Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

1 

Rim Fire Recovery (43033) 

Rangeland Specialist Report

Stanislaus National Forest

Groveland and Mi-Wok Ranger Districts

Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties, California

Dawn Coultrap

Rangeland Management Specialist

5/6/2014

Signed: ________________________ Date: ___________ Dawn Coultrap

08/27/2014
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

2 

3.07 RANGE

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

Current management direction for the Stanislaus National Forest range program comes from several 

sources, which include the 1991 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and the 2001 

and 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendments. This direction is reflected in the terms and 

conditions of each Forest-issued term grazing permit. Secretary of Agriculture Regulations related to 

grazing and livestock on the National Forest System are in 36 CFR 222. Legislative authorities for 

administration of the National Forest System range program are shown in Forest Service Manual 

(FSM) 2201. Objectives, policies, and responsibilities for the range management program are in the 

FSM 2202 through 2204 and FSM 2230 through FSM 2238. Direction that is most applicable to this 

project is listed below.

Forest Plan

 Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010) presents the current management direction, based on the 

original LRMP (USDA 1991) as amended:

FOREST GOAL FOR RANGE: 

Manage livestock to utilize available forage while avoiding adverse impacts on soil, vegetation, water 

quality, wildlife, fisheries and riparian zones.

FORESTWIDE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR RANGE

Allotment Management

Livestock grazing and all other uses are based on soil and vegetative resources. Maintaining these 

resources in satisfactory condition is the first priority of range management on this Forest. Any 

management practice that maintains or causes unsatisfactory soil or vegetative conditions in an area 

must be modified or if necessary, eliminated from that area. (36 CFR 219.20(b)) AUM increases are 

possible in allotments with satisfactory resource conditions. In many cases, improving resource 

conditions leads to increased forage production.

Improve ecological condition of rangelands, where currently unsatisfactory, through improved 

management, and structural and non-structural improvements. 

On any allotment or unit of allotment, grazing management will be based on the vegetative type or 

soil type contained which is most susceptible to damage through improper grazing management. 

Examples: a riparian drainage through annual grassland; meadows within transitory range. Allowable 

use standards will be established in the allotment management plans and annual operating plans for 

each unit of each allotment. The standards will be based on Regional standards in R5 FSH2209.21. 

Priority will be given to range improvement on allotments with a high percentage of primary 

rangeland in unsatisfactory condition, or high conflicts between livestock grazing and other resources 

and uses.

Transportation systems in established range allotments will include fences and cattle guards where 

new roads open up natural livestock barriers. 

Annual Range

Includes any segment of the California annual grassland either in large pure types or small types 

interspersed with shrubs and hardwoods. When management is based on this type the following 

apply:
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

3 

Determine livestock on-dates based on soil moisture conditions and expected readiness date on 

associated perennial range to which the livestock are moved.

Perennial Range

Includes meadows, perennial grassland, sagebrush, broadleaf and riparian vegetation types. When 

grazing management is based on perennial range the following apply:

On allotments or pastures under intensive management provide rest or deferment during the growing 

season at least every third year.

On allotments under intensive management, as part of an approved discontinuous grazing system, 

allow grazing use to exceed normal use (as defined in R5 FSH 2209.21) up to one year out of two.

Under extensive or maintenance management where continuous season-long grazing is allowed, 

remove livestock when grazing reaches the allowable use level specified for the designated key areas.

Under all management strategies base on-dates for livestock on the phenological development of key 

forage or indicator species. Refer to R5 FSH 2209.21 for range readiness standards or use comparable 

criteria for species not listed. One exception is where an intensive management system limits early 

grazing to that which the range can withstand.

When primary range occurs within riparian areas: Allowable herbaceous forage utilization levels will 

be set according to Regional methods at standards that will contribute to the achievement of good to 

excellent vegetative and soil conditions (FSH 2209.21, Range Analysis Handbook).

Transitory Range

Includes all forage available following logging or fire, whether natural or seeded where there is no 

intention of permanently managing the type for forage production because tree or shrub canopies will 

grow to severely limit forage production. When management is based on transitory range the 

following apply:

Maximize forage utilization consistent with other resource values. Utilization may exceed normal 

range allowable use standards, but soils, watershed, riparian, wildlife or recreation considerations 

may modify use.

Initiate grazing use to complement silvicultural needs. Heavy grazing can help control grass and 

shrubs and prevent them from dominating the site.

Code of Federal Regulations

36 CFR 222.2 (c) Management of the range environment.

Forage producing National Forest System lands will be managed for livestock grazing and the 

allotment management plans will be prepared consistent with land management plans.

36 CFR 222.9 (a) Range improvements. 

The Chief, Forest Service, is authorized to install and maintain structural and nonstructural range 

improvements needed to manage the range resource on National Forest System lands and other lands 

controlled by the Forest Service. 

Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks

FSH 2209.13, Section17.2 - Non-use for Resource Protection or Development 

Nonuse may be implemented by the authorized officer if necessary to facilitate the protection or 

development of National Forest System lands and resources. Nonuse may be on an allotment, 

watershed, or landscape scale depending on the scale of the rangeland resource needing protection or 

development.
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

4 

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Range

1. Forest Plan Direction authorizes grazing on allotments in the project area and guides grazing 

management on those allotments. The authorization for livestock grazing and the 

administration of allotments will not change with any of the proposed alternatives.

