)

Moratto 1996). According to Anderson and Moratto (1996), resource management by
Native Americans in certain places in the Sierra Nevada bio-region was long term and
widespread, producing ecological and evolutionary consequences in the biota
(Blackburn and Anderson 1993). Therefore, many ecosystems in the Sierra are not selfmaintaining
islands that require only protection to remain in a “pristine” state. There is
currently an ecological “vacuum,” or disequilibrium, in certain places in the Sierra
Nevada resulting from the discontinuation of traditional Native American management
of these ecosystems. In some places, the decline in biotic diversity, species extirpation
and endangerment, human encroachment into fire-type plant communities (e.g.,
chaparral), and greatly increased risk of catastrophic fires are symptoms of this
disequilibrium.
Non-tribal gathering of special forest products and general botanical products for
research and education occurs on the Inyo NF. People primarily collect seeds, but also
transplants, pine cones, and Christmas trees. The more popular areas for seed collection
on the Forest include the Grant Lake/Mono Lake area, and the foothills of the Sierra
escarpment, along the west side of the Owens Valley. This is based on the location of
high productivity areas for desired species. Pine cones include Jeffrey, lodgepole, and
western white pines. Seeds include many species; bitterbrush, sulphur buckwheat, and
native grasses are the most common. Transplants for bonsai and other uses, include
lodgepole pine, western white pine, western juniper, aspen, and other species.
Christmas trees have typically been pinyon pine, with permits often issued to local
organizations such as the Boosters or Boy Scouts. General botanical collection has
remained relatively stable over the past several years; however, commercial seed
collection has increased due to the increasing market demand for native plant materials.
See Chapter 8: Assessing Multiple Uses – Fish, Plants and Wildlife for further
information on special forest products and general botanical harvesting on the Forest.
Refer to Chapter 1: Assessing Terrestrial Ecosystems, Aquatic Ecosystems, and
Watersheds for a discussion of the current condition of habitats on the Forest, and
conditions affecting native plants.
Timber harvesting is part of the Sierra Nevada’s cultural heritage and has played a
lasting role in shaping community values and identities. The principle by-product of
timber management on the Inyo NF is small to medium diameter trees, which are made
available to commercial fuelwood operators via timber sale or the general public
through the Personal Use Fuelwood Program. The Inyo NF is the primary source for
fuelwood for home heating in the eastern Sierra region south of Conway Summit
because of the abundant supply and relative ease of access. Some operators also supply
local retail establishments with bagged campfire wood, primarily appealing to visitors
camping and recreating in the local area. Aside from occasional loads of bagged wood to
be sold to retail establishments in the Lake Tahoe area, nearly 100% of all timber
products generated by the Forest are used locally in the Inyo and Mono County areas.
Commercial and personal use fuelwood are expected to continue to be the dominant
forest product on the Inyo NF. Cut and sold volumes have been relatively stable over
the past decade and unless new markets develop or there are changes in technology or
Page 11 of 83

economic conditions, there is unlikely to be substantial growth or reduction in these
trends. Generations of local families on the Inyo NF have grown up with cutting
firewood (“wooding” in the local vernacular) as an annual family activity. For some,
opening day of wood season on the Forest (May 1st each year) is as important as
opening days for fishing and hunting seasons are to others. See Chapter 8: Assessing
Multiple Uses – Timber for further information on timber harvesting on the Inyo NF.
Mining has played a major role in shaping the history and culture of the Sierra Nevada
in general. This is true for the Inyo NF as well. As described in Chapter 10: Assessing
Renewable and Nonrenewable Energy and Mineral Resources, active mining claims are
present within the Inyo NF and are expected to continue based on the number of
existing mining claims that have been maintained for decades and the regular filing of
new claims. Current prospecting activity occurs only occasionally on the Inyo NF in the
form of gold panning in creeks along the lower eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada and
the eastern and western slopes of the White Mountains. Current mining activity on the
Inyo NF generally consists of exploration, production, and milling activities. Exploration
is active in the Mammoth Lakes Basin, Truman Meadows, and Mazourka Canyon.
Exploration activities consist of underground and surface sampling, exploratory drilling,
and metal detecting. Production is active at the Black Point Cinder Mine. Milling is
active near Lee Vining at the US Pumice Mill Site. The long history of mining is evident
by the presence of an estimated 1500 abandoned mines on the Forest and over 5000 in
the broader landscape. Various health and safety hazards are associated with
abandoned mines. However, abandoned mines can also contribute to the area’s history
and cultural heritage, and provide habitat for bat species.
Ranching and agricultural lands are an integral part of the region’s economy, history,
cultural heritage and scenic beauty (Sierra Nevada Conservancy 2011). There are a total
of 49 cattle & horse and sheep & goat allotments currently identified on the Inyo NF.
Records for 2012 report 4,717 head of cattle and 15,350 head of sheep were permitted to
graze at various times throughout the year on the Forest, with the primary grazing
season of June 15 through September 30. Interviews conducted with ranchers in the
central Sierra Nevada foothills, revealed that for the majority of ranchers, “living and
working amidst natural beauty was a highly important reason to continue ranching”
and that “although ranching is not seen as the ideal way to make a living, most ranchers
want their children to continue ranching and to pass on the family tradition” (Sulak et
al. 2002). However, ranching has declined due to shifts in land management priority,
societal pressures that have resulted in new policies, reduced rangeland forage
production, competing land uses, family demographics, and the marginal economics of
livestock grazing (Huntsinger et al. 2010). See Chapter 8: Assessing Multiple Uses –
Range for further information on the use of rangelands on the Inyo NF.
Although to a lesser degree than elsewhere in the Sierra Nevada region, a continuous
influx of migrants from urban areas has been influencing the culture of many rural and
traditionally resource-based communities, including the area of influence for the Inyo
NF. Newcomers are often less tied to natural resource production and more tied to
scenic and rural qualities of the landscape, which can conflict with the views of long-
Page 12 of 83

time residents. As a result, long-time residents can feel a loss of social power and
cultural identity (Walker and Fortmann 2003). Conflict often arises over landscapes in
places where economic and cultural values are not being placed on specific natural
resources but on aesthetic and environmental values that have undefined owners and
are the result of multiple landholdings across the landscape (Walker and Fortmann
2003).
Outdoor recreation is a large part of the culture and lifestyle throughout the Sierra
Nevada and one of the main ways that residents and visitors connect to the land and
enjoy the natural world. It also constitutes a significant part of tourism activity in the
region and relies on the condition of Sierra Nevada ecosystems (Sierra Nevada
Ecosystem Project Science Team 1996). According to Round 2 1 National Visitor Use
Monitoring (NVUM) data from fiscal years 2005-2007, annual visitation to the Inyo NF
was estimated to be 2.86 million people. Of the 10 national forests in the bio-region, the
Inyo NF is the 2 nd most visited forest (the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit as the
most visited forest). According to FY 2011 NVUM data, visitation decreased to 2.52
million people.
Recreational trends and the mix of outdoor activities chosen by the public evolve over
time and these demands influence forest lands and consequent management decisions
(USFS 2012a). According to Cordell (2012), nationally, nature-based outdoor recreation
between 2000 and 2009 increased in total number of participants as well as in number of
activity days (Cordell 2012). Site based activities, including camping in developed sites
and family gatherings increased. Increases were also observed in viewing and
photographing nature, especially wildflowers, trees, natural scenery, wildlife, and birds.
Backcountry activities declined somewhat, while off-highway vehicle use levels
remained steady, and snowmobiling declined. Participation levels in different types of
activities varied by gender, ethnicity and race, annual family income, place of residence,
and residence status.
Roberts et al. (2009) describe five trends in recreation in California:
Californians are seeking relaxation, socialization, and natural values from their
outdoor recreation pursuits.
Californians pursue a wide array of activities outdoors. Projected demand in
2020 for outdoor recreation includes sightseeing, non-consumptive wildlife
viewing, biking, family gatherings, hiking, horseback riding, rock climbing,
walking, and camping (Cordell et al. 2004).
Californians want more amenities when they engage in outdoor recreation.
Californians differ in their outdoor recreation styles and participation patterns.
Outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism are important elements of
1 We use Round 2 rather than Round 3 data to compare visitation across forests in the bio-region
because some forests have not yet completed Round 3 surveys.
Page 13 of 83

California’s tourism portfolio.
Roberts et al. (2009) also note the growing importance of volunteerism in recreation,
which enhances both people’s lives and landscapes. Community-based stewardship and
public land volunteerism is not systematically tracked in the national or state outdoor
recreation data sets, but some evidence suggests this form of outdoor recreation activity
is on the rise. Themed days and special events (e.g., Coastal Cleanup, Public Lands Day,
National Trails Day) are increasing the visibility of volunteering on public lands. New
organizations and communication tools are helping to support increased involvement
from new and different groups.
Based on fiscal year 2006 and 2011 NVUM data, the table below lists the top twelve
activities on the Inyo NF that visitors participated in during each of the years. Downhill
skiing, viewing wildlife, developed camping, and skiing experienced a decrease in
visitor participation.
Table 4. Visitor participation in activities on the Inyo NF (Source: 2006 and 2011 National Visitor
Use Monitoring Program).
Activity Participation FY 2006 (%) FY 2011(%)
Viewing Natural Features 49.9 59.2
Relaxing 49.6 54.6
Downhill Skiing 45.9 39.4
Hiking / Walking 43.7 43.8
Viewing Wildlife 40.0 34.5
Driving for Pleasure 26.9 29.0
Developed Camping 17.7 14.7
Fishing 17.5 14.6
Nature Center Activities 13.8 21.8
Visiting Historic Sites 12.9 14.1
Picnicking 12.7 18.8
Resort Use 10.4 14.7
Because of the diversity of values that people have, a variety of interests exist regarding
forest management. This can create complex situations for land managers and affect
forest resources. In addition, many communities outside the area of influence have an
interest in Inyo NF management, whether they directly use the forests (e.g. recreation
and tourism) or not (e.g. water demand from urban and agricultural areas, concern for
endangered species) (Long et al. 2013).
As shown in the table below, many visitors to the Inyo NF come from areas far beyond
the area of influence. Over 60 percent of visitors to the Forest travel between 201-500
miles. The percent of visitors travelling over 500 miles increased from 8.3 percent in FY
2006 to 16.5 percent in FY 2011. As shown in the map below, 20.8 percent of visitors to
the Forest in FY 2011 come from Los Angeles County, another 9.5 percent from Orange
Page 14 of 83

County, and another 7.2 percent from San Diego County. Four percent of visitors come
from abroad.
Table 5. Percent of visits to Inyo NF by distance traveled (Source: 2011 National Visitor Use
Monitoring data).
Miles from Survey Respondent's Home
to Interview Location
FY 2006 (%) FY 2011 (%)
0 - 25 miles 16.4 9.0
26 - 50 miles 2.5 3.0
51 - 75 miles 1.1 2.3
76 - 100 miles 0.8 0.8
101 - 200 miles 8.0 6.7
201 - 500 miles 62.9 61.7
Over 500 miles 8.3 16.5
Total 100.0 100.0
Page 15 of 83

Figure 3. Visitation to the Inyo NF by county (Source: 2011 National Visitor Use Monitoring data)
Page 16 of 83

Population
According to the Sierra Business Council (2007), population growth is considered to be
the driving force of change throughout the Sierra Nevada. Between 2000 and 2010, the
population grew by 5.3 percent within the area of influence to about 32,620 people,
which is quite a bit less than the 14.6 percent increase that occurred in the bio-region as a
whole (see map of population change across CCDs in the bio-region).
During this same period, population increased by approximately 8 percent at both state
and national levels. Population growth in California has slowed over the past couple
decades and has had unprecedented migration of residents to other states, while
international migration to the state has remained strong (Johnson 2011).
Table 6. Population change in the Inyo NF’s area of influence, 2000-2010 (Source: EPT-HDT) is
shown in the following table.
2010 2000
Population
Change
Percent
Change
Bishop CCD (Inyo) 12,859 12,216 643 5.3%
Independence CCD (Inyo) 2,316 2,612 -296 -11.3%
Lone Pine CCD (Inyo) 2,867 2,479 388 15.7%
Mammoth Lakes CCD (Mono) 12,060 10,567 1,493 14.1%
North Mono CCD (Mono) 1,845 2,286 -441 -19.3%
Silverpeak CCD (Esmeralda, NV) 566 531 35 6.6%
Mina CCD (Mineral, NV) 107 284 -177 -62.3%
CCD Area of Influence 32,620 30,975 1,645 5.3%
Four County Area 38,043 36,840 1,203 3.3%
Bio-region CCDs 3,261,939 2,845,689 416,250 14.6%
California 36,637,290 33,871,648 2,765,642 8.2%
U.S. 303,965,272 281,421,906 22,543,366 8.0%
Note: EPS-HDT pulled 2010 data from the American Community Survey. Data for 2010 therefore
represent an average from surveys conducted from 2006-2010, and will be different from 2010
Decennial Census data. However, 2000 data are pulled from the 2000 Decennial Census.
Page 17 of 83

Figure 4. Population change by county census division, 2000-2010
Population growth between 2000 and 2010 was greatest in the Lone Pine CCD (15.7%) in
Inyo County. The Mammoth Lakes CCD in Mono County had the second greatest
increase in population (14.1%), but in terms of numbers, contributed the most to the
increase in population in the area of influence as a whole. Several CCDs in the area of
Page 18 of 83

influence had population declines, including the Independence CCD (-11.3%), North
Mono CCD (-19.3%), and Mina CCD (-62.3%). In general, not much local population
growth is possible due to large amounts of land under public ownership. The east sierra
sub-region experienced the smallest percent change in population across the Sierra
Nevada bio-region.
The following figure displays estimated population projections 2010-2050 for the state of
California, the aggregate of counties that make up the Sierra Nevada bio-region
(California counties only), and the two California counties that contribute to the Inyo
National Forest’s area of influence (Source: California Department of Finance).
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
California Bio-Region Counties in California
Inyo County Mono County
Figure 5. Estimated population projections, 2010-2050, for the state of California, the aggregate of
counties that make up the Sierra Nevada bio-region (California counties only), and the two
California counties that contribute to the Inyo National Forest’s area of influence (Source: California
Department of Finance)
According to interim population projections from the California Department of Finance,
by the year 2050, the population in California will have increased 37 percent from 2010
levels to over 51 million people. For those counties in California that are partially or
entirely within the Sierra Nevada bio-region, total population is expected to increase by
69 percent. In contrast, the population in Inyo County is expected to increase 27 percent
and 37 percent in Mono County. Population projections were only available at the
county level and not at the CCD level.
While the population in the area of influence has seen relatively little growth, increasing
population outside the area of influence can impact the Inyo NF, especially growth in
Page 19 of 83

Southern California. As discussed in the Science Synthesis, influences from outside the
Sierra Nevada, including population and demographic change as well as additional
social, cultural, economic, and political changes, will continue to have impacts on the
region. In many ways, population growth has benefited the economies of Sierra Nevada
communities, providing a more diverse and stable economic base; however, it has also
strained resources and diminished the natural landscape and small town appeal (Sierra
Business Council 1997). In addition, internal growth has been accompanied by
continued claims on the region’s resources from outside in California’s urban and
agricultural areas (Mittelbach and Wambem 2003). Some of the main ways that
population growth influences the Inyo NF is through impacts on water quality and
supply, recreation, and the spread of invasive species.
Water
Water originating from the Sierra Nevada supplies roughly 60 percent of California’s
fresh water, much of which drives the Central Valley’s agricultural economy (Sierra
Business Council 2007). Water from the Sierra Nevada is also vital to urban
communities. As described in Chapter 8: Assessing Multiple Uses – Water, the diversion
of water from relatively wet mountains to relatively dry lower elevation cities and
agricultural areas (and associated legal battles) is a common story throughout the
western United States, especially California. Perhaps nowhere in the country is this story
more well-known than the transfer of water from the Owens Valley and Mono Lake
watershed to the City of Los Angeles. Currently, an average of 39% of the runoff
produced in the Owens Lake and Mono Lake watershed is exported to the City of Los
Angeles for municipal uses, accounting for an average of 36 percent of the total water
supplies in recent years (LADWP 2010).
Water from the Forest and adjacent lands is used extensively for recreation. Rivers,
streams, natural lakes and reservoirs are used for fishing, boating, swimming, and
aesthetic enjoyment. Further, hydroelectric facilities on-Forest and downstream provide
electricity for local communities and elsewhere. As the headwaters of the Owens River,
and portions of the San Joaquin and Kern Rivers, water originating on the Inyo National
Forest supplies water and electricity for millions of people in communities as farranging
as Los Angeles, Mammoth Lakes, and Fresno. Beyond surface water,
groundwater pumped from Forest lands is used both on and off-Forest, for uses
including domestic, municipal, agricultural and recreational uses. Unlike surface water
diversions, most groundwater pumped from Forest land is used within the Forest
boundaries.
As population grows throughout the state, demand for water in California grows, while
the supply remains the same (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
2010). According to the SNEP report (Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Science Team
1996), manipulation of streams for water supply, irrigation, transportation, hydropower,
waste disposal, mining, flood control, timber harvest, recreation, and other uses has
degraded watershed in the Sierra Nevada, making aquatic and riparian systems the
most altered and impaired habitats of the Sierra Nevada. The pressures from
Page 20 of 83

