BEH Rangeland Allotments (33836)

Environmental Impact Statement

Stanislaus

National Forest

Forest R5-MB-289 February 2016 Service

United States Department of Agriculture

BEH Rangeland Allotments (33836)

Environmental Impact Statement

Stanislaus National Forest

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agencies: None

Responsible Official: Jeanne M. Higgins, Forest Supervisor

Stanislaus National Forest

19777 Greenley Road

Sonora, CA 95370

(209) 532-3671

Information Contact: Crispin Holland, Team Leader

Stanislaus National Forest

19777 Greenley Road

Sonora, CA 95370

(209) 532-3671 ext. 274

cholland@fs.fed.us

Abstract: This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describes a proposal by the Stanislaus 

National Forest which would reauthorize livestock grazing on the Bell Meadow (B), Eagle Meadow (E)

and Herring Creek (H) Allotments on the Summit Ranger District. The area affected by this proposal 

includes about 57,250 acres located in the Sierra Nevada within Tuolumne County, California. The 

EIS discloses the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the 

proposed action, a no action alternative and two additional action alternatives developed in response 

to issues raised by the public. Of the alternatives under consideration at this stage, Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action) is preferred by the Responsible Official.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its 

Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating 

based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital 

status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights 

activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing 

deadlines vary by program or incident.

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

American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or 

contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in 

languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at 

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter 

all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or 

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

SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or, (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Cover Photo: View of Eagle Meadow in the fall.
BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

i 

Table of Contents

Summary .......................................................................................................................................vii

1. Purpose of and Need for Action ............................................................................................. 1

1.01 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE.................................................................................................................... 1

1.02 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.03 PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................................................ 3

1.04 PROPOSED ACTION........................................................................................................................... 8

Updates to the Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 9

1.05 PRINCIPLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS ................................................................................................. 9

1.06 DECISION FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................................10

1.07 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .....................................................................................................................10

Initial Public Scoping on the Proposed Action..............................................................................10

Continued Scoping after the Comment Period.............................................................................11

DEIS Comment Period .................................................................................................................11

1.08 ISSUES ........................................................................................................................................11

Significant Issues .........................................................................................................................12

2. The Alternatives .....................................................................................................................13

2.01 HOW THE ALTERNATIVES WERE DEVELOPED ....................................................................................13

2.02 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ............................................................................................14

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)....................................................................................................14

Alternative 2 (No Action) ..............................................................................................................18

Alternative 3 (Current Management)............................................................................................18

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection) .............................................................................................21

2.03 MITIGATION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS..........................................................................................25

2.04 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY ..............................................30

2.05 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES...............................................................................................32

3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...............................................39

3.01 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................39

Analysis Process..........................................................................................................................39

Resource Reports ........................................................................................................................39

Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................................40

Affected Environment Overview...................................................................................................41

Information on Other Resource Issues.........................................................................................42

Air Quality................................................................................................................................. 42

Climate Change........................................................................................................................42

Fire ...........................................................................................................................................43

Geology ....................................................................................................................................43

Private Property........................................................................................................................43

Analysis Framework.....................................................................................................................43

National Forest Management Act .............................................................................................44

1995 Rescissions Act ...............................................................................................................44

Forest Plan Direction................................................................................................................44

3.02 AQUATIC SPECIES ..........................................................................................................................45

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction ................................45

Effects Analysis Methodology ......................................................................................................45

Assumptions Specific to Aquatic Species.................................................................................45

Data Sources............................................................................................................................46

Aquatic Species Indicators .......................................................................................................47

Aquatic Species Methodology by Action ...................................................................................47

Affected Environment...................................................................................................................47

Yosemite toad...........................................................................................................................48

Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog..........................................................................................54

Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................................57

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)................................................................................................57

Alternative 2 (No Action)...........................................................................................................66

Alternative 3 (Current Management) ........................................................................................67

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)..........................................................................................67
Stanislaus

Table of Contents National Forest

ii

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives....................................................................68

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction..................................................................69

3.03 BOTANY.........................................................................................................................................71

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction ................................71

Effects Analysis Methodology ......................................................................................................71

Assumptions Specific to Botany ...............................................................................................71

Data Sources............................................................................................................................72

Botany Indicators......................................................................................................................72

Botany Methodology.................................................................................................................72

Affected Environment...................................................................................................................73

Sensitive Plant Review .............................................................................................................73

Surveys .....................................................................................................................................74

Species Account and Habitat Status.........................................................................................75

Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................................79

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)................................................................................................79

Alternative 2 (No Action)...........................................................................................................82

Alternative 3 (Current Management).........................................................................................83

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)..........................................................................................84

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives....................................................................85

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction..................................................................85

3.04 CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................87

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction ................................87

Effects Analysis Methodology ......................................................................................................88

Assumptions Specific to Cultural Resources ............................................................................88

Data Sources............................................................................................................................89

Cultural Resources Indicators...................................................................................................89

Cultural Resources Methodology by Action..............................................................................89

Affected Environment...................................................................................................................89

Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................89

Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................................92

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)................................................................................................92

Alternative 2 (No Action)...........................................................................................................93

Alternative 3 (Current Management).........................................................................................93

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)..........................................................................................93

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives....................................................................93

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction..................................................................93

3.05 INVASIVE SPECIES...........................................................................................................................95

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction ................................95

Effects Analysis Methodology ......................................................................................................95

Assumptions Specific to Invasive Species................................................................................95

Data Sources............................................................................................................................95

Invasive Species Indicators ......................................................................................................95

Invasive Species Methodology ................................................................................................. 95

Affected Environment...................................................................................................................96

Known Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants.............................................................................96

Habitat Vulnerability..................................................................................................................96

Vectors .....................................................................................................................................97

Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................................97

Habitat Alteration Expected as a result of Project.....................................................................97

Increased Vectors as a result of Project implementation..........................................................97

Analysis/Synthesis....................................................................................................................98

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives....................................................................98

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction..................................................................98

3.06 RANGE ..........................................................................................................................................99

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction ................................99

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................104

Assumptions Specific to Range ..............................................................................................104

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................104

Range Indicators.....................................................................................................................104

Range Methodology................................................................................................................105

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................105

Rangeland Capability and Suitability ......................................................................................105
BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

iii

Rangeland Vegetation............................................................................................................106

Historic and Current Allotment Management..........................................................................106

Monitoring...............................................................................................................................107

Sensitive Resources...............................................................................................................110

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................112

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................112

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................115

Alternative 3 (Current Management) ......................................................................................116

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)........................................................................................118

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives ................................................................. 119

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction................................................................119

3.07 RECREATION ................................................................................................................................121

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction ..............................121

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................121

Assumptions Specific to Recreation .......................................................................................121

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................121

Recreation Indicators..............................................................................................................121

Recreation Methodology.........................................................................................................121

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................121

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................122

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................123

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................125

Alternative 3 (Current Management) ......................................................................................126

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)........................................................................................126

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives ................................................................. 126

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction................................................................127

3.08 SOCIETY, CULTURE AND ECONOMY ................................................................................................129

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction ..............................129

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................129

Assumptions Specific to Society, Culture and Economy ........................................................129

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................129

Society, Culture and Economy Indicators...............................................................................129

Society, Culture and Economy Methodology..........................................................................129

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................129

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................131

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................131

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................132

Alternative 3 (Current Management) ......................................................................................133

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)........................................................................................133

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives ................................................................. 134

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction................................................................134

3.09 SOILS ..........................................................................................................................................135

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction ..............................135

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................135

Assumptions Specific to Soils................................................................................................. 135

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................135

Soils Indicators .......................................................................................................................135

Soils Methodology by Action...................................................................................................136

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................136

Soil Existing Condition............................................................................................................136

Legacy Effects........................................................................................................................137

Special Aquatic Features........................................................................................................137

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 138

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................140

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................141

Alternative 3 (Current Management) ......................................................................................141

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)........................................................................................142

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives ................................................................. 143

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction................................................................143

3.10 SPECIAL AREAS ...........................................................................................................................145

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction ..............................145

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................145
Stanislaus

Table of Contents National Forest

iv

Assumptions Specific to Special Areas...................................................................................145

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................145

Special Areas Indicators .........................................................................................................145

Special Areas Methodology ....................................................................................................146

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................146

Inventoried Roadless Areas....................................................................................................146

Research Natural Areas .........................................................................................................147

Special Interest Areas.............................................................................................................148

Wild and Scenic Rivers and Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers..............................................148

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................149

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................149

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................150

Alternative 3 (Current Management).......................................................................................150

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)........................................................................................151

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives..................................................................151

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction ................................................................151

3.11 WATERSHED ................................................................................................................................153

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction ..............................153

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................154

Assumptions Specific to Watershed .......................................................................................154

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................154

Watershed Indicators..............................................................................................................154

Watershed Methodology.........................................................................................................155

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................158

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................173

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................173

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................178

Alternative 3 (Current Management).......................................................................................180

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)........................................................................................183

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives..................................................................185

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction................................................................187

3.12 WILDERNESS................................................................................................................................189

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction ..............................189

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................189

Assumptions Specific to Wilderness.......................................................................................189

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................189

Wilderness Indicators .............................................................................................................189

Wilderness Methodology by Action.........................................................................................190

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................190

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................190

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)..............................................................................................192

Alternative 2 (No Action).........................................................................................................193

Alternative 3 (Current Management).......................................................................................194

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)........................................................................................195

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives..................................................................196

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction................................................................196

Wilderness Act........................................................................................................................196

Agency Policy .........................................................................................................................197

Forest Plan Direction ..............................................................................................................197

3.13 WILDLIFE .....................................................................................................................................199

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction ..............................199

Effects Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................................200

Assumptions Specific to Wildlife .............................................................................................200

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................200

Wildlife Indicators....................................................................................................................200

Wildlife Methodology...............................................................................................................201

Affected Environment.................................................................................................................201

Sierra Nevada red fox.............................................................................................................201

Great Gray Owl.......................................................................................................................202

Willow Flycatcher....................................................................................................................204

Mule Deer...............................................................................................................................205

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................206
BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

v 

Sierra Nevada red fox.............................................................................................................206

Great Gray Owl.......................................................................................................................208

Willow Flycatcher....................................................................................................................211

Mule deer ...............................................................................................................................212

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives ................................................................. 214

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction................................................................214

3.14 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ......................................................................217

3.15 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS ................................................................................................. 217

3.16 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS .........................................................................217

3.17 OTHER REQUIRED DISCLOSURES ...................................................................................................217

4. Consultation and Coordination ..........................................................................................221

4.01 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS...................................................................................................221

4.02 DISTRIBUTION OF THE EIS ............................................................................................................225

Index ............................................................................................................................................227

References ..................................................................................................................................229

A. Abbreviations and Acronyms .............................................................................................241

B. Cumulative Effects Analysis...............................................................................................243

C. Forest Plan Direction...........................................................................................................247

D. Glossary................................................................................................................................263

E. Response to Comments......................................................................................................271

F. Rangeland Capability and Suitability Analysis................................................................. 287

G. Monitoring Plan....................................................................................................................291

H. Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan........................................................................301

I. Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan.....................................................................317

J. Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan......................................................................335

List of Tables

Table S.01-1 Comparison of Alternatives: Authorization Parameters and Design Criteria ........................... x

Table S.01-2 Comparison of Alternatives: Summary of Effects................................................................... xi

Table 1.03-1 Existing conditions and identified need for change in the project area.................................... 5

Table 2.02-1 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Permitted Livestock Numbers............................................16

Table 2.02-2 Alternative 3 (Current Management): Permitted Livestock Numbers ....................................19

Table 2.02-3 Alternative 4 (Resource Protection): Permitted Livestock Numbers......................................23

Table 2.05-1 Comparison of Alternatives: Parameters and Requirements ................................................32

Table 2.05-2 Comparison of Alternatives: Summary of Effects..................................................................33

Table 3.03-1 Sensitive Plant species of the Stanislaus National Forest ....................................................75

Table 3.03-2 Habitat types and sensitive plant species that occupy each habitat type..............................79

Table 3.03-3 Summary of effects across all alternatives............................................................................85

Table 3.06-1 Maximum Forage Use Levels .............................................................................................103

Table 3.06-2 Summary of Actual Use (Livestock Number in cow/calf pairs)............................................108

Table 3.06-3 Summary of Annual Utilization Monitoring within Key Areas...............................................108

Table 3.06-4 Summary of 2005-2011 R5 Long-Term Condition and Trend Monitoring ...........................109

Table 3.06-5 Rapid Assessment of Ecological Condition.........................................................................110

Table 3.06-6 Range Condition based on field observation.......................................................................110

Table 3.06-7 Summary of effects to meadow condition ...........................................................................119

Table 3.08-1 Tuolumne County Population, Personal Income, and Employment (BEA 2012).................130

Table 3.08-2 Tuolumne County Farm and Farms with cattle production (USDA 2012) ...........................130

Table 3.08-3 Ethnic Distribution and Poverty Level for Tuolumne County, CA (US Census 2012)..........131

Table 3.08-4 Alternative Summary Comparison ......................................................................................131
Stanislaus

Table of Contents National Forest

vi

Table 3.09-1 Soils Effects Analysis for BEH Meadows ............................................................................139

Table 3.10-1 Special Areas......................................................................................................................146

Table 3.10-2 Summary of Effects across All Alternatives: Special Areas.................................................152

Table 3.11-1 Allotment Assessment Watersheds by Alternative..............................................................159

Table 3.11-2 Meadow Hydrologic Function, Bell Meadow Allotment........................................................160

Table 3.11-3 Special Aquatic Features, Bell Meadow Allotment..............................................................161

Table 3.11-4 Meadow Hydrologic Function, Eagle Meadow Allotment ....................................................164

Table 3.11-5 Special Aquatic Features, Eagle Meadow Allotment...........................................................165

Table 3.11-6 Meadow Hydrologic Function, Herring Creek Allotment......................................................169

Table 3.11-7 Special Aquatic Features, Herring Creek Allotment ............................................................170

Table 3.12-1 Effects of Alternatives on Wilderness Character................................................................. 196

Table 3.13-1 Estimated suitable habitat for Sierra Nevada Red Fox........................................................202

Table 3.13-2 Estimated suitable meadow habitat and potential territory for Great Gray Owl ...................204

Table 3.13-3 Great Gray Owl prey abundance.........................................................................................204

Table 3.13-4 Suitable Sierra Nevada Red Fox potentially affected by Alternatives 1, 3 and 4.................207

Table 3.13-5 Suitable Sierra Nevada Red Fox habitat potentially affected by proposed additions ..........207

Table 3.13-6 Suitable meadow habitat and potential territory estimate for Great Gray Owl.....................209

Table 3.13-7 PAC meadow habitat acres maintained at a height optimal for Microtus spp......................209

Table 3.13-8 Potentially suitable meadow habitat potentially affected by action alternative (accounting for 

exclusions that maintain meadow vegetation at a height optimal for Microtus spp)............210

Table 3.13-9 Potential reproductive territories affected by action alternative (accounting for exclusions that 

maintain meadow vegetation at a height optimal for Microtus spp).....................................210