2. Salvage of dead timber can have a beneficial effect on grazing resources by improving the 

Forest’s ability to administer grazing allotments and increasing forage availability and 

livestock distribution.

3. The area proposed for activities and the amount of rangeland infrastructure in treatment areas 

reflects the relative degree of impact each alternative would have on permitted grazing in the 

project area.

4. Spatial data has limitations, but can provide information useful for interpreting conditions and 

anticipated effects. Interpretations about spatial data are only as good as the spatial data 

analyzed. Field visits are important to verify conditions on the ground, but complete survey is 

impractical due to the scale of the project area.

5. Monitoring will occur during implementation of the project to inform livestock management 

about the effects of project implementation on grazing use and rangeland resource conditions.

Data Sources

In describing the rangeland resources in the project area and analyzing alternatives, the following 

information was used:

 Post-fire field visits 

 Local professional knowledge 

 Spatial data files:

o Project Treatment Information 

o Vegetation and Soil Burn Severity, Soil Erosion Hazard Rating

o California Wildlife Habitat Relationships

o Allotment and unit/pasture boundaries

o Land ownership

o Capable Rangeland 

o Range infrastructure

o Transportation 

Range Indicators

In order to describe range existing condition the following indicators and categories were used:

 Field Visits and Monitoring Data

 Vegetation Burn Severity and Vegetation Type

 Soil Burn Severity and Erosion Hazard Rating

 Range infrastructure location and condition 

In order to assess the potential effects of each alternative on rangeland resources, the following 

indicators were used:

 Proposed treatment area in each allotment (percent of allotment proposed for treatments)
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

5 

 Proposed treatment area in capable rangelands within each allotment

 Road treatments (hazard tree removal and reconstruction/maintenance)

 Amount of range infrastructure encompassed by proposed treatments

Range Methodology by Action

The method used to determine the effects on rangeland resources was quantitative and qualitative 

comparison of each alternative’s anticipated impacts on rangeland resources and expected potential 

for moving existing conditions towards desired conditions identified in Forest Plan Direction. 

Affected Environment

Existing Conditions 

GRAZING ALLOTMENTS AFFECTED BY RIM FIRE

There are fourteen active grazing allotments either wholly or partially within the Rim Fire (Appendix 

A). Table 3.07-1 displays administrative variables for each of the allotments burned in the Rim fire. 

Table 3.07-1 Allotment Administrative variables

Allotment

Area 

(acres)

Ranger 

District

Livestock 

Number*

Season

of Use

Animal Use 

Months (AUMs)

Elevation Range (feet)

Low High

Bonds 6403 Groveland 60 5/25 - 9/30 240 2400 3900 

Bower Cave 12113 Groveland 40 5/25 - 9/30 160 2300 6000 

Bull Creek 34415 Groveland 150 5/1 - 9/30 700 1300 6000

Curtin 14113 Groveland 100 6/16 - 9/30 350 3000 6000 

Duckwall 17625 Mi-Wok 142 5/15 - 8/31 497 2200 5800

Gravel Range 378 Mi-Wok 100 5/15 - 6/15 100 2700 3400 

Hunter Creek 30136 Mi-Wok 150 5/15 - 9/30 675 1000 5800

Jawbone 31170 Groveland 168 5/15 - 9/30 756 2200 6400 

Lower Hull 8804 Mi-Wok 75 6/1 - 9/15 263 3800 6000

Meyer-Ferretti 5810 Groveland 368 5/15 - 6/15 284 1200 3500 

Middle Fork 31739 Groveland 200 6/16 - 9/30 700 1500 5600

Rosasco 19969 Groveland 96 6/1 - 9/30 384 2900 6900 

Upper Hull 39608 Mi-Wok 150 6/15 - 9/15 450 4200 7900

Westside 11122 Mi-Wok 75 6/1 - 9/15 263 3000 5700 

* listed livestock number indicates the maximum number of cow/calf pairs currently permitted to graze on NFS lands. 

Number shown does not include animals authorized to graze on private lands in the project area. 

Some of the allotments are administered in conjunction with adjacent allotments: the Jawbone and 

Rosasco allotments; the Meyer-Ferretti, Middle Fork, Curtin and Gravel Range allotments; the Lower 

Hull, Upper Hull, and Westside allotments; and the Bonds, Bower Cave, Bull Creek, and Little Crane 

(not affected by Rim fire) allotments. Because these allotments are managed by the same grazing 

permit holder (permittee) and often with the same herds of livestock, they will here forth be discussed 

cohesively.