California’s agricultural and urban areas are being resisted by groups interested in
preserving biodiversity and environmental quality in the Sierra Nevada and who view
the continuous and rising export of water to other regions as undesirable in the long run
(Mittelbach and Wambem 2003). Population growth has led to increased competition for
water among various uses within the Sierra Nevada as well, including instream flows
for aquatic species, water recreation, hydropower, domestic uses, and national forest
and special use permit site uses. With climate change causing earlier peak flows, less
snowfall, and predicted to cause more extreme floods and droughts and overall less
precipitation throughout the plan area, it is highly likely that this will add to the increase
in demand for uses of groundwater and surface water in the plan area, with increasing
conflict among users.
There is unlikely to be a significant increase in local population in the area of influence,
due to the lack of private land in Inyo and Mono Counties. In the other Forest Counties,
(i.e., Tulare, Fresno, and Madera Counties in California, and Mineral and Esmeralda
Counties in Nevada) the Forest is almost entirely wilderness or far from any population
centers, and therefore there is unlikely to be increased demand for municipal surface
water in those watersheds on the Forest. However, the Mammoth Community Water
District (MCWD) does predict a growth in the Town of Mammoth Lake’s population, as
well as a 50 percent increase in visitors over the next 20 years. Their current supply,
along with two new production wells, is expected to be sufficient to meet their needs.
Further, the east side of the White Mountains, in Fish Lake Valley, has more private land
than most areas surrounding the Forest. Much of that land is currently undeveloped and
for sale. An increase in population of that area could affect the Forest’s surface water
use, but it is more likely to affect groundwater use due to the limited surface water
available on the Forest in that area. Please visit Chapter 8 for more information on water.
Recreation
The Sequoia, Inyo, and Sierra National Forests account for 45 percent of all recreation
visitor days on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Together with the
adjacent national parks, this portion of the Sierra Nevada probably has one of the
highest recreation activity levels in the world (USFS 2012b). This section will explore
how population growth outside the area of influence affects recreation on the Inyo NF.
Population growth has had positive impacts on Sierra Nevada communities. Tourists,
new residents, and new businesses increase the financial and human capital of
communities and create jobs, stimulating local economic development (Charnley et al.
2008). Recreation and tourism have brought new economic opportunities to many
communities that were formerly timber dependent (Charnely et al. 2008). Further
discussion on the economic role of recreation and tourism can be found in the economic
sections of this chapter.
Nationally, a stable public land base, a declining private natural land base, and
increasing numbers of outdoor recreation participants are expected to result in increased
conflicts among recreationists and declines in the quality and number of per-person
Page 21 of 83

ecreation opportunities, especially on public lands near large and growing population
centers (USFS 2012a). In California, activities such as off-highway vehicle (OHV)
recreation, mountain biking, boating and adventure recreation, have increased
dramatically in recent years; while at the same time population growth, urbanization
and alternative energy production compete for suitable lands (California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection 2010).
The Inyo NF has experienced increasing demand for recreation and consequent
crowding, especially at places like Mt. Whitney, Reds Meadow, and Mammoth Lakes
Basin. According to NVUM data, on a scale of 1 (hardly anyone there) to 10
(overcrowded), visitors generally rated crowding somewhere between 4 and 6 for all site
types. Between FY 2006 and 2011, ratings decreased (less crowded) for day use
developed sites and designated wilderness. Increasing demand for recreation not only
has the potential to affect visitor experience, but can also affect ecosystem health if left
unmanaged. For further information on recreation, see Chapter 9: Assessing Recreation
Settings, Opportunities and Access, and Scenic Charater.
Invasive Species
This section will explore how population growth outside the area of influence affects the
spread of invasive species on the Inyo NF. People are a major conduit for seed
movement, and the number of non-native weeds found in California has increased with
population growth (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2010).
National forest recreation can impact the spread of invasive species, for example,
through the movement of firewood and through recreation activities and equipment.
Aquatic invasive species, such as quagga mussel and New Zealand mudsnails, have
spread throughout California via boats, fishing equipment, and other water sports gear
(California Department of Fish and Game 2008). Non-native invasive species can result
in economic losses, permanent ecological changes, and public health impacts (Andersen
et al. 2004). Invasive species can also affect fire regimes (Brooks et al. 2004) and have
cultural impacts, including aesthetic value and tribal uses and access (Pfeiffer and Voeks
2008).
While native forest pests can cause extensive problems, the ratio of exotic pests to native
pests has increased over time, and currently up to one-third of the total number of
significant pests are now non-native to California. Dead trees from pest outbreaks can
become a major public safety hazard. The Sierra Nevada contains high priority areas,
where tree mortality due to bark beetles has created a public safety issue (California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2010).
In addition, the growing number of people using NFS lands may create more complex
situations that affect invasive species management due to the diversity of recreation
values. For example, some people fishing in national forests may value more “pristine”
lakes, stream, or river fish communities, compared to others who want the opportunity
to “catch a fish” regardless of the species origin or ecological function (Moyle et al.).
As described in Chapter 3: Assessing System Drivers and Stressors, a total of 52 invasive
Page 22 of 83

plant species, occupying an estimated 45,750 acres on the Inyo NF, have been
documented to date. Management techniques, as well as public uses, have the potential
to result in herbaceous invasive species introduction and spread. Seeds and other
propagules are transported by vehicles, people, and livestock to and from the forest. The
consequences of invasions for the health of ecosystems and native species may be
magnified by human population growth and increasing infrastructure, which create
additional vectors for the introduction and expansion of invasive species.
Demographics
This section explores how shifts in ethnic composition and age categories in the area of
influence may affect how the Inyo NF is managed. Different cultures and age groups
may have different views, experiences, and expectations regarding forest management.
Bishop CCD (Inyo)
Independence CCD (Inyo)
Lone Pine CCD (Inyo)
Mammoth Lakes CCD (Mono)
North Mono CCD (Mono)
Silverpeak CCD (Esmeralda, NV)
Mina CCD (Mineral, NV)
Area of Influence (CCDs)
Four County Area
Sierra Nevada Bio-Region (CCDs)
California
U.S.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
24%
19%
30%
25%
23%
17%
24%
23%
31%
29%
28%
27%
Figure 6. Age distribution across the Inyo NF’s area of influence compared to the bio-region,
California, and U.S., 2010 (Source: EPS-HDT)
11%
16%
As shown in the figure, the age distribution in the area of influence as a whole is
somewhat shifted toward older age classes compared to the Sierra Nevada bio-region. In
the area of influence, 21 percent of the population was 60 and over in 2010, higher than
levels in the bio-region (18%), state (15%), and country (18%). However, variation exists
across the area of influence. The Mina and Silverpeak CCDs in Nevada have the greatest
percentage of people 60 and over (42% and 69%, respectively). The Mammoth Lakes
CCD has the lowest percentage (14%) and generally has a younger population than the
rest of the area of influence. The Lone Pine and Independence CCDs in Inyo County
have the greatest proportion of their populations 80 years of age and older (8%).
California’s senior cohort is one of the fastest growing segments of the population and
21%
28%
24%
23%
Page 23 of 83
20%
31%
30%
26%
29%
27%
33%
30%
30%
25%
30%
32%
69%
31%
27%
27%
28%
24%
38%
20%
12%
19%
17%
19%
13% 1%
Under 20 20 to 39 years 40 to 59 years 60 to 79 years 80 years and over
15%
12%
14%
5%
8%
8%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
4%

already the largest in the U.S. (Roberts et al. 2009). The Department of Finance projects
that by 2050, 19 percent of the state’s population will be between the ages of 60 and 79
(up from 13 percent in 2010) and that 8 percent will be between over 80 years old (up
from 3 percent in 2010). Roberts et al. (2009) expects that California’s senior cohort will
continue to grow and settle in foothill and rural counties, contributing to anticipated
increases in tourism and second-home development.
Bishop CCD (Inyo)
Independence CCD (Inyo)
Lone Pine CCD (Inyo)
Mammoth Lakes CCD (Mono)
North Mono CCD (Mono)
Silverpeak CCD (Esmeralda, NV)
Mina CCD (Mineral, NV)
Area of Influence (CCDs)
Four County Area
Sierra Nevada Bio-Region (CCDs)
California
U.S.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
17%
10%
32%
26%
20%
15%
21%
19%
16%
29%
37%
Figure 7. Hispanic or Latino population across the Inyo NF’s area of influence, compared to the bioregion,
California, and U.S., 2010, is shown in the following figure (Source: EPS-HDT).
No demographic trend is of greater importance to national forest managers and leaders
than the immense growth of cultural diversity in the state (Roberts et al. 2009).
California’s youth is more culturally diverse than any previous generation, and nearly
75 percent of them are concentrated in 10 California counties (California Department of
Finance 2008). California is home to more than one-third of the entire U.S. Asian
American population and about 30 percent of all U.S. Latinos and Native Hawaiians or
Pacific Islanders (Roberts et al. 2009).
The Inyo NF’s area of influence generally has less ethnic and racial diversity compared
to the bio-region and state. Within the area of influence, 21 percent of the population
identified themselves as Latino or Hispanic in 2010, the vast majority of which live in the
Bishop and Mammoth Lakes CCDs. This is a smaller proportion than at bio-regional
(29%) and state (37%) levels. While the Inyo NF’s area of influence also has less racial
diversity than at other scales, the one exception is the Native American population,
which has a higher representation in the population as whole (8%) compared to the bioregion,
state, and county (1%). The Native American population in the Bishop CCD
Page 24 of 83
100%
83%
90%
68%
74%
80%
85%
79%
81%
84%
71%
63%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) Not Hispanic or Latino

alone accounted for over half of the total Native American population in the area of
influence. Much of the diversity in the area of influence came from people who
identified as “some other race.” This can likely be attributed to the selection of this
category among many people in the Hispanic or Latino community. Among non-
Hispanics or Latinos, almost no one selected this category, aside from 3.1 percent of
people in the Lone Pine CCD. Eight percent of people in the North mono CCD identified
with two or more races.
Bishop CCD (Inyo)
Independence CCD (Inyo)
Lone Pine CCD (Inyo)
Mammoth Lakes CCD (Mono)
North Mono CCD (Mono)
Silverpeak CCD (Esmeralda, NV)
Mina CCD (Mineral, NV)
Area of Influence (CCDs)
Four County Area
Sierra Nevada Bio-Region (CCDs)
California
U.S.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
White alone Black or African American alone
American Indian alone Asian alone
Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Is. alone Some other race alone
Two or more races
Figure 8. Population by race across Inyo NF’s area of influence, compared to the bio-region,
California, and U.S., 2010 (Source: EPS-HDT).
Shifts in culturally diverse populations will likely be reflected in recreation in the Sierra
Nevada forests (Chavez and Olson 2011). Preoccupied with finding their places in a new
and foreign country, many immigrants use public open spaces for relaxation, for
connecting with other immigrants, and to preserve cultural traditions (Floyd 1999;
Lanfer and Taylor, n.d.). A number of studies have revealed the cultural variations
evident within recreation studies linked to Latino and Asian populations, including
recreation patterns and preferences for development, underrepresentation in some forest
areas, and communication and information needs on and off site (Crano et al. 2008,
Winter et al. 2008, Roberts et al. 2009). Forty-two percent of Californians speak a
language other than English, compared to 20 percent nationally. In the Sierra Nevada
bio-region, 26 percent of people speak a language other than English. An estimated 19
percent of the population in the area of influence speaks a language other than English.
Page 25 of 83

A greater proportion of people who speak a language other than English were located in
the Lone Pine (31%), Mammoth Lakes (26%), and Silverpeak (20%) CCDs. In the Lone
Pine CCD, 15 % of the population speaks English less than “very well.”
According to Roberts et al. (2009), more than 45 years of research continues to show that
people from culturally diverse backgrounds are not using the national forests and other
public lands in numbers representative of the populations within the market areas. Not
all people feel comfortable and safe, have access, maintain strong and positive ties, or
have knowledge about these natural areas and what to do on them. Despite
demographic shifts across the state and country, racial and ethnic group members and
people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds remain underrepresented among
visitors to public lands. According to 2011 NVUM data, approximately 9 percent of
visitors to the Inyo NF were minorities (people who identified as non-white), and just
over 10 percent of visitors were Hispanic or Latino. These numbers reveal much less
diversity than the area of influence, and even more so compared to southern California,
where almost a quarter of all visitors are coming from.
Settlement Patterns and Housing
In Mono and Inyo Counties combined, the City of Los Angeles owns over 300,000 acres,
about 250,000 in Inyo County and 60,000 in Mono County. About 75% of that land is
open to the public for recreational uses (LADWP 2013), and most of the rest is leased by
ranchers. Only about 2% of Inyo County, and 6% of Mono County, is in private land
ownership. Most of the remaining land is federally owned, either by the Forest Service
or Bureau of Land Management. Typically, the valley bottoms are owned by Los
Angeles, Bureau of Land Management land is in the foothills, and the higher elevation
areas are Forest Service lands. See Chapter 14 for more information about land
ownership patterns.
Population and settlement growth in the Sierra Nevada has largely been driven by a
phenomenon known as amenity migration, referring to the movement of people from
urban areas to Sierra Nevada forests for their amenity values, such as outdoor recreation
opportunities, scenic beauty, and an overall improved quality of life (Loeffler and
Steinicke 2007). Seasonal or recreational homes (i.e. “second homes”) are often an
indicator of the desirability of a place for recreation and tourism and could also be used
as an indicator of recreational and scenic amenities, which can be one of the economic
contributions of public lands (Headwaters Economics 2012a). In the area of influence, 35
percent of homes were seasonal homes in 2010. Fifty-six percent of homes in the
Mammoth Lakes CCD were seasonal homes, accounting for about 85 percent of all
seasonal homes in the area of influence. A large percentage of homes in the North Mono
CCD were also seasonal homes (34%).
Over 80 percent of houses in the area of influence were built before 1990, with 35 percent
built during the 1970s alone. As shown in the figure below, major growth in the area of
influence occurred between 1960 and 1980, and has been leveling off since. Fifty-eight
Page 26 of 83

percent of the growth during this time period was attributed to the Mammoth Lakes
CCD alone, with another 24 percent attributed to the Bishop CCD. While percentagewise,
growth during this time period was notable in the two Nevada CCDs, the total
number of housing units in these areas started and remains quite low. More recent
housing growth has occurred in the North Mono CCD, where 11 percent of houses were
built between 2005 and 2010. All other CCDs in the area of influence had less than 3
percent growth during this same period. The North Mono CCD actually experienced a
decline in population between 2000 and 2010. However, as noted above, this area has a
relatively large proportion of seasonal homes. Still, 13 percent of homes in the North
Mono CCD were considered vacant for other reasons (seasonal homes are considered a
subset of “vacant” homes in the American Community Survey). In 2010, both CCDs in
Nevada had large percentages of vacant housing units. Aside from seasonal homes, 23
percent of houses in the Silverpeak CCD and 69 percent of houses in the Mina CCD were
considered vacant.
Built Prior to
1959
Built 1960 to
1969
Built 1970 to
1979
Built 1980 to
1989
Figure 9. Percent housing growth from previous decade (top) and total number of housing units
(bottom) in Inyo NF’s area of influence (Source: EPS-HDT).
Page 27 of 83
Built 1990 to
1999
Built 2000 to
2009
Bishop CCD (Inyo) Independence CCD (Inyo)
Lone Pine CCD (Inyo) Mammoth Lakes CCD (Mono)
North Mono CCD (Mono) Silverpeak CCD (Esmeralda, NV)
Mina CCD (Mineral, NV) CCD Area of Influence
300%
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
% Growth in Housing Units from Previous Decade

Prior to 1960 1960 to 1969 1970 to 1979 1980 to 1989 1990 to 1999 2000 to 2009
Bishop CCD (Inyo) Independence CCD (Inyo)
Lone Pine CCD (Inyo) Mammoth Lakes CCD (Mono)
North Mono CCD (Mono) Silverpeak CCD (Esmeralda, NV)
Mina CCD (Mineral, NV) CCD Area of Influence
Figure 10. Total number of housing units, Inyo NF area of influence
Amenity migration can have positive effects on communities, through increased
economic capacity and the development of additional physical infrastructure, as well as
negative effects, such as increased demands on local social systems and resources and
increasing housing values and the overall cost of living (Loeffler and Steinicke 2007,
Kruger et al. 2008a). Dispersed patterns of human settlement make it more expensive to
provide essential public services like road maintenance, fire and police protection, and
education (Sierra Business Council 1997). Workers who cannot afford to live in these
high amenity communities end up as commuters; the most affected are Hispanic, Asian,
and some younger workers (Loeffler and Steinicke 2006).
Approximately 49 percent of people who own houses in the area of influence have
monthly costs (mortgages, real estate taxes, various insurances, utilities, fuels, mobile
home costs, and condominium fees) that are greater than 30 percent of their household
income, which is considered a proxy for unaffordable housing (Headwaters Economics
2012a). This is between levels in California (52%) and the bio-region (48%), all three of
which are higher than the national level (37%). The North Mono CCD has a very high
percentage of homeowners with unaffordable housing (75%). Forty-eight percent of
rental units in the area of influence are considered unaffordable, which is slightly over
the percentage of unaffordable rentals in the U.S. as a whole (47%) and under levels in
the bio-region (52%) and California (52%). The greatest percentage of unaffordable
rental units is found in the Bishop CCD (53%) and Mammoth Lakes CCD (51%). Within
the area of influence, housing generally appears to be more affordable in the Lone Pine
CCD.
Page 28 of 83
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Total Number of Housing Units

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Monthly cost >30% of household income Gross rent >30% of household income
Figure 11. Affordability (housing costs as a percentage of household income) across the Inyo NF’s
area of influence, compared to the bio-region, California, and U.S., 2010 (Source: EPS-HDT). Note:
No data available for Mina CCD in Mineral County, Nevada.
Tourism and recreation not only contributed to the movement of people into the Sierra
Nevada, but developed alongside at the same pace (Loeffler and Steinicke 2006).
Amenity migration can result in different forms of recreation engagement, which can
result in conflicts between residents with a longer history in the area and new residents
(Peterson et al. 2007). In addition, amenity migration can result in greater development
in wildlands, potentially impacting public access to adjacent outdoor recreation areas
(Peterson et al. 2007).
Amenity migration can result in shifting ownership values on private lands from
economic generation and family tradition to amenity and investment values (Ferranto et
al. 2011). In the fast-growing foothills region and high elevation meadows that adjoin
urbanizing areas in the Sierra Nevada, agricultural and ranching lands have had
pressure to convert to other uses, including residential development (Sierra Nevada
Conservancy 2011). Amenity migration in the Sierra Nevada has also led to an
expansion of human settlements into higher elevations, which may affect ecosystems in
ways that we have not seen before (Loeffler and Steinicke 2006). According to the SNEP
Report, by 2040, almost 20 percent of Sierra Nevada private forests and rangelands
could be affected by projected development (Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Science
Team 1996).
Page 29 of 83

Human Well-Being
This section provides information on poverty rates, educational attainment, health, and
crime. These conditions help tell the story of human well-being because they affect how
well individuals can reach success and achievement in light of available opportunities
(Kusel 2001). Well-being affects how communities respond to forest management
decisions, as well as their involvement with forest management, which in turn
influences well-being.
Poverty is a concern in the Sierra Nevada and rates for the bio-region as a whole are
higher than rates at state and national levels. In the Inyo NF’s area of influence, poverty
rates are quite a bit lower than the bio-region average. In 2010, the poverty rate was 12
percent for individuals and 2 percent for families, compared to 17 and 12 percent,
respectively, in the bio-region. Within the area of influence, poverty rates were
extremely high for people living in the Mina CCD (74%). In addition, the Lone Pine CCD
had relatively high poverty rates (19%). Similar to findings in the bio-region as a whole,
there is a greater proportion of minorities in poverty than is represented in the
population within the area of influence. In 2010, while people who identified as white
alone made up 78 percent of the population in the area of influence, they accounted for
63 percent of people in poverty. Native Americans represented 8 percent of the
population, yet accounted for 14 percent of people in poverty. In particular, this
demographic accounted for a large proportion of people in poverty within the
Independence and North Mono CCDs. Hispanics or Latinos represented 21 percent of
the population in the area of influence, and accounted for 34 percent of people in
poverty.
Table 7. Percent of people and families below poverty across the Inyo NF’s area of influence, as
compared to the bio-region, California, and U.S., 2010 (Source: EPS-HDT)
People Below Poverty Families Below Poverty
Bishop CCD (Inyo) 11% 8%
Independence CCD (Inyo) 8% 4%
Lone Pine CCD (Inyo) 19% 16%
Mammoth Lakes CCD (Mono) 12% 7%
North Mono CCD (Mono) 13% 10%
Silverpeak CCD (Esmeralda, NV) 8% 0%
Mina CCD (Mineral, NV) 74% NA
Area of Influence (CCDs) 12% 2%
Four County Area 19% 2%
Sierra Nevada Bio-Region (CCDs) 17% 12%
California 14% 10%
U.S. 14% 10%
Table 8. Poverty by race and ethnicity across Inyo NF’s area of influence, compared to the bioregion,
California, and U.S., 2010 (Source: EPS-HDT)
Total
Population
in Poverty
White
alone
American
Indian
alone
Page 30 of 83
Asian
alone
Some
other
race
Two
or
more
races
Hispanic
or Latino
(of any
race)
Not
Hispanic
or Latino
(of any
race)