Table 3.13-10 Number of cow/calf pairs potentially displacing mule deer..................................................213

Table 3.13-11 Deer range acres subject to deer-cattle interactions...........................................................213

Table 3.13-12 Acres preferred deer habitat (meadow, riparian and aspen) quality potentially reduced.....213

Table C.01-1 Forestwide S&Gs applicable to the BEH Rangeland Allotments project .............................247

Table C.01-2 Management Area Direction applicable to the BEH Rangeland Allotments project ............254

Table C.01-3 Land Allocation Direction applicable to the BEH Rangeland Allotments project .................257

Table E.01-1 List of Respondents ............................................................................................................286

Table F.01-1 Estimated capable and suitable acres by Allotment............................................................290

Table F.01-2 Estimated capable and suitable acres for additions proposed in Alternative 1....................290

Table G.01-1 Implementation Monitoring..................................................................................................292

Table G.01-2 Range Readiness Indicators ...............................................................................................293

Table G.01-3 Effectiveness monitoring plan for BEH Rangeland Allotments............................................295

Table G.01-4 R5 condition and trend plots and monitoring schedule within the BEH project ...................295

Table G.01-5 Monitoring locations and methods.......................................................................................297

Table H.01-1 Existing Improvements on the Bell Meadow Allotment........................................................310

Table H.01-2 Monitoring locations and methods for Bell Meadow Allotment............................................312

Table H.01-3 Range Readiness Indicators for Bell Meadow Allotment.....................................................312

Table I.01-1 Existing Improvements on the Eagle Meadow Allotment ....................................................326

Table I.01-2 Monitoring locations and methods for Eagle Meadow Allotment.........................................329

Table I.01-3 Range Readiness Indicators for Eagle Meadow Allotment .................................................329

Table J.01-1 Existing Improvements on the Herring Creek Allotment......................................................344

Table J.01-2 Monitoring locations and methods for Herring Creek Allotment ..........................................346

Table J.01-3 Range Readiness Indicators for Herring Creek Allotment...................................................347

List of Maps and Figures

Figure 1.02-1 BEH Rangeland Allotments Project Area Map ........................................................................2

Figure H.01-1 Bell Meadow Allotment Map................................................................................................316

Figure I.01-1 Eagle Meadow Allotment Map.............................................................................................333

Figure J.01-1 Herring Creek Allotment Map..............................................................................................351

Alternative 1 Map ...............................................................................................map package

Alternative 3 Map ...............................................................................................map package

Alternative 4 Map ...............................................................................................map package
BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement Summary

vii

Summary

The Forest Service prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and 

regulations. This EIS discloses the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts that would 

result from the proposed action, a no action alternative and 2 additional action alternatives developed 

in response to issues raised by the public. Of the alternatives under consideration at this stage, 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) is preferred by the responsible official. 

Purpose and Need

1. Authorize continued livestock grazing in the project area

P.L. 104-19 Section 504 of the 1995 Rescissions Act, as amended, require each National Forest to 

establish and adhere to a schedule for completing NEPA analysis and updating Allotment 

Management Plans for all rangeland Allotments on National Forest System lands.

2. Implement an adaptive management strategy

Adaptive management uses monitoring to determine if actions prescribed were followed, and 

adjusts management if changes are needed. An adaptive strategy is particularly suited for dealing 

with management issues involving high levels of uncertainty, limited knowledge, and 

unpredictability. This approach lends itself to learning and continual improvement while allowing 

for flexibility. An adaptive management approach facilitates a process of ongoing monitoring and 

adjustment in order to move resource conditions toward desired conditions. 

3. Ensure compliance with regulations and agency policy

- Congressional intent allows grazing on suitable lands where it is consistent with other 

multiple use goals and objectives as authorized through several Congressional Acts (Organic 

Administration Act of 1897, Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 

1964, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the 

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978); 

- Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) directs the Forest Service to meet multiple-use 

objectives, including managing for livestock grazing on forage-producing National Forest 

System lands (36 CFR 222.2 (c)); 

- It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands 

suitable for grazing consistent with land management plans (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 

2203.1); and, 

- It is Forest Service policy to continue contributions to the economic and social well-being of 

people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for 

communities that depend on range resources for their livelihood (FSM 2202.1). 

4. Meet demand for livestock grazing onpublic lands

There is public demand from qualified livestock operators for continued livestock grazing on 

these Allotments. Livestock grazing on Forest Service land is an important source of meat and 

fiber production, encourages the retention of private lands (ranches) as open space, contributes to 

the economic stability of rural populations, and provides Forest visitors with opportunities to 

experience a traditional and culturally important use of public lands. 
Stanislaus

Summary National Forest

viii

5. Move resource conditions towards desired conditions

Recent assessments indicate that, while desired conditions are being met throughout a large 

portion of the project area, specific locations within the project area may not be meeting or 

moving toward desired conditions in a manner that is timely and consistent with Forest Plan 

objectives, standards and guidelines. Gaps between existing resource conditions and desired 

conditions indicate a need to change grazing management by updating AMPs. Table 1.03-1 

displays desired and existing conditions and identified need for change in the project area. A need 

for change was identified wherever existing conditions do not meet desired conditions as 

specified in the Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010). 

Proposed Action

The Stanislaus National Forest proposes to: update Allotment Management Plans, change Allotment 

boundaries, and implement design criteria, including a resource conservation measures and an 

adaptive management strategy that would move existing resource conditions toward desired 

conditions. These actions are needed in order to fulfill P.L. 104-19 Section 504 of the 1995 

Rescissions Act, which requires each National Forest to establish and adhere to a schedule for 

completing NEPA analysis and updating Allotment Management Plans for all rangeland Allotments 

on National Forest System lands. In addition, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) directs the Forest 

Service to meet multiple-use objectives, including managing for livestock grazing on forageproducing National Forest System lands (36 CFR 222.2 (c)). 

Significant Issues

An issue is a matter of public concern regarding the proposed action and its environmental impacts. 

Scoping identified issues which are a point of discussion, dispute, or debate with the Proposed 

Action. An issue is an effect on a physical, biological, social, or economic resource. An issue is not an 

activity; instead, the predicted effects of the activity create the issue. The Forest Service separated the 

issues into two groups: significant and non-significant. Significant issues are defined as those directly 

or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Issues are significant because of the extent 

of their geographic distribution, the duration of their effects, or the intensity of interest or resource 

conflicts. Based on public comments, the Forest Service developed two significant issues to formulate 

and compare alternatives, prescribe mitigation measures, or analyze and compare the environmental 

effects of each alternative: 1) Habitat and Species Protection; and, 2) Water Quality.

1. Habitat and Species Protection: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement should address a 

reasonable range of alternatives. Specifically, the Forest Service should develop alternatives that 

address habitat and species protection and/or a reduced grazing alternative.

- Increased protection of sensitive species while continuing to authorize grazing may result in 

reduced numbers of livestock or AUMs.

- Immediate implementation of livestock exclusions could impact flexibility in management 

where adaptive, less expensive alternatives such as herding or timing are not explored first.

2. Water Quality: The Forest Service should describe the potential impacts to water quality caused 

by livestock and if necessary consider feasible alternatives to reduce the risk. Livestock presence 

in wet meadows and proximity to streams or other bodies of water may affect water quality.

- Identifying areas with the highest risk would allow for adaptive management changes that 

would improve conditions where needed. 

- There is conflicting scientific information on the subject of water quality and the degree to 

which livestock actually influence the water quality in a rangeland setting.
BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement Summary

ix

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The action alternatives (Alternatives 1, 3 and 4) and the no action alternative (Alternative 2) are 

considered in detail (map package and project record contain more detailed maps of each alternative). 

The no action alternative represents no grazing on the Bell Meadow-Bear Lake, Eagle Meadow-Long 

Valley, and Herring Creek Allotments. Alternative 2, required by the implementing regulations of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), serves as a baseline for comparison among the 

alternatives (73 Federal Register 143, July 24, 2008; p. 43084-43099). Table S.01-1 shows a side-byside comparison of the features of each alternative.

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

This is the Proposed Action, as described in the Notice of Intent (76 Federal Register 150, August 4, 

2011; p. 47140 - 47141) (Chapter 1). The Proposed Action would move existing conditions toward 

desired conditions while continuing to allow livestock grazing on these Allotments with the following 

management actions: 1)Authorize continued grazing on the Bell Meadow-Bear Lake (will be referred 

to as Bell Meadow), Eagle Meadow-Long Valley (will be referred to as Eagle Meadow), and Herring 

Creek Allotments in a manner that provides for healthy ecosystems and is consistent with Forest Plan 

direction; 2) Modify Allotment boundaries, create units, and update Allotment Management Plans to 

incorporate resource conservation measures and adaptive management options (Chapter 2); 3) 

Implement design criteria (Chapter 2) in order to better achieve desired conditions through systematic 

monitoring and adjustment of grazing activities, while allowing for flexibility in management 

decisions. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative because it best meets the purpose and need to 

provide opportunities for continued grazing and move existing resource conditions toward desired 

conditions. 

Alternative 2 (No Action)

The No Action alternative for NEPA decisions on grazing authorizations has been defined by the 

Forest Service as no grazing (FSH 2209.13, Section 92.31). This means that livestock grazing would 

not be authorized in the project area. Under the No Action alternative, continued grazing would not 

be authorized. Notifications would be given to affected permittees and permitted livestock grazing 

would be discontinued after 2 years. No adaptive management strategy would be implemented, 

structural improvements would be either removed (especially in wilderness) or left in place but not 

maintained, and no grazing would be allowed on these Allotments. No Forest Plan amendments 

would be required to implement this alternative. Selection of this alternative would be consistent with 

the Forest Plan, as amended (36 CFR 219.10(c)). However, this alternative does not meet the purpose 

and need to provide opportunities for livestock grazing. 

Alternative 3 (Current Management)

Alternative 3 authorizes the continued use of the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek 

Allotments with the following minor changes to current management: 1) Update Allotment 

Management Plans for all three Allotments; 2) Adjustments to Allotment boundaries to correct 

mapping errors and more accurately reflect the actual area open to grazing; 3) Rename the Bell 

Meadow-Bear Lake and the Eagle Meadow-Long Valley Allotments (would be renamed Bell 

Meadow and Eagle Meadow, respectively). Existing Forest Plan standards and guidelines would 

guide management. Resource conservation measures and an adaptive management strategy (as 

described for Alternatives 1 and 4) would not be implemented for Alternative 3. 

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)

Alternative 4 was developed in response to scoping comments. Alternative 4 would implement 

resource protection measures immediately where a need for change in management was identified 

during project analysis. Livestock grazing would be minimized or excluded in areas where certain 
Stanislaus

Summary National Forest

x 

resource concerns were identified. Permitted livestock numbers for the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, 

and Herring Creek Allotments would be reduced by an amount proportionate to the reduction in 

suitable foraging area caused by exclusion of those areas with resource concerns. Management 

actions are similar to those described under Alternative 1, including resource conservation measures 

and adaptive management options, however the amount of foraging area and number of livestock 

would be reduced and no Allotment area additions are proposed.

Comparison of Alternatives

Table S.01-1 Comparison of Alternatives: Authorization Parameters and Design Criteria

Parameter Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Authorize Continued Grazing Yes No Yes Yes

Update Allotment Management 

Plans Yes No Yes Yes

Adjust Permitted Grazing Area Additions No grazing Minor adjustment Reduced area

Acres Authorized for Grazing 56,500 0 48,200 43,500

New Infrastructure Proposed Yes No No Yes 

Estimated Miles of New Fence 9.4 0 0 >4.2

New Corrals Yes No No Yes

Permitted Livestock Numbers No change from 

current numbers 0 No change from current numbers

Reduced livestock 

numbers

Season of Use No change None No change No change

Utilization Standards Change standards 

on Eagle Meadow

Not 

applicable No change Change standards on Eagle Meadow

Change Grazing System Yes Not 

applicable No Yes

Exclusion of Sensitive Resources If necessary Total 

exclusion No Yes

Implement Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines Yes Not applicable Yes Yes

Resource Conservation 

Measures Yes Not applicable No Yes

Adaptive Management Strategy Yes Not 

applicable No Yes

Additional Implementation 

Monitoring/Monitoring Plan Yes Not applicable No Yes

Adaptive Management Options Yes Not 

applicable

Limited to terms of 

grazing permit Yes

Other Requirements Yes Not 

applicable Yes Yes
BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement Summary

xi

Summary of Environmental Consequences

Table S.01-2 Comparison of Alternatives: Summary of Effects

Resource Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Aquatic Species

Yosemite toad

Grazing of breeding 

habitat deferred until 

post-metamorphosis.

No grazing. No 

grazing-related impacts 

to Yosemite toad.

Grazing of breeding 

habitat deferred until 

post-metamorphosis.

Proposed fencing to 

exclude livestock from 

all known Yosemite 

toad habitat.

Sierra Nevada 

yellow-legged frog

Implements Forest 

Plan standard and 

guidelines for 20% 

annual disturbance 

along streambanks and 

shorelines.

No grazing. No 

grazing-related impacts 

to Sierra Nevada 

yellow-legged frog.

Implements Forest 

Plan standard and 

guidelines for 20% 

annual disturbance 

along streambanks and 

shorelines.

Streambank 

disturbance standard of

10% in Sierra Nevada 

yellow-legged frog 

habitat.

Botanical Resources

Stream Channel 

Habitats

No direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects to 

sensitive plants that 

occupy stream channel 

habitats.

No direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects as 

no grazing would 

occur.

No direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects to 

sensitive plants that 

occupy stream channel 

habitats.

No direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects to 

sensitive plants that 

occupy stream channel 

habitats. 

Seeps, Stringer 

Meadows, and 

Meadow Edges

Sensitive plants in 

seeps, stringer 

meadows, and 

meadow edges could 

be impacted by cattle 

trailing and grazing. 

Sensitive plants in the 

addition areas, if any, 

would be vulnerable. 

Sensitive plant 

protection measures 

would be used to 

protect sensitive plants

from grazing impacts.

No direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects as 

no grazing would 

occur.

Sensitive plants in 

seeps, stringer 

meadows, and 

meadow edges could 

be impacted by cattle 

trailing and grazing. 

Alternative 3 has less 

potential for effects 

because no additions 

are proposed.

Sensitive plants could 

be impacted by cattle 

trailing and grazing, but 

Alternative 4 would 

involve surveys for 

sensitive plants and 

includes protection 

measures if sensitive 

plants are found. 

Sensitive plant 

protection measures

would be used to 

protect sensitive plants 

from grazing impacts.

Fens and Wet 

Areas Within 

Meadows

No known occurrences 

of sensitive plants that 

occupy this habitat type 

in the project area. 

Effects, if any, are 

assumed to be minor. If 

found, sensitive plants 

would be protected.

No direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects as 

no grazing would 

occur.

No known occurrences 

of sensitive plants that 

occupy this habitat type 

in the project area. No 

additional surveys or 

resource conservation 

measures would occur 

with this alternative, so 

it is possible that 

suitable habitat may 

decline in quality. 

No known occurrences 

of sensitive plants that 

occupy this habitat type 

in the project area. 