Fire Extent and Burn Severity of Grazing Allotments

Of the 14 allotments affected by the Rim Fire, some were relatively less impacted due either to the 

proportion of the allotment burned and/or fire severity in the burned areas. Capable rangeland

describes areas of land that can sustain domestic grazing and generally includes areas with less than 

30% slope, lacking physical barriers, within one mile of perennial water, and with the potential to 

produce an average of 200 lbs. of forage per acre per year (USDA 2004). Capable rangeland was used 

to compare the relative effects of the fire on the allotments, because these areas represent the portions 

of the landscape assumed to be most commonly used by cattle. Table 3.07-2 displays data 

summarizing the areas burned at moderate and high vegetation burn severity high soil burn severity, 

and high erosion hazard rating. 
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

6 

Table 3.07-2 Allotment burn severity and erosion hazard data

Allotment(s)

Allotment 

vegetation 

burned at 

moderate or high 

severity (%)

Capable range 

vegetation 

burned at 

moderate or high 

severity (%)

Capable range 

soil burned at 

high severity 

(%)

Allotment soil 

erosion hazard 

rating high (%)

Jawbone-Rosasco 64 72 61 15.1

Hunter Creek 54 52 49 3.5

Duckwall 14 6 8 2.2

Middle Fork, Meyer-Ferretti, 

Gravel Range, Curtin 65 68 56 18.1

Bonds, Bower Cave, Bull 

Creek, Little Crane 20 2 2 1.4

Westside, Lower Hull, Upper 

Hull 17 5 3 1.5

Grazing Management

Allotment Administration 

Grazing on an allotment is authorized by issuance of a term grazing permit. The management of each 

allotment is guided by an Allotment Management Plan (AMP), which prescribes site-specific

livestock management strategies. Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) provide annual information 

used to carry out strategies detailed in the AMPs. Forest Plan Direction provides standards and

guidelines that are designed to provide for resource conservation and sustainable use of rangelands. 

Range monitoring is conducted as needed to ensure that the grazing management strategies meet 

objectives for desired conditions. Administration of grazing allotments involves travel on roads by 

Forest Service staff and permittees. Post-fire administration of grazing allotments will require more 

frequent travel to and from key areas and range infrastructure. Dead trees pose a threat to human 

safety and make access more difficult for grazing permittees and Forest staff. 

Rangeland Infrastructure 

Rangeland infrastructure includes fences, water developments (troughs), cattleguards, gates, and 

corrals. Because this infrastructure is designed to control livestock movements (timing, duration, and 

insensity of grazing) and is often required by the AMP, allotments are not viable if critical 

infrastructure is not functioning. Rangeland infrastructure was damaged by the fire and fire 

suppression activities. Over time, standing dead and unhealthy trees will fall on range fences in the 

project area, as noted following the Ackerson Fire. Because this infrastructure is designed to control 

livestock movements (timing, duration, and intensity of grazing) and often required by the allotment 

management plan(s), allotment management is much more difficult if critical range infrastructure is 

not functioning. Some improvements, particularly fences, are in need of repairs. Dead trees adjacent 

to fences and troughs pose a safety risk for Forest staff and permittees responsible for repairing and 

maintaining improvements and over time are likely to fall on and damage or destroy range 

infrastructure after it is repaired. Several cattleguards in the project area are not functioning because 

they were either damaged during the fire or have filled in with sediment and debris.

Livestock Movements 

Livestock move through the allotments throughout the grazing season to find available forage and 

water. Dead or dying trees may reduce forage production to some extent due to shading and space 

availability. In many burned areas dead standing trees are abundant, and many dead trees have begun 
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

7 

to fall. Fallen dead trees have the potential to “jackstraw”, which can inhibit livestock movements and 

reduce forage availability. Defective trees may also pose some risk to livestock, as cattle may be 

injured or killed by falling trees or by an excess of unburned fuel and debris. The presence of an 

abundance of dead timber also impedes the ability of permittees to herd livestock and achieve proper 

distribution. 

The allotments in the project area are open range allotments. Livestock frequently travel across and 

along roads. When vehicles approach, the cattle will generally move off of roads and out of the way 

of the oncoming vehicle. Fire killed trees along roadsides are expected to fall and the resulting down 

logs may hamper the ability of livestock to move off of roads when vehicles approach. To some 

extent, fallen dead trees along roadsides have the potential to cause an increase in vehicle-cattle 

interactions and/or collisions. 

Rangeland Vegetation

Vegetation Types

The project area contains a mosaic of vegetation types distributed and controlled primarily by climate 

and soils. Ecosystems in the middle elevation range are a mosaic of mixed conifer forests, ponderosa 

pine plantations, hardwood forests, and chaparral dissected by riparian corridors, with intermittent 

meadows and forest openings. At the lower elevations are a limited amount of oak woodlands and 

annual grasslands, and at the higher elevations are Jeffrey pine, red fir, lodgepole pine, and white fir. 

The allotments in the project area are mainly transitory range allotments. Transitory range describes 

vegetation types that are created and maintained by stand replacing fires or timber harvests. Chaparral 

is a plant community dominated by woody, drought-hardy shrubs, and driven by a Mediterranean 

climate. Chaparral contains a variety of shrub species, including species of Ceanothus (Ceanothus 

spp.), Manzanita (Arctostphylos spp.), and Scrub Oak (Quercus spp.). Deerbrush (Ceanothus 

integerrimus) is the predominant forage species used by livestock in the mid-elevation range 

(between approximately 3,500 and 6,000 feet) of the Stanislaus National Forest. Riparian areas and 

meadows, which occur as patches within the forest mosaic, are also preferred by livestock due to the 

availability of water, shade and high quality forage. Livestock also feed in open forested areas with a 

sufficient understory component and forest openings where shrubs and grasses are common. 