Bishop CCD (Inyo) 1,445 64% 18% 3% 14% 0% 30% 70%
Independence CCD (Inyo) 176 52% 43% 1% 2% 2% 2% 98%
Lone Pine CCD (Inyo) 521 63% 15% 0% 21% 2% 47% 53%
Mammoth Lakes CCD (Mono) 1,422 66% 2% 0% 32% 0% 41% 59%
North Mono CCD (Mono) 242 29% 36% 0% 0% 36% 30% 70%
Silverpeak CCD (Esmeralda, NV) 47 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 85%
Mina CCD (Mineral, NV) 79 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Area of Influence (CCDs) 3,932 63% 14% 1% 19% 3% 34% 66%
Four County Area 4,829 65% 16% 1% 16% 2% 32% 68%
Sierra Nevada Bio-Region 528,218 64% 2% 5% 18% 4% 47% 53%
California 4,919,945 54% 1% 10% 23% 3% 54% 46%
U.S. 40,917,513 60% 2% 4% 9% 3% 26% 74%
Note: The percent of people in poverty who identified as either Black/African American alone or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific
Island alone were not included in this table because percentages were so small that they rounded to zero across all spatial scales.
As described in the Science Synthesis, various linkages exist between poverty and wellbeing
and ecological quality. Evans et al. (2009) highlighted the unique experiences of
rural youth living in poverty. These young people experience more day to day stressors
than their middle-income counterparts. Evans and Rosenbaum (2008) documented
generational impacts of poverty that are longstanding and affect cognitive and
socioemotional processes, influencing life-long development and outcomes in
adulthood. Evans (2005) provided linkages between childhood development and
environmental quality, pointing to the importance of ecological health in proper
development of future generations. Environmental condition is linked to community
and economic resilience, and poor conditions both environmentally and economically
have costs that have immediate and long-term impacts on generations.
The Inyo NF’s area of influence has higher levels of educational attainment than at all
other scales considered here. About 88 percent of people in the area of influence have a
high school degree, higher than bio-regional (82%), state (81%), and national (85%)
levels. However, the Mina CCD has the largest percentage of people over 25 who do not
have a high school degree (31%). The Silverpeak CCD also has a relatively large
percentage of people without a high school degree (21%).
Additionally, the proportion of people who have a bachelor’s degree or higher in the
area of influence (24%) is comparable to the bio-region (23%), but lower than state (30%),
and national (28%) levels. No four-year colleges exist within three hours of the Inyo NF.
The Mammoth Lakes CCD is the exception, where 33 percent of people have a
bachelor’s degree or higher.
Page 31 of 83

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
89% 91% 85% 87% 89%
Figure 12. Percentage of people over 25 years old who have a high school degree across the Inyo
NF’s area of influence, compared to the bio-region, California, and U.S., 2010 (Source: EPS-HDT).
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
11% 9% 15% 13% 11%
9%
3%
13% 14%
9% 8% 5%
Figure 13. Percentage of people over 25 years old who have a post-high school degree across the Inyo
NF’s area of influence, compared to the bio-region, California, and U.S., 2010 (Source: EPS-HDT)
Human activity both inside and outside the Sierra Nevada influences the well-being of
21%
79%
Page 32 of 83
31%
69%
High school graduate No high school degree
7%
11%
13%
20%
11%
4%
2%
12% 20%
6%
2%
9%
12% 12% 18% 19% 15%
88% 88% 82% 81% 85%
8%
8%
11%
10%
15% 14% 15% 19% 18%
9% 8% 9% 8% 8%
Associates degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or professional

communities and ecosystems in the bio-region. Air pollution is a problem in the Sierra
Nevada, particularly in the foothills and the Southern Sierra, due to increased industrial
pollution and automobile use in the Central Valley. Pollution from the Central Valley
migrates up the slopes of the Sierra Nevada, creating hazy, unhealthy conditions in
many foothill communities and stunting tree growth in forests from Lake Tahoe to
Sequoia National Park (Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Science Team 1996).
More information regarding air quality can be found in Chapter 2: Air, Soil, Riparian
Areas, and Water Resources.
Water from the Sierra Nevada hugely contributes to the well-being of people not only in
the bio-region, but to millions of downstream users. The most common beneficial uses of
water from National Forest System lands in the bio-region are municipal and
agricultural consumption, hydropower generation, recreation, and fish and wildlife
habitat. See Chapter 8: Multiple Uses – Water for more in-depth information on water
supply and use. Water pollution is a major concern throughout the Sierra Nevada,
where urban run-off from streets and highways and run-off from construction sites,
logged areas, and agriculture are reducing water quality (Sierra Business Council 1997).
In addition, inadequate sewer and septic systems are polluting both surface water and
groundwater in many Sierra counties (Sierra Business Council 1997). Again, Chapter 8:
Multiple Uses – Water discusses water quality in the Sierra Nevada in more depth.
As described in the Science Synthesis, pesticide drift from the Central Valley in
California is believed to be responsible for high environmental concentrations of
pesticides in parts of the bio-region. These same areas have also been the zones with the
greatest declines in amphibians (Fellers et al. 2007). In addition, heavy metals in the
Sierra Nevada are also a concern. Large wildfires can increase the release of heavy
metals in soils, metals have likely built up over time through atmospheric deposition,
and mining activity likely introduced heavy metals into the ecosystem as well.
According to the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute’s County Health
Rankings for 2013, Inyo County has an overall rank of 51 out of 57 in terms of health
outcomes. Health outcomes represent how healthy a county is based on how long
people live (mortality) and how healthy people feel while alive (morbidity). In terms of
health factors, Inyo County has an overall rank of 20. Health factors represent health
behaviors, clinical care, social and economic factors, and physical environmental factors
that influence the health of a county. While the health outcomes rank represents how
healthy a county currently is, the health factors rank addresses how healthy a county
might be in the future based on the many factors that influence health. Mono County’s
overall rank is 16 out of 57 for health outcomes, and 17 out of 57 for health factors.
Mineral County’s overall rank in Nevada is 15 out of 16 for health outcomes, and 16 out
of 17 for health factors. Esmeralda County is not ranked.
According to 2010 data from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, which only
provides data for California, Inyo County has the third lowest reported crime rate in the
state with 1,176 crimes (aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, robbery, arson,
Page 33 of 83

urglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft) reported to the police per 100,000 adults age
18-69. This is a decrease from 2009 levels (1, 268). Mono County’s crime rate is higher
with 1,718 crimes reported to the police per 100,000 adults age 18-69. This is down from
2,146 reported crimes in 2009. Inyo and Mono County both have low juvenile felony
arrest rates. Illegal activity on the forest includes marijuana gardens and unauthorized
uses such as driving off-road or camping longer than stay limits allow.
Political Environment
As stated in the Science Synthesis, the sociopolitical environment in California, which
includes high levels of regional diversity, racial and ethnic diversity, political distrust,
and a trend toward civic disengagement, signifies more rather than less difficulty in
reaching public consensus on policy issues (Baldassare 2000). These trends are not
constrained to California, and in some cases, reflect a detachment, disconnection, and
mistrust of anything “governmental” by a segment of the public (Susskind and Field
1996)
Furthermore, institutional, political, and social constraints impinge on managers’
decisions and should be accounted for in modeling of socioecological resilience,
supporting tools, and suggested applications (Dellasala et al. 2004, Horan et al. 2011,
Quinn-Davidson and Varner 2012). Contextual factors need to be realistically examined
in discussions of management of threats, and they need to include a feedback loop to
account for changes over time. Limited agency budgets, resources, and time; changes in
administration and priorities; and ongoing litigation can all influence forest
management.
The ability to work across agencies and governments to address resources issues, such
as endangered species, or recreation demand can influence the effectiveness of
management across all jurisdictions, particularly in light of future uncertainties and
change. A good example of this is invasive species management. Areas with high land
use diversity and subdivision of lands between management agencies make it difficult
to effectively control invasive species without collective action (Long et al. 2013).
One of the recent developments in society more generally, and government more
specifically, has been the use of the internet to facilitate mass collaboration, teamwork,
and participation. The phenomena in government has been termed "open government"
and is marked by transparency, participation, and two-way exchange of information,
knowledge, and values. The Living Assessment wiki being used during this current plan
revision process is an example of this trend. USDA has an open government plan and
a website dedicated to the initiative.
Water has played a defining role in shaping land use ownership patterns, the economy,
industry, and history in the area of interest and the Eastern Sierra as a whole. While it is
very common in California to have cities import water from rural areas, it is far less
common for a city to purchase hundreds of thousands of acres in that rural area. Los
Angeles’ land and water management activities have resulted in the purchase of almost
Page 34 of 83

all private lands and water rights in the Owens Valley (Inyo County), and to a lesser
extent in Mono County. This has greatly limited population growth and economic
opportunities in the area. Diversion of water has led to ecosystem changes in Mono Lake
and many streams in the eastern Sierra area, and the drying of Owens Lake, which
became a public health issue due to blowing dust. On the other hand, Los Angeles' land
management practices have prevented development of the Owens Valley and
accompanying negative effects such as pollution and habitat destruction. Los Angeles’
policy of allowing public access on its lands (though overnight camping is prohibited)
together with the vast areas of federal land have resulted in almost unlimited access to
the eastern Sierra for recreation. Beyond land ownership, some of the political and social
aspects of the eastern Sierra region have been shaped by ongoing physical and legal
battles with Los Angeles over water since the early 1900s. Inyo County has been in
continuous litigation with Los Angeles since the 1980s over groundwater pumping and
pollution from dust on Owens Lake. Diversions from Mono Lake tributaries were the
subject of a lawsuit in the 1980s that set precedent for using the public trust doctrine to
protect resources such as fish, birds, and aesthetics (33 Cal.3d 419 (1983)). Many of these
legal battles have resulted in Los Angeles having to reduce water exports, and the
people of Los Angeles having to pay more for water.
Economic Health
The overall health, or prosperity, of an economy influences its ability to adapt to change.
An economy already facing job loss and decreasing income is likely to be less able to
adapt to forest management changes that affect key economic sectors. Three key
statistics are presented as indicators of this economic well-being, the annual
unemployment rate, average earnings per job, and per capita income. Economic data on
these variables are available at the state and county level and are presented for the state
as a whole, the counties of the bioregion as well as Inyo, Mono and Esmeralda, and
Mineral counties that border Inyo National Forest. 2
The annual unemployment rate is the number of people actively seeking but not
finding work as a percent of the labor force. This figure can go up during
national recessions and/or when more localized economies are affected by area
downturns.
Average earnings per job is an indicator of the quality of local employment. A
higher average earning per job indicates that there are relatively more high-wage
occupations.
Per capita income is considered one of the most important measures of economic
2 EPS-HDT reports were originally run in fall 2012. Updates to the geographic scope of this
chapter required us to re-run reports related to this section in early 2013. During that time, EPS-
HDT updated their 2010 ACS data with 2011 ACS data. Therefore, this section presents county
data for 2011 and updated bio-regional data for 2011. As such, the bio-regional values presented
in the Economic Health section will not match the bio-regional values in Chapter 6 for the Sierra
Nevada bio-region.
Page 35 of 83

well-being. However, this measure can be misleading. Per capita income is total
personal income divided by population. Because total personal income includes
non-labor income sources (dividends, interest, rent, and transfer payments), it is
possible for per capita income to be relatively high due to the presence of retirees
and people with investment income. To account for this, the sources of
household earnings are examined below.
The unemployment rate in 2011 for the counties surrounding the Inyo National Forest
was 10.3%, lower than for the bioregion (14.3%) and similar to the state (11.7%). The
2011 average earnings per job ($42,935) were lower than in both the bioregion ($51,744)
and the state ($61,799). Per-capita income in these counties ($39,737) was slightly higher
than for the bioregion ($36,127) but lower than the state ($44,564). With lower
unemployment and slightly higher per-capita income than the bioregion as a whole, the
counties bordering Inyo National Forest see to be more prosperous than average for the
bioregion. The lower earnings per job, suggests that other income sources are important
in this relatively higher prosperity.
The sources of household earnings are similar but slightly more earnings are received
from social security payments and retirement income and less from lower income
payment programs. Coinciding with the decline of the grazing, mining and other
natural resource based industries in recent years, Inyo and Mono Counties have
experienced a marked increase in the percentage of personal income that is derived from
non-labor sources, such as retirement investment and social security payments (Sierra
Business Council 2012). The following table presents 2010 and 2011 data for the state,
bioregion and the counties surrounding the Inyo National Forest.
Table 9. Indicators of economic health for counties surrounding Inyo National Forest, 2010
California
Page 36 of 83
Counties of the
Bio-region
Unemployment rate, 2011 11.7% 14.3% 10.3%
Average earnings per job, 2011 $61,799 $51,744 $42,935
Per capita income, 2011 $44,564 $36,127 $39,737
Percentage of Total Households
Receiving Earnings by Source, 2011
Labor earnings 81.5% 78.2% 75.5%
Social Security 24.4% 27.7% 31.7%
Retirement income 15.3% 18.2% 19.4%
Supplemental Security Income
(SSI)
5.2% 6.5% 3.9%
Cash public assistance income 3.6% 5.1% 2.3%
Food Stamps (SNAP) a 6.2% 10.1% 6.0%
Counties Surrounding
Inyo NF
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, Washington, D.C. Tables

CA05N & CA30; U.S. Department of Labor. 2012. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment
Statistics, Washington, D.C. obtained from HD Toolkit County Summary and Demographics Profile
Reports.
Note: Totals for earning by source columns may add to more than 100% due to households receiving
earnings from more than one source.
a The food stamp program was recently renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Economic Diversity
When determining the economic context of forest management decision making, it is
important to identify the key sectors that drive the economy and the extent to which the
economy is dependent on forest land activities. Determining this level of diversification
and the economy’s dependence on these forest land activities provides a good indicator
of the potential effects that may result from forest management decisions that impact
these activities. That is, a more diversified economy that is supported by many different
sectors is better able to withstand changes to forest management than is an economy that
is dependent mostly on forest based commodity extraction and tourism. In Inyo and
Mono counties, the importance of economic diversity has been a concern for many
decades. As stated in a recent economic report, without such diversity, “one bad winter,
one closed road, or one failed industry can have a disproportionate impact on [the]
community.” (Sierra Business Council 2012)
A diversified economy is defined as an economy that has an industrial mix similar to the
nation and to California as a whole. A specialized economy is heavily focused in
particular industries. Such specialization may lead to greater variation and economic
cycles (i.e. booms and busts) if the economy is dependent on businesses within the same
major industry group that are all expanding and contracting at the same time.
A common way to measure this level of specialization is the Herfindahl-Hirschman
Index (DOJ 2012, Hirschman 1964). Using employment levels across all economic
sectors, this index was calculated for the U.S., California, the bioregion and each
individual county within the bioregion. The results show that the economy of the
bioregion has a diversification similar to California and the country as a whole and is
not considered to be specialized in any particular economic sectors. Individual counties
within the bioregion are slightly more specialized but given that these counties include
larger urban areas located away from the immediate forest areas, it is not surprising that
their specialization is similar to the state and nation.
Smaller economies in rural areas are more likely to be specialized in a few key sectors as
they are often more dependent on the activities, workforce and resources that are
available in their immediate area. Therefore, in addition to the county and bioregional
analysis above, it is important to examine the level of specialization in the local
economies adjacent to forest boundaries. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index was
calculated for the sub-county areas (Census CCDs) that surround Inyo National Forest.
The results show that some sub-county areas surround the forest are much more
specialized than the bioregion. Table 13 provides the results for the most specialized
Page 37 of 83

sub-county areas including identifying the key economic sector in the sub-county area.
Note that the higher the index number, the more specialized is the economy. An index
value between 1500 and 2500 is considered moderately specialized, while a value over
2500 is considered highly specialized. The index values for the bioregion, California and
the U.S. are also provided as reference.
Employment in the economies of the sub-county areas surrounding the Inyo National
Forest is for the most part diversified across sectors. There is some moderate
specialization in the Silver Peak CCD (natural resources) and the North Mono CCD
(recreation). In recent decades, due partly to the shift in the national economy away
from a manufacturing base, the economies of rural counties have shifted from a natural
resource extraction economy toward a more general- and professional-services-oriented
economy. The results of this analysis of diversification in the sub-county areas are
presented in Table 13. It is important to note that even though most of these sub-county
areas surrounding the forest do not appear to be specialized in forest related activities,
employment in natural resources (agriculture, forestry and mining) and travel and
tourism is important in these areas. Therefore, while these economies do appear to have
a balance of employment across industries, there is still a strong reliance on the more
traditional sectors.
A recent report examining the history and potential of economic opportunities in Mono
and Inyo counties reinforces this finding stating that, “neither county has demonstrated
extensive economic diversification beyond the government and hospitality/leisure
sectors”. Diversity is an important component of sustainable economic growth and this
same report identified five key areas where future growth has the potential to
strengthen the economies of these counties: Internet Technology and Broadband Access;
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency; Tourism, Hospitality and the Arts; Recreation;
and Agriculture (Sierra Business Council 2012). Of these key areas for growth, activities
undertaken in forest planning have the potential to affect future development
opportunities in renewable energy, tourism, recreation and agriculture.This section
explores the level of diversification and the economy’s dependence on forest land
activities to provide an indicator of the potential effects that may result from forest
management decisions. A more diversified economy that is supported by many
different sectors is better able to withstand changes to forest management than is an
economy that is dependent mostly on forest based commodity extraction and tourism.
A diversified economy is defined as an economy that has an industrial mix similar to the
nation and to California as a whole. A specialized economy is heavily focused in
particular industries. Such specialization may lead to greater variation and economic
cycles (i.e. booms and busts) if the economy is dependent on businesses within the same
major industry group that are all expanding and contracting at the same time. A
common way to measure this level of specialization is the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index
(DOJ 2012, Hirschman 1964).
Table 10. Level of specialization of county sub-areas surrounding Inyo National Forest
Page 38 of 83

Highly Specialized Sub-County Areas
Moderately Specialized Sub-County Areas
Herfindahl-Hirschman
Index
Page 39 of 83
Key Economic Sectors
Silver Peak CCD, NV 2015 Agriculture, forestry, fishing &
hunting, mining (38.5%)
North Mono CCD, CA 1732 Arts, entertain., rec.,
accommodation, & food (22.1%)
Sub-County Areas with Low to No Specialization
Mammoth Lakes CCD, CA 1386 Arts, entertain., rec.,
accommodation, & food (27.3%)
Lone Pine CCD, CA 1296 Arts, entertain., rec.,
accommodation, & food (22.9%)
Bishop CCD, CA 1283 Arts, entertain., rec.,
accommodation, & food (16.3%)
Independence CCD, CA 1251 Arts, entertain., rec.,
accommodation, & food (10.0%)
Bioregion 1068
California 1060
U.S. 1117
Source: Index calculated using U.S. Department of Commerce. 2012a. Census Bureau, American Community Survey data obtained
from EPS-HD Toolkit. No data available for the Mina CCD.
The diversity of these economies will be impacted by future trends and changes in
employment levels across economic sectors. Data is available to examine future
employment projections by occupation for the Eastern Sierra Region (Alpine, Inyo and
Mono counties). Employment projections by occupation show that the greatest
increases over this decade are expected in the healthcare, personal care and service
occupations, while the key forest activity sector identified above (arts and
entertainment) is expected to grow at around 4.5% (CDOF 2012). This increase is below
the average for all occupations as a whole (8%) and this suggests that future trends in
employment will not lead to an increased concentration of employment in this sector.
Limitations of this data are the geographic area that extends outside the immediate
forest area so the potential for concentration in specific communities would not be
captured in these values. Table 11 provides this information on employment projections
by occupation.
Table 11. Percentage change in employment by occupation for the Eastern Sierra Region, 2008-2018

Occupation Percentage Change
2008-2018
Management Occupations 4.8
Business and Financial Operations Occupations 15.2
Computer and Mathematical Occupations 11.1
Architecture and Engineering Occupations 9.5
Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 8.6
Community and Social Services Occupations 11.5
Legal Occupations 11.1
Education, Training, and Library Occupations 13.0
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations 4.5
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 20.6
Healthcare Support Occupations 27.3
Protective Service Occupations 12.8
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations -0.4
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations 9.7
Personal Care and Service Occupations 17.5
Sales and Related Occupations 5.8
Office and Administrative Support Occupations 8.9
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 7.1
Construction and Extraction Occupations 0.0
Page 40 of 83

Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 9.5
Production Occupations 11.6
Grand Total 8.0
Source: California Department of Finance Occupation Employment Projections 2012
In terms of future employment growth across sectors, a recent report found that national
parks, monuments, wilderness areas and other public lands offer a competitive
advantage for attracting high-tech and services industries. It proposes that as the
economy as a whole shifts toward a knowledge-based economy, protected federal public
lands will support faster rates of job growth in these sectors and are correlated with
higher levels of per capita income (Headwaters Economics 2012b). This will contribute
to increased diversity in these rural economies.
Gateway and Tribal Communities
This section describes social, cultural, and economic conditions in forest gateway
communities and nearby tribal communities. These communities may be uniquely
influenced by or influence the plan area, and there may be unique opportunities for the
Inyo NF to contribute to social, cultural, and economic sustainability in these
communities. The table below presents key socioeconomic data from the 2006-2010
American Community Survey.
Table 12. Socioeconomic data for Forest gateway communities
Big Pine Bishop
Indepen
dence
June
Lake
Lee
Vining
Lone
Pine
Mammot
h Lakes
Total Population 1,682 3,826 551 588 333 2,309 8,005
Median Age
Race
48 44 57 35 25 38 32
White 83% 71% 79% 100% 35% 69% 77%
Black 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%
American Indian 10% 1% 11% 0% 51% 10% 3%
Asian
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
0% 4% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0%
Islander 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Some Other Race 6% 23% 2% 0% 15% 17% 15%
Two or More Races 1% 1% 5% 0% 0% 2% 2%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
Educational Attainment
12% 32% 6% 0% 53% 34% 35%
High School Degree or Higher 90% 85% 91% 100% 82% 86% 82%
Associate's Degree 6% 10% 14% 6% 0% 3% 12%
Bachelor's Degree 10% 19% 20% 19% 13% 12% 18%
Graduate or Professional Degree 4% 9% 4% 9% 0% 5% 16%
In Labor Force (16 and older) 70% 64% 48% 73% 67% 57% 86%
Civilian Labor Force - Employed 68% 60% 42% 53% 67% 52% 81%
Page 41 of 83

Big Pine Bishop
Indepen
dence
June
Lake
Lee
Vining
Lone
Pine
Mammot
h Lakes
Civilian Labor Force - Unemployed 2% 4% 6% 20% 0% 4% 5%
Not in Labor Force (16 and older) 30% 36% 52% 27% 33% 43% 14%
Mean travel time to work (minutes)
Occupation
Civilian employed population 16 years
20.9 13.9 17.3 19.2 NA 23.2 12.1
and over
Management, business, science, and
960 1,813 208 281 137 907 5,163
arts occupations 14% 37% 32% 69% 0% 20% 35%
Service occupations 24% 31% 26% 19% 36% 21% 32%
Sales and office occupations
Natural resources, construction, and
32% 18% 29% 12% 8% 32% 21%
maintenance occupations
Production, transportation, and
23% 4% 8% 0% 56% 14% 8%
material moving occupations
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and
7% 11% 6% 0% 0% 13% 4%
hunting, and mining 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 4%
Construction 13% 7% 9% 0% 64% 7% 6%
Manufacturing 2% 1% 3% 15% 0% 10% 3%
Wholesale trade 2% 1% 2% 0% 0% 4% 0%
Retail trade
Transportation and warehousing, and
13% 18% 4% 0% 0% 12% 11%
utilities 10% 4% 14% 0% 0% 8% 1%
Information
Finance and insurance, and real estate
1% 2% 2% 0% 0% 2% 1%
and rental and leasing
Professional, scientific, and
management & administrative and
3% 0% 0% 12% 0% 4% 10%
waste management services
Educational services, and health care
5% 3% 3% 0% 0% 2% 14%
and social assistance
Arts, entertainment, and recreation,
and accommodation and food
20% 22% 22% 28% 0% 14% 9%
services
Other services, except public
11% 28% 9% 28% 36% 25% 34%
administration 5% 6% 6% 18% 0% 2% 5%
Public administration
Class of Worker
12% 9% 23% 0% 0% 11% 3%
Private wage and salary workers 69% 66% 39% 88% 67% 70% 80%
Government workers
Self-employed in own not
27% 27% 58% 0% 33% 26% 10%
incorporated business workers 3% 7% 3% 12% 0% 5% 10%
Unpaid family workers 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Median Household Income (dollars)
Poverty (based on income in last 12
months)
57,109 37,005 47,833 67,736 68,167 40,176 54,414
Families 4% 10% 7% 0% 0% 19% 10%
People
Housing Occupancy
7% 13% 9% 5% 0% 20% 15%
Total Housing Units 898 2,020 392 522 142 1,063 9,385
Occupied Housing Units 79% 91% 76% 45% 62% 82% 30%
Vacant Housing Units
Year Housing Built
22% 9% 25% 55% 38% 18% 70%
2005 or later 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3%
Page 42 of 83

Big Pine Bishop
Indepen
dence
June
Lake
Lee
Vining
Lone
Pine
Mammot
h Lakes
Before 1980
Monthly Costs/Rent Greater than 30
Percent of Household Income
Owner Occupied Housing - With
70% 76% 85% 79% 68% 73% 62%
Mortgage
Owner Occupied Housing - Without
42% 57% 36% 0% 21% 54% 59%
Mortgage 18% 15% 11% 0% NA 9% 32%
Renter Occupied Housing 43% 63% 0% 100% 0% 51% 63%
Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
*includes homeowners with and without a mortgage
Forest Service Influence on Key Social, Cultural, and Economic Conditions
This section identifies key social, cultural, and economic conditions influenced by
management of the Inyo National Forest. Many of the conditions previously identified
provide useful context, but may not be substantially influenced by the management of
the plan area to be included here. Where information is available, we identify trends
affecting these conditions. At the end of this section, we discuss potential opportunities
that may exist for the Inyo NF to contribute to social, economic, and ecological
sustainability.
Key Social Conditions
Connecting with the Land
Many people in the Sierra Nevada feel a deep connection to the land and its history. As
described in the Science Synthesis, attachment to the natural environment, influenced by
natural landscapes and views, presence of wildlife, and opportunities for outdoor
recreation, is a component of community attachment and well-being (Brehm et al. 2004).
Furthermore, outdoor locations offer a chance to develop connections to natural spaces,
thus offering a place for stewardship and caring that further protect the physical
environment and contribute to resilience (Clayton and Myers 2009, Crompton and
Kasser 2009, Williams 2006,Winter and Chavez 2008, Zavaleta and Chapin 2010).
National forests in the Sierra Nevada play a major role in fostering people’s connection
to nature, particularly through recreation, education, and interpretation.
As described in Chapter 9: Assessing Recreation Settings, Opportunities and Access, and
Scenic Character, the Inyo National Forest offers a full suite of outdoor recreation
activities, in all seasons, for those who enjoy either motorized or non-motorized pursuits
on land, water or in the air. The list of recreation activities is long, and includes crosscountry
and downhill skiing or snowboarding, snowmobiling, rock or ice climbing,
hiking or backpacking, equestrian riding or packing, mountain biking, camping, hunting
or fishing, off-highway vehicle driving or riding, picnicking, swimming, boating, hanggliding,
wildlife watching, fall foliage viewing, visiting historic sites or scenic areas,
participating in interpretive programs or tours, resort use and more. The Forest also
Page 43 of 83

helps people connect to the land by providing information though its visitor centers,
talks, publications, and website. In addition, special use permits support packstocking,
snowmobiling, and outfitter guides for fishing, climbing, hunting, and outdoor
education. The Inyo NF contains some “textbook” examples of geologic features. As a
result, numerous universities and organizations conduct field trips and educational
courses on the Forest.
Visitor satisfaction from NVUM data can provide some sense of people’s ability to
connect to the land through the quality of their experiences. As discussed in Chapter 9:
Assessing Recreation Settings, Opportunities and Access, and Scenic Character, visitors
are highly satisfied with the quality of their recreation experience on the Inyo NF. In FY
2006, 80.6 percent of visitors were “very satisfied” compared to 89.4 percent of visitors in
FY 2011. Less than two percent of visitors surveyed stated dissatisfaction with the
quality of their recreation experience on the Forest. Visitors were typically satisfied with
the services, access, facilities and sense of safety at developed sites, undeveloped areas
and in the wilderness. In addition, visitors felt that there was not overcrowding in any of
these areas. One area that had a noticeably lower level of satisfaction (77.8%) in FY 2011
was developed facilities in undeveloped areas. Despite the many activities currently
available on the Inyo, and the high degree of satisfaction expressed by visitors, there is
nonetheless desire for additional recreation opportunities on the Forest.
Increasing demand for recreation opportunities in the Sierra Nevada and conflict among
different user groups may impact people’s ability to have high quality experiences on
National Forest System lands. Changing recreation demands, due to demographic shifts,
can also impact visitor satisfaction. As described in the Science Synthesis, cultural
diversity will continue to increase in California, particularly within Latino and Asian
populations, and this trend will have implications for outdoor recreation planning and
management (Roberts et al. 2009). While visitor satisfaction data provide useful
information about people who are already using the forest, it does not provide insight
into those people who do not use the NFS and their level of connectedness with nature.
Current forest management can create barriers to use and enjoyment (e.g. language and
lack of information) by the growing population of ethnic minorities in California and the
United States as a whole (Roberts et al. 2009). Many lower income kids rarely, if ever, go
hiking or even fishing on the Forest. Some locals have never been to the beautiful higher
elevation lakes that so many tourists visit.
In 2010, President Obama launched the America’s Great Outdoors (AGO) initiative to
develop a 21st century conservation and recreation agenda. According to the 2011 AGO
report, Americans today have become increasingly disconnected from our great
outdoors and find ourselves cut off from the natural and cultural inheritance that has
shaped our lives and history. The nearly 80 percent of Americans who live urban areas
find it particularly difficult to connect with the outdoors. Children today spend less than
half as much time outside as their parents did, but are “plugged in” to electronic devices
for more than seven hours a day. This disconnect also weakens the commitment to
stewardship of our shared natural legacy. As discussed in Müller et al. (2009), an
emotional affinity toward nature is linked to the willingness of people to protect the
Page 44 of 83

environment, and positive emotional experiences with nature play an important role in
developing that affinity, especially if they share those experiences with significant others
(Kals et al. 1999). In addition, a positive connection to nature develops earlier in life and
remains a stable trait throughout adulthood (Berk 2006). According to FY 2011 NVUM
data, about 31 percent of visitors were under the age of 16, which is up from 17 percent
in FY 2006. Visitors between the ages of 16 and 19 represented about 2 percent of total
visitation in FY 2011 compared to 4 percent in FY 2006.
According to the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station report
“Understanding Concepts of Place in Recreation Research and Management” (Kruger et
al. 2008b), people not only feel connected to the land through the activities they are
engaged in, but form varied and complex relationships with specific places that often
hold emotional, symbolic, and spiritual meanings. Places help shape a person’s identity,
support important social relationships, are influenced by the larger socio-political
context, and can form a web of meaning in a person’s life. Because place meanings are
cloaked in stories that require some effort to uncover, and because people have
competing stories or senses of a given place, forest management decisions can easily
influence an individual’s or community’s sense of place. People feel a deep sense of
place in many parts of the Inyo NF, especially Mt. Whitney, Mammoth Mountain, Mono
Lake, Coyote Flat, Papoose Flat, the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, Reds Meadow, the
Buttermilk climbing area, and the Kern Plateau.
As described in the Science Synthesis, people whose connections or impressions of a
place are intertwined with their sense of self are likely to hold much stronger place
attachments and may consider discussions of place as equal to self-determination and
personal identity (Clayton and Myers 2009, Huntsinger et al. 2010, Knez 2005).
Management actions may be of concern when viewed as a threat to one’s self, or as a
personal attack (Cheng et al. 2003). Likewise, group identities may be attached to a
particular place, where meanings and management preferences for areas are intertwined
with social identity (Cheng et al. 2003,Huntsinger et al. 2010, Opotow and Brook 2003,
Schneider and Winter 1998). Debates over place and attached meanings may then also
be interpreted as discrimination against a particular group;for example, debates over
grazing impacts may be viewed as embedded in discrimination against ranchers and
ranching as a way of life (Huntsinger et al. 2010), a fear of loss of community (Miller and
Sinclair 2012), and a request of a majority to have a minority (ranchers) bear the burden
of protection (Opotow and Brook 2003). Native Americans have a deep sense of place
meaning and attachment to areas in national forests that have been traditionally used by
their people, and gathering and recreation activities continue to tie them to these special
places (McAvoy et al. 2004).
As described in Chapter 9, scenic character is the combination of the physical, biological,
and cultural images that gives an area its scenic identity and contributes to its sense of
place. Scenic integrity is used to indicate the degree of intactness and wholeness of
scenic character. In addition, the Native American community feels a close association
with cultural and historic landscapes, and any activity that alters or degrades scenic
integrity from the more natural settings or those associated with cultural resources may
Page 45 of 83

affect potential cultural or historic landscapes or traditional cultural properties. As
described in Chapter 9: Assessing Recreation Settings, Opportunities and Access, and
Scenic Character, the last Forest-wide scenic inventory was done in the Visual
Management System (VMS), which used Existing Visual Condition (EVC) classes to
measure the level of disturbance to the natural condition. Six EVC ratings exist that
range from untouched to drastically disturbed. Seventy-six percent of the Forest was
classified as Type I (untouched), 9 percent as Type II (changes unnoticed), 10 percent as
Type III (minor distrubances), 4 percent as Type IV, and 1 percent as Type V (major
disturbances). Scenic integrity can affect the quality of a person’s experience related to a
place he or she already has a connection to; scenic integrity can also affect what
newcomers are drawn to as their “place.” However, it is also important to note that
people may have connections to particular places for entirely different reasons,
unrelated to scenic integrity.
Wildfire and forest pests threaten large acreages of landscapes in the Sierra Nevada that
have recreation value (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2010).
According to the Science Synthesis, scientific findings seem to point to more impact from
fire on the recreation visitor experience than anticipated by managers. Englin et al.
(2008) found long-term effects of large wildfires on wilderness visitation. Loomis et al.
(2001) reported variable effects of forest fires on recreation and tourism associated with
fire intensity and recreation use activity. Other studies suggest minimal impact of fires
on the overall experience of recreationists (Winter and Knap 2008) and tourists (Thapa et
al. 2008). However, high fire danger condition (Thapa et al. 2008), smoke from nearby
fire (winter and Knap 2008), and health problems from smoke and ask (Thapa et al.
2008) are viewed as bothersome, and in some cases, these issues are of sufficient concern
to cause changes in travel plans.
Social Interactions
According to the report “Serving Culturally Diverse Visitors to Forests in California: A
Resource Guide by Roberts et al. (2009), being with friends and family is one of the main
motivations for why Californians pursue outdoor recreation opportunities. For example,
fishing is one of the main motivators for visiting the Inyo NF and provides an
opportunity for family, friends, church groups, fishing clubs, and others to get together.
Gateway communities support and encourage the fishing community and provide
fishing events, competitions, contests, and other events to encourage fishing activities.
However, negative impacts are also occurring in areas that are heavily fished, including
compacted and collapsing streambanks and trash left in lakes and streams. Socializing
and spending time with family plays a major role in how and why California’s Latino
population recreate on federal lands. Studies have shown that Latino outdoor
recreationists: enjoy all-day, extended-family social outings; are interested in an outdoor
experience with a strong social recreation component; and identify having a good family
experience as one of the most important features of a satisfying outdoor recreation
excursion. The report also summarizes key findings on immigrants and outdoor
recreation. Immigrants often look to recreation and leisure time to help maintain cultural
traditions and to connect with other immigrants for mutual support and information
Page 46 of 83

sharing. While recent immigrants tend to recreate with family groups, second and later
generations often pursue recreation with friends. The Latino emphasis on family and
family values is maintained across generations, and does not seem to diminish with
increased time in the United States.
Natural areas can help establish community identity, social activity, and social
participation (Karjalainen et al. 2010). Social interaction with friends and family, and
experiences with features of a place defines visitor and resident sense of place,
attachment to place, and the feeling that a community attributes to a specific landscape
(Eisenhauer et al. 2000, Kruger and Jakes 2003). Places help shape the identity of social
groups who share common experiences and develop positive relationships relative to a
place. They can also inspire people to take collective action (Cheng et al. 2003). Natural
resource management can also bring together diverse individuals and groups who may
be able to discover common, place-based group identities, which can transform and
sustain communities that have direct effects on natural resources (Cheng et al. 2003).
The Forest Service plays a key role in bringing people together to participate in forest
planning and management. As laid out in the Science Synthesis, there are many social
benefits of collaborative natural resource management. Collaboration on national forest
management issues often takes place through community-based collaborative groups.
Benefits include:
Creating a sense of shared ownership over large and complex environmental
problems (Bryan 2004);
Combining different forms of ecological knowledge and promoting better and
shared understanding of natural resource management issues (Ballard et al.
2008, Bryan 2004);
Integrating economic and social concerns with ecological concerns so that
they can be addressed together;
Enhancing opportunities to pool resources and assets in addressing resource
management issues (Cheng and Sturtevant 2012);
Improving working relationships between agencies, members of the public,
and other stakeholders;
Increasing community understanding of and support for land management
(Firehock 2011).
Facilitating the development of trust, leadership, and social networks,
building capacity to work together to solve problems, increasing knowledge,
skills, and learning among participants, deepening the connections between
people and places to build a stronger sense of place; and engaged governance
(Berkes and Ross 2012, Walker and Salt 2006).
However, the Science Synthesis also points to barriers to collaboration that have been
Page 47 of 83

shown to exist in eastern Oregon (Bergmann and Bliss 2004). These may also be
applicable to communities in the Sierra Nevada, and many may be beyond the ability of
the agency to control. These include: short tenures and high turnover of federal staff;
concerns about accountability of managers when rural people believe that their
livelihoods are at risk; strong ideological differences among stakeholders; concern about
administrative burdens and regulatory limitations imposed by NEPA and other federal
environmental laws; skepticism among environmental groups about local collaboratives;
and differential risks to landowners and managers due to scale.
Human Health, Safety, and Education
National forests contribute to the well-being of human populations in the Sierra Nevada.
People who feel connected to nature are not only more likely to protect nature, but also
more likely to feel satisfied with their lives (Mayer and Frantz 2004). As described in the
Science Synthesis, the connections between human health and forests hold great
potential for improvement of well-being (Karjalainen et al. 2010). Outdoor locations offer
unique opportunities to recreate and relax, providing physical and social health benefits,
a chance to develop a basis for stewardship, a place to celebrate culture and family, and
a place for restorative experiences (Anderson et al. 2000, Gunderson and Watson 2007).
Forests provide the basic necessities of life, including clean air and water. Forests have a
positive impact on air quality through deposition of pollutants to the vegetation canopy,
reduction of summertime air temperatures, and decrease of ultraviolet radiation
(Karjalainen et al. 2010). Forested watersheds in California provide an abundant supply
of clean water that supports a broad range of downstream uses (California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection 2010). For approximately 23 million Californians, their
drinking water begins its journey in the Sierra Nevada. The controlled release of
snowmelt throughout the spring and summer helps to control winter flooding in the
valleys, and provides irrigation for food crops and water to keep recreation and other
businesses and industries thriving through the summer. Sierra water also provides
hydropower to light homes, and quality drinking water to meet the needs of residents
throughout California (Sierra Nevada Conservancy 2011). As described in the Science
Synthesis, climate change is expected to impact water flow and timing in the Sierra
Nevada. The south-central watersheds may be most vulnerable changes in runoff
timing.
McCool et al. (2007) provides an extensive review of impacts from wildland fires on
individuals, families, neighborhoods, social groups, and communities. Wildland fires
can lead to death, increased stress, health issues related to smoke, psychological impacts,
emotional impacts, increased community tension and conflict, and decreased
opportunities for recreation. Agency strategies can directly impact how fires are
managed and how communities prepare for, recover from, and understand wildland
fires. Collaborative approaches to fire management and risk reduction are helpful
toward effective risk management.
As described in the Science Synthesis, human actions have contributed to shifts in fire
Page 48 of 83