Effects, if any, are 

assumed to be minor. If 

found, sensitive plants 

would be protected. 

This alternative would 

have the fewest 

negative impacts of all 

the action alternatives.

Lodgepole Forest

No known occurrences 

of sensitive plants of 

this habitat type in the 

project area. If found, 

sensitive plants would 

be protected.

No direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects as 

no grazing would 

occur.

No known occurrences 

of sensitive plants that 

occupy this habitat type 

in the project area. 

Effects, if any, are 

assumed to be minor 

but would be greater 

than described for 

Alternative 1 because 

no additions are 

proposed.

No known occurrences 

of sensitive plants of 

this habitat type in the 

project area. If found, 

sensitive plants would 

be protected.
Stanislaus

Summary National Forest

xii

Resource Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Cultural Resources

Cultural 

Resources

The addition of 

proposed infrastructure 

may have effects to 

cultural resources. 

Once need and 

location of 

infrastructure has been 

determined the 

placement will be 

reviewed by the District 

Archaeologist prior to 

implementation. 

Grazing would continue 

with no direct effect, 

minimal indirect effects 

and no cumulative 

effects to cultural 

resources.

No anticipated direct, 

indirect or cumulative 

effects to historic or 

prehistoric properties 

under this alternative, 

as no project activities 

(grazing) would occur.

No effects on cultural 

resources without 

ground disturbance 

from infrastructure. 

Grazing would continue 

with no direct effects, 

minimal indirect effects 

and no cumulative 

effects to cultural 

resources.

The addition of 

proposed infrastructure 

may have effects to 

cultural resources. 

Once need and 

location of 

infrastructure has been 

determined the 

placement will be 

reviewed by the District 

Archaeologist prior to 

implementation. 

Grazing would continue 

with no direct effect, 

minimal indirect effects 

and no cumulative 

effects to cultural 

resources.

Invasive Species

Habitat Alteration

There is a moderate 

risk for habitat 

alteration associated 

with this project.

No habitat alteration 

related to grazing.

There is a moderate 

risk for habitat 

alteration associated 

with this project.

There is a moderate 

risk for habitat 

alteration associated 

with this project.

Vectors

Since the project 

represents an ongoing 

activity, the vectors 

remain the same. 

There is a moderate to 

high risk of increased 

vectors as a result of 

project implementation.

No risk for increased 

vectors related to 

grazing.

Since the project 

represents an ongoing 

activity, the vectors 

remain the same. 

There is a moderate to 

high risk of increased 

vectors as a result of 

project implementation.

Since the project 

represents an ongoing 

activity, the vectors 

remain the same. 

There is a moderate to 

high risk of increased 

vectors as a result of 

project implementation.

Number of Acres 

Affected

Greatest number of 

acres potentially 

affected by grazing.

No acres affected by 

grazing.

No change in number 

of acres currently 

affected by grazing.

Least number of acres 

potentially affected by 

grazing.

Range

Meadow 

Condition

Key areas that are 

stable or trending 

toward desired 

condition would remain 

the same or continue to 

improve.

Meadows rated as high 

would maintain desired 

condition. Meadows in 

moderate condition 

would continue to 

recover and would 

likely move towards 

desired condition. 

Meadows rated in low 

condition would 

improve overtime by 

natural recovery.

Key areas that are 

stable or trending 

toward desired 

condition would remain 

the same or continue to 

improve, but recovery 

rates would not 

increase.

Key areas that are 

stable or trending 

toward desired 

condition would remain 

the same or continue to 

improve.

Recreation Impacts to Forest 

Visitors

Dispersed user and 

hikers may be affected 

by grazing. No 

anticipated negative 

impacts to users within 

developed 

campgrounds and/or 

recreation residence 

tracts. Overall visitation 

is not anticipated to 

decrease, but visitors 

may adjust use 

patterns to avoid 

evidence of grazing.

No impacts to forest 

visitors from project 

activities, as no grazing 

would occur.

Dispersed user and 

hikers may be affected 

by grazing. No 

anticipated negative 

impacts to users within 

developed 

campgrounds and/or 

recreation residence 

tracts. Overall visitation 

is not anticipated to 

decrease, but visitors 

may adjust use 

patterns to avoid 

evidence of grazing.

Dispersed user and 

hikers may be affected 

by grazing. No 

anticipated negative 

impacts to users within 

developed 

campgrounds and/or 

recreation residence 

tracts. Overall visitation 

is not anticipated to 

decrease, but visitors 

may adjust use 

patterns to avoid 

evidence of grazing.
BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement Summary

xiii

Resource Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Society, Culture and Economy

Impacts to 

Permittees

Additional conservation 

measures and 

monitoring may force 

permittees to alter their 

current grazing 

practices, but would 

most likely not affect 

the amount of grazing.

Discontinued grazing 

on federal lands in the 

BEH Allotments would 

negatively affect 

permittee operations 

and possibly ranch 

viability.

No changes are 

expected with 

Alternative 3

Reduced acres 

available for grazing 

and reduced permitted 

livestock numbers 

could affect individual 

ranch viability. 

Increased attention to 

sensitive resources 

would result in 

additional expense to 

permittee operations. 

Impacts to Local 

Communities

May result in temporary 

increase in 

employment 

The economic impacts 

of this alternative would 

be greatest for the local 

economy. This 

alternative would result 

in a loss of jobs in the 

county. The loss of jobs 

would occur in farm 

employment, which is 

already in decline.

Alternative 3 would not 

greatly affect the local 

area economically. 

Additional employment 

would not likely be 

generated.

Alternative 4 may result 

in temporary increase 

in employment. 

However, if this 

alternative dramatically 

affects ranch viability 

this would negatively 

affect the local 

economy in the long 

term. 

Soils

Soil Organic 

Matter

Soil OM status similar 

to Alternative 3 but 

upward trend more 

likely for class 2 

meadows

Soil OM improves in all 

rested meadows as 

herbaceous root 

biomass increases. 

Soil OM likely to remain 

high in class 3 

meadows, fair but 

stable in class 2 

meadows, and poor but 

stable in class 1 

meadows. 

Soil OM status similar 

to Alternative 3 for 

grazed meadows and 

similar to Alternative 2 

for rested meadows. 

Soil Hydrologic 

Function

Similar to Alternative 3. 

Also see Meadow 

Hydrologic function 

below.

Passive improvement 

will occur in rested 

meadows. The degree 

and rate of change is 

uncertain but will be 

site specific for each 

meadow and class of 

meadow. Some 

meadows will not reach 

desired condition 

without active 

restoration.

The water table and 

soil moisture conditions 

will likely continue in 

good condition for class 

3 meadows. Class 2 

meadows will stay 

class 2 (somewhat 

reduced status but 

stable). Class 1 

meadows in poor 

condition and with a 

loss of water table are 

unlikely to improve 

relative to the actual 

meadow soil. Deep 

rooted species can no 

longer reach the water 

table.

Soil hydrologic function 

similar to Alternative 3 

for grazed meadows 

and similar to 

Alternative 2 for rested 

meadows. 
Stanislaus

Summary National Forest

xiv

Resource Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Watershed

Meadow 

Hydrologic 

Function

The meadows in good 

or desired condition will 

continue to maintain 

their status. The 

meadows in fair 

condition will either 

maintain their condition 

or slightly improve. The 

meadows in poor or 

very poor condition 

may see minor channel 

improvements in the 

long run but will not 

likely reach desired 

condition without active 

restoration. 

The no grazing 

alternative may help 

streambanks stabilize 

at a faster rate, may 

promote herbaceous 

vegetation recovery 

along the stream 

channels, and could 

help move channel 

form towards 

rejuvenation. However, 

these small 

improvements in 

condition may take 

years to achieve.

The meadows in good 

or desired condition will 

maintain their status. 

The meadows in fair 

condition will continue 

to maintain their 

condition or move 

toward desired 

condition unless some 

unforeseen 

disturbances or 

management problems 

occur. With two notable 

exceptions (Hammill 

Canyon Meadow #1 

and Upper Willow 

Meadow), the 

meadows in poor or 

very poor condition will 

see channel 

improvements in the 

long run but will not 

likely reach desired 

condition without active 

restoration. 

The hydrologic function 

of grazed meadows 

would be similar to that 

seen under Alternative 

1. The hydrologic 

function of excluded 

meadows would be 

similar to that seen 

under Alternative 2.

Special Aquatic 

Features

Addition areas should 

relieve grazing 

pressure in Eagle 

Meadow and Herring 

Creek Allotments, 

which could assist in 

maintaining PFC at 

special aquatic features 

that are currently at 

PFC and could help 

move sites which are 

FAR towards PFC. On 

the Bell Meadow 

Allotment, 

improvements may be 

seen in the Round 

subunit but no change 

is anticipated in the 

other units. Resource 

conservation measures 

would exclude sites 

with downward trend or 

that become nonfunctional.

No grazing-related 

impacts to special 

aquatic features. For 

at-risk special aquatic 

features, Alternative 2 

would likely result in an 

upward trend. Sites 

already at PFC would 

likely maintain that 

condition.

With few exceptions, 

sites which are 

Functional At-Risk are 

in this condition due to 

the effects of current 

grazing practices. Sites 

that are currently at 

PFC would likely 

maintain this condition 

under current 

management. Forest 

Plan Standards and 

Guidelines would 

exclude or otherwise 

modify sites with 

downward trend or that 

become non-functional.

The reduction in 

grazing pressure as a 

result of decreasing 

numbers is anticipated 

to help maintain PFC at 

sites which are 

currently at PFC and 

could help move 

Functional at-risk sites 

towards PFC. 

Resource conservation 

measures would 

exclude sites with 

downward trend or that 

become non-functional.
BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement Summary

xv

Resource Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Watershed

Water Quality

Sediment deposition 

and accumulation in 

meadow streams, 

indicator bacteria and 

pathogen 

concentrations, and 

nutrient concentrations 

are expected to be less 

than under current 

management. No 

change in water 

temperature or taste 

and odor are 

anticipated. Beneficial 

uses of water should 

be maintained.

No livestock caused 

impacts to water 

quality. Water quality 

may still be impacted 

by other activities in the 

project area.

Sediment deposition 

and accumulation in 

meadow streams is 

expected to remain 

low. Indicator bacteria 

and pathogen 

concentrations should 

remain below the 

recommended 

maximum 

concentration. Overall, 

nutrient concentrations 

are expected to be well 

below EPA levels of 

concern. No change in 

water temperature or 

taste and odor are 

anticipated. Beneficial 

uses of water should 

be maintained.

Sediment deposition 

and accumulation, 

indicator bacteria 

concentrations, and 

nutrient concentrations 

are expected to be less 

than under current 

management. 

Ungrazed (excluded) 

areas would likely have 

lower concentrations of 

sediment, bacteria and 

pathogens, and 

nutrients. Beneficial 

uses of water should 

be maintained.

Wilderness

Wilderness 

Character

Alternative 1 is likely to 

have negative effects 

on the natural and 

outstanding 

opportunities for 

solitude qualities of 

wilderness character. 

The untrammeled and 

undeveloped qualities 

will probably not be 

further impacted.

Alternative 2 would 

improve the 

undeveloped, natural, 

and outstanding 

opportunities elements 

of wilderness 

character.

Alternative 3 is likely to 

have negative effects 

on the natural and 

outstanding 

opportunities for 

solitude qualities of 

wilderness character. 

The untrammeled and 

undeveloped qualities 

will probably not be 

further impacted.

Emphasizing resource 

protection through the 

reduction of the 

number of cows on the 

Allotments would 

improve the natural and 

outstanding 

opportunities for 

solitude qualities of 

wilderness character.

Wildlife

Great Gray Owl

1116 acres of 

potentially suitable 

meadow habitat 

potentially affected by 

Alternative 1.

No livestock-related 

effects to potentially 

suitable meadow 

habitat, as no grazing 

would occur.

1116 acres of 

potentially suitable 

meadow habitat 

potentially affected by 

Alternative 3.

893 acres of potentially 

suitable meadow 

habitat potentially 

affected by Alternative 

4. Reduced livestock 

numbers would likely 

improve habitat for prey 

species.

Sierra Nevada 

Red Fox

Alternative 1 has the 

greatest potential for 

Sierra Nevada Red Fox 

prey habitat changes.

No livestock-related 

effects to Sierra 

Nevada Red Fox prey 

habitat, as no grazing 

would occur.

The amount of suitable 

habitat potentially 

affected by Alternative 

3 is less than 

Alternative 1 but more 

than Alternative 4. 

Under Alternative 4, the 

least amount of 

suitable Sierra Nevada 

Red Fox habitat is 

potentially affected by 

grazing. 

Willow Flycatcher

Habitat objectives are 

being met for this 

species. This 

alternative complies 

with SNFPA and 

conservation 

assessment standards, 

so habitat should 

remain suitable.

No livestock-related 

effects to Willow 

Flycatcher habitat, as 

no grazing would 

occur.

Habitat objectives are 

being met for this 

species. This 

alternative complies 

with SNFPA and 

conservation 

assessment standards, 

so habitat should 

remain suitable.

Habitat objectives are 

being met for this 

species. This 

alternative complies 

with SNFPA and 

conservation 

assessment standards, 

so habitat should 

remain suitable.
Stanislaus

Summary National Forest

xvi
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 1

Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action

1 

1. Purpose of and Need for Action

The Forest Service prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and 

regulations. This Environmental Impact Statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. 

1.01 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE

The document is organized into the following chapters and sections: 

 Chapter 1 (Purpose of and Need for Action): includes information on the history of the project 

proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that 

purpose and need. It also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and 

how the public responded. 

 Chapter 2 (The Alternatives): provides a detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as 

well as alternative actions developed in response to comments submitted during scoping. It 

includes summary tables comparing the proposed action and alternatives with respect to their 

environmental effects. 

 Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences): describes the 

environmental effects of implementing the alternatives. It affected environment and 

environmental consequences sections organized by resource area. 

 Chapter 4 (Consultation and Coordination): provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted 

during the development of the EIS. 

 Index: provides page numbers by document topic. 

 References: provides a list of references and literature cited in the EIS.

 Appendices: provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the EIS. 

 Map Package: the separate map package includes maps for Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 (Chapter 2).

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found 

in the project planning record located at: 

Stanislaus National Forest

Forest Headquarters

19777 Greenley Road 

Sonora, CA 95370 

1.02 BACKGROUND

The BEH Rangeland Allotments proposed action would reauthorize livestock grazing on the Bell 

Meadow (B), Eagle Meadow (E) and Herring Creek (H) Allotments on the Stanislaus National Forest. 

This EIS discloses the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of implementing the 

proposed action and alternatives to that action. The EIS focuses on livestock grazing on National 

Forest System (NFS) lands administered by the Summit Ranger District. It does not evaluate 

livestock grazing activities on other Allotments, other ranger districts, or other national forests. 
Chapter 1 Stanislaus

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest

2 

PROJECT LOCATION

The project area consists of three active cattle grazing Allotments that have been grazed by livestock 

for over 100 years (Figure 1.02-1). The Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow and Herring Creek Allotments 

encompass about 51,182 acres of NFS lands in eastern Tuolumne County. 