Livestock also may graze incidentally in any area of an allotment while moving between primary 

grazing areas.

California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) vegetation types (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988) 

and fire severity (Miller and Thode 2007) are used to describe the existing potential for landscape 

diversity. Pre-fire vegetation was examined using the CWHR vegetation types. Vegetation types were 

grouped into one of five broad categories of rangeland ecosystems. Pre-fire composition of rangeland 

vegetation types in the project area, derived from CWHR System data, are summarized Table 3.07-3. 

Table 3.07-3 General rangeland vegetation types affected by the Rim fire.

Vegetation Type

Area

(Acres)

Composition

(% of fire area)

Annual Grasslands 7928 5.2 

Hardwood Forests 18737 12.3 

Chaparral 22465 14.8 

Conifer Forests 101073 66.4 

Riparian 2004 1.3 
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

8 

Vegetation Condition 

Current vegetation conditions are the combined result of pre-fire conditions and fire effects on the 

landscape. High levels of mortality exist within areas that burned under moderate (areas with greater 

than 50 percent basal area mortality) and high (areas with greater than 75 percent basal area 

mortality) vegetation burn severity. Table 3.07-4 shows vegetation burn severity for five broad 

rangeland vegetation types. Some vegetation types inherently burn more severely (chaparral), but 

species that dominate these plant communities are well adapted to recover from fire. Unburned areas 

and areas that burned at low severity are in a condition similar to that prior to the fire. Areas that 

burned at high severity are most likely to be in poor condition, with significantly reduced plant vigor 

and ground cover immediately following the fire. Because burned areas will naturally recover 

following fire, vegetation condition will improve over time, even in severely burned areas.

Table 3.07-4 Burn severity of vegetation types in the project area.

Ecosystem 

Moderate vegetation burn 

severity 

(%)

High vegetation burn 

severity 

(%)

Moderate and high 

vegetation burn severity 

(%)

Annual Grasslands 22.4 48.3 70.7 

Hardwood Forests 17.0 51.3 68.3 

Chaparral 15.1 65.1 80.2 

Conifer Forests 13.8 37.0 50.8 

Riparian 16.7 49.2 65.9 

Forest and rangeland ecosystems recover naturally following fire, but different vegetation types 

respond differently to fire. Recovery sequence and timing varies based and environmental factors 

such as climate, soils and land management activities. Recognizing differences in vegetation types, 

identifying the stages of recovery and being responsive with changes in management are crucial to 

facilitating recovery of the burned landscape. Fire can cause a large scale vegetation type conversion 

to predominantly non-forest vegetation types, with many areas often dominated by brush within a few 

years following fire. The increase in transitory range helps to reduce overall utilization, due to the

post-fire flush of palatable and nutritious forage. 

Environmental Consequences

Direct effects are effects on rangeland resources that are directly caused by project implementation or, 

as with Alternative 2 (No Action), a lack of treatment. Indirect effects are effects on rangeland 

resources that are in response to the direct effects of treatment implementation. Project management 

requirements are designed to mitigate the direct and indirect effects of the project on rangeland 

resources. The following management requirements apply to Alternatives 1, 3, and 4: 

Project-Specific Rangeland Management Requirements

a. Avoid damage to rangeland infrastructure (fences, water developments, cattleguards) during 

project implementation. 

b. Any serviceable/intact infrastructure that is damaged during implementation must be repaired 

to Forest Service standards. 

c. Avoid snag retention adjacent to critical range infrastructure. 

d. Consider seeding to provide for site stabilization in areas adjacent to meadows where salvage 

occurs. Use only native, sterile or non-persistent weed-free seed.
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

9 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Alternative 1 proposes salvage logging, fuels treatments, and road improvements in grazing 

allotments. The area of treatments proposed in each allotment was used to compare the relative 

effects of the fire on grazing allotments. Table 3.07-5 displays data summarizing the treatment area 

within allotments, the capable rangeland area proposed for activities, road miles treated for roadside 

hazard trees, and percentage of range allotment infrastructure encompassed by project treatment units. 

Table 3.07-5 Alternative 1 treatments in affected grazing allotments. 