egimes in the Sierra Nevada, which have left forests with uncharacteristically large
accumulations of living and dead fuel. Compounded with climate change, species
invasions, population growth, and increased development in the wildland urban
interface, these uncharacteristically large and severe fires can have serious negative
consequences on human well-being. Intense, large, and long-lasting wildfires are likely
to result in air quality that exceeds levels instituted to protect human health. It is much
more difficult to control air quality and other impacts from these types of wildfires, than
it is from prescribed fires. Uncharacteristically large and severe fires may also cause
erosion and reorganization that can eliminate vulnerable aquatic population, degrade
water quality, reduce capacity of downstream reservoirs, and increase the risk of flood.
There is increased attention on poverty in rural communities in the Sierra Nevada, and
connections between well-being and ecological quality. The impacts of poverty can be
longstanding and affect cognitive and socio-emotional processes influencing life-long
development and outcomes in adulthood (Evans and Rosenbaum 2008). National forests
can provide educational and skill-building opportunities. For example, since 1970, the
Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) has operated as a summer employment program for a
diverse group of young people, aged 15 through 18, who work, learn, and earn together
by doing projects on public land. The program is administered by the Forest Service, the
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. Another example is the
California Conservation Corps, which has crews that work with the Forest Service to
receive training and work experience in forestry and firefighting.
Key Cultural Conditions
Community Values
Many Sierra Nevada residents share values around the rural and environmental
qualities of the region to which National Forest System (NFS) lands contribute.
Maintaining the rural character of the region is important to these residents. Eighty
percent of Sierra Nevada voters surveyed in 1995 identified three primary reasons for
living where they do: their communities’ beauty and charm, to get away from city life,
and to live in a rural area (Sierra Business Council 1997). In addition, the study found
that Sierra residents strongly support expanded efforts to preserve the region’s natural
resources: 65 percent of Sierra voters want to see their counties put more effort into
conserving the natural environment, 60 percent felt their counties should be doing more
to permanently preserve open space and agricultural lands, and 72 percent felt that
Sierra Nevada counties should do more to steer new development into existing towns
instead of allowing it to spread all over the landscape and destroy the rural quality of
life.
While open space, wildlife habitat, culture, history, and rural character are highly
valued by residents and visitors in the Sierra Nevada (Sierra Nevada Conservancy 2011),
how people prioritize those values and how they relate to other values varies, affecting
the decisions they make and activities they choose to engage in (Jones et al. 2003).
Management of NFS lands can influence community values by the opportunities
Page 49 of 83

provided on the land, and by contributions to environmental and aesthetic qualities of
the region. National forests in the Sierra Nevada not only impact the values of
communities in the bio-region, but also far beyond the bio-region. As the Science
Synthesis points out, research shows that people living far from the Sierra Nevada hold
substantial values for the region’s ecosystems, and especially for their charismatic fish
and wildlife (Loomis and Gonzalez-Caban 1998, Richardson and Loomis 2009).
For thousands of years, Native American communities have used forests to connect with
their family and culture, passing down traditions and values to their children (McAvoy
et al. 2004). The section below “Traditional Uses” as well as Chapter 12: Assessing Areas
of Tribal Importance discuss the influence of National Forest System management on
traditional tribal uses of the land.
Many long-time residents in the Sierra Nevada maintain their cultural ties to the
traditional, resource-based economy of the region, and continue to view the local
landscape as a source of production and livelihood (Walker and Fortmann 2003).
Ranchers who move their livestock seasonally have a long history in the Sierra Nevada
and strong commitment to and affection for the lifestyle (Huntsinger et al. 2010).
Ranchland contributes to the rural qualities of the bio-region that many people value.
Ranchers depend on Forest Service summer range as well as lowland public range in
many cases. Management of these lands directly influences ranchers, affecting range
vegetation and forage production and availability of land for range versus other uses
(Huntsinger et al. 2010). Ranchers who are negatively impacted by management
decisions may choose to sell their land, which can lead to increased development in the
wildland urban interface. For many ranching families that use the Inyo NF, taking their
herds to the mountains has deep cultural significance and is something that has been a
family and community tradition for many generations. Members of the ranching
community see themselves tied directly to the land and consider themselves stewards of
the land.
Timber harvest has long been an important part of the bio-region’s cultural heritage and
legacy that many forest communities want to retain. As described in the Science
Synthesis, since the late 1980s, timber harvest from National Forest System lands in the
bio-region steadily declined because of policy and legal constraints related to the
protection of old growth forests and threatened and endangered species, restrictions on
harvesting in inventoried roadless areas, and timber sale appeals and litigation. In 2010,
timber harvest volume from Sierra Nevada national forests was 86 percent lower than in
1988. This decline led to job losses, mill closures, reduced payments in lieu of taxes to
counties to fund schools and roads, and declines in Forest Service budget and staff.
While the majority of timber production in the Sierra Nevada now comes from private
harvest, opportunities for new sustainable natural resource economies through
restoration and biomass energy production do exist (Sierra Business Council 2007),
which could be influenced by management of NFS lands.
According to the Sierra Nevada Conservancy (2011), recreation and tourism have a long
history in the Sierra. The scenic lands and cultural and historic resources of the Sierra
Page 50 of 83

not only provide enjoyment to local residents, they support a multi-billion-dollar
tourism industry, which is the single most important economic activity for a number of
Sierra Nevada counties. Being outdoors is an important part of the California lifestyle,
and national forests are part of an expansive network of local, state, and federal parks,
forests, trails, and open space systems (Roberts et al. 2009). Eighty-four percent of the
Californians polled in the most recent Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (CORP)
statewide survey said outdoor recreation was an “important” or “very important”
contributor to their quality of life (Roberts et al. 2009). Recreation plays a key role in
defining the Inyo NF’s identity. Lakes, streams and meadows are a big destination for
recreation, and most of the Forest’s campgrounds are located on water bodies. Many of
the iconic locations are water-related, such as Mono Lake and several lakes in the
Mammoth Lakes Basin. Most users that visit the Inyo NF go skiing at Mammoth
Mountain. OHV use of the Forest is also of local cultural importance.
As described in Chapter 9.1 of the Science Synthesis (Winter et al. 2013), protecting
scenery, outdoor recreation opportunities, and environmental quality will likely
continue to encourage amenity migration (Cordell et al. 2011). While amenity migration
has both positive and negative impacts, positive outcome of amenity migration is reliant
on local adaptive capacity to manage change in both social and physical attributes of
community (Krannich et al. 2005). Increasing diversity, both in and outside the bioregion,
will continue to influence community values. Demographics shifts are occurring
that have impacted the social acceptability of activities that have a long-standing history
on the Inyo NF, like grazing and packstock use.
National forests in the bio-region clearly play a role in contributing to the open space,
wildlife habitat, culture, history, and rural character that is highly valued by Sierra
Nevada communities. Similar to the bio-region, people value the Inyo NF for a variety of
reasons, including open space, access, traditional uses (ranching, mining), eco-sports
(climbing, endurance running/cycling, backcountry skiing, backpacking/hiking,
skiing), biodiversity (wildlife, wildflower viewing), educational opportunities
(biological science, physical sciences, arts), and Native American ancestral land and
traditional use. Fishing is a highly valued activity on the Inyo NF. Many fishing clubs
use the Inyo NF, and people come from all over the country to fish for non-native trout
in the Mammoth Lakes area, as well as various high-mountain lakes and streams. Many
local fishing and sports stores, as well as packstock businesses, are supported by the
fishing public. The Forest issues many special use permits for fishing guides within the
forest’s lakes and streams. People hike into or ride into Wilderness Areas to try to catch
the California golden trout, a native fish species. There is also a recent interest in people
hiking to lakes to try to find the Sierra yellow-legged frog. However, the introduction of
fish in High Sierra lakes has led to the disappearance of the frog. The California
Department of Fish and Wildlife has a program to re-establish frog populations in some
mountain lakes to ensure the long-term survival of the frogs. This would entail
eliminating all fish from these lakes, which many people who fish are opposed to, since
they travel to many of these lakes for angling opportunities. See Chapter 8: Multiple
Uses – Wildlife, Aquatics, Plants for more information about fishing on the Forest.
Page 51 of 83

The Kern Plateau is a highly emotional place for ranchers and fish enthusiasts. It is home
to the California golden trout and to over a hundred and sixty years of ranching
activities. Both user groups feel very tied to the area. Some feel that grazing activities are
incompatible with maintenance of fish habitat while others feel that grazing can be
conducted so as to maintain and even improve fish habitat. Other areas on the Forest
experience user conflicts between grazing and other uses, including hiking, fishing, and
frog watching. These other areas include Coyote Flat, the Glass Mountains, the White
Mountains, the Mono Basin, and sheep grazing in Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep habitat.
Ranchers have reported problems with forest users harassing the livestock, cutting
fences, leaving gates open, and destroying water developments.
National Forest System lands support a wide range of services that people in and
outside the bio-region benefit from, which are discussed various chapters. The provision
of these ecosystem services support the diversity of values that people and communities
hold. However, the provision of these ecosystem services is not limitless; in addition,
ecosystem services interact with and impact each other such that tradeoffs are a
necessary part of the equation. Therefore, one of the responsibilities of the Forest Service
is to work directly with communities to provide balance across various values and uses.
Additionally, this balancing act is influenced by ecological constraints, external drivers
and stressors, policies and laws, and agency resource limitations. More information on
people’s values and how NFS management influences those values, as well as
information on people’s understanding of the social, economic and ecological
constraints and tradeoffs to managing for multiple uses would be beneficial.
Cultural Connections
Sierra Nevada national forests provide opportunities for people to connect with the
history and culture of the region, and to create new contributions to the region’s culture
and future legacy.
In 2009, the Sierra Business Council initiated a National Geographic Geotourism Project
for the Sierra Nevada region. The Geotourism Project creates and publishes an internetbased
map, called a WebMap, which features businesses, landmarks, events, and other
sites that represent the destination’s local culture. It is managed locally and aims to
sustain and enhance the region’s identity, stewardship, and economic growth. One of
the main goals of this project is to relieve pressure on nearby major tourist attractions
like Yosemite National Park and Lake Tahoe by attracting visitors to stay and explore
surrounding communities (Brouwer et al. 2012). This project highlights some many
cultural connections that people in the Sierra Nevada have with over 500 historic and
cultural places, events, museums, galleries, and points of interest.
The Inyo NF contributes to these opportunities through its cultural and historical
resources and various events that take place on the Forest. Many tourists come to the
Forest to learn about and experience the area’s rich mining history, visiting old mining
workings and structures. The Mono Lake Bird Chautauqua has been occurring over the
last decade and attracts hundreds of visitors each year. The opening days for fishing and
Page 52 of 83

cutting firewood are also culturally important events for many people each year.
Numerous old logging and milling sites exist on the Inyo NF, including the historic
Mono Mills area. As described in Chapter 13: Assessing Cultural and Historic Resources
and Uses, the Inyo NF presently manages 5,501 cultural resources, 45 percent of which
are prehistoric resources and 14 percent of which are historic resources. The remaining
resources are mainly unidentified in terms of their place in time. There are two
identified historic districts on the Forest, and a number of historic districts associated
with the mining industry have been tentatively identified but have not been formally
recorded or nominated. The forest is in the process of preparing National Register
nominations for two of these newly identified districts. Estimating the total number of
cultural resources on the Inyo NF is complicated by the incomplete archaeological
survey of the forest. It is possible that the forest could be home to 10,000 to 15,000
cultural resources. The forest currently does not have any historic properties listed on
the National Register of Historic Places. However, several historic districts are currently
being nominated for listing, as is the Mono Trail Corridor Traditional Cultural Property.
Approximately 81% of all cultural resources on the forest have not been formally
evaluated for eligibility in the National Register; 244 have been evaluated as eligible to
the National Register. Of the resources recorded on the forest, a total of 2,069 resources
have been noted as being disturbed while 422 have been noted as “no disturbance
documented.” Trends that may affect the condition of or demand for cultural and
historic resources include climate change, recreational use, looting and vandalism,
marijuana cultivation and eradication on forest lands, Native American traditional use,
and “heritage tourism”.
The Inyo NF also offers interpretive trails, displays, and sites that help tell the story of
this area and its cultural history. According to Chapter 9: Assessing Recreation Settings,
Opportunities and Access, and Scenic Character, Inyo NF has four major interpretive
visitor centers, including the Mono Basin Scenic Area Visitor Center in the town of Lee
Vining, the Mammoth Lakes Welcome Center in the town of Mammoth Lakes, the
Ancient Bristlecone Pine Visitor Center in the White Mountains, and the Interagency
Visitor Center in the town of Lone Pine. Visitors may obtain information via kiosks at
eight developed sites or fee stations, and twenty-one interpretive sites such as wayside
exhibits and self-guided trails. There are several kiosks throughout the Forest with
displays about fishing. They can be found in the Hot Creek fishing area, at Golden Trout
Wilderness trailheads, near Mammoth Lakes, and at Convict Lake, among others. There
are a number of geologic features on the Forest that represent a specific event in geologic
time or are examples from specific geologic processes. Interpretive information has been
established at several of these sites. Visitor information services offered in local
communities, such as at the Mono Lake Committee Visitor Center and Bookstore in Lee
Vining and the Chamber of Commerce Visitor Center in Bishop, complement the
opportunities available on the Forest.
According to NVUM data, 12.9 percent of visitors to the Inyo NF visited historic sites in
FY 2006 and this increased to 14.1 percent in FY 2011. Having a better understanding of
how forests in the bio-region contribute to people’s cultural and historical connections
Page 53 of 83

would provide useful insight into the agency’s role in fostering these connections, as
well as any barriers that may exist in making these connections.
Artists have long been inspired by Sierra Nevada landscapes. John Muir is perhaps the
most well-known for capturing the spirit and grandeur of the region in his writings, and
Mark Twain, Jack London, Bret Harte, Mary Austin, and John Burroughs contributed
significantly to describing the Sierra Nevada in prose and poetry (Duane 1999). The
lives, stories, and poems of Beat Generation writers, including Allen Ginsberg, Jack
Kerouac, and Gary Snyder, were also greatly influenced by the Sierra Nevada. In his
world famous photographs, Ansel Adams captured the beauty and spirit of Sierra
Nevada landscapes. Art galleries and studios, music venues, and theaters are found
throughout the Sierra Nevada, most of which are closely tied to the region’s natural and
cultural history (National Geographic Society 2009). National forests provide
opportunities for artists to experience and draw from nature, history, and culture as they
develop their work.
Landscape photography and other visual arts are very popular, with the Inyo NF
serving as a primary subject, especially iconic landscapes like Mono Lake, Bristlecone
pine forest and Mt. Whitney. Several galleries display this art in local communities,
including Mountain Light Gallery in Bishop, Lone Pine Film history museum, and
Mammoth Gallery. Numerous special art shows draw visitors, such as the Mammoth
Lakes summer art show on Labor Day weekend. Mono County for the Arts held an art
contest called “Trail of the Trout” where participants decorated fish statutes in honor of
the fishing history in the counties. These fish were displayed throughout the year at
different art galleries, businesses and government buildings to honor the fishing
interests of the counties. There are many other fishing-inspired art events in the
community. A recent art project, the Migrating Mural, which is dedicated to the
endangered Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, will be placed along the Highway 395
corridor. Although the project is not located on the Forest it displays the progress of
recovery of this species, which the Forest is an active partner in. Local communities also
host outdoor concerts with the scenic beauty of the forest as backdrop, such as Millpond
Music Festival in Bishop, outdoor concerts at the Village in Mammoth Lakes, and others.
Forest Service grazing permits indirectly support cultural events in local communities.
Many ranchers cannot make their operations function without forest permits, and these
ranches participate and support local activities that many people in the community
benefit from. Ranchers help support the California High School Rodeo Association
finals that are held in Bishop; they contribute time and resources to the annual Mule
Days event, drawing people from all over the U.S.; and they contribute time and
resources to 4-H events, the annual Tri-County Fair, and local equine events. In
addition, several local and nationally-recognized photographers and artists use the High
Sierra cowboy/ranching as subject in their works and art, including Londie G. Padelsky,
Marye Roeser, cowboy poet Larry Maurice, and many more.
Page 54 of 83

Traditional Uses
In the Native American community, subsistence use of forests denotes a lifestyle
involving a deep connection to nature and cultural traditions (USDA Forest Service
2011). Many Native Americans participate in traditional activities, such as hunting,
fishing, trapping, and gathering berries, and do not differentiate these activities into
distinct categories, such as work, leisure, family, culture, and tradition (McAvoy et al.
2004). These activities carry on family and tribal traditions, provide sustenance for
families, and continue a spiritual connection to the land and to animal and plant
resources (McAvoy et al. 2004). These activities, and the places connected to them, have
cultural, symbolic, and spiritual meanings as well as functional meanings (McAvoy et al.
2004). However, the ability to continue these activities can be influenced by forest
management decisions, the lack of understanding by visitors and managers toward
Native American values and traditions, and the lack of understanding of treaty rights
that give Native Americans unique use rights on National Forest System lands (McAvoy
et al. 2004).
As described in the bio-regional chapter assessing areas of tribal importance, every
national forest is carved out of ancestral Native American land, and Native American
historical and spiritual connection to the land has not been extinguished or diminished
despite these changes in title. Therefore, tribes in California are interested in and
affected by all forest management in the bio-region.
As discussed in Chapter 12: Assessing Areas of Tribal Importance, contemporary Native
American uses or concerns regarding the Inyo NF have centered on water rights and
use, access, vegetation management, fuelwood, economic opportunities, and education
and outreach for tribal youth. The loss of control of native lands to private landowners
and public agencies has greatly limited Native American forest product collection
(Richards 1996). To protect tribal harvests, commercial harvest of pine nuts is prohibited
by the Forest’s 1988 Land and Resource Management Plan. The Forest continues to work
with tribes to facilitate permitting of firewood collection by extended family members,
for the elderly and disabled tribal members who cannot collect wood for themselves.
The Region 5 Gathering Policy of 2007 ensures that traditional artists have access to
plants and that such plants are managed in a manner that promotes ecosystem health.
While hunting and fishing in the plan area are not explicitly covered by agency policy or
treaties, the protection and health of hunting and fishing stocks is a policy objective of
the Forest.
Non-tribal groups also use the Inyo NF for traditional and cultural purposes. As
mentioned in the Science Synthesis, little information about non-tribal NTFP harvesting
in California, and in the Sierra Nevada specifically, exists in the published literature.
According to a 2003 survey, the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region had the lowest
incidence of inventories and monitoring compared to all other regions (McLain et al.
2005). According to 2011 NVUM data for the Inyo NF, 3.8 percent of visitors participated
in gathering forest products, an increase from FY 2006, when 2.8 percent of visitors
participated in this activity. However, less than 0.1 percent of visitors indicated this
Page 55 of 83

activity as the main reason for their visit to the Forest. These number may include tribal
gathering as well.
The Forest Service influences non-tribal harvesting of non-timber forest products
(NTFPs) through the issuance of collection permits (Chapter 8: Multiple Uses - Wildlife,
Aquatics, Plants). Free general botanical collection permits are issued each year for a
variety of educational and research purposes. Between 12 and 16 general botanical
collection permits have been issued each year for the past 5 years, with similar activity in
the preceding years. Requests for general botanical collection permits have been
relatively stable over the past several years and are expected to remain at current levels.
The Forest also issues permits for a variety of forest products through the Special Forest
Products (SFP) program. On average, 21 SFP permits are issued each year, primarily for
commercial seed collection, but also for transplants, pine cones, and Christmas trees.
Commercial seed collection has increased over the past 20 years, due to the increasing
market demand for native plant materials. Collection varies annually based on seed
availability. New techniques and/or policies to synchronize product demand and
availability could potentially contribute to additional increases in this use in the coming
years. Ethnicity and different community traditions can play an important role in what
special forest products are gathered in Sierra Nevada forests (Richards 1996).
Environmental Justice
According to the 1994 Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population,” each
federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations (Council on Environmental Quality 1997). In
addition, environmental justice at the U.S. Department of Agriculture means that, to the
greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations are provided the
opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in the
benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and
adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting the environment and
its impact on human health (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2012).
During the plan revision phase, we will identify and address environmental justice
concerns. The “2012 Giant Sequoia National Monument Final Environmental Impact
Statement, vol. I” provides an example of the environmental justice analysis that will be
done for forests going through the plan revision process. In addition, we recognize the
need to engage a full range of interests and individuals in the planning process. We have
developed communication and collaboration strategies to help us encourage a widerange
of participation, especially from traditionally underrepresented groups like youth,
low-income populations, and minority populations.
Page 56 of 83