Figure 1.02-1 BEH Rangeland Allotments Project Area Map
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 1

Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action

3 

The Summit Ranger District headquartered in Pinecrest, California administers the area in and 

surrounding these Allotments. Livestock grazing is just one of many activities that occur on the 

Summit Ranger District. Grazing on each Allotment is conducted in accordance with the term grazing 

permits, the Allotment-specific Allotment Management Plan (AMP), and the Annual Operating 

Instructions (AOI). The grazing permit is the instrument that authorizes the permit holder (permittee) 

to graze livestock on certain NFS lands or other lands under Forest Service jurisdiction. The AMP is 

the implementation document by which the Forest Service communicates to the permittees and others 

the management objectives and direction set-forth in the project-level NEPA decision. The AMPs for 

Allotments in the analysis area were developed more than 20 years ago and are in need of revision. 

The AOI identifies annual grazing management requirements, standards, and necessary monitoring. 

The new project-level NEPA analysis and decision and the updated AMPs will guide permitted 

livestock grazing management and associated activities within the project area until the need is 

identified to revisit the NEPA process.. Actions required to implement the selected alternative (such 

as updating AMPs, issuing permits, and implementing mitigations) will not be subject to further 

NEPA documentation. 

OTHER RELATED EFFORTS

Rangeland Allotments Phase 1 (2006): The Forest Service first listed the Rangeland Allotments 

Phase 1 (Phase 1) project in the April 1, 2006 issue of the Stanislaus National Forest Schedule of 

Proposed Actions (SOPA). The Forest issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) in December 2006 

to re-authorize grazing on four rangeland Allotments: Bell Meadow-Bear Lake, Long Valley-Eagle 

Meadow, Herring Creek, and Stanislaus Meadow. The July 16, 2007 Decision Notice and Finding of 

No Significant Impact (FONSI) authorized grazing on the four Allotments under the proposed action. 

Three administrative appeals were filed under 36 CFR 215. The Regional Forester reviewed the 

project record and reversed the decision on October 15, 2007. 

Rangeland Allotments Phase 1 (2008): Following the 2007 appeal decision, the Forest Supervisor 

determined a need to prepare a new EA in order to make a new decision. The Forest Service first 

listed the Rangeland Allotment Phase 1 (2008) in the April 2008 issue of the Stanislaus National 

Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). A revised EA was made available for public comment 

on June 19, 2009. After reviewing the comments received from the public and considering new 

information, the Forest Supervisor decided to collect more data and prepare an EIS in order to 

completely analyze and disclose the environmental impacts related to grazing on these Allotments. 

1.03 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose and need can be summarized with five key objectives: 

1. Authorize continued livestock grazing in the project area

P.L. 104-19 Section 504 of the 1995 Rescissions Act, as amended, require each National Forest to 

establish and adhere to a schedule for completing NEPA analysis and updating Allotment 

Management Plans for all rangeland Allotments on National Forest System lands.

2. Implement an adaptive management strategy

Adaptive management uses monitoring to determine if actions prescribed were followed, and 

adjusts management if changes are needed. An adaptive strategy is particularly suited for dealing 

with management issues involving high levels of uncertainty, limited knowledge, and 

unpredictability. This approach lends itself to learning and continual improvement while allowing 

for flexibility. An adaptive management approach facilitates a process of ongoing monitoring and 

adjustment in order to move resource conditions toward desired conditions. 
Chapter 1 Stanislaus

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest

4 

3. Ensure compliance withregulations and agency policy

- Congressional intent allows grazing on suitable lands where it is consistent with other 

multiple use goals and objectives as authorized through several Congressional Acts (Organic 

Administration Act of 1897, Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 

1964, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the 

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978); 

- Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) directs the Forest Service to meet multiple-use 

objectives, including managing for livestock grazing on forage-producing National Forest 

System lands (36 CFR 222.2 (c)); 

- It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands 

suitable for grazing consistent with land management plans (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 

2203.1); and, 

- It is Forest Service policy to continue contributions to the economic and social well-being of 

people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for 

communities that depend on range resources for their livelihood (FSM 2202.1). 

4. Meet demand for livestock grazing on public lands

There is public demand from qualified livestock operators for continued livestock grazing on 

these Allotments. Livestock grazing on Forest Service land is an important source of meat and 

fiber production, encourages the retention of private lands (ranches) as open space, contributes to 

the economic stability of rural populations, and provides Forest visitors with opportunities to 

experience a traditional and culturally important use of public lands. 

5. Move resource conditions towards desired conditions

Recent assessments indicate that, while desired conditions are being met throughout a large 

portion of the project area, specific locations within the project area may not be meeting or 

moving toward desired conditions in a manner that is timely and consistent with Forest Plan 

objectives, standards and guidelines. Gaps between existing resource conditions and desired 

conditions indicate a need to change grazing management by updating AMPs. Table 1.03-1 

displays desired and existing conditions and identified need for change in the project area. A need 

for change was identified wherever existing conditions do not meet desired conditions as 

specified in the Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010).
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 1

Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action

5 

Table 1.03-1 Existing conditions and identified need for change in the project area

Resource Locations Desired Conditions Existing Conditions Need for Change

Aspen

Regeneration

Bell Meadow: Crab 

Meadow, Kerrick 

Corral, Bell 

Meadow, and 

Round and Lower 

Round Meadows

Eagle Meadow: 

Barn Meadow, 

Eagle Meadow, 

and Niagara Creek

Herring Creek: Bull 

Run, Fiddler's 

Green, Hammill 

Canyon and 

Punch Bowl

A diversity of age 

classes of hardwood 

shrubs is present and 

regeneration is 

occurring.

Aspen browse by 

livestock and wildlife 

exceeds Forest Plan 

standards and 

guidelines in certain 

locations

Protect aspen regeneration 

by ensuring Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines are 

met. Additional monitoring of 

aspen populations will 

facilitate better understanding 

of timing and patterns of 

livestock/wildlife aspen 

browse.

Meadow 

Hydrologic 

Function

Bell Meadow: Crab 

Meadow, Mud 

Lake Meadow, 

Round Meadow, 

Lower Round 

Meadow, and 

Upper Bell 

Meadow

Eagle Meadow: 

East Eagle 

Meadow, Long 

Valley, Lower 

Eagle Meadow 

and Red Rock 

Meadow

Herring Creek: 

Castle Meadow, 

Herring Creek 

Reservoir, Hammill 

Canyon Meadows 

#1-6, Upper Three 

Meadows and 

Upper Willow 

Meadow

Meadows are 

hydrologically 

functional: streams 

have floodplain 

connectivity to 

dissipate high flow 

energy, stream 

morphology is suitable 

for optimizing ground 

water retention, and 

the water table 

supports desired plant 

species composition 

and structural 

diversity.

Hydrologic function of 

listed meadows is not 

at desired condition. In 

many cases this is due 

to lowered water tables 

as a result of historic 

forest use activities.

Where already impaired, 

meadow hydrologic function 

is not likely to show significant 

improvement by changing 

livestock management alone. 

Meadow restoration is 

planned for Crab and Round 

Meadow as part of the 

Gooseberry project. 

Meadow 

Hydrologic 

Function

Bell Meadow: Lily 

Lake

Eagle Meadow: 

Shell Meadow

Herring Creek: 

Bloomer Lake 

Meadow, Bluff 

Meadow, Burt 

Reed Meadow, 

Groundhog 

Meadow, Coyote 

Meadow and 

Hammill Canyon 

Meadow #7

Meadows are 

hydrologically 

functional: streams 

have floodplain 

connectivity to 

dissipate high flow 

energy, stream 

morphology is suitable 

for optimizing ground 

water retention, and 

the water table 

supports desired plant 

species composition 

and structural 

diversity.

Hydrologic function of 

listed meadows is at 

desired condition. 

However, headcuts, 

knick points and/or 

small gullies have 

been observed at 

these locations. If 

these increase in scale 

then meadow 

hydrologic function 

may become impaired. 

Headcuts and gullies are not 

likely to show significant 

improvement as a result of 

changes in livestock 

management alone. Priority is 

to ensure that grazing is not 

causing new headcuts, 

causing accelerated 

advancement of headcuts 

and/or contributing to bank 

instability or channel incision. 

Monitor identified headcuts, 

knick points and small gullies. 

Ensure standards for 

streambank disturbance are 

not exceeded. Restoration 

projects are planned or 
Chapter 1 Stanislaus

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest

6 

Resource Locations Desired Conditions Existing Conditions Need for Change

already complete for all 

locations.

Yosemite toad

Populations

Bell Meadow: no 

known habitat

Eagle Meadow: 

Shell Meadow, 

and other small 

meadows in the 

vicinity of Shell 

Meadow

Herring Creek: 

Bluff Meadow, 

Castle Meadow, 

Bloomer Lake, 

Groundhog 

Meadow, and Wire 

Corral

Provide habitat for 

diverse and viable 

populations of all 

native and desired 

non-native species.

Yosemite toad habitat 

exists in the project 

area. Habitat suitability 

is tied to meadow 

hydrology and is 

diminished where 

water table is lowered 

Long-term livestock 

impacts to Yosemite 

toad habitat and 

populations are 

uncertain.

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment (SNFPA)

implements Standards and 

Guidelines for the protection 

of Yosemite toad and its 

habitat. There is a need to 

ensure consistency with this 

management direction by 

updating AMPs to include 

site-specific measures for 

conservation of Yosemite 

toad. 

Great Gray 

Owl

Lower Eagle 

Meadow

Meadow vegetation in 

great grey owl PACs 

supports a sufficiently 

large meadow vole 

population to provide a 

food source for GGO 

through the 

reproductive period

Livestock excluded 

from 2 acres within 

Lower Eagle Meadow

GGO PAC by 

temporary fence. 

There is uncertainty 

regarding what 

vegetative height is 

commensurate with 

site capability and 

habitat needs of prey 

species.

Construct permanent 

exclosure to replace 

temporary fence. Use best 

available information as 

interim regional guidance. 

Continue management study 

to determine habitat 

requirements of prey species 

and update regional guidance 

as necessary.

Ecological 

Status of 

Meadows

Bell Meadow: Crab 

Meadow and 

Round Meadow

Eagle Meadow: 

Red Rock Meadow

Herring Creek: 

Hammill Canyon 

Meadow #1 

Species composition 

and structural diversity 

of plant and animal 

communities in 

riparian areas, 

wetlands, and 

meadows provide 

desired habitat 

conditions and 

ecological functions. 

In these specific 

locations ecological 

status of meadow 

vegetation is low 

and/or in a downward 

trend. This is more 

likely a result of 

historic, rather than 

current, grazing 

practices.

Increase abundance of lateseral species in these 

meadows. Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines are 

designed to maintain 

meadows in satisfactory 

condition and improve 

condition of meadows where 

unsatisfactory.

Special 

Aquatic 

Features

Springs, seeps, 

and fens in various 

locations on all 

three Allotments 

Maintain and restore 

the distribution and 

health of biotic 

communities in special 

aquatic habitats 

(springs, seeps, vernal 

pools, fens, bogs, and 

marshes) to 

perpetuate their 

unique functions and 

biological diversity

Many special aquatic 

features are 

functioning at risk. 

Livestock use may be 

causing trailing and 

trampling in special 

aquatic features, which 

in some cases has 

resulted in hydrologic 

alteration, bare 

soil/peat and/or loss of 

wetland vegetation. 

Reduce impacts of livestock 

to special aquatic features by 

improving livestock 

distribution and minimizing 

time spent near special 

aquatic features. Update 

AMPs to incorporate and 

implement an adaptive 

strategy to improve the 

condition of special aquatic 

features that are Functioning 

At-Risk
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 1

Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action

7 

Resource Locations Desired Conditions Existing Conditions Need for Change

Water Quality All streams, lakes 

and rivers, 

including both 

Recreation 

Contact and 

Recreation NonContact Waters

Water quality meets 

the goals of the Clean 

Water Act and Safe 

Drinking Water Act; it 

is fishable, 

swimmable, and 

suitable for drinking 

after normal treatment

No known cases of 

pathogen related 

illness from forest 

users. Initial results of 

water quality study 

seem to indicate low 

risk of exceeding 

bacterial and 

pathogenic water 

quality standards at 

most locations on 

these Allotments.

Uncertain. Currently 

implement grazing BMPs to 

protect water quality. Educate 

the public about water quality 

and livestock grazing on 

public lands. Encourage 

forest users to drink only 

water that has been filtered or 

treated. Continue research on 

relationship between grazing 

and water quality, where 

possible. Implement adaptive 

management actions if 

necessary to protect water 

quality.

Developed 

and 

Dispersed 

Recreation

Bell Meadow: 

Crabtree Trailhead

Eagle Meadow: 

dispersed camping

areas near Barn 

Meadow

Herring Creek: 

Developed 

Campgrounds 

near Herring 

Creek Reservoir

Minimize conflicts 

between recreational 

users and grazing 

operations. 

Potential for livestock 

drift at Crabtree 

Trailhead. Occasional 

livestock drift into 

Herring Creek

campground. Minimal 

complaints from 

recreational users but 

potential for conflict 

exist.

Potential for conflict between 

forest users and livestock 

operations in developed 

recreation areas and high-use 

dispersed camping areas is 

minimized by herding away 

from these areas. Use 

adaptive management actions 

(fencing) if needed to prevent 

livestock drift into developed 

recreation areas.

Wilderness

Character

Bell Meadow: High 

use destinations in 

Emigrant 

Wilderness - 

Camp Lake, Bear 

Lake, Grouse Lake

Minimize conflicts 

between recreational 

users and grazing 

operations

Some visitor 

complaints received 

about livestock in the 

wilderness. Complaints 

related to noise 

(cowbells), cows in 

camp areas, and 

manure. Livestock drift 

outside Allotment – 

extent unknown

Drift: Adjust Northeastern 

boundary of Bell Meadow

Allotment so that it is easily 

recognizable and wilderness 

technicians can better identify 

drift outside Allotment. Noise: 

Have explored ways to 

reduce use of cowbells in 

cooperation with Bell Meadow 

permittee.

Sensitive and 

Watchlist 

Plants

Bell Meadow: 

Camp Lake

Herring Creek: 

Middle Three 

Meadows

Provide for protection 

and habitat needs of 

sensitive plants and 

watchlist species, so 

that Forest activities 

will not jeopardize 

their continued 

existence

Sundew (Drosera 

rotundifolia) 

occurrence located in 

small pond above 

Camp Lake. Yuba 

Pass Willowherb 

(Epilobium howellii) 

occurrences in middle 

three meadows and in 

small meadow above 

Leland restoration site.

None. Currently monitoring 

known populations of 

sensitive plants and watchlist 

plants as necessary to protect 

populations and prevent 

listing as threatened or 

endangered.

Invasive 

Weeds

Bell Meadow: 

Aspen Pack 

Station

Eagle Meadow: 

Gathering pasture

Manage weeds using 

an integrated weed

management 

approach.

Invasive weeds are 

present in localized 

areas and may spread. 

Potential exists for 

further introduction of 

invasive weeds.