Allotment

Treatment 

area in 

allotment 

(Acres)

Allotment 

area proposed 

for treatment 

(%)

Capable area 

proposed for 

treatment (%)

Roadside 

hazard trees 

(miles) 

Fences in 

treatment 

area

(% of fences) 

Jawbone-Rosasco 14189 28 33 71.3 25

Hunter Creek 3482 12 28 67.1 16 

Duckwall 941 5 9 15.0 41

Middle Fork, Meyer-Ferretti, 

Gravel Range, Curtin 17260 33 20 121.7 22 

Bonds, Bower Cave, Bull 

Creek, Little Crane 1487 3 2 24.5 50 

Westside, Lower Hull, Upper 

Hull 5087 9 5 56.4 90 

Grazing Management

Allotment Administration 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would improve conditions for allotment administration and grazing 

management. The amount of roads treated for hazard trees affects the safety of grazing managers and 

affects accessibility for administration. Alternative 1 would remove hazard trees along a total of 356

miles of roads and improve (reconstruction and maintenance) 508 miles of roads inside allotment 

boundaries. Alternative 1 would also remove hazards away from roadsides in salvage units, which 

would improve safety conditions for grazing permittees and forest staff when working away from 

roads. Access within the allotments would be improved from existing conditions, facilitating 

allotment administration activities such as herding and monitoring. Project activities involving roads 

could affect livestock operations if temporary road closures are needed, although alternative access

may be available for permittees. Non-use as a result of project activities is not expected to be 

necessary; however, if non-use is necessary, this change would result in inconvenience or economic 

loss to the permit holders.

Rangeland Infrastructure 

This alternative poses some risk that harvest activities will cause damage to range infrastructure. The 

potential for damage to range improvements during project implementation is mitigated by project 

management requirements and timber sale administration. Timber sale contracts will require project 

activities to avoid damaging functioning range fences and to repair damage to fences that occur 

during project implementation. Long term maintenance needs would decrease to some extent, and the 

functioning condition of range infrastructure would increase under Alternative 1 because dead trees 

would be removed along approximately 13.8 fence miles within grazing allotments. Dead trees pose a 

safety risk for forest staff and permittees responsible for repairing and maintaining infrastructure. 

Removing snags adjacent to range infrastructure would improve conditions for persons responsible 

for infrastructure maintenance have a positive effect on grazing management. Several cattleguards 

occur within the project area on roads proposed for reconstruction and maintenance. These 
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

10

cattleguards would be maintained during project implementation, which would also improve grazing 

management on affected allotments.

Livestock Movements 

Alternative 1 would treat 4193 acres in capable rangelands. Long-term availability of forage may be 

increased by salvage logging since removing dead or dying trees can increase sunlight as a result of 

treatments. Livestock distribution could potentially change or expand if treatments reduce dead and 

downed woody material and if transitory range is created around these areas. An increase in transitory 

range could improve livestock distribution and use patterns. The proposed action reduces the short 

and long term potential for fallen dead trees, minimizing “jackstraw”, which will increase livestock 

movement and forage availability. Removal of roadside hazard trees would reduce the potential for 

vehicle-cattle interactions and livestock injury or death. This alternative would facilitate herding and 

increase livestock movements and distribution. 

Rangeland Vegetation

Vegetation Types

Vegetation types are driven primarily by climate and soils. Different vegetation types respond 

differently to fire and other disturbance. The type of vegetation that grows back after a disturbance 

event often depends on what was there before. Through natural recovery ecosystems will tend to 

revert back to plant communities similar to what was seen with the pre-fire state, though there may be 

shifts in the proportions of vegetation types, floristic composition, and elevation range. The proposed 

activities may result in short term changes in species composition but is not likely to result in long 

term measurable changes to the proportions and distribution vegetation types on a landscape scale. 

Vegetation Condition 

The proposed action would have a beneficial effect on vegetation condition as it relates to grazing. 

Proposed activities would directly increase short-term forage availability, which would result in a 

reduction of overall forage utilization. The proposed action would indirectly improve long term 

vegetation condition because fuel treatments would reduce the potential for future catastrophic fires. 

Project activities may increase the likelihood of weed invasion and spread, a serious threat to 

rangelands. However, proposed mitigations would minimize the potential for weed invasion in the 

project area. Monitoring of grazing standards and guidelines would be continued as described in the 

permit, Allotment Management Plan (AMP), and Annual Operating Instructions (AOI). Monitoring 

and adaptive management would be used to ensure that vegetation condition meets standards and 

guidelines outlined in management direction.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative effects of Alternative 1 would generally be positive for grazing allotment 

administration, range infrastructure, livestock distribution, and rangeland vegetation. Forest Plan 

Direction provides standards and guidelines that are designed to provide for resource conservation 

and sustainable use of rangelands. Cumulative effects on rangelands (soil compaction, ecological 

disturbance, weed invasions) through project activities and grazing are expected to be minimal since 

management requirements and Forest Plan standards and guidelines for grazing would mitigate 

potential effects to acceptable levels. Monitoring would occur as needed to ensure that the combined 

effects of proposed projects and ongoing activities, such as grazing, meet Forest objectives for desired 

conditions.
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

11

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECTEFFECTS

No project activities would take place under the no action alternative. No dead timber would be 

salvage logged, hazard trees would be left standing along roadsides, fuels would not be treated and 

the road system would not be improved. 

Grazing Management

Allotment Administration 

Alternative 2 would not improve conditions for allotment administration and grazing management. 

The presence of hazard trees poses risks to the safety of rangeland managers and negatively affects 

accessibility for allotment administration. Access within the allotments would not be improved from

existing conditions. Maintenance (clearing of fallen trees) of travel routes may become cumbersome 

in areas where roadside hazard trees are prevalent. Allotment administration activities such as herding 

and monitoring would be more challenging and time consuming, but would still occur.