Key Economic Conditions
Contributing to community well-being by providing a broad range of economic
opportunities for forest communities is consistent with current Forest Service direction
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to generate jobs through recreation
and natural resource conservation, restoration, and management in rural areas (USDA
2010b), and from the Forest Service 2012 Planning Rule to contribute to social and
economic sustainability, thereby supporting vibrant communities and rural job
opportunities. Given that rural communities in the Sierra Nevada, like rural
communities elsewhere, are continually subject to social, economic, and ecological
change, their ability to take advantage of job opportunities associated with national
forests and their management can help strengthen their resilience. Creating economic
opportunities in forest communities promotes and sustains a more diverse employment
base there; leaves future opportunities for participating in forest-based livelihoods open;
encourages innovation to find new ways of investing in communities; and helps
communities adapt to change—all features that contribute to resilience (Walker and Salt
2006). It also maintains a local workforce that has the capacity to carry out forest
management work that is needed to improve and restore ecological integrity and
resilience in forest ecosystems (Kelly and Bliss 2009).
However, the notion that federal forest management alone can ensure community
stability is flawed for several reasons (Charnley et al. 2008a, Nadeau et al. 2003, Power
2006, Sturtevant and Donoghue 2008). As Power (2006) notes, jobs in the forest products
industry are not simply a function of timber supply; demand for wood fiber and wood
products plays an important role in influencing harvest and production levels and
associated jobs. In addition, changes in harvesting and wood processing technology
increase productivity and reduce labor demands, displacing workers. The 1970s and
1980s saw many such changes in the wood products industry. Furthermore, trees
harvested in one location do not always get processed in nearby communities. Federal
managers must generally sell to the highest bidder, who may not be local. And mills
typically obtain logs from a variety of sources, including private forest lands over which
federal managers have no control (Power 2006). Finally, a number of variables influence
social and economic conditions in forest communities; federal forest management is only
one of these variables (Charnley et al. 2008a, Nadeau et al. 2003). For all of these reasons,
national forest managers cannot expect to ensure community economic stability through
their management actions alone, though timber, recreation and agricultural production
on national forest lands continues to make an important contribution to community
economies in some parts of the Sierra Nevada. These industries are examined below.
Key Economic Sectors Dependent on Forest Management
When determining the economic context of forest management decision making, it is
important to identify the key sectors that drive the economy and the extent to which the
economy is dependent on forest land activities. Determining this level of diversification
and the economy’s dependence on these forest land activities provides a good indicator
of the potential effects that may result from forest management decisions that impact
Page 57 of 83

these activities. That is, a more diversified economy that is supported by many different
sectors is better able to withstand changes to forest management than is an economy that
is dependent mostly on forest based commodity extraction and tourism. The
diversification of local economies in the bio-region is examined in the “Economic
Diversity” section above. As identified in that section, there are county sub-areas in the
bio-region where specialization occurs in sectors that are heavily influenced by forest
management (e.g., timber, mining, and agriculture as well as recreation and tourism).
Counties most directly connected to the forest economically are Mono and Inyo in
California and Esmeralda and Mineral in Nevada. The local economy in the Inyo and
Mono County area is largely focused on tourism and recreation, especially developed
winter recreation at Mammoth Mountain Ski Area. The economies in the Nevada
counties are focused on ranching and mining. Key economic sectors that are dependent
on forest activities are examined below.
Timber and Mining
As of 2010, timber sector jobs in the counties bordering the Inyo National Forest made
up essentially none of the total private sector employment.
Mining sector jobs in 2010 in the counties surrounding the Inyo National Forest made up
0.8% of total private sector employment (an estimated 88 jobs out of the 11,585 in the
counties), which is higher than the state and the bioregion. The majority of this
employment is in metal ore and nonmetallic minerals mining in Mono and Esmeralda
counties. Total employment in the mining sector has decreased in recent years
comprising around 1.8% of all private sector employment in 1998 to around 0.8% today.
The average annual wage for mining employment in these counties is $85,810, which is
much higher than the average wages across all sectors ($37,090). This high average
wage for mining is similar to the bioregion and indicates that the number of jobs in the
mining sector may be low but they are relatively high paying jobs when compared to the
rest of the local economy.
Agriculture
In places where agriculture increasingly operates alongside a larger, non-agricultural
economy and greater range of adjacent land uses, farms and ranches continue to be
important. These operations contribute to local economic diversity, the scenery they
provide can be part of the mix of amenities that attract and retain people and businesses
across a range of industries, and they are often an important part of local culture and
community vitality. Even when agriculture is a small component of the local economy,
the industry can represent a large portion of the land base.
Pasture and rangelands within the counties surrounding Inyo National Forest comprise
70.5% of the total land area in farms, which is greater than the percentage for the state
(52.3%) and bioregion (53.0%) (USDA 2009a). In terms of number of farming operations,
cattle, sheep and goat farming, which are the primary types of animals that are grazed
on public lands, account for around 43%% of all operations, more than the bioregion
(22.5%) and the state (17.5%) (USDA 2009b). Farm employment in these counties
Page 58 of 83

accounts for 1.3% of all employment, lower than for the bioregion (3.2%) and similar to
the state as a whole (1.2%) (U.S. Department of Commerce. 2012b). A limitation of this
data is that farm employment cannot be broken down by type of activity so this
specialization in the bioregion includes all types of agriculture not just grazing and
livestock operations.
Recreation, Travel, and Tourism
Public lands can play a key role in stimulating local employment by providing
opportunities for recreation. Communities adjacent to public lands can benefit
economically from visitors who spend money in the travel and tourism sector in hotels
and restaurants as well as ski resorts, gift shops, and elsewhere. While the information
in this report is not an exact measure of the size of the travel and tourism sectors, and it
does not measure the type and amount of recreation on public lands, it can be used to
understand whether travel and tourism-related economic activity is present, how it has
changed over time, and whether there are differences between geographies.
Annual visitation to the public lands in Inyo and Mono Counties has been estimated at
around 2.9 million recreation visitor days a year (Richardson 2002). In 2010, these travel
and tourism related industries comprised 49.1% of jobs in the counties bordering Inyo
National Forest, which is much higher than both the bioregion (18.1%) and the state
(15.7%) (U.S. Department of Commerce 2012a). The number of jobs in this sector has
been relatively stable ranging around 49% of total private employment from 1998
through 2010. The average annual wage in the travel and tourism sector is $22,920, far
below the $37,090 average for all private sector jobs. So while the travel and tourism
sector may provide a lot of employment opportunities in the area, they are relatively
lower paying jobs.
A study examining the value of travel and tourism to California counties estimated the
percentage of total county employment and earnings that is generated by all travel in the
county. Travel and tourism is an important sector to economies in Mono (48.6% of
employment and 32.2% of earnings) and Inyo (23.5% of employment and 11.5% of
earnings) counties (Dean Runyan and Associates 2012). A study looking specifically at
the contributions from recreational use of National Forest system land found that
recreational activities on the Inyo National Forest provide a significant contribution to
the local economy generating 12.5% of all local jobs and over 9% of all local labor income
in 2008 (USFS 2008).
Recreation also supports local business through spending of visitors for lodging,
supplies and access to recreational opportunities. A major business and employer for
Inyo and Mono Counties is the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area home to world class
skinning in the winter as well as summer recreational activities such as mountain biking
and horseback riding. The closure of the June Mountain Ski Area for the 2012-2013
winter season affected local employment levels. Other recreational opportunities key to
the area are hiking, fishing and hunting. Many local stores and guide businesses are
supported by these activities and the local communities support and encourage
Page 59 of 83

ecreation and the resulting cultural connection to the land through events such as
fishing competitions, rodeos and special celebrations such as the annual Mule Days
event.
The benefits of recreation in the Inyo National Forest are enjoyed by people from around
the region and around the world. As described previously in the Cultural Context
section of this chapter, data on visitation shows almost 38 percent of visitors to the Inyo
NF originating from Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Twelve percent of
visitors are from out of state, while another four percent of visitors come from abroad.
Recreational fishing is important in Inyo National Forest and also is associated with
economic activity in the area. This economic activity is a result of sales of sports fishing
licenses and stamps as well from trip and equipment expenditures. One study
estimated the value of recreational fishing in the Golden Trout Wilderness, which is
located within the Inyo and Sequoia National Forests, at between $148,000 and $713,000
annually (Alkire, 2003).
Benefits from Water
The Inyo National Forest also provides water that supports the economy of southern
California. Water originating on the Inyo National Forest supplies both water and
electricity for millions of people in communities as far-ranging as Los Angeles,
Mammoth Lakes, and Fresno. In addition, the water from the Forest and adjacent lands
is used extensively for recreational activities such as fishing, boating and swimming and
aesthetic enjoyment. These recreational activities are vital to supporting the local
economy in both Mono and Inyo counties. Also, the groundwater pumped from Forest
lands is used both on and off-Forest, for uses that generate benefits for domestic,
municipal, agricultural and recreational uses. See Chapter 8: Multiple Uses – Water for
more information.
In terms of economic benefits to the region, the Owens and Mono watersheds are both
important to local and statewide water supply and to hydropower. About 68% of the
Forest is within these two watersheds and municipal water agencies are the largest right
holders in terms of the amount of water that is diverted from the Forest. This diverted
water flows to users supplied by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
(LADWP), June Lake Public Utility District (JLPUD) and the Mammoth Community
Water District (MCWD). Water flowing from the Forest is a critical driver for the
Southern California economy, as the water that flows from the Owens River and Mono
Lakes watersheds provides anywhere from 25% to 75% of the water supply of the City
of Los Angeles. After the Forest itself, the LADWP is the largest water rights holder and
this water supports individuals, businesses and industry in the city, with the entire
supply providing water to over 4 million people and over 1.3 million homes (LADWP
2010).
Hydropower is also an important use of water that originates on the Forest (Chapter 10,
Hydropower section). Four streams (watersheds) are affected by major hydroelectric
development projects and all of these are operated by Southern California Edison.
Page 60 of 83

Facilities for these projects are located mostly on the Forest but also on adjacent land that
is owned by Southern California Edison.
Annually, the Lundy, Lee Vining, Rush Creek, and Bishop Creek projects produce on
average around 245,000,000 kWh of electricity or enough to power approximately 21,000
homes in Southern California (EIA 2013).
There are other, smaller-scale hydropower projects located on the Inyo NF that are
permitted by special use authorization. Several of these small hydropower operations
provide power to resorts that are located on NFS lands. Others produce power on
private land but the water is then taken off of the National Forest and used for power
production as well as irrigation for ranching, thus it becomes a consumptive use of
water.
Additional information on the condition and trend of the uses of water resources on the
Forest can be found in the water uses section of Chapter 8 Multiple Uses. Additional
information on the condition and trend of hydropower resources on the Forest can be
found in Chapter 10 Renewable and Nonrenewable Energy and Mineral Resources.
Fiscal Conditions
Local governments rely on revenues generated from activities on forest lands.
Management decisions that affect these activities have the potential to impact these
revenues. In order to determine the context of these payments, it is necessary to
understand how important these revenues are to local budgets and also understand the
current overall budget conditions of local governments. Communities facing difficult
fiscal conditions will feel an impact from any changes in revenues thus leading to the
potential for reduced public services provision in the area.
Key sources of these revenues are: (1) the sales taxes generated from timber sales and
tourism and (2) direct revenue received from the Payments In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (SRS) programs. This
assessment focuses on county level fiscal conditions since county budgets reflect the
level of importance of these revenue sources to local governments than do the much
larger federal and state budgets, of which these sources comprise a much smaller
fraction. Possessory interest tax collected by the counties for infrastructure development
of National Forest System (NFS) lands is also a source of revenue, e.g. recreation
residences, hydro buildings, facilities and communication sites.
The type of economic activity that is generated by NFS lands can be identified by
looking at the receipts generated by the different classes of use of these lands. Recreation
activities are paramount on lands managed by the National Forest. This is clearly
illustrated in special uses receipts that show recreation representing 97% of all fiscal year
2011 receipts (USFS 2012c).
The counties surrounding Inyo National Forest receive revenues from sales taxes on
timber products and on temporary lodging from visitors to the region. Available data
Page 61 of 83

on California counties shows that these sources of tax revenue are a significant source of
revenue for Mono and Inyo counties. The transient lodging tax revenue in this area is
the more significant contributor of the two tax sources and accounts for 4.61% of tax
revenue collected in Mono County and 4.27% in Inyo County. These contributions are
much higher than the average for the bioregion (0.5%), suggesting these counties are
more sensitive to changes in this revenue than the bioregion as a whole. (California
State Controller’s Office 2012). It should be noted that while the Inyo National Forest
does contribute to travel and tourism in these counties and therefore can influence this
transient tax revenue, there are other recreational opportunities in the bioregion that
also drive this tourism (e.g. other National Forests and National Parks) and therefore all
of this revenue cannot be attributed to visitors to the Inyo National Forest alone. One
study estimated the percentage of the county sales tax revenue that is visitor related.
This includes spending on goods and services while visiting an area and this visitor
spending is an important fiscal consideration for Mono (57.9%) and Inyo (20.8%)
counties (Dean Runyan and Associates 2012).
Under federal law, county governments are compensated through Payments in Lieu of
Taxes (PILT) for reductions to their property tax bases due to the presence of forest
service land. These lands cannot be taxed, but may create demand for services such as
fire protection, police cooperation, or simply longer roads to skirt the federal property.
Some of these programs are run by specific agencies and apply only to that agency’s
land. For Forest Service lands, counties receive federal payments for timber and other
resources through either the traditional 25% revenue sharing agreement or through the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (SRS). Given decreases in
timber production and timber prices, counties have typically favored the higher
payments from SRS since its introduction in 2000. Originally scheduled to sunset in
2006, SRS has been renewed three times (2007, 2008 and 2012) and each time payments
were reduced. The future of SRS is uncertain given that it has not as of yet been renewed
for FY 2013 and all payments may revert to the original 25% revenue sharing framework
if not renewed.
All of the counties surrounding the Inyo National Forest received some level of PILT in
FY 2009. These values were Inyo ($2.0 million), Mono ($1.4 million), Mineral ($950,000)
and Esmeralda ($515,000). These absolute values do not reflect the complete importance
of these revenues to individual county budgets. Instead, looking at these PILT revenues
as a percentage of total county revenues provides a more complete picture of the
importance of this contribution. PILT payments are a sizeable percentage of total county
revenues in Mineral (10.2%), Esmeralda (9.3%), Inyo (3.3%), and Mono (2.8%) counties
(Headwaters Economics 2012c).
Provision of public services is assisted by several Forest Service owned and operated
water and wastewater systems that provide service to various entities in the local
community. These include a wastewater treatment plant that serves the unincorporated
Inyo County community of Aspendell, water and wastewater systems that serve Convict
Lake Resort, a wastewater treatment plant that serves Rock Creek Lake Resort, and
water systems that serve other permittee lodges, resorts, stores, and recreation residence
Page 62 of 83

tracts. While the Inyo National Forest has collection agreements in place to collect
operational funds for the largest of these systems, without the Forest Service systems in
place, local governments and these entities would face a huge economic impact if they
were forced to find new ways to service these facilities.
Forest Service Spending
The level of Forest Service spending is important to understand because this is a direct
investment into the local economy. This direct investment also results in additional
indirect and induced multiplier effects to businesses providing support for forest
activities and services to the workers and their families in the region. To understand the
context of this spending, it is necessary to understand the amount of spending, trends
over recent years and how large this direct investment is in terms of the overall
economy.
Forest Service spending in the Inyo National Forest has increased from around $9.3
million in 2006 to around $15.2 million in 2012 mostly as a result of increases in the
budgets for wildland fire management (i.e., spending for fuel reduction and fire
preparedness (USFS 2012e). In terms of total federal spending in Inyo and Mono
counties, this amounts to only a small percentage of the approximately $312 in total
federal government expenditures in these counties in FY 2006 and is an even smaller
percentage of the total economic output across all sectors of the economy over this time
period (California Department of Finance 2009).
Few contractors exist in the local area that are typically awarded construction contracts
for infrastructure on the forest. Therefore, contracts are typically awarded to out-of-area
contractors who act as prime contractors and sometimes subcontract out small specialty
portions of the work to local contractors. These prime contractors will also obtain
materials such as asphalt and aggregate from companies located in the community. The
employees of prime contractors generally stay in stay in local motels and condos and
shop at local businesses for weeks or months at a time, often during non-peak tourist
times. The local area does not contain any “big box” stores catering to the construction
industry. Therefore, forest purchases of routine items used in construction and
maintenance are usually made through local hardware and plumbing/electrical supply
stores when possible.
Opportunities to Contribute to Social, Economic, and Ecological
Sustainability
The section explores the ways in which management of the Inyo NF contributes to
social, cultural, and economic sustainability.
The history and changes of the Sierra Nevada create a complex environment for
National Forest System management. Maintaining a cultural legacy is important to
communities in the Sierra Nevada. At the same time, community well-being depends on
the ability of those communities to adapt to a changing, uncertain future. Individuals
and communities far beyond the Sierra Nevada influence the sustainability of forests
Page 63 of 83

and communities in the bio-region, and are likewise influenced by management
decisions that take place on National Forest System land in the bio-region. We now have
a much richer understanding of the social, economic, and ecological factors in land
management decisions. While challenging, this complexity highlights the robust
opportunities available to the Forest Service to contribute to social, economic, and
ecological sustainability. The Science Synthesis was very helpful in looking at the
diversity of opportunities for incorporating the triple bottom line in management
decisions and provided much of the information presented here.
The section explores several of the ways in which management of the Inyo NF
contributes to social, cultural, and economic sustainability, including:
Building community capacity;
The role of ecological restoration;
Working together to build capacity for sustainability;
The importance of sustainable recreation; and
The role the Forest Service plays connecting people to nature.
Community capacity
People who live in rural communities in the Sierra Nevada are concerned about their
future. Many traditionally resource-based communities in the Sierra Nevada are in a
transition period. New people have moved in from urban areas, bringing different
values and changing the demographics of communities. Ecological concerns, federal
policies, and competing land uses have influenced timber harvesting and grazing.
Outdoor recreation and tourism have brought new economic opportunities to
communities that were formerly timber-dependent. Population growth, increased
demand for recreation, competition for different uses, and ecological concerns bring
with them additional challenges. In addition, tribal communities continue to struggle
with maintaining a culture that is directly tied to management of and access to ancestral
lands and sacred sites. Many people who live outside the Sierra Nevada are also
dependent on the bio-region’s ecosystem services, which can impact Sierra Nevada
forests and local communities.
As described in the Science Synthesis, studies recognize that (1) well-being in forest
communities was based on more than jobs and income, and included other quality of life
attributes, such as health, safety, political participation, social equity, and access to social
services; and (2) national forests can contribute to community well-being in multiple
ways that include both commodities (e.g., timber, grazing, minerals, non-timber forest
products) and amenities (e.g., outdoor recreation, scenic beauty, clean air and water,
open space, forests and mountains) values associated with them (Kusel 2001, Nadeau et
al. 2003, Sturtevant and Donoghue 2008).
Community capacity is critical to well-being in forest communities, and can be defined
Page 64 of 83