None. Currently encourage 

use of weed-free hay and 

feed for horses and other 

pack stock and cleaning of 

equipment prior to use on 

forest.
Chapter 1 Stanislaus

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest

8 

1.04 PROPOSED ACTION

This is the Proposed Action, as described in the Notice of Intent (76 Federal Register 150, August 4, 

2011; p. 47140-47141), with minor changes identified by the Forest Service and the public (refer to 

Updates to the Proposed Action). The Proposed Action is summarized below. Chapter 2, Alternative 

1 (Proposed Action) provides a more detailed description. 

In response to the purpose and need, the Forest Service proposes to continue to authorize livestock 

grazing in the Bell Meadow-Bear Lake, Eagle Meadow-Long Valley, and Herring Creek Allotments, 

making forage available to qualified livestock operators in a manner that is sustainable and consistent 

with management direction1

. The Proposed Action would adjust livestock management, update 

Allotment Management Plans and implement an adaptive management strategy that would provide 

for healthy ecosystems in a manner that is consistent with the Forest Plan. The Proposed Action 

would move existing conditions toward desired conditions while continuing to allow livestock 

grazing on these Allotments with the following management actions.

1. Authorize continued grazing on the Bell Meadow-Bear Lake, Eagle Meadow-Long Valley, and 

Herring Creek Allotments in a manner that provides for healthy ecosystems and is consistent with 

Forest Plan direction. 

2. Modify Allotment boundaries, create units, and update Allotment Management Plans to 

incorporate resource conservation measures and adaptive management options (described below).

3. Implement design criteria (described below) in order to better achieve desired conditions through 

systematic monitoring and adjustment of grazing activities, while allowing for flexibility in 

management decisions.

The Proposed Action includes the following changes from current management. 

 Would allow an update to Allotment Management Plans for each of the three Allotments 

identifying desired conditions on the ground and outlining short and long term grazing 

management.

 Rename the Bell Meadow-Bear Lake and the Eagle Meadow-Long Valley Allotments. These 

Allotments will be referred to as the Bell Meadow and Eagle Meadow Allotments, respectively, 

for convenience and consistency.

 Adjust grazing strategy on the Bell Meadow Allotment by dividing the Allotment into units and 

implement a deferred grazing system that would improve distribution and timing of forage 

utilization and facilitate protection of sensitive resources. Construct new handling facilities for 

livestock shipping/receiving on the Bell Meadow Allotment at a new location. Modify the Bell 

Meadow Allotment boundary along the northeastern edge of the Allotment to align with natural 

barriers and decrease livestock entry into unauthorized areas.

 Modify the Herring Creek Allotment by adding an area to the northwest of the Allotment 

(Cascade Creek addition) and by removing a portion of the Allotment to the Southeast 

(Waterhouse Lake area). This would result in a net gain of about 850 acres to the Herring Creek 

Allotment, which would reduce overall utilization across the Allotment and facilitate deferred 

grazing on Yosemite toad habitat. 

 Implement a deferred rotational grazing strategy for the Herring Creek Allotment by creating 

units within the Allotment in order to improve livestock distribution, reduce utilization in areas 

that receive concentrated use and defer grazing in Yosemite toad habitat.

 Add two additional areas to the Eagle Meadow Allotment. The Niagara Creek addition, to the 

west of the current Allotment boundary, would result in a gain of about 2,400 acres to the Eagle 

Meadow Allotment. The McCormick Pocket addition, to the south of Eagle Meadow, would 

 

1 The Proposed Action follows Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010) and guidance from the Forest Service Handbook 2209.13, Chapter 90 

(Grazing Permit Administration; Rangeland Management Decision-making).
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 1

Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action

9 

include about 2,400 acres. These additions would improve livestock distribution and reduce 

overall utilization on the Allotment and improve the deferred rotation grazing system. 

 Change utilization standards for the intensive grazing system on the Eagle Meadow Allotment to 

reflect site specific conditions. Maximum utilization would be set at 40% for all units that are 

grazed every year. If the permittee chooses to provide a year of rest in between years of grazing 

in certain units, the maximum allowable utilization would be raised to 50% as long as resource 

conditions continue to move towards or are in desired condition. 

 Change grazing utilization standards at Lower Eagle Meadow to a maximum vegetative cover 

height to better measure and assess habitat cover for great gray owl prey species. Replace 

temporary exclosure fencing with a permanent fence around the established exclosure area. 

 Replace temporary exclosure fencing at Shell Meadow with permanent fence.

Updates to the Proposed Action

The Forest updated the proposed action based on minor changes identified by the Forest Service and 

the public. The updated proposed action differs from the DEIS due to changes to proposed 

infrastructure and management requirements and updates to capture recent changes that have 

occurred to the lists of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species by the Forest Service and the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Additional infrastructure needs were identified 

after the DEIS, and consist of replacing one small abandoned fence and one existing temporary fence 

with new barbed wire fences to ensure effective livestock control (EIS, p. 17). Updates to 

management requirements involve removal of one management requirement and addition of a new 

management requirement. The management requirement for protection of Epilobium howelii was 

removed because this species is no longer included on the Regional Foresters List of Sensitive plants 

and no longer requires this protection measure. A new management requirement better captures the 

Forest’s intent to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (EIS, p. 28). 

1.05 PRINCIPLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires that all major federal actions 

significantly affecting the human environment be analyzed to determine the magnitude and intensity 

of those impacts and that the results be shared with the public and the public given opportunity to 

comment. The regulations implementing NEPA further require that to the fullest extent possible, 

agencies shall prepare environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with 

environmental analyses and related surveys and studies required by the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and other environmental review laws and 

executive orders. Principle among these are the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 as expressed through the Forest Plan, the Clean Air Act of 

1955, the Clean Water Act of 1948 and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 

of 1974. 

1995 Rescissions Act (104-19 Section 504): this BEH Rangeland Allotments EIS is designed 

specifically to implement the requirements of the 1995 Rescissions Act, which requires each National 

Forest to establish and adhere to a schedule for completing NEPA analysis and updating Allotment

Management Plans for all rangeland Allotments on National Forest System lands.
Chapter 1 Stanislaus

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest

10

1.06 DECISION FRAMEWORK

As the Responsible Official, the Forest Supervisor may decide to: (1) select the proposed action; (2) 

select one of the alternatives; (3) select one of the alternatives after modifying the alternative with 

additional mitigating measures or combination of activities from other alternatives; or, (4) select the 

no action alternative, choosing not to authorize continued grazing on the BEH rangeland Allotments.

1.07 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Due to the controversy surrounding livestock grazing on National Forests, the Forest Service relied on 

public and permittee involvement to ensure that the EIS would consider a reasonable range of 

alternatives. The Forest Service sought input from individuals, non-profit groups, industry 

representatives, local governments, public agencies and Native American tribes. As a result, 

interested parties submitted a fair number of comments. This public input not only informed me of 

people’s opinions, but also contributed to the project design process. Ultimately, my decision to select 

Alternative 1 is the direct result of the public input that I received throughout this process. 

Of particular value during the public involvement process were public comments representing a wide 

range of values and opinions. Commenters included a wide variety of local stakeholders including 

grazing permittees, environmental groups, government agencies, private landowners and others. 

These comments helped the Forest Service to understand the views of important segments of the 

public and to seek solutions that would strike the right balance between the range of values that were 

represented. Public involvement directly contributed to the scope and content of the DEIS. However, 

as a review of the public comment on the DEIS makes clear, there was no consensus on how to best 

manage grazing on these allotments.

Many of the key points of disagreement that were evident in the comments on the DEIS were held by 

key stakeholders: members of the ranching industry and environmental groups. Ultimately, I could 

not incorporate all of our stakeholder’s recommendations, since doing so would be either impractical 

or would negatively impact the economic viability of the allotments, creating the potential to 

effectively render them inoperable. In the end, I believe that Alternative 1 strikes a reasonable balance 

that will achieve project objectives and will be feasible to implement. And, it was only through public 

input that I could reach this point. 

Initial Public Scoping on the Proposed Action

The Forest Service first listed the BEH project in the October 2010 issue of the Stanislaus National 

Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). The Forest distributes the SOPA to about 160 parties 

and it is available on the internet [http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110516].

The Forest Service relied on public and permittee involvement to ensure that a range of alternatives 

would be analyzed in this EIS. District and Forest personnel met with the affected permittees on the 

BEH allotments several times between 2006 and 2012 to gather their input and incorporate their 

suggestions into the planning process. 

After developing the Proposed Action, the Forest Service began its scoping process according to the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1501.7). In addition to other public 

involvement, scoping initiates an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be 

addressed in the EIS and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. This 

scoping process allows the Forest Service not only to identify significant environmental issues 

deserving of study, but also to deemphasize insignificant issues, narrowing the scope of the EIS 

process accordingly (40 CFR 1500.4(g)). 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 1

Environmental Impact Statement Purpose of and Need for Action

11

On August 3, 2011 the Forest sent a scoping letter to 100 individuals, permittees, organizations, 

agencies, and Tribes interested in this project. The letter requested comments on the Proposed Action 

and referred to additional information (scoping package, maps, etc.) available on the internet. On 

August 4, 2011, the Forest Service published a Notice of Intent (NOI) that asked for public comment 

on the proposal (76 Federal Register 150, August 4, 2011; p. 47140-47141); the 45-day scoping 

period ended on September 19, 2011. During scoping, letters were received from 12 individuals and 

organizations. Individuals included grazing permittees and private landowners. Organizations 

included Western Watersheds, Tuolumne County, Central Sierra Environmental Resource Council, 

and the California Farm Bureau. The Forest Service developed the issues (EIS Chapter 1.08) based on 

public comments submitted during the scoping period. 

Continued Scoping after the Comment Period

After the initial 30-day scoping period, the Forest continued scoping with interested parties. Forest 

Service representatives communicate regularly with interested parties, primarily permittees, forest 

visitors and local environmental groups. Information received from regular communications was 

considered and used to further develop the alternatives.

DEIS Comment Period

The initial Notice of Availability (NOA) for the DEIS appeared in the Federal Register on January 31, 

2014 (79 Federal Register 21, January 31, 2014; p. 5400). The Forest Supervisor sent a DEIS 

notification letter to the 12 interested parties who submitted unique comments during scoping along 

with other individuals, permittees, organizations, agencies, and Tribes interested in this project on 

January 24, 2014 requesting specific written comments by the filing deadline of March 17, 2014. The 

Forest Service also published the DEIS on the internet 

[http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=33836].

Interested parties submitted 18 total comment letters on the DEIS. The Response to Comments (EIS 

Appendix E) identifies specific comments submitted during the comment period and the Forest 

Service responses. During the final stages of preparing the EIS and Draft ROD, Forest personnel met 

with key stakeholders to discuss alternatives and the importance of implementing key components of 

the selected alternative, including Standards and Guidelines, Resource Conservation Measures, and 

Adaptive Management.

1.08 ISSUES

The Forest Service reviewed scoping comments from the public, other agencies, and permittees to 

formulate issues concerning the proposed action (Scoping Comment Analysis, project record). An 

issue is a matter of public concern regarding the proposed action and its environmental impacts. 

Scoping identified issues which are a point of discussion, dispute, or debate with the Proposed 

Action. An issue is an effect on a physical, biological, social, or economic resource. An issue is not an 

activity; instead, the predicted effects of the activity create the issue. The Forest Service separated the 

issues into two groups: significant and non-significant. Significant issues are defined as those directly 

or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. 

Significant Issues are used to formulate alternatives, prescribe mitigation measures, or analyze 

environmental effects. Issues are significant because of the extent of their geographic distribution, the 

duration of their effects, or the intensity of interest or resource conflicts. Non-Significant Issues were 

identified as those that were: 1) outside of the scope of the proposed action; 2) already determined 

through law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be 

made; 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific fact; 5) a comment, opinion, or position 

statement; or, 6) a question for clarification or information. Although non-significant issues are not 
Chapter 1 Stanislaus

Purpose of and Need for Action National Forest

12

used to formulate alternatives or prescribe mitigation measures, the DEIS will disclose all significant 

environmental effects including any related to non-significant issues.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 

1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which 

have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...” A list of non-significant issues and 

reasons why they were found non-significant may be found in the project record. 

Significant Issues

As described above, issues are significant because of the extent of their geographic distribution, the 

duration of their effects, or the intensity of interest or resource conflicts. Based on public comments, 

the Forest Service developed two significant issues to formulate and compare alternatives, prescribe 

mitigation measures, or analyze and compare the environmental effects of each alternative: 1) Habitat 

and Species Protection; and, 2) Water Quality.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUE STATEMENTS

The significant issue statements identify elements (individual or groups of significant issue topics) 

along with a cause and effect based on public comments.

1. Habitat and Species Protection: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement should address a 

reasonable range of alternatives. Specifically, the Forest Service should develop alternatives that 

address habitat and species protection and/or a reduced grazing alternative.

- Increased protection of sensitive species while continuing to authorize grazing may result in 

reduced numbers of livestock or AUMs.

- Immediate implementation of livestock exclusions could impact flexibility in management 

where adaptive, less expensive alternatives such as herding or timing are not explored first.

2. Water Quality: The Forest Service should describe the potential impacts to water quality caused 

by livestock and if necessary consider feasible alternatives to reduce the risk. Livestock presence 

in wet meadows and proximity to streams or other bodies of water may affect water quality.

- Identifying areas with the highest risk would allow for adaptive management changes that 

would improve conditions where needed. 

- There is conflicting scientific information on the subject of water quality and the degree to 

which livestock actually influence the water quality in a rangeland setting.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 2

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

13

2. The Alternatives

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives under consideration for the Stanislaus National 

Forest BEH Rangeland Allotments EIS. It describes both alternatives considered in detail and those 

considered but eliminated from detailed study. This section also presents the alternatives in 

comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear 

basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to 

compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is 

based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative.

Based on the issues identified through public comment on the proposed action, the Forest Service 

developed other action alternatives that achieve the purpose and need differently than the proposed 

action. In addition, the Forest Service is required to analyze a No Action alternative. The proposed 

action, no action and the other action alternatives are described in detail.

The chapter is divided into the following sections:

 Chapter 2.01 describes how the alternatives were developed.

 Chapter 2.02 presents the alternatives considered in detail.

 Chapter 2.03 shows the mitigation and other requirements common to all action alternatives.

 Chapter 2.04 presents the alternatives that were considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis, 

including the rationale for eliminating them. 

 Chapter 2.05 compares the alternatives based on their environmental, social and economic 

consequences including a comparative display of the projected effects of the alternatives.

Map Package

The following detailed maps are available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=33836. 

Alternative 1 Map

Plotter size (36 inch by 48 inch) map showing all of the actions proposed under Alternative 1. 

Alternative 3 Map

Plotter size (36 inch by 48 inch) map showing all of the actions proposed under Alternative 3. 

Alternative 4 Map

Plotter size (36 inch by 48 inch) map showing all of the actions proposed under Alternative 4. 

2.01 HOW THE ALTERNATIVES WERE DEVELOPED

The action alternatives represent a wide range of perspectives designed to meet the purpose and need 

and to address the issues identified through scoping (Chapter 1). 