Rangeland Infrastructure 

Because there are no harvest activities, there is no risk of damage to range infrastructure by timber 

salvage operations. However, dead and unhealthy trees would not be removed and will fall on range 

fences in the project area over time, as noted following the Ackerson Fire. Allotment management 

would become much more difficult if critical range infrastructure is not functioning. Maintenance 

needs would be more significant under this alternative than for action alternatives. Dead trees pose a 

safety risk for forest staff and permittees responsible for repairing and maintaining infrastructure. The 

long term functioning condition of range infrastructure would be degraded as a result of this 

alternative. 

Livestock Movements 

The no action alternative will not reduce the potential for “jackstraw”, which can inhibit livestock 

movements and reduce forage availability. Livestock distribution and movements would not be 

improved by Alternative 2. This alternative does not reduce the risk of livestock death or injury by 

falling trees or by an excess of unburned fuel and debris. Permittee ability to herd and distribute 

livestock throughout key areas and capable range would not be improved under this alternative, which 

may increase the potential for localized overgrazing. The no action alternative may also increase the 

potential for vehicle-cattle interactions.

Rangeland Vegetation

Vegetation Types

This alternative would have no effects on rangeland vegetation types because no project activities 

would occur. The lack of project activities would is not likely to have measurable effects on post-fire 

recovery and vegetation dynamics. The landscape will recover naturally as early stages of forest 

succession take place immediately following the fire, favoring rapid revegetation of grasses, forbs, 

and sprouting woody plants. The expected result would be the continuation over time of forest 

succession in the burned area. 

Vegetation Condition 

The no action alternative may indirectly negatively affect vegetation condition as it relates to grazing. 

Because this alternative may increase the potential for localized overgrazing, it may also cause 

negative impacts on vegetation condition in some areas. Additionally, a lack of fuel treatments 

increases the potential for future catastrophic fire. Monitoring and adaptive management would be 

used to ensure that vegetation condition meets standards and guidelines outlined in management 

direction.
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

12

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The no action alternative may have negative cumulative effects to rangeland resources. Failure to 

treat fuels would have a cumulative effect on rangelands should future wildfires occur in the project 

area. Fuel loadings would be higher and the chances for a larger, hotter, and more resource damaging 

fire would increase. Combined with the increased potential for localized overgrazing, lack of road 

treatments, wildlife and watershed treatments, the cumulative effects of Alternative 2 are not likely to 

contribute to desired conditions for rangeland resources in the project area.

Alternative 3 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Alternative 3 proposes salvage logging, fuels treatments, road improvements, and watershed 

treatments in grazing allotments. The area of treatments proposed in each allotment was used to 

compare the relative effects of the fire on grazing allotments. Table 3.07-7 displays data summarizing 

Alternative 3 treatment areas within each allotment, the capable rangeland area proposed for harvest, 

road miles treated for roadside hazard trees, and percentage of range allotment infrastructure 

encompassed in project treatment units. 

Table 3.07-7 Alternative 3 treatments in affected grazing allotments. 

Allotment

Treatment Area 

in Allotment

(Acres)

Allotment area 

proposed for 

treatment (%)

Capable area 

proposed for 

treatment (%)

Roadside 

hazard trees 

(miles)

Fences in 

treatment area

(% of fences)

Jawbone-Rosasco 16569 32 46 62.3 37 

Hunter Creek 3439 11 28 66.8 16

Duckwall 940 5 9 13.8 41 

Middle Fork, MeyerFerretti, Gravel Range, 

Curtin

16813 32 21 122.4 18 

Bonds, Bower Cave, Bull 

Creek, Little Crane 1488 3 2 24.9 50 

Westside, Lower Hull, 

Upper Hull 4471 8 5 54.3 9 

Grazing Management

Allotment Administration 

Implementation of Alternative 3 would improve conditions for allotment administration and grazing 

management. The amount of roads treated for hazard trees affects the safety of grazing managers and 

affects accessibility for administration. Alternative 3 would remove hazard trees along a total of about 

345 miles of roads and improve (reconstruction and maintenance) 503 miles of roads inside allotment 

boundaries. Alternative 3 would also remove hazards away from roadsides in salvage units, which 

would improve safety conditions for grazing permittees and forest staff when working away from 

roadsides. Access within the allotments would be improved from existing conditions, facilitating 

allotment administration activities such as herding and monitoring. Project activities involving roads 

could affect livestock operations if temporary road closures are needed, although alternative access

may be available for permittees. 

Rangeland Infrastructure 

Alternative 3 poses some risk that harvest activities will cause damage to range infrastructure. The 

potential for damage to range improvements during projects is mitigated by project management 

requirements and timber sale administration. Timber sale contracts will require project activities to 

avoid damaging functioning range fences and to repair damage to fences that occur during project 
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

13

implementation. Maintenance needs would decrease to some extent, and the functioning condition of 

range infrastructure would increase under Alternative 3 because dead trees would be removed along 

approximately 12.9 miles of fence lines within grazing allotments. Removal of snags adjacent to 

range infrastructure would improve conditions for persons responsible for infrastructure maintenance 

have a positive effect on grazing management. Several cattleguards occur within the project area on 

roads proposed for reconstruction and maintenance. These cattleguards would be maintained during 

project implementation, which would also improve grazing management on affected allotments.