as the ability of its residents to respond to internal and external stresses, create and take
advantage of opportunities, and meet the needs of residents (Kusel 2001).
Community capacity influences the ability of communities to prepare for and adapt to
change and stressors such as wildland fire and climate change. Resilient systems are able
to cope with, adapt to, and shape change; persist and develop in the face of change; and
innovate and transform into new, more desirable configurations in response to
disturbance (Folke 2006). However, it is challenging to identify critical thresholds
beyond which social systems will lose their resilience and break down (Davidson 2010).
Rural communities in the U.S. tend to be more vulnerable to climate change than urban
communities. People residing in the wildland-urban interface are particularly vulnerable
to fire. In addition, tribal traditions and beliefs may require direct stewardship of lands
in order to maintain place and culture. Taking this direct stewardship approach allows
for conflicting views and meanings of protected areas, including forest lands containing
valued natural and cultural resources. Engagement, capacity building, and participation
are necessary components of strategies that promote resilience through social learning
(Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2008). The provision of ecosystem services and the benefits
they supply to the public (see Chapter 7), is a key piece that links the human and
ecological components of a system. An important component of a resilience strategy
may be to moderate societal expectations for ecological services, rather than trying to
provide a constant to ever-increasing supply. Federal forest management alone cannot
ensure community stability.
Ecological restoration
Management of National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada can contribute to
community capacity by helping people become stewards of the land as participants in
ecological restoration activities. This engagement is empowering. People personally
partner with land management agencies to find solutions (Westphal 2003).
The literature on community-based-forestry in the United States suggests that healthy
forest ecosystems and healthy forest communities are interdependent (Baker and Kusel
2003, Kusel and Adler 2003, Kelly and Bliss 2009). Ecological restoration offers a chance
to present positive messages, values, and activities, while addressing ecosystem threats
(Gobster 2005, Egan et al. 2011). Restoration activities restore connections and
relationships to the land, as well as to people, building collective identities around
improving ecosystems and caring for the land (Clayton and Myers 2009). Many
socioeconomic benefits of ecological restoration exist (Aronson et al. 2010). Stewardship
contracting is an effective tool for enhancing social and economic benefits to local
communities (Donoghue et al. 2010, Hausbeck 2007, Kerkvliet 2010). The Inyo NF’s
Personal Use Fuelwood Program is an easy way for the public to engage in ecological
restoration. The recent Lee Vining Canyon project is a classic example. The public
proposed a project and assisted in implementation by gathering all the firewood-sized
material.
There is, however, a need for more integrated research to look at how ecological
Page 65 of 83

estoration efforts affect social, cultural, and economic values. In particular, there is a
gap in understanding the effects of restoration on ecosystem services associated with
wildlife, culturally important plants, and water resources. Although science suggests
that there are opportunities for forest treatments to enhance water supply and mitigate
some of the potential effects of climate change, research is lacking in the Sierra Nevada
for how much and how long restoration treatments are likely to increase water yield,
and if water quality can be maintained.
To dramatically reduce the legacy of fire suppression and associated fuel loading, and to
restore the role of fire would require a sharp increase in the level of burning and
emissions, which in turn would require increased political support (Stephens et al. 2007).
Efforts to increase burning raise equity concerns by asking current residents and
tourism-related businesses to bear a burden partially created by prior generations in
order to mitigate impacts to future populations. Education, notification, and other
outreach may help diminish rconcerns, but fundamentally, prescribed burning requires
sacrifice on the part of local residents for the sake of a greater public good.
According to Anderson and Moratto (1996), there is an ecological “vacuum,” or
disequilibrium, in some parts of the Sierra Nevada resulting from the discontinuation of
Native American management. In certain places, the recent decline in biotic diversity,
species extirpation and endangerment, human encroachment into fire-type plant
communities and increased risk of catastrophic fires are symptoms of this
disequilibrium. There are several plants that have cultural significance to tribes, and
have special ecological value in providing habitats or playing key ecological roles that
are dependent on fire and/or smoke. Anderson and Moratto (1996) recommend that
land management agencies and land-use planners incorporate Native American
traditional knowledge into future policies and programs for ecosystem management in
the Sierra Nevada. This traditional knowledge, which permitted the adaptive success of
large human populations and the maintenance of Sierran environments for more than a
hundred centuries, must not be dismissed.
In 2006, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, in partnership with the
California Indian Basket Weavers Association and the California Indian Forest and Fire
Management Council, finalized a Charter and the Native Plant Gathering Policy. The
policy provides traditional practitioners an opportunity to access plants and work
together to provide and promote ecosystem health on the lands managed by these
agencies. The policy emphasizes local collaboration, implementation, and issue
resolution. The agencies acknowledge that traditional native plant gathering and
management practices on these lands are sustainable, benefit forest health, and are part
of our multiple use mandate.
Working together
We believe that by working together we can move toward sustainable forest
management, that is, management that incorporates the triple bottom line. Finding
creative ways to coordinate, partner, and be more inclusive in our work is a key piece of
Page 66 of 83

how the Forest Service can contribute to social, economic, and ecological sustainability.
As the Chief of the Forest Service described in a January 2010 speech, in order to restore
the resilience of America’s forests and grasslands to disturbances of all kinds, we need to
work at a scale that supersedes ownerships. Specifically, “an all-lands approach brings
landowners and stakeholders together across boundaries to decide on common goals for
the landscapes they share. It brings them together to achieve long-term outcomes. Our
collective responsibility is to work through landscape-scale conservation to meet public
expectations for all the services people get from forests and grasslands.”
As described in the Science Synthesis, researchers found that when the Forest Service
works collaboratively with local communities to develop forest restoration projects that
build on local community infrastructure, resources, values, culture, and collaborative
relationships, and which address local needs and priorities, it can be especially effective
in creating local community benefits and contributing to community resilience (Abrams
2011, Burns et al. 2011, Charnley et al. 2012, Hardigg 2011). Collaboration is not always
easy. We have fewer staff and resources, and there are always challenges. Local
communities around the Inyo NF are often challenged to retain socioeconomic stability.
Many residents are transient as a result of seasonal employment for snow sports in
winter and other forms of recreation in summer. Communities suffer socioeconomic
hardship if the area experiences a winter with poor snowpack. Because this area can be a
challenging place to live financially, residents can be too focused on making ends meet
to consider land stewardship and ecological restoration. Additionally, a lack of trust and
disconnect between local residents and the Inyo NF creates barriers to working together.
Nevertheless, when opportunities exist to develop projects collaboratively and align
them with community needs and capacity, they are more likely to create local
community benefits.
Several local stewardship groups are very passionate about Inyo NF, including, but not
limited to, the Mono Lake Committee, Mammoth Lakes Trails and Public Access,
Advocates for Access to Public Lands, and the Friends of the Inyo. Some fishing groups
come together and volunteer their time to engage in stewardship activities, such as
picking up trash, fixing fences that exclude cattle from sensitive fish habitat, and
patrolling heavily used fishing areas. Many of these groups come from outside the area
of influence, specifically Ridgecrest and the Los Angeles area. The Sierra Nevada Land
Trust and the Friends of the Inyo try to understand the role of the ranching families in
the local communities. National groups also have strong interest in Inyo NF, including
the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, and others.
The Science Synthesis has numerous examples of models for collaboration in forest
management. Several highlights come from fire and include Fire Safe Councils (FSC)
and the role that the agency plays in actively supporting and engaging in their activities,
and providing funding. FSCs help Californians mobilize to protect their homes,
communities, and surrounding lands from wildfire. Fire Learning Networks foster
collaboration across organizations and administrative boundaries to develop landscapescale
restoration plans for fire-prone ecosystems. Conservation learning networks
Page 67 of 83

promote learning by spreading best practices and identifying barriers and solutions.
Community Wildfire Protection Plans not only help communities address fire risk
locally, but also help people create social networks, enhance learning, and build
community capacity. The Forest Service can play a role in helping with plan
development, providing data and expertise, and helping stakeholders form networks.
Collaboration between managers, researchers, and tribal practitioners who hold
traditional ecological knowledge can be the vehicle for developing metrics to evaluate
cultural resources that support community health and livelihoods. Tribal communities
within the Sierra Nevada present distinctive opportunities for mutually beneficial
partnerships to restore ecologically and culturally significant resources, and to promote
resilience. Tribal hand crews are available for forest land clearing contracts and can
improve connections between tribal youth and the outdoors.
Sustainable recreation
The 2010 Forest Service document “Connecting People with America’s Great Outdoors:
A Framework for Sustainable Recreation,” describes how our national forests and
grasslands provide an unparalleled diversity of outdoor recreation opportunities that
connect people with nature. Participation in recreation activities is the way most people
have come to know their national forests. Outdoor recreation contributes greatly to the
physical, mental, and spiritual health of people, bonds family and friends, instills pride
in their heritage, and provides economic benefits. This definitely holds true for the Sierra
Nevada.
Outdoor recreation is a major part of the culture and lifestyle in the Sierra Nevada, and
in California and Nevada in general. The social, economic, and ecological benefits are
numerous. Outdoor recreation contributes to people’s connection to nature, sense of
place, and community identity. It provides physical and mental health benefits, and a
foundation for stewardship. Recreation supports social interactions with friends and
family, which is especially important in the Latino community. There is growing
recognition of the importance that recreation volunteerism plays in California, in
maintaining the quality of opportunities, as well as restoring ecosystems. While various
opportunities to work with volunteer groups exist on the Inyo NF, one challenge for the
forest is limited capacity, in terms of staffing and money, to support all of these
activities. Recreation is an important part of California’s tourism portfolio. Population
growth and resulting increases in recreation and tourism have brought new economic
opportunities to many Sierra Nevada communities. The majority of the economic
activity associated with the Forest is generated through recreation special uses (e.g.,
winter sports/ski areas, resorts, etc.)
Recreation in the Sierra Nevada, compounded by various stressors to the system, can
also have negative impacts on social, economic, and ecological conditions. Recreation on
National Forest System lands can impact the spread of invasive species. Unmanaged
recreation can adversely impact natural resources. Manipulation of streams for water
recreation has degraded watersheds. Population growth has led to increased
competition for water among various uses. Increasing numbers of outdoor recreationists
Page 68 of 83

can lead to increased conflict, and a lesser quality of experience. Recreation and tourism
have led to an influx of urbanites into Sierra Nevada communities, which can increase
the cost of living, and result in shifting values. See Chapters 1, 2, 8, and 9 for more
information on these topics.
Connecting people
The economy relies on society, and society is dependent on the environment. This is the
general premise of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003), which recognized the
growing burden degraded ecosystems are placing on human well-being and economic
development. It points out that sustaining the benefits ecosystems provide for human
well-being requires a full understanding and wise management of the relationships
between human activities, ecosystem change, and well-being in the near and long term
future.
The importance of the connection between people and Sierra Nevada forests is clear.
Specific and comprehensive data on people’s connection with and understanding of
Sierra Nevada forests is largely unavailable however. These connections may best be
understood and maintained through more place-based approaches to management and
planning.
The following summary comes from the discussion of place-specific attachment from the
Science Synthesis:
Generic discussions at the landscape scale present challenges because place-specific
attachment has been shown to differ from more conceptual ideas of attachment that
managers and other technical experts may hold. This can result in differing values,
preferences for management, and responses to change in relation to a place. Discussions
of management are better when they focus on specific landscapes in order to consider
social and cultural dimensions, including place meanings and personal and social
identities. Understanding meanings of place, e.g. sacred or otherwise valuable places, is
essential to social ecological resilience. However, landscape-scale approaches are needed
for addressing ecosystem threats, such as climate change. It is likely that a nested
approach to planning and management will be most successful into the future.
Place-based approaches to planning represent one way of incorporating these various
place meanings. However, proximity is not the sole determinant of meaning. Individuals
and groups some distance away must also be considered. This can complicate
deliberations over management direction when particular groups are not represented in
planning approaches that gather input through more conventional mechanisms, such as
through inviting public comments or holding public input meetings. The population of
the Sierra Nevada represents a small portion of the statewide population, and it is thus a
numerical minority centered in a highly valued social-ecological and historical context.
Statewide or regional decisions to address majority interests may adversely impact
human and non-human populations and ecosystems in the Sierra Nevada, sometimes in
ways that put long-term sustainability at risk. Competition for scarce ecosystem services
and opportunities will remain a challenge for management of the forests in the Sierra
Page 69 of 83

Nevada. Connections to place within the Sierra Nevada may also be instrumental in
efforts to reduce demand on ecosystem services delivered far downstream, such as
water drawn from the Sierra Nevada to be used in southern California, or the need to
manage transportation in ways that reduce the transport of pollutants into the area.
As described in this chapter, many people outside the Sierra Nevada feel a deep
connection with the forests in the bio-region. It is important to continue to foster these
connections. At the same time, many people who benefit from resources originating in
the forest, such as water and electrical power, may not be aware of these benefits and
may never visit (USDA Forest Service 2012b). All are potential advocates, however.
Several opportunities occur for developing connections where they do not yet occur,
especially in many urban communities, where water demand, resource demand, and
pollution all influence the health of Sierra Nevada ecosystems. Ecosystem services can
be a useful framework for forest stewardship (Smith et al. 2011), by helping stakeholders
identify and understand services provided by a landscape and human use and
dependence on those services. Scientific evidence has shown that information, together
with motivation, can induce change (Schultz 2011). Interpretive products and services
that outreach to urban audiences can help reveal the connection between people’s lives,
their personal decisions, and the forest’s natural resources. Especially important is the
need to reach children, to create future advocates for national forest resources (USDA
Forest Service 2012b). Messaging that is more focused has been shown to more effective
at changing behaviors than broad pleas for help. Similarly, positive behavior
alternatives are more effective than curtailing or preventing certain behaviors (Schultz
2011). In addition, supporting opportunities to help people connect through actual
experiences with nature can help provide numerous benefits socially, economically, and
ecologically.
Another important piece of connecting people to Sierra Nevada forests is related to the
major changes in ethnic composition that are occurring within and just outside the Sierra
Nevada, as well as in the country as whole. These dimensions add to the already diverse
demographic, economic, and ethnic profile of Sierra Nevada communities. Increased
cultural diversity in California will continue to be reflected through immigration of
Latinos and Asians into Sierra Nevada communities, increasing the importance of
attending to cultural influences and values of long-standing and newly immigrated
residents (Sturtevant and Donoghue 2008). Both new and existing populations will
challenge modes of outreach, engagement, and approaches to management. Particular
attention will need to be paid to groups who may be underserved or underrepresented
in opportunities to have their opinions heard, needs or interests represented in decisions
about how places will be managed, and opportunities to use their public lands.
Changes may be met with adjustments in how the Forest Service works with and offers
opportunities to the public. Services offered through existing communication and
information approaches and more direct opportunities, such as those represented in
recreation and tourism might be a poor fit to these populations that are increasing in the
region and surrounding areas. Planning for the Sierra Nevada may consider these
cultural shifts and how they may be met through adjustments in local and regional
Page 70 of 83

services. For example, communication may need to be through ethnic media or key
contacts within communities (Winter et al. 2008), rather than through mainstream
English-speaking media.
Science suggests that messaging that is culturally sensitive and addresses issues that
matter to the particular community of interest will be more effective (Roberts et al. 2009).
Sensitivity to cultural differences in relationships to government, the land, and land
management will aid effective management in this diverse region (see Cheng and
Daniels 2003).
Page 71 of 83

References
Abrams, J. 2011. The policy context of the White Mountain stewardship contract. In:
Egan, D., Hjerpe, E.E. and Abrams, J., eds. Human dimensions of ecological restoration:
Integrating science, nature, and culture. Washington DC: Island Press: 163-176. Chapter
12.
Alkire, C. 2003. Economic value of golden trout fishing in the Golden Trout Wilderness,
California. A Report for California Trout. March 21. 25p.
Andersen, M. C., H. Adams, B. Hope, and M. Powell. 2004. Risk assessment for invasive
species. Risk Analysis 24:787-793.
Anderson, M. K. 1994. Prehistoric anthropogenic wildland burning by hunter-gatherer
societies in the temperate regions: a net source, sink, or neutral to the global carbon
budget? Chemosphere. 29:913.
Anderson, M. K. 1999. The fire, pruning, and coppice management of temperate
ecosystems for basketry materials by. Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary Journal 27.
Anderson, M. K. 2005. Tending the Wild : Native American Knowledge and the
Management of California's Natural Resources. University of California Press.
Anderson, J. A., D. J. Blahna, and D. J., Chavez. 2000. Fern Gathering on the San
Bernardino National Forest: Cultural versus Commercial Values Among Korean and
Japanese Participants. Society & Natural Resources 13: 747-762.
Anderson, M. K.; Moratto, M.J. 1996.Native American Land-Use Practices and Ecological
Impacts. Davis, CANumber of 187-206 p.
Aronson, J.; Blignaut, J.; Milton, S.; Maitre, D.; Esler, K.; Limouzin, A.; Fontaine, C.;
Whit, M.D.; Mugido, W.; Prinsloo, P.; Elst, L.V.D.; Lederer, N. 2010. Are socioeconomic
benefits of restoration adequately quantified? A meta-analysis of recent papers (2000-
2008) in Restoration Ecology and 12 other scientific journals. Restoration Ecology. 18 (2):
143-154.
Baker, M.; Kusel, J. 2003. Community forestry in the United States: learning from the
past, crafting the future. Washington, DC: Island Press. 247 p.
Baldassare, M. 2000. California in the new millennium: the changing social and political
landscape. University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA.
Ballard, H.L.; Fernandez-Gimenez, M.; Sturtevant, V.E. 2008a. Integration of local
ecological knowledge and conventional science: A study of seven community-based
forestry organizations in the USA. Ecology and Society. 13 (2): 37.
Berk, L. (2006). Development through the lifespan. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Berkes, F.; Ross, H. 2012. Community resilience: Toward an integrated approach. Society
Page 72 of 83

and Natural Resources. 26(1): 5-20.
Bergmann, S.A.; Bliss, J.C. 2004. Foundations of cross-boundary cooperation: Resource
management at the public-private interface. Society & Natural Resources. 17 (5): 377-393.
Blackburn, T.C. and K. Anderson (eds.). 1993. Before the wilderness: native Californians
as environmental managers. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, CA.
Brehm, J. M., B. W. Eisenhauer, and R. S. Krannich. 2004. Dimensions of Community
Attachment and Their Relationship to Well-Being in the Amenity-Rich Rural West*.
Rural Sociology 69:405-429.
Brooks, M. L., C. M. D'Antonio, D. M. Richardson, J. B. Grace, J. E. Keeley, J. M.
Brouwer, S., J. Nystrom, T. Stern, and H. Torres. 2012. A Progress Evaluation of National
Geographic's Geotourism Program. Duke University, Durham, NC.
Bryan, T.A. 2004. Tragedy averted: The promise of collaboration. Society and Natural
Resources. 17 (10): 881-896.
Burns, S.; Dietrich, J.; Mattor, K.; Wilson, T. 2011. A socioeconomic assessment of Forest
Service Recovery Act projects: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and White Mountain
Apache tribe, Arizona. In: Charnley, S., Jakes, P. and Schelhas, J., eds. Socioeconomic
assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects: eight
case studies. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-831. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 23-42. Chapter 3.
California Department of Finance. 2012. Interim Projections of Population for California:
State and Counties.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/interim/view.php.
California Department of Finance. 2009. 2008 California Statistical Abstract. January.
p.205.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2008. California Aquatic Invasive Species
Management Plan. Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2010. California's Forests and
Rangelands: 2010 Assessment. Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Sacramento, CA.
California State Controller’s Office. 2012. Counties Annual Report FY 2011.
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. 2010. California Sentencing Institute Data.
http://casi.cjcj.org/.
Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. 1996. “Economic Assessment of the
Ecosystem” in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Report. Report No. 39, University of
California Davis. Vol. 3, ch. 23. June.
Page 73 of 83