REFINING ALTERNATIVES SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC DURING SCOPING

During the 45-day public scoping process comments and suggested alternatives were submitted for 

consideration. The Forest Service reviewed and considered each proposal. The alternatives considered 

in detail incorporate portions of those proposals. Specifically, Alternative 4 was developed in 

response to Alternatives submitted for consideration by the public. The alternatives considered but 

eliminated from detailed study address the remaining portions of those proposals. Also important in 

this process, the Forest Service gathered information in consultation and discussions with grazing 

permittees, tribal representatives, local counties and Forest Service employees. 
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

14

2.02 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

The action alternatives (Alternatives 1, 3 and 4) and the no action alternative (Alternative 2) are 

considered in detail. The no action alternative represents the No Grazing alternative (FSH 2209.13, 

Section 92.31). Alternative 2, required by the implementing regulations of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), serves as a baseline for comparison among the alternatives (73 

Federal Register 143, July 24, 2008; p. 43084-43099). 

The following sections describe each of the alternatives considered in detail (map package and project 

record contain more detailed maps of each alternative). 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

This is the Proposed Action, as described in the Notice of Intent (76 Federal Register 150, August 4, 

2011; p. 47140-47141), with minor changes identified by the Forest Service and the public (Chapter 

1.04). In response to the purpose and need, the Forest Service proposes to continue to authorize 

livestock grazing in the Bell Meadow-Bear Lake, Eagle Meadow-Long Valley, and Herring Creek

Allotments, making forage available to qualified livestock operators in a manner that is sustainable 

and consistent with management direction2

. The Proposed Action would adjust livestock 

management, update Allotment Management Plans and implement an adaptive management strategy 

that would provide for healthy ecosystems in a manner that is consistent with the Forest Plan. The 

Proposed Action would move existing conditions toward desired conditions while continuing to allow 

livestock grazing on these Allotments with the following management actions. 

 Authorize continued grazing on the Bell Meadow-Bear Lake, Eagle Meadow-Long Valley, and 

Herring Creek Allotments in a manner that provides for healthy ecosystems and is consistent with 

Forest Plan direction. 

 Modify Allotment boundaries, create units, and update Allotment Management Plans to 

incorporate resource conservation measures and adaptive management options (described below).

 Implement design criteria (described below) in order to better achieve desired conditions through 

systematic monitoring and adjustment of grazing activities, while allowing for flexibility in 

management decisions.

The Proposed Action includes the following changes from current management. 

 Would allow an update to Allotment Management Plans for each of the three Allotments 

identifying desired conditions on the ground and outlining short and long term grazing 

management.

 Rename the Bell Meadow-Bear Lake and the Eagle Meadow-Long Valley Allotments. These 

Allotments will be referred to as the Bell Meadow and Eagle Meadow Allotments, respectively, 

for convenience and consistency.

 Adjust grazing strategy on the Bell Meadow Allotment by dividing the Allotment into units and 

implement a deferred grazing system that would improve distribution and timing of forage 

utilization and facilitate protection of sensitive resources. Construct new handling facilities for 

livestock shipping/receiving on the Bell Meadow Allotment at a new location. Modify the Bell 

Meadow Allotment boundary along the Northeastern edge of the Allotment to align with natural 

barriers and decrease livestock entry into unauthorized areas.

 Modify the Herring Creek Allotment by adding an area to the Northwest of the Allotment 

(Cascade Creek addition) and by removing a portion of the Allotment to the Southeast 

(Waterhouse Lake area). This would result in a net gain of about 850 acres to the Herring Creek 

 

2 The Proposed Action follows Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010) and guidance from the Forest Service Handbook 2209.13, Chapter 90 

(Grazing Permit Administration; Rangeland Management Decision-making).
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 2

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

15

Allotment, which would reduce overall utilization across the Allotment and facilitate deferred 

grazing on Yosemite toad habitat. 

 Implement a deferred rotational grazing strategy for the Herring Creek Allotment by creating 

units within the Allotment in order to improve livestock distribution, reduce utilization in areas 

that receive concentrated use and defer grazing in Yosemite toad habitat.

 Add two additional areas to the Eagle Meadow Allotment. The Niagara Creek addition, to the 

west of the current Allotment boundary, would result in a gain of about 2,400 acres to the Eagle 

Meadow Allotment. The McCormick Pocket addition, to the south of Eagle Meadow, would 

include about 2,400 acres. These additions would improve livestock distribution and reduce 

overall utilization on the Allotment and improve the deferred rotation grazing system. 

 Change utilization standards on the Eagle Meadow Allotment to reflect site specific conditions.

Maximum utilization would be set at 40% for all units that are grazed every year. If the permittee 

chooses to provide a year of rest in between years of grazing in certain units, the maximum 

allowable utilization would be raised to 50% as long as resource conditions continue to move 

towards or are in desired condition. 

 Change grazing utilization standards at Lower Eagle Meadow to a maximum vegetative cover 

height to better measure and assess habitat cover for great gray owl prey species. Replace 

temporary exclosure fencing with a permanent fence around the established exclosure area. 

 Replace electric fence exclosure at Shell Meadow with standard barbed wire fence. Livestock 

may be permitted in Shell Meadow after the site has recovered from restoration with annual 

approval, after Yosemite toad metamorphosis.

The Proposed Action consists of two components: Authorization and Mitigation and Other 

Requirements. 

AUTHORIZATION

Authorization addresses six components: permitted grazing area; infrastructure; permitted livestock 

numbers; season of use; utilization standards; and, management (grazing system).

Permitted Grazing Area

The permitted grazing area would include a majority of the current area open to grazing as well as 

three proposed additions. The Bell Meadow Allotment would remain much the same, with the 

exception of minor boundary adjustments to reflect the actual location of Allotment boundary fences 

and natural boundaries. Allotment boundaries for the Eagle Meadow and Herring Creek Allotment

would also have minor boundary adjustments to line up with Allotment fences and natural barriers. In 

the Eagle Meadow Allotment, the Niagara Creek addition would incorporate about 2,400 acres of 

Forest Service land to the western edge of the Allotment and nearly 450 acres are removed from this 

unit reflecting the actual location of the western boundary fence. The McCormick Pocket addition 

would add about 2,400 acres directly to the south of Eagle Meadow. An area in the southern portion 

of the Herring Creek Allotment, called the Waterhouse Lake area, would be removed from the 

Allotment and an area to the northwest of the Allotment, called the Cascade Creek addition, would be 

added into the Allotment for a net gain of about 850 acres. 

Infrastructure

Additional infrastructure would be required to support livestock grazing in the areas described below.

Bell Meadow Allotment

 Corral and handling facility at Forest Service Road 4N25. 

 Construct allotment boundary fence on the Southeast corner of the Bell Meadow allotment. Fence

would be approximately .25 mile with a gate and backpacker cattleguard on trail 19E95.

 Additional fencing may be needed if the proposed grazing system (rotation and distribution) 

cannot be achieved after three years of intensive herding alone. 
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

16

Eagle Meadow Allotment

 Fence the western edge of the Niagara Creek addition to keep livestock away from Highway 108 

and developed recreation facilities (about 1.0 miles). 

 Replace temporary exclosure fencing at Lower Eagle Meadow with permanent fence.

 Replace temporary exclosure fencing at Shell Meadow with permanent fence. Rebuild existing 

abandoned fences in McCormick pocket as needed.

 Install cattle guard on Forest Service Road 5N01 at Niagara Creek addition. 

 Install a water trough in Lower Eagle unit near Indian Rock. 

 Construct new corral at the junction of 5N13Y and 5N01 (Eagle Meadow Road).

Herring Creek Allotment

 Fence the western edge of the Cascade Creek addition to keep livestock away from Highway 108 

and developed recreation facilities (about 1.2 miles). 

 Cattle guards on Forest Service Roads 5N21 and 5N30 at Cascade Creek addition 

 Small drift fence between the Hammill Canyon and Willow Creek units, along Herring Creek at 

the top of Hammill Canyon and to the west of Bloomer Lake (about 400 feet). 

 Additional fencing may be needed to divide the Hammill Canyon and Willow Creek units if 

deferred rotation cannot be achieved after three years of intensive herding alone.

Permitted Livestock Numbers

Permitted livestock numbers for the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek Allotments 

would remain at the current permitted numbers (Table 2.02-1). Adjustments to annual authorized 

livestock numbers may occur before each grazing season, based on conditions, range inspections 

and/or monitoring results. Permitted livestock numbers will not be exceeded unless an adjustment in 

season occurs and overall AUMs (as calculated by the permitted numbers and season) are not 

exceeded. Up to 5 head of horses (18 AUMs) would also be authorized on each Allotment to be used 

for Allotment administration.

Table 2.02-1 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Permitted Livestock Numbers

Allotment Season of Use Permitted Numbers AUMs

Bell Meadow July 1 – September 15 80 cow/calf 268

Eagle Meadow July 1 – September 30 150 cow/calf 599

Herring Creek July 1 – September 30 156 cow/calf 623

Season of Use

The permitted season of use would be from July 1 to September 15 on the Bell Meadow Allotment 

and from July 1 to September 30 on the Eagle Meadow and Herring Creek Allotments. The season of 

use may be administratively adjusted by allowing livestock to enter the Allotments as much as two 

weeks early and/or remain on the Allotment as much as two weeks past the permitted date, as long as 

the standards and guidelines, particularly utilization and streambank disturbance standards, are not 

exceeded and resource conservation measures are implemented. An extended season of use would 

only be authorized if it has been determined through field inspections that soil, water, vegetative and 

other resource conditions are suitable. 

Utilization Standards

Utilization (forage use) standards described in the Forest Plan and as amended in the Sierra Nevada 

Forest Plan Amendment would be employed to maintain or improve rangeland vegetation, watershed 

connectivity and long-term soil productivity. Utilization standards are included as part of the design 

criteria described below.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 2

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

17

Management (Grazing System)

Livestock grazing would continue to be authorized on the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow and Herring 

Creek Allotments using the project design criteria. The implementation of improved grazing systems 

on each Allotment and use of adaptive management to respond to changes, should allow the Forest 

Service and the permittee the most flexibility in continuing to move towards desired conditions. 

Livestock management may be adjusted each year in terms of timing and actual livestock numbers. 

The overall objectives should be met by staying within the sideboards outlined in the design criteria. 

The following information describes how the units would be divided and how livestock grazing 

would typically be managed on the Allotments each year. Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) would 

reflect the planned management for each year including authorized livestock numbers, season of use 

and allowable use standards based on the grazing authorization and Allotment Management Plan.

Bell Meadow

Bell Meadow Allotment would be divided into units to implement a deferred grazing system. The 

Allotment would be divided into three units that would be used to improve distribution of forage 

utilization while livestock are moved through the Allotment. The units will be referred to as the 

Round unit (Western unit), Crab unit (Northeastern unit), and Mud unit (Southeastern). Initially, a 

deferred grazing system will be achieved through intensive herding and dispersal. If herding is 

unsuccessful after three years then additional fencing or other infrastructure would be required. The 

cattle would be trucked to and unloaded at a corral near Kerrick Horse Camp on July 1, depending on 

range readiness. The herd would spend a day or two in the Round unit, where they will rest and 

“mother-up” before being pushed into the other units. From there the cattle will be separated into two 

cow/calf herds, about 40 pair each. One herd will be driven to the Mud unit and the other herd will be 

moved to the Crab unit. Cattle will stay in the Mud and Crab units for about 6 weeks or until forage 

utilization approaches allowable use standards. Around mid-August, the cattle will be allowed to drift 

back into the Round unit. Livestock will remain in the Round unit for about 2 weeks, when they will 

be gathered into the Bell Meadow gathering pasture. On September 15, livestock are gathered and 

moved in small groups back to the corral near Kerrick Horse Camp and trucked off the Allotment. 

Eagle Meadow

Eagle Meadow Allotment would use a deferred rotation grazing system with the option of using some 

of the units under a rest-rotation system. The cattle would enter the Allotment around July 1 at the 

Niagara unit, depending on range readiness. The Niagara Creek addition would become part of the 

Niagara unit and will be used to improve distribution and facilitate deferred grazing in the higher 

elevation units. From the Niagara unit, cattle would be distributed through the Lower Eagle unit and 

remain there until allowable utilization standards are being approached and there is reduced risk of 

Larkspur poisoning in the other units. Cattle are then moved into the Sardine or Long Valley unit 

depending on the operating plan for the year. The Haypress unit is used in conjunction with the 

Sardine unit to improve livestock distribution on the east side of the Allotment. In years the Long 

Valley unit is grazed last, prior to gathering, the McCormick Pocket unit would be authorized for 

partial numbers in order to improve livestock distribution and to facilitate gathering into the Eagle 

Meadow unit. At the end of the season the cattle are gathered into the Eagle Meadow unit (gathering 

pasture) for up to two weeks and then trucked off the Allotment. 

Herring Creek

The Herring Creek Allotment would be divided into 4 units to allow for a deferred rotation grazing 

system. Besides the short fence proposed near Bloomer Lake, this would be achieved through 

intensive herding and dispersal, but may require additional fencing or other infrastructure, if herding 

is unsuccessful after three years. Livestock would enter the Allotment at Burt Reed meadow on or 

about July 1, depending on range readiness, and from there are dispersed evenly throughout the Bull 

Run unit. The Cascade Creek addition area would be included in the Allotment as a new unit, called 
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

18

the Cascade unit, and would provide additional forage which would facilitate deferred grazing in the 

upper units. Livestock would be moved to the Hammill Canyon unit when allowable use in the Bull 

Run and Cascade units is approached. To reduce grazing pressure on the meadows in Hammill 

Canyon the permittee is encouraged to herd cattle toward the permanent uphill watering troughs and 

supplement in approved locations with a salt or protein block to hold and increase distribution of 

cattle in the upland vegetation until allowable use is reached. Livestock are then removed from the 

Hammill Canyon unit and placed in the Willow unit. Cattle will be managed in meadows occupied by 

Yosemite toad according to Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines listed below. At the end of the 

season cattle will be gathered near and into Bluff Meadow for a period of about one to two weeks, 

and from there they are shipped off the Allotment. 

MITIGATION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS

Mitigation proposed for Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) includes Standards and Guidelines, 

Resource Conservation Measures, and an Adaptive Management Strategy. These are described in 

Chapter 2.03, Mitigation and Other Requirements. 

Alternative 2 (No Action)

The No Action alternative for NEPA decisions on grazing authorizations has been defined by the 

Forest Service as no grazing (FSH 2209.13, Section 92.31). This means that livestock grazing would 

not be authorized in the project area. Under the No Action alternative, continued grazing would not 

be authorized. Notifications would be given to affected permittees and permitted livestock grazing 

would be discontinued after 2 years. No adaptive management strategy would be implemented, 

structural improvements would be either removed (especially in wilderness) or left in place but not 

maintained, and no grazing under permit would be allowed on these Allotments. The Allotments 

would become vacant; no Forest Plan amendments would be required to implement this alternative. 

Selection of this alternative would be consistent with the Forest Plan, as amended (36 CFR 

219.10(c)). 

Alternative 3 (Current Management)

Alternative 3 (Current Management) authorizes the continued use of the Bell Meadow-Bear Lake, 

Eagle Meadow-Long Valley, and Herring Creek Allotments for cattle grazing through the issuance of 

term grazing permits.