Livestock Movements 

Alternative 3 proposes treatments in 4887 acres of capable rangelands, approximately 700 more acres 

than proposed for Alternative 1. The effects of this alternative are similar as described for the 

proposed action. Long-term availability of forage may be increased by salvage logging since

removing dead or dying trees can increase sunlight as a result of treatments. Livestock distribution 

could potentially change or expand if treatments reduce dead and downed woody material and if 

transitory range is created around these areas. An increase in transitory range could improve livestock 

distribution and use patterns. The proposed action reduces the short and long term potential for fallen

dead trees, minimizing “jackstraw”, which will increase livestock movement and forage availability. 

Removal of roadside hazard trees would reduce the potential for vehicle-cattle interactions and 

livestock injury or death. This alternative would facilitate herding and increase livestock movements 

and distribution. 

Rangeland Vegetation

Vegetation Types

The effects of Alternative 3 on rangeland vegetation condition would be similar to those described for 

Alternative 1. Proposed activities may result in short term changes in species composition, the long 

term effects of the proposed action on vegetation types will not change the proportions and 

distribution vegetation types on a landscape scale. 

Vegetation Condition 

Alternative 3 would have a beneficial effect on vegetation condition as it relates to grazing. Proposed 

activities would directly increase short-term forage availability, which would result in a reduction of

overall forage utilization. This alternative would indirectly improve long term vegetation condition 

because fuel treatments would reduce the potential for future catastrophic fires. Watershed treatments 

proposed under this alternative may facilitate recovery of sensitive areas by increasing soil cover and 

organic matter, and reducing erosion. The activities may increase the likelihood of weed invasion and 

spread, a serious threat to rangelands. However, proposed mitigations would minimize the potential 

for weed invasion in the project area. Monitoring of grazing standards and guidelines would be 

continued as described in the permit, AMP, and AOI. Monitoring and adaptive management would 

be used to ensure that vegetation condition meets standards and guidelines outlined in management 

direction.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative effects of Alternative 3 would generally be positive for range resources including 

allotment administration, range infrastructure, livestock distribution, and rangeland vegetation. Forest 

Plan Direction provides standards and guidelines that are designed to provide for resource 

conservation and sustainable use of rangelands. Cumulative effects of foreseeable future actions and 

ongoing activities on rangelands (soil compaction, ecological disturbance, weed invasions) through 

project activities and grazing are expected to be beneficial or neutral since management requirements 

and Forest Plan standards and guidelines for grazing would mitigate potential effects to acceptable 

levels. Monitoring would occur as needed to ensure that the combined effects of future projects and 

ongoing activities, such as grazing, meet Forest objectives for desired conditions.
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

14

Alternative 4 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3 (proposes salvage logging, fuels treatments, road 

improvements, and watershed treatments in grazing allotments) while providing for additional habitat 

for Black-Backed Woodpeckers and removing the need for new road construction. The area of 

treatments proposed in each allotment was used to compare the relative effects of the fire on grazing 

allotments. Table 3.07-8 displays data summarizing Alternative 4 treatment areas within each 

allotment, the capable rangeland area proposed for harvest, road miles treated for roadside hazard 

trees, and range allotment infrastructure encompassed in project treatment units. 

Table 3.07-8 Alternative 4 treatments in affected grazing allotments. 

Allotment

Treatment Area 

in Allotment

(Acres)

Allotment area 

proposed for 

treatment (%)

Capable area 

proposed for 

treatment (%)

Roadside 

hazard trees 

(miles) 

Fences in 

treatment area

(% of fences) 

Jawbone-Rosasco 15487 30 46 65.2 37

Hunter Creek 3439 11 28 66.8 16 

Duckwall 941 5 9 13.8 17

Middle Fork, MeyerFerretti, Gravel Range, 

Curtin

8240 16 21 123.3 4 

Bonds, Bower Cave, Bull 

Creek, Little Crane 1184 2 2 24.9 50 

Westside, Lower Hull, 

Upper Hull 3946 7 5 55.3 9 

Grazing Management

Allotment Administration 

Implementation of Alternative 4 would improve conditions for allotment administration and grazing 

management. The amount of roads treated for hazard trees affects the safety of grazing managers and 

affects accessibility for administration. Alternative 4 would remove hazard trees along a total of about 

349 miles of roads and improve (reconstruction and maintenance) 503 miles of roads inside allotment 

boundaries. Alternative 4 would also remove hazards away from roadsides in salvage units, which 

would improve safety conditions for grazing permittees and forest staff when working away from 

roadsides. Access within the allotments would be improved from existing conditions, facilitating 

allotment administration activities such as herding and monitoring. Project activities involving roads 

could affect livestock operations if temporary road closures are needed, although alternative access

may be available for permittees. 