Charnley, S.; Donoghue, E.M.; Moseley, C. 2008a. Forest management policy and
community well-being in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry. 106 (8): 440-447.
Charnley, S.; Jakes, P.; Schelhas, J. 2012. Socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects: key findings and lessons learned.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-832. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 168 p.
Chavez, D. J. and D. Olson. 2011. Visitor survey results: Giant Sequoia National
Monument day use study 2009-2010. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.
Cheng, A.A.; Daniels, S.E. 2003. Examining the interaction between geographic scale and
ways of knowing in ecosystem management: a case study of place-based collaborative
planning. Forest Science. 49(6): 841-854.
Cheng, A. S., L. E. Kruger, and S. E. Daniels. 2003. "Place" as an Integrating Concept in
Natural Resource Politics: Propositions for a Social Science Research Agenda. Society &
Natural Resources 16:87-104.
Cheng, A.; Sturtevant, V.E. 2012. A framework for assessing collaborative capacity in
communtiy-based public forest management. Environmental Management. 49: 675-689.
Clayton, S. D. and G. Myers. 2009. Conservation psychology : understanding and
promoting human care for nature. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK; Hoboken, NJ.
Cordell, H. K. 2012. Outdoor recreation trends and futures: a technical document
supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.
Cordell, H.K.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Betz, C.J.; Green, G.T. 2004. Dominant socioeconomic
forces shaping the future of the United States. In Manfredo, M.J.; Vaske, J.J.; Bruyere,
B.L.; Field, D.R.; Brown, P.J. (eds.), In: Society and natural resources: a summary of
knowledge. Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho: 349-361.
Cordell, H.K.; Heboyan, V.; Santos, F.; Bergstrom, J.C. 2011. Natural amenities and rural
population migration: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA
assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-146. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 23 p.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the
National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C.
Council on Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture, Department of the
Interior, and Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. America’s Great Outdoors: A
Promise to Future Generations.
Crano, W., R. Quist, and P. L. Winter. 2008. Forest visitation, media consumption, and
Page 74 of 83

diverse publics: lessons for outreach. Pages 177-192 in D. J. Chavez, P. L. Winter, and A.
J.D., editors. Recreation visitor research: studies of diversity. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.
Crompton, T.; Kasser, T. 2009. Meeting environmental challenges: the role of human
identity. World Wildlife Fund-UK, Panda House, Godalming, Surrey, UK.
Davidson, D.J. 2010. The applicability of the concept of resilience to social systems: some
sources of optimism and nagging doubts. Society and Natural Resources. 23(12): 1135-
1149.
Dean Runyan and Associates. 2012. California Travel Impacts by County,1992-2010 2011
Preliminary State & Regional Estimates. April 2012 p.149.
Dean, Sharon E., Peggy S. Ratcheson, Judith W. Finger, Ellen F. Daus. Weaving a Legacy:
Indian Baskets and the People of Owens Valley, California. The University Utah Press.
Salt Lake City, 2004.
Dellasala, D.A.; Williams, J.E.; Williams, C.D.; Franklin, J.F. 2004. Beyond smoke and
mirrors: a synthesis of fire policy and science. Conservation Biology 18: 976-986.
Ditomaso, R. J. Hobbs, M. Pellant, and D. Pyke. 2004. Effects of Invasive Alien Plants on
Fire Regimes. BioScience 54:677-688.
Donoghue, E.M.; Thompson, S.A.; Bliss, J.C. 2010. Tribal-federal collaboration in
resource management. Journal of Ecological Anthropology. 14 (1): 22-38.
Duane, T. P. 1999. Shaping the Sierra: nature, culture, and conflict in the changing west.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Egan, D.; Hjerpe, E.E.; Abrams, J. 2011. Human dimensions of ecological restoration:
Integrating science, nature, and culture. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Eisenhauer, B., R. Krannich, and D. Blahna. 2000. Attachments to Special Places on
Public Lands: An Analysis of Activities, Reason for Attachments, and Community
Connections. Society & Natural Resources 13:421-441.
Englin, J.; Holmes, T.P.; Lutz, J. 2008. Wildfire and the economic value of wilderness
recreation. In Holmes, T.P.; Prestemon, J.P.; Abt, K.L. (eds.), In: The economics of forest
disturbances: wildfires, storms, and invasive species: Springer Science + Business Media
B.V.: 191-208.
Evans, G. W. 2005. Child Development and the Physical Environment. Annual Review
of Psychology 57:423-451.
Evans, G.W.; Vermeylen, F.M.; Barash, A.; Lefkowitz, E.G.; Hutt, R.L. 2009. The
experience of stressors and hassles among rural adolescents from low- and middleincome
households in the USA. Children, Youth and Environments. 19(2): 164-
175.Evans, G. W. and J. Rosenbaum. 2008. Self-regulation and the income-achievement
Page 75 of 83

gap. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23:504-514.
Fellers, G.M.; Pope, K.L.; Stead, J.E.; Koo, M.S.; Welsh Jr, H.H. 2007. Turning population
trend monitoring into active conservation: Can we save the Cascade Frog (RANA
CASCADAE) in the Lassen region of California? Herpetological Conservation and
Biology. 3(1): 28-39.
Fernandez-Gimenez, M.; Ballard, H.L.; Sturtevant, V.E. 2008. Adaptive management and
social learning in collaborative and community-based monitoring: a study of five
community-based forestry organizations. Ecology and Society. 13 (2): 4.
Ferranto, S., L. Huntsinger, C. Getz, W. Stewart, M. Kelly, G. Nakamura, M. DeLasaux,
S. Drill, and Y. Valachovic. 2011. Forest and rangeland owners value land for natural
amenities and as financial investment. Calif. Agric. California Agriculture 65:184-191.
Firehock, K.E. 2011. The community-based collaborative movement in the United States.
In: Dukes, E.F., Firehock, K.E. and Birkhoff, J.E., eds. Community-based collaboration:
Bridging Socio-ecological research and practice. Charlottesville: University of Virginia
Press: 1-18.
Floyd, M.F. 1999. Race, ethnicity and use of the National Park System. Social Science
Research Review. 1(2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. 24 p. Gunderson, K. and A. Watson. 2007. Understanding Place Meanings on the
Bitterroot National Forest, Montana. Society and Natural Resources 20:705-721.
Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems
analyses. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions. 16(3): 253-267.
Gobster, P.H. 2005. Recreation and leisure research from an active living perspective:
taking a second look at urban trail use data. Leisure Sciences. 27(5): 367-383.
Hardigg, K. 2011. Ecological restoration as the zone of agreement in southeast Alaska.
In: Egan, D., Hjerpe, E.E. and Abrams, J., eds. Human dimensions of ecological
restoration: integrating science, nature, and culture. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Chapter 9.
Hausbeck, K. 2007. The little engine that could: the success of the Stewardship
Contracting Authority. William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review. 32
(1): 33-55.
Headwaters Economics. 2012a. Economic Porfile System - Human Dimensions Toolkit
(EPS-HDT). http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt.
Headwaters Economics 2012b. West is Best How Public Lands in the West Create a
Competitive Economic Advantage. Bozeman, MT. November.
Headwaters Economics. 2012c. A Profile of Federal Land Payments. percentage
calculations made using Headwaters’ PILT values and the total revenues from the FY
Page 76 of 83

2009 California State Controllers County Report.
Hirschman, Albert O. 1964. The Paternity of an Index. The American Economic Review,
American Economic Association. 54 (5): p. 761.
Horan, R.D.; Fenichel, E.P.; Drury, K.L.S.; Lodge, D.M. 2011. Managing ecological
thresholds in coupled environmental-human systems. PNAS. 108(18): 7333-7338.
Huntsinger, L., L. C. Forero, and A. Sulak. 2010. Transhumance and pastoral resilience in
the Western United States. Pages 9-36 Pastoralism: Research, Policy, and Practice.Lanfer
and Taylor, n.d
Johnson, Hans. 2011. Just the Facts: California’s Population. San Francisco, CA: Public
Policy Institute of California.
Jones, R. E., J. M. Fly, J. Talley, and H. K. Cordell. 2003. Green Migration into Rural
America:The New Frontier of Environmentalism? Society & Natural Resources 16.
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a
motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 178-202.
Karjalainen, E., T. Sarjala, and H. Raitio. 2010. Promoting human health through forests:
overview and major challenges. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 15:1-8.
Kelly, E.C.; Bliss, J. 2009. Healthy forests, healthy communities: an emerging paradigm
for natural resource-dependent communities? Society and Natural Resources. 22 (6):
519-537.
Kerkvliet, J. 2010. The practice and economics of stewardship contracting: a case study of
the Clearwater Stewardship Project. Forest Products Journal. 60 (3): 213-220.
Kruger, L. E. and P. J. Jakes. 2003. Special Section - Sense of Place - The Importance of
Place: Advances in Science and Application. Forest science. 49:819.
Kruger, L. E., T. E. Hall, and M. C. Stiefel, editors. 2008a. Understanding concepts of
place in recreation research and management. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
Kruger, L. E., R. Mazza, and M. Stiefel. 2008b. Amenity migration, rural communities,
and public lands. Pages 127-142 in E. M. Donoghue and V. E. Sturtevant, editors. Forest
community connections: implications for research, management, and governance.
Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
Kusel, J. 2001. Assessing Well-Being in Forest Dependent Communities. Journal of
Sustainable Forestry 13:359-384.
Kusel, J.; Adler, E. eds. 2003. Forest communities, community forests. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 301 p.
Page 77 of 83

Lanfer, A.G.; Taylor, M. [N.d.]. Immigrant engagement in public open space: strategies
for the new Boston. 23 p. On file with: Barr Foundation, The Pilot House, Lewis Wharf, 2
Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA 02110.
Loeffler, R. and E. Steinicke. 2006. Counterurbanization and Its Socioeconomic Effects in
High Mountain Areas of the Sierra Nevada (California/Nevada). Mountain Research
and Development 26:64-71.
Loeffler, R. and E. Steinicke. 2007. Amenity migration in the U.S. Sierra Nevada.
Geographical Review 97.
Loomis, J.; Gonzalez-Caban, A.; Englin, J. 2001. Testing for differential effects of forest
fires on hiking and mountain biking demand and benefits. Journal of Agricultural and
Resource Economics. 26(2): 508-522.
Long, Jonathan W.; Quinn-Davidson, Lenya; and Skinner, Carl N., tech. editors. Science
Synthesis to Support Forest Plan Revision in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades.
Draft Final Report. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Research Station. 504 p.
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/reports/psw_sciencesynthesis2013/.
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power [LADWP]. 2010. Urban Water
Management Plan.
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power [LADWP]. 2013. Recreation in the Eastern
Sierra. https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/wcnav_externalId/a-w-estrnsirrarecrtion?_adf.ctrl-state=q6tqwybgx_4&_afrLoop=91709020728000.
Mayer, F.S. and Frantz, C.M. 2004. The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of
individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24:
503–515.
McAvoy, L., P. Shirilla, and J. Flood. 2004. American Indian gathering and recreation
uses of national forests.
McCool, S. F., J. Burchfield, D. R. Williams, M. Carroll, P. Cohn, Y. Kumagai, and T.
Ubben. 2007. Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis of research on the
impacts of wildland fires on communities. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.
McLain, R. J., E. T. Jones, and S. Pacific Northwest Research. 2005. Nontimber forest
products management on national forests in the United States. USDA, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station, [Portland, OR].
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being: a
framework for assessment. Island Press: 1-25.
Miller, B.; Sinclair, J. 2012. Risk perceptions in a resource community and
Page 78 of 83

communication implications: emotion, stigma, and identity. Risk Analysis. 32(3): 483-
495.Mittelbach, F. and D. B. Wambem. 2003. Six: Competition for Natural Resources in
California's Sierra Nevada.
Moyle, P. B., P. K. Crain, K. Whitener, and J. F. Mount. Alien Fishes in Natural Streams:
Fish Distribution, Assemblage Structure, and Conservation in the Cosumnes River,
California, U.S.A. Environmental Biology of Fishes 68:143-162.
Müller, M.M, Kals, E., and Pansa, R. 2009. Adolescents’ Emotional Affinity toward
Nature: A Cross-Societal Study. The Journal of Developmental Processes 4(1): 59-69.
Nadeau, S.; Shindler, B.A.; Kakoyannis, C. 2003. Beyond the economic model: assessing
sustainability in forest communities. In: Shindler, B.A., Beckley, T.M. and Finley, M.C.,
eds. Two paths toward sustainable forests: public values in Canada and the United
States. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press: 60-74. Chapter 4.
National Forest System Land Management Planning, Final Rule. Pages 21161-21276.
Federal Register (April 9, 2012).
National Geographic Society. 2009. Sierra Nevada Geotourism MapGuide.
National Park Service. 2006. Management Policies 2006. Washington, DC.
North, M. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.
Opotow, S.; Brook, A. 2003. Identity and exclusion in rangeland conflict. In Clayton, S.;
Opotow, S. (eds.), In: Identity and the natural environment: the psychological
significance of nature. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press: 249-272.
Peterson, M. N., A. G. Mertig, and L. J. 2007. Influence of urban immigrants on outdoor
recreation and land use in Teton Valley. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration
25:25-38.
Pfeiffer, J. M. and R. A. Voeks. 2008. Biological invasions and biocultural diversity:
linking ecological and cultural systems. Environmental Conservation 35:281-293.
Power, T.M. 2006. Public timber supply, market adjustments, and local economies:
economic assumptions of the Northwest Forest Plan. Conservation Biology. 20 (2): 341-
350.
Quinn-Davidson, L.; Varner, J.M. 2012. Impediments to prescribed fire across agency,
landscape and manager: an example from northern California. International Journal Of
Wildland Fire. 21(3): 210-218.
Richards, R. T. 1996. Special forest products harvesting in the Sierra Nevada. Pages 787-
884 Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress, vol. III. University of
California, Davis, CA.
Page 79 of 83

Richardson, R. 2002. "The Economic Benefits of Wildlands in the Eastern Sierra Nevada
Region of California. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Colorado
State University. April. 30 p.
Roberts, N. S., D. J. Chavez, B. M. Lara, and E. A. Sheffield. 2009. Serving culturally
diverse visitors to forests in California: a resource guide. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.Sierra
Nevada Conservancy 2011
Schneider, I.E.; Winter, P.B. 1998. Multiple use management preferences by visitors with
differing leisure identity salience. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 16(4):
22-38.
Schultz, P. W. 2011. Conservation Means Behavior. Conservation Biology 25(6): 1080-
1083.
Selters, A for the Eastern Sierra Interpretive Association. 2012. Images of America: Inyo
National Forest. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, SC.
Sierra Business Council. 1997. Planning for prosperity : building successful communities
in the Sierra Nevada. Sierra Business Council, Truckee, CA.
Sierra Business Council. 2007. The State of the Sierra.
Sierra Nevada Conservancy. 2011. Strategic Plan.in N. R. A. State of California, Sierra
Nevada Legacy, editor., Auburn, CA.
Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Science Team. 1996. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project
final report to Congress: status of the Sierra Nevada. University of California, Centers
for Water and Wildland Resources, Davis, CA.
Smith, N; Deal, R.; Kline, J.D.; Patterson, T.; Spies, T.; Blahna, D. 2011. Using ecosystem
services as a framework for forest stewardship: executive summary. Gen. Tech. Rep
PNW GTR-852. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 46 p.
Stephens, S.L.; Martin, R.E.; Clinton, N.E. 2007. Prehistoric fire area and emissions from
California's forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. Forest Ecology and
Management. 251(3): 205-216.
Sturtevant, V.E.; Donoghue, E.M. 2008. Community and forest connections: continuity
and change In: Donoghue, E.M. and Sturtevant, V.E., eds. Forest community
connections: implications for research, management, and governance. Washington, DC:
Resources for the Future: 3-24.
Sulak, A., L. Huntsinger, A. Sierra Nevada, A. California Cattlemen's, and T. California
Rangeland. 2002. Sierra Nevada grazing in transition : the role of forest service grazing
in the foothill ranches of California : a report to. Sierra Nevada Alliance : California
Page 80 of 83

Cattlemen's Association : California Rangeland Trust, [Calif.].
Susskind, L.; Field, P. 1996. Dealing with an angry public: the mutual gains approach to
resolving disputes. The Free Press New York, New York.
Thapa, B.; Holland, S.M.; Absher, J.D. 2008. Perceived risk, attitude, knowledge, and
reactionary behaviors toward wildfires among Florida tourists. In: D.J. Chavez.; J.D.
Absher; P.L. Winter (Eds.) Fire social science research from the Pacific Southwest
Research Station: Studies supported by the national fire plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-
GTR-209. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest
Research Station. p. 87-102.
University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. County Health Rankings 2013.
www.countyhealthrankings.org.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 Geographic Terms and Concepts.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. American Community Survey Multiyear Accuracy of the
Data.in A. C. S. Office, editor.
U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. 2009a. National Agricultural Statistics Service,
Census of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., Table 8.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2009b. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census
of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., Table 45.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010. Strategic Plan: FY 2010-2015. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2012. Environmental Justice Strategic Plan 2012-2014.
Page 15, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service [USFS]. 2008. TMECA Economic
Contribution Reports. Region 5 Travel Management Part B forest level economic
analysis. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service [USFS]. 2009. Inyo National Forest
Motorized Travel Management: Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service [USFS]. 2010. Connecting People with
America’s Great Outdoors, A Framework for Sustainable Recreation. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service [USFS]. 2011. National Report on
Sustainable Forests-2010.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service [USFS]. 2012a. Future of America's
Forests and Rangelands. Unites States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Page 81 of 83

Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service [USFS]. 2012b. Giant Sequoia National
Monument: Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service [USFS]. 2012c. National Forest Statement
of Receipts (ASR-13-2) for Fiscal Year 2011. February 14, 2012.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service [USFS]. 2012d Program Development,
Budget and Accountability Monitoring Reports – Pacific Southwest Region.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service [USFS]. 2012e. Increasing the pace of
restoration and job creation on our National Forests. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 2012a. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 2012b. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic
Information System, Washington, D.C. Table CA25N.
U.S. Department of Labor. 2012. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of
Employment and Wages, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Justice [DOJ]. 2012. DOJ Merger Enforcement: The Herfindah--
Hirschman Index. http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/hhi.html. Webpage
accessed on 12/3/12.
Walker, P. and L. Fortmann. 2003. Whose landscape? A political ecology of the ‘exurban’
Sierra. Cultural Geographies 10:469-491.
Walker, B. and D. Salt. 2006. Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a
changing world. Washington: Island Press. 174 p.
Westphal, L.M. 2003. Urban greening and social benefits: a study of empowerment
outcomes. Journal of Aboriculture. 29 (3): 137-147.
Thapa, B.; Holland, S.M.; Absher, J.D. 2008. Perceived risk, attitude, knowledge, and
reactionary behaviors toward wildfires among Florida tourists. In: D.J. Chavez.; J.D.
Absher; P.L. Winter (Eds.) Fire social science research from the Pacific Southwest
Research Station: Studies supported by the national fire plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-
GTR-209. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest
Research Station. p. 87-102.
Winter, P.L.; Chavez, D.J. 2008.Wildland recreationists' natural resource management
purposes and preferences: a connection to environmental identity. In Chavez, D.J.;
Winter, P.L.; Absher, J.D. (eds.), In: Recreation visitor research: studies of diversity. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-210. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Page 82 of 83

Pacific Southwest Research Station.: 163-174.
Winter P.L.; Knap N.E. 2008. Urban-proximate wilderness visitors’ attitudes about fire
management. In: D.J. Chavez.; J.D. Absher; P.L. Winter (Eds.) Fire social science research
from the Pacific Southwest Research Station: Studies supported by the national fire plan.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-209. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. p. 57-68.
Winter, Patricia L.; Long, Jonathan W.; and Lake, Frank K. 2013. Broader Context for
Social, Economic, and Cultural Components. Chapter 9.1 in Long, Jonathan W.; Quinn-
Davidson, Lenya, and Skinner, Carl N., tech. editors. Science Synthesis to support Forest
Plan Revision in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades. Draft Final Report. Albany,
CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.
504 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/reports/psw_sciencesynthesis2013/.
Winter, P. L., J. Skenderian, and W. Crano. 2008. Routes to communicating about
outdoor recreatino with diverse publics: what we know about media. Pages 195-200 in
D. J. Chavez, P. L. Winter, and J. D. Absher, editors. Recreation visitor research: studies
of diversity. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research
Station, Albany, CA.
Zavaleta, E.S.; Chapin III, F.S. 2010. Resilience frameworks: enhancing the capacity to
adapt to change. In Cole, D.N.; Yung, L. (eds.), In: Beyond naturalness: rethinking park
and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change. Washington, DC: Island Press:
142-161.
Page 83 of 83