This alternative represents a continuation of current management with the following modifications:

 Update Allotment Management Plans for each of the three Allotments identifying desired 

conditions on the ground and outlining short and long term grazing management. 

 Adjustments to Allotment boundaries. Recent evaluation of Allotment boundary fences and 

landform barriers suggests that the actual Allotment area is slightly different than indicated on 

current maps of the Allotment. Improved technology such as Global Positioning Systems (GPS) 

has allowed for more precise mapping. The boundary adjustments will correct the mapping errors 

and more accurately reflect the actual area open to grazing. 

 Rename the Bell Meadow-Bear Lake and the Eagle Meadow-Long Valley Allotments. These 

Allotments will be referred to as the Bell Meadow and Eagle Meadow Allotments, respectively, 

for convenience and consistency.

 Modify the Herring Creek Allotment by removing a portion of the Allotment to the Southeast that 

is currently not used by cattle (Waterhouse Lake area). 

All other existing applicable Forest Plan standards would continue to apply through issuance of the 

Term Grazing Permit.

Alternative 3 consists of two components: Authorization and Mitigation and Other Requirements. For 

this alternative, Mitigation and Other Requirements is limited to Forest Plan Standards and 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 2

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

19

Guidelines. Resource conservation measures and an adaptive management strategy would not be 

implemented as described in Chapter 2.03, as this alternative represents a continuation of current 

management.

AUTHORIZATION

Authorization addresses six components: permitted grazing area; infrastructure; permitted livestock 

numbers; season of use; utilization standards; and, management (grazing system).

Permitted Grazing Area

The permitted grazing area would be very similar to the current area open to grazing. Allotment

boundaries for the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow and Herring Creek Allotment would have minor 

boundary adjustments to line up with existing Allotment fences and natural barriers. An area in the 

southern portion of the Herring Creek Allotment, called the Waterhouse Lake area, would be 

removed from the Allotment because it is inaccessible to livestock. 

Infrastructure

No additional infrastructure would be required for Alternative 3.

Permitted Livestock Numbers

Permitted livestock numbers for the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek Allotments 

would remain at the current permitted numbers (Table 2.02-2). Adjustments to annual authorized 

livestock numbers may occur before each grazing season, based on conditions, range inspections 

and/or monitoring results. Permitted livestock numbers will not be exceeded unless an adjustment in 

season occurs and overall AUMs (as calculated by the permitted numbers and season) are not 

exceeded. Up to 5 head of horses (18 AUMs) would also be authorized on each Allotment to be used 

for Allotment administration.

Table 2.02-2 Alternative 3 (Current Management): Permitted Livestock Numbers

Allotment Season of Use Permitted Numbers AUMs

Bell Meadow July 1 – September 15 80 cow/calf 268

Eagle Meadow July 1 – September 30 150 cow/calf 599

Herring Creek July 1 – September 30 156 cow/calf 623

Season of Use

The permitted season of use would be from July 1 to September 15 on the Bell Meadow Allotment 

and from July 1 to September 30 on the Eagle Meadow and Herring Creek Allotments. The season of 

use may be administratively adjusted by allowing livestock to enter the Allotments as much as two 

weeks early and/or remain on the Allotment as much as two weeks past the permitted date, as long as 

the standards and guidelines, particularly utilization and streambank disturbance standards, are not 

exceeded and resource conservation measures are implemented. An extended season of use would 

only be authorized if it has been determined through field inspections that soil, water, vegetative and 

other resource conditions are suitable. 

Utilization Standards

Utilization (forage use) standards described in the Forest Plan and as amended in the Sierra Nevada 

Forest Plan Amendment would be employed to maintain or improve rangeland vegetation, watershed 

connectivity and long-term soil productivity. Utilization in key areas of the Bell Meadow and Herring 

Creek Allotments would be set at a maximum of 40% (or minimum 4-inch stubble height). For the 

Eagle Meadow Allotment, utilization would remain at 60% utilization for all locations because the 

Allotment is managed under an intensive grazing system (rest rotation).
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

20

Management (Grazing System)

Current management of each Allotment is summarized below:

Bell Meadow Allotment

Bell Meadow Allotment allows 80 cow/calf pairs to run from July 1 to September 15 and allows 

grazing in all units for the entire season (season-long management). The cattle are trucked to a 

temporary corral above Aspen Meadow Pack Station and unloaded at the corral. The cattle are herded 

onto the Allotment July 1, depending on range readiness. The cattle are generally separated into two 

40 cow/calf herds. This Allotment is managed through intensive herding and dispersal management 

system. On September 15, livestock are gathered into small groups and moved back to the corral 

above Aspen Pack Station and trucked off the Allotment. All livestock are removed from the 

Allotment by September 15, unless authorized by Forest Service Officer. 

Eagle Meadow Allotment

Eagle Meadow Allotment allows 150 cow/calf pairs to run from July 1 to September 30. Management 

of this Allotment is by a deferred grazing and rest-rotation system. The cattle enter the Allotment at 

the Niagara Unit on or about July 1, depending on range readiness, and are held there for two to three 

weeks, or until the allowed utilization level is being approached. The cattle are then herded into the 

Lower Eagle Unit and when utilization is approached they are moved to other units of the Allotment. 

Cattle movements to the Sardine and Haypress Units are delayed when possible to avoid Larkspur 

poisoning. Rest-rotation units (Sardine, Haypress, and Long Valley Units) are used only every other 

year. Sufficient riding is done throughout the grazing season to keep forage use and riparian shrub 

browse within allowable levels and ensure an even distribution of cattle. About September 22, the 

cattle are gathered into the Eagle Meadow gathering pasture where they remain until the end of the 

grazing season. 

Herring Creek Allotment

Herring Creek Allotment allows 156 cow/calf pairs to run from July 1 to September 30 and allows 

grazing for the entire season (season-long management). Four horses are also permitted to graze on 

this Allotment. Livestock enter the Allotment at the Bert Reed pasture on or about July 1, depending 

on range readiness, and then are released into Bull Run Unit. Cattle are evenly distributed throughout 

the Bull Run, Punchbowl, and the Strawberry fuelbreak areas, where they graze for about two weeks. 

By July 16, the cattle are moved into both the Hammill Canyon and Willow Creek units. After one 

week, 40 pair are moved to the Pinecrest Peak area. The Permittee makes an effort to keep cattle 

evenly distributed, and prevent them from congregating in the riparian areas. Herding towards the 

uphill water trough(s) and use of salt or protein blocks may be used to aid with livestock distribution. 

During the last few weeks of the grazing season, the cattle are herded towards Bluff Meadow which is 

used for gathering in the last week. They are shipped off the Allotment from the upper log corrals 

prior to September 30. It is typical for the permittee to have gathered and removed all of the livestock 

prior to the opening of Deer (rifle) hunting season, the third Saturday of September. This Allotment is 

managed through intensive herding and dispersal management system. A cow camp on the Allotment, 

including temporary horse corrals, is used to facilitate appropriate herding of livestock and to limit 

livestock from Yosemite toad sites. 

MITIGATION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS

Mitigation proposed for Alternative 3 (Current Management) is limited to Standards and Guidelines. 

Resource Conservation Measures and an Adaptive Management Strategy would not be implemented 

as described in Chapter 2.03 if this alternative is selected by the deciding official. Applicable 

Standards and Guidelines are listed in Chapter 2.03, Mitigation and Other Requirements. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 2

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

21

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection) addresses the significant issues developed in response to scoping 

comments (Chapter 1). This Alternative would implement resource conservation measures 

immediately where a need for change in management was identified during project analysis. 

Livestock grazing would be minimized or excluded in areas where certain resource concerns were 

identified. Permitted livestock numbers for the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek

Allotments would be reduced by an amount proportionate to the reduction in suitable foraging area 

caused by exclusion of those areas with resource concerns. Similar to Alternative 1 (Proposed 

Action), this Alternative would move existing conditions toward desired conditions while continuing 

to allow livestock grazing on these Allotments with the following management actions: 

 Update Allotment Management Plans for each of the three Allotments identifying desired 

conditions on the ground and outlining short and long term grazing management. 

 Rename the Bell Meadow-Bear Lake and the Eagle Meadow-Long Valley Allotments. These 

Allotments will be referred to as the Bell Meadow and Eagle Meadow Allotments, respectively, 

for convenience and consistency.

 Adjust grazing strategy on the Bell Meadow Allotment by dividing the Allotment into units and 

implement a deferred grazing system that would improve distribution and timing of forage 

utilization and facilitate protection of sensitive resources. Construct new handling facilities for 

livestock shipping/receiving on the Bell Meadow Allotment at a new location. Modify the Bell 

Meadow Allotment boundary along the Northeastern edge of the Allotment to align with natural 

barriers and decrease livestock entry into unauthorized areas.

 Modify the Herring Creek Allotment by removing a portion of the Allotment to the Southeast that 

is currently not used by cattle (Waterhouse Lake area). 

 Minimize or exclude livestock grazing from the following areas: meadows where ecological 

status of the meadow was determined to be low; special aquatic features that are determined to be 

non-functioning or most at-risk; and all habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. 

This will be accomplished through intensive herding or barriers, if necessary. 

 Create four units within the Herring Creek Allotment and implement a deferred rotational grazing 

strategy. Units would be similar to those proposed for the Proposed Action, but the Willow Unit 

would be further subdivided to create an additional unit in the area near Pinecrest Peak. Grazing 

would be allowed in the Pinecrest Peak Unit but excluded from the Willow Unit. Construct 

exclosure around Wire Corral to effectively exclude livestock from all known Yosemite toad 

habitat in the Herring Creek Allotment. 

 Change utilization standards for the intensive grazing system on the Eagle Meadow Allotment to 

reflect site specific conditions. Maximum utilization would be set at 40% for all units that are 

grazed every year. If the permittee chooses to provide a year of rest in between years of grazing 

in certain units, the maximum allowable utilization would be raised to 50%, as long as resource 

conditions continue to move towards or are in desired condition. 

 Implement a 10% streambank trampling standard in stream reaches occupied by Sierra Nevada 

yellow-legged frog (Reaches on Bell Creek and Willow Creek).

 Construct permanent fence and expand exclosure area at Lower Eagle Meadow. Construct a fence 

around small meadow to the southeast of Shell Meadow (Unnamed Meadow at T6N, R19E, 

Section 35). Replace electric fence at Shell Meadow with a permanent barbed wire fence. 

 Adjust permitted livestock numbers (AUMs) as appropriate to reflect reductions in permitted 

grazing area and generally reduce livestock impacts to sensitive resources.

The Resource Protection Alternative consists of two components: Authorization and Mitigation and 

Other Requirements. 
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

22

AUTHORIZATION

Authorization addresses six components: permitted grazing area; infrastructure; permitted livestock 

numbers; season of use; utilization standards; and, management (grazing system).

Permitted Grazing Area

The Resource Protection Alternative would reduce the permitted grazing area for all three Allotments 

due to exclusion of sensitive areas. Additional infrastructure (fencing or other barriers) may be 

required to protect sensitive resources if exclusion cannot be accomplished within three years through 

herding alone. This alternative excludes areas with sensitive resources (meadows with low ecological 

status, special aquatic features, and habitat for threatened, endangered or sensitive species) from the 

permitted grazing area. Sensitive resources were identified at the following locations:

Bell Meadow Allotment

Intensive herding or barriers, if necessary, to minimize or exclude livestock grazing at Crab Meadow, 

Round Meadow, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog habitat, and the most at-risk Special Aquatic 

features (Chapter 3.11 and Watershed Report for a list of the most at-risk special aquatic features). 

Eagle Meadow Allotment

Intensive herding or barriers, if necessary, to minimize or exclude livestock grazing at Red Rock 

Meadow, Lower Eagle Meadow, an unnamed Meadow at T6N, R19E, Section 35 and the most at-risk 

Special Aquatic Features. Livestock are currently excluded from Shell Meadow by a temporary fence. 

Under this alternative, this temporary fence would be replaced by a permanent fence. 

Herring Creek Allotment

Intensive herding or barriers, if necessary, to minimize duration of or exclude livestock grazing in 

Hammill Canyon, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog habitat, Sensitive Plant Habitat, and the most atrisk Special Aquatic Features. Exclusion of livestock from Wire Corral Meadow and Willow unit to 

eliminate potential for livestock impacts to Yosemite toad. 

Infrastructure

Additional infrastructure (fences or other barriers) would be required in order to exclude livestock 

from sensitive resources in the locations described below. 

Bell Meadow Allotment

 Fences will be constructed around Round Meadow and Crab Meadow during implementation of 

the Gooseberry Project. Under this alternative, these fences would remain in place following 

implementation of the Gooseberry Ecological Restoration project until meadow condition 

(ecological status) is moderate or is in an upward trend.

 Corral and handling facility at Forest Service Road 4N25. 

 Construct allotment boundary fence on the Southeast corner of the Bell Meadow allotment. Fence

would be approximately .25 mile with a gate and backpacker cattleguard on trail 19E95. 

Eagle Meadow Allotment

 Construct fence around Lower Eagle Meadow to exclude livestock from Great Gray Owl foraging 

habitat. 

 Water trough in Lower Eagle Unit near Indian Rock, not required to implement decision. 

 Construct corral at 5N13Y and 5N01 (Eagle Meadow Road). 

 Construct fence around unnamed meadow at T6N, R19E, Section 35 (Yosemite toad habitat) 

 Replace electric fence at Shell Meadow with standard barbed wire fence.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 2

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

23

Herring Creek Allotment

 Unit division fence and drift fence to exclude livestock from Willow Unit. Exclusion of livestock 

from the Willow Unit would effectively exclude livestock from a majority of known or potential 

Yosemite toad and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog habitat in the Herring Creek Allotment. 

 Exclosure fence at Wire Corral to exclude livestock from Yosemite toad habitat in the Pinecrest 

Peak unit. 

 Barrier at small unnamed meadow above Leland Restoration Site to reduce trailing in habitat for 

Yuba Pass Willowherb (Epilobium howelii), a sensitive plant. 

Permitted Livestock Numbers

Permitted livestock numbers for the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek Allotments 

would be adjusted to reflect exclusion of areas with sensitive or at-risk resources (Table 2.02-3). 

Livestock numbers would be reduced by 20% in the Bell Meadow and Eagle Meadow Allotments. 

Livestock numbers would be reduced by 50% in the Herring Creek Allotment. Permitted livestock 

numbers will not be exceeded unless an adjustment in season occurs and overall AUMs are not 

exceeded. Up to 5 head of horses (18 AUMs) would also be authorized on each Allotment to be used 

for Allotment administration.

Table 2.02-3 Alternative 4 (Resource Protection): Permitted Livestock Numbers 

Allotment Season of Use Permitted Numbers AUMs

Bell Meadow July 1 – September 15 64 cow/calf 214

Eagle Meadow July 1 – September 30 120 cow/calf 478

Herring Creek July 1 – September 30 78 cow/calf 310

Season of Use

The permitted season of use would be from July 1 to September 15 on the Bell Meadow Allotment 

and from July 1 to September 30 on the Eagle Meadow and Herring Creek Allotments. The season of 

use may be administratively adjusted by allowing livestock to enter the Allotments as much as two 

weeks early and/or remain on the Allotment as much as two weeks past the permitted date, as long as 

the standards and guidelines are not exceeded. An extended season of use would only be authorized if 

it has been determined through field inspections that soil, water, vegetative and other resource 

conditions are suitable. 