Rangeland Infrastructure 

Alternative 4 poses some risk that harvest activities will cause damage to range infrastructure. The 

potential for damage to range improvements during projects is mitigated by project management 

requirements and timber sale administration. Timber sale contracts will require project activities to 

avoid damaging functioning range fences and to repair damage to fences that occur during project 

implementation. Maintenance needs would decrease to some extent, and the functioning condition of 

range infrastructure would increase under Alternative 4 because dead trees would be removed along 

approximately 8 fence miles within grazing allotments. Dead trees pose a safety risk for forest staff 

and permittees responsible for repairing and maintaining infrastructure. Removing snags adjacent to 

range infrastructure would improve conditions for persons responsible for infrastructure maintenance 

have a positive effect on grazing management. Several cattleguards occur within the project area on 
Rim Fire Recovery (43033) Affected Environment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

15

roads proposed for reconstruction and maintenance. These cattleguards would be maintained during 

project implementation, which would also improve grazing management on affected allotments.

Livestock Movements 

Alternative 4 would treat 4850 acres in capable rangelands, approximately 700 more acres than 

proposed for Alternative 1 and only slightly less area than proposed for Alternative 3. The effects of 

this alternative are similar as described for the proposed action. Long-term availability of forage may

be increased by salvage logging since removing dead or dying trees can increase sunlight as a result 

of treatments. Livestock distribution could potentially change or expand if treatments reduce dead and 

downed woody material and if transitory range is created around these areas. An increase in transitory 

range could improve livestock distribution and use patterns. This alternative would decrease 

“jackstraw” of fallen dead timber and reduce the potential for vehicle-cattle interactions. Alternative 4 

would increase livestock movements and distribution.

Rangeland Vegetation

Vegetation Types

The effects of Alternative 4 on rangeland vegetation types would be similar to those described for 

Alternatives 1 and 3. Proposed activities may result in short term changes in species composition, the 

long term effects of the proposed action on vegetation types will not change the proportions and 

distribution vegetation types on a landscape scale. 

Vegetation Condition 

The effects of Alternative 4 on rangeland vegetation condition would be similar to those described for 

Alternatives 1 and 3, except that less of the project area would be treated. Alternative 4 would have a 

beneficial effect on vegetation condition as it relates to grazing. Monitoring and adaptive 

management would be used to ensure that vegetation condition meets standards and guidelines 

outlined in management direction.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative effects of Alternative 4 would generally be positive for range resources including 

allotment administration, range infrastructure, livestock distribution, and rangeland vegetation. Forest 

Plan Direction provides standards and guidelines that are designed to provide for resource 

conservation and sustainable use of rangelands. Cumulative effects on rangelands are expected to be 

minimal since management requirements and Forest Plan standards would mitigate potential effects 

to acceptable levels. Monitoring would occur as needed to ensure that the combined effects of 

proposed projects and ongoing activities, such as grazing, meet Forest objectives for desired 

conditions.

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

The effects of each alternative are compared against the relative area proposed for treatment within 

grazing allotments, the amount of capable range in treatment areas, length of fence segments 

encompassed by treatments, and travel routes treated for hazard tree removal and road improvements. 

Table 3.07-9 displays data summarizing this information for all action alternatives.

Table 3.07-9 Allotment area and length of fences treated by each alternative.

Treatment Variable Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Grazing Allotment Area Proposed for Treatment 42445 43720 41718

Capable Range Area Proposed for Treatment 4193 4887 4850 

Fence Miles Proposed For Treatment 13.8 12.9 7.8

Road Miles Proposed for Hazard Tree Removal 356 345 350 

Road Miles Proposed for Improvement 508 503 503
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

16

Alternative 3 proposes treatments to the most area within allotments, and so would provide the most 

benefits in terms of allotment administration (safety and travel). Alternative 4 would improve 

conditions for allotment administration, but to a lesser extent than Alternatives 1 and 3. Alternative 3 

also proposes treatments to the largest amount of capable rangeland, and so has the potential to create 

the most improvements in forage availability and livestock distribution. Treatments proposed for 

Alternative 3 would also provide the most benefits to rangeland vegetation. The treatments proposed 

under Alternative 1 encompass the most fence segments, and so is the most desirable alternative from 

a strictly range infrastructure standpoint. All action alternatives propose a similar amount of roadside 

hazard tree removal and road improvement activities, and so would provide similar positive effects to 

allotment administration and livestock movements. Alternative 2 would not provide any 

improvements to allotment administration, range improvements, livestock movements, or rangeland 

vegetation. 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 comply with Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010). 

References

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, eds. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. 166pp. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/wildlife_habitats.asp 

Miller J.D., and A.E. Thode. 2007. Quantifying burn severity in a heterogeneous landscape with a 

relative version of the delta Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR). Remote Sensing of Environment 

109 (2007) 66–80 

USDA 1991. Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Pacific Southwest 

Region, Sonora, CA.

USDA 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Volume 3, Appendix K. PSW Region, Vallejo, 

CA. 

USDA 2010. Stanislaus National Forest, Forest Plan Direction. Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, 

CA