Utilization Standards

Utilization (forage use) standards described in the Forest Plan and as amended in the Sierra Nevada 

Forest Plan Amendment would be employed to maintain or improve rangeland vegetation, watershed 

connectivity and long-term soil productivity. Utilization standards for all action alternatives would be 

the same as those described for the Proposed Action. 

Management (Grazing System)

Livestock grazing would continue to be authorized on the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow and Herring 

Creek Allotments using the project design criteria. The implementation of deferred grazing systems 

on each Allotment and use of adaptive management to respond to changes, should allow the Forest 

Service and the permittee the most flexibility in continuing to move towards desired conditions. 

Livestock management may have adjustments each year in terms of timing and actual livestock 

numbers. The overall objectives should be met by staying within the sideboards outlined in 

authorization parameters. 

The following information describes how the units would be divided and how livestock grazing 

would typically be managed on the Allotments each year. Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) would 
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

24

reflect the planned management for each year including authorized livestock numbers, season of use 

and allowable use standards based on the grazing authorization and Allotment Management Plan.

Bell Meadow

Bell Meadow Allotment would be divided into units to implement a deferred grazing system. The 

Allotment would be divided into three units that would be used to improve distribution of forage 

utilization while livestock are moved through the Allotment. The units will be referred to as the 

Round unit (Western unit), Crab unit (Northeastern unit), and Mud unit (Southeastern). Initially, a 

deferred grazing system will be achieved through intensive herding and dispersal, although additional 

fencing or other infrastructure may be needed in future if herding is unsuccessful after three years. 

The cattle would be trucked to and unloaded at a corral near Kerrick Horse Camp on July 1, 

depending on range readiness. The herd would spend a day or two in the Round unit, where they will 

rest and “mother-up” before being pushed into the other units. From there the cattle will be driven to 

the Mud unit and the Crab unit. Cattle will stay in the Mud and Crab units for about 6 weeks or until 

forage utilization approaches allowable use standards. Around mid-August, the cattle will be allowed 

to drift back into the Round unit. Livestock will remain in the Round unit for about 2 weeks, when 

they will be gathered into the Bell Meadow gathering pasture. On September 15, livestock are 

gathered and moved in small groups back to the corral near Kerrick Horse Camp and trucked off the 

Allotment. 

Eagle Meadow

Eagle Meadow Allotment would use a deferred rotation grazing system with the option of using some 

of the units under a rest-rotation system. The cattle would enter the Allotment around July 1 at the 

Niagara unit, depending on range readiness. From the Niagara unit, cattle would be distributed 

through the Lower Eagle unit and remain there until allowable utilization standards are being 

approached and there is reduced risk of Larkspur poisoning in the other units. Cattle are then moved 

into the Sardine or Long Valley unit depending on the operating plan for the year. The Haypress unit 

is used in conjunction with the Sardine unit to improve livestock distribution on the east side of the 

Allotment. At the end of the season the cattle are gathered into the Eagle Meadow Unit (gathering 

pasture) for up to two weeks and then trucked off the Allotment. 

Herring Creek

Under Alternative 4, the Herring Creek Allotment would be divided into 4 units by splitting the 

Willow unit into two units; the new western unit would be referred to as the Pinecrest Peak unit. A 

deferred grazing system would be achieved through intensive herding and dispersal, but may require 

additional fencing or other infrastructure if herding is unsuccessful after three years. Livestock would 

enter the Allotment at Burt Reed meadow on or about July 1, depending on range readiness, and from 

there are dispersed evenly throughout the Bull Run unit. Livestock would be moved to the Hammill 

Canyon and Pinecrest Peak units when allowable use in the Bull Run unit is approached. To reduce 

grazing pressure on the meadows in Hammill Canyon the permittee is encouraged to herd cattle 

toward the permanent uphill watering troughs and supplement in approved locations with a salt or 

protein block to hold and increase distribution of cattle in the upland vegetation until allowable use is 

reached. At the end of the season cattle will be gathered and shipped off the Allotment. 

MITIGATION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS

Mitigation proposed for Alternative 4 (Resource Protection) includes Standards and Guidelines, 

Resource Conservation Measures, and an Adaptive Management Strategy. These are described in 

Chapter 2.03, Mitigation and Other Requirements. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 2

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

25

2.03 MITIGATION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS

Based on their site specific review of the anticipated environmental effects of each alternative, 

resource specialists identified mitigation measures and other requirements to reduce some of the 

potential impacts caused by implementation of the alternatives. 

MITIGATIONMEASURES

Mitigation measures can be separated into three components: Standards and Guidelines; Resource 

Conservation Measures; and, Adaptive Management Strategy. Standards and guidelines would apply 

to all action alternatives (Alternatives 1, 3, and 4), while Resource Conservation Measures and

Adaptive Management Strategy would apply only to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 

4 (Resource Protection). 

Standards and Guidelines 

The Forest Service developed the following standards to be used as part of all of the action 

alternatives. This direction was developed with the goal of achieving desired conditions, and is 

applied through the following standards applicable to grazing management within the project area: 

 To protect hardwood regeneration in grazing Allotments, allow livestock browse on no more than 

20% of annual growth of hardwood seedlings and advanced regeneration. Modify grazing plans if 

hardwood regeneration and recruitment needs are not being met (USDA 2010, p. 51). 

 Prevent disturbance to streambanks and natural lake and pond shorelines caused by resource 

activities (for example, livestock, off-highway vehicles, and dispersed recreation) from exceeding 

20% of stream reach or 20% of natural lake and pond shorelines. Disturbance includes bank 

sloughing, chiseling, trampling, and other means of exposing bare soil or cutting plant roots 

(USDA 2010, p. 193). 

 Assess the hydrologic function of meadow habitats and other special aquatic features during 

range management analysis. Ensure that characteristics of special features are, at a minimum, at 

Proper Functioning Condition, as defined in the appropriate Technical Reports (or their successor 

publications): (1) “Process for Assessing PFC” TR 1737-9 (1993), “PFC for Lotic Areas” USDI 

TR 1737-15 (1998) or (2) “PFC for Lentic Riparian-Wetland Areas” USDI TR 1737-11 (1994) 

(USDA 2010, p. 195).

 Under season-long grazing, for meadows in early seral status: limit livestock utilization of grass 

and grass-like plants to 30% (or minimum 6-inch stubble height). For meadows in late-seral 

status: limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to a maximum of 40% (or 

minimum 4-inch stubble height). Under intensive grazing systems (such as rest-rotation and 

deferred rotation) where meadows are receiving a period of rest, utilization levels can be higher 

than the levels described above if the meadow is maintained in late seral status and meadow 

associated species are not being impacted. Degraded meadows (such as those in early seral status 

with greater than 10% of the meadow area in bare soil and active erosion) require total rest from 

grazing until they have recovered and have moved to mid or late seral status (USDA 2010, p. 

195).

 Limit browsing to no more than 20% of the annual leader growth of mature riparian shrubs and 

no more than 20% of individual seedlings. Remove livestock from any area of an Allotment when 

browsing indicates a change in livestock preference from grazing herbaceous vegetation to 

browsing woody riparian vegetation (USDA 2010, p. 195). 

 Implement the following Pacific Southwest Region BMPs and National BMPs applicable to 

grazing:

- Regional BMP 8-1, National BMP Range-1: Rangeland Management Planning. Use the 

Allotment management planning process to develop measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate 

and/or restore adverse impacts to water and aquatic and riparian resources during rangeland 

management activities.
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

26

- Regional BMP 8-2, National BMP Range-2: Rangeland Permit Administration. Manage 

rangeland vegetation and grazing to protect water and aquatic and riparian resources through 

administration and monitoring of grazing permits and annual operating instructions. 

- Regional BMP 8-3, National BMP Range-3: Rangeland Improvements. Implement range 

improvements to protect, maintain or improve water and aquatic and riparian resources and 

associated beneficial uses.

 Exclude livestock from standing water and saturated soils in wet meadows and associated streams 

and springs occupied by Yosemite toads or identified as “essential habitat” in the conservation 

assessment for the Yosemite toad during the breeding and rearing season (through 

metamorphosis). Wet meadow habitat for Yosemite toad is defined as relatively open meadows 

with low to moderate amounts of woody vegetation that have standing water on June 1 or for 

more than 2 weeks following snow melt. Specific breeding and rearing season dates will be 

determined locally. If physical exclusion of livestock is impractical, then exclude grazing from 

the entire meadow. Exclusions in this standard and guideline may be waived if an 

interdisciplinary team has developed a site-specific management plan to minimize impacts to 

Yosemite toad and its habitat by managing the movement of stock around wet areas. Such plans 

are to include a requirement for systematically monitoring a sample of occupied Yosemite toad 

sites within the meadow to: (1) assess habitat conditions and (2) assess Yosemite toad occupancy 

and population dynamics. Every 3 years from the date of the plan, evaluate monitoring data. 

Modify or suspend grazing if Yosemite toad conservation is not being accomplished. Plans must 

be approved by the authorized officer and incorporated into all Allotment plans and/or special use 

permits governing use within the occupied habitat (USDA 2010, p. 42).

 Complete one survey cycle in suitable habitat for the Yosemite toad within this species’ historic 

range to determine presence of Yosemite toads (USDA 2010, p. 42).

 In meadow areas of great gray owl Protected Activity Centers (PAC), maintain herbaceous 

vegetation at a height commensurate with site capability and habitat needs of prey species (USDA 

2010, p. 187).

 Encourage use of certified weed free hay and straw. Cooperate with other agencies and the public 

in developing a certification program for weed free hay and straw. Phase in the program as 

certified weed free hay and straw becomes available. This standard and guideline applies to pack 

and saddle stock used by the public, livestock permittees, outfitter guide permittees, and local, 

State, and Federal agencies (USDA 2010, p. 52).

 Locate new facilities for gathering livestock and pack stock outside of meadows and riparian 

conservation areas. During project-level planning, evaluate and consider relocating existing 

livestock facilities outside of meadows and riparian areas. Prior to re-issuing grazing permits, 

assess the compatibility of livestock management facilities located in riparian conservation areas 

with riparian conservation objectives (USDA 2010, p. 195). 

 In meadows with occupied willow flycatcher sites, allow only late-season grazing (after August 

15) in the entire meadow. This standard and guideline may be waived if an interdisciplinary team 

has developed a site-specific meadow management strategy. This strategy is to be developed and 

implemented in partnership with the affected grazing permittee. The strategy objectives must 

focus on protecting the nest site and associated habitat during the breeding season and the longterm sustainability of suitable habitat at breeding sites. It may use a mix of management tools, 

including grazing systems, structural improvements, and other exclusion by management 

techniques to protect willow flycatcher habitat (USDA 2010, p. 41). 

 In willow flycatcher sites receiving late-season grazing, monitor utilization annually using 

regional range analysis and planning guide. Monitor willow flycatcher habitat every 3 years using 

the following criteria: rooting depth cores for meadow condition, point intercepts for shrub foliar 

density, and strip transects for shrub recruitment and cover. Meadow condition assessments will 

be included in a GIS meadow coverage. If habitat conditions are not supporting the willow 

flycatcher or trend downward, modify or suspend grazing (USDA 2010, p. 41).
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 2

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

27

 Ensure project consistency with the ESA and compliance with applicable Biological Opinions 

issued for listed species in the project area. 

Resource Conservation Measures

Special Aquatic Features

Protect identified special aquatic features (springs, seeps, and fens). Proper Functioning Condition 

(PFC) methodology (USDI 2003, USDI 1998) will be used to evaluate the condition of all identified 

special aquatic features. Addition areas will be surveyed for special aquatic features and PFC 

methodology will be used to establish baseline conditions of special aquatic features prior to livestock 

being allowed in those areas. Livestock grazing will be managed at special aquatic features as 

follows: 

 If rating is PFC, continue grazing at the level specified in the permit. 

 If rating is Functional-at-Risk with an upward trend or with no apparent trend, continue grazing 

and monitor the condition of the special aquatic feature every 3 to 5 years. If the special aquatic 

feature has not reached PFC within 5 years and grazing is having a negative effect, exclude 

grazing as described below. 

 If rating is Functional-at-Risk with a downward trend or Non-Functional, exclude the site 

(including its full natural potential size) from grazing within one year of evaluation and maintain 

the exclusion at least until the site naturally recovers or is restored to PFC. Monitor grazed special 

aquatic features in the vicinity of excluded ones to determine if there is an increase in use that 

requires re-evaluation of management at the grazed locations. 

Hardwood Regeneration

Identified aspen stands will be monitored at defined intervals using specified aspen browse 

protocol(s). Livestock grazing will be managed at each identified aspen stand as follows:

 If stand is healthy and regeneration is occurring, continue grazing as specified in the permit. 

 If regeneration is not occurring and livestock activity is not contributing to the condition, 

continue grazing as specified in AMP. 

 If regeneration is not occurring and it is determined that recruitment is significantly suppressed by 

livestock browse, exclude the stand (including its full natural potential size) from grazing within 

one year of evaluation and maintain the exclusion at least until aspen saplings have reached a 

height sufficient to prevent livestock browse of terminal leader growth. Monitor grazed aspen 

stands in the vicinity of excluded ones to determine if there is an increase in use that requires reevaluation of management at the grazed stand(s). 

 Where exclusion of aspen stand(s) is determined to be necessary, fencing of aspen stands would 

be accomplished using temporary electric fencing. Temporary exclosures would be removed 

when aspen regeneration is above browse height. The effects of temporary fencing around aspen 

stands were considered as part of Alternatives 1 and 4 during project analysis. Placement of 

temporary fencing shall occur in a timely manner, may vary from year to year, and will not 

require additional analysis or clearances. 

Meadow Hydrologic Function

 Identified headcuts, knick points and/or small gullies in hydrologically functional meadows will 

be monitored by a qualified hydrologist to ensure that meadow hydrologic function is not 

compromised as a result of grazing. If a headcut, knick point or gully is stable and no excessive 

erosion is occurring, continue monitoring. 

 If a headcut, knick point or gully is unstable, excessive aggradation or degradation is occurring, 

and/or meadow hydrologic function is in danger of becoming impaired, and livestock utilization 

or trampling is contributing to the condition, reduce or exclude livestock disturbance through 

herding or fencing as necessary.
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

28

 Restoration projects are needed in most of the meadows where hydrologic function is not at 

desired condition in order to raise the water table and restore hydrologic function. Monitoring 

will be conducted to ensure that conditions do not worsen as a result of livestock grazing prior to 

implementation of restoration projects. Monitoring will focus on bank stability, herbaceous 

vegetation, or deep rooted vegetation, depending on what is most appropriate for that particular 

site. If monitoring indicates that livestock utilization or trampling is worsening the condition of 

the meadow, reduce or exclude livestock disturbance through herding or fencing as necessary. 

Sensitive Plant Protection

 Protect known occurrences of sensitive and watchlist plants from cattle traffic as needed, by 

falling a tree or some other measure to shift the cattle trail(s) to another location. 

 Survey McCormick Pocket area for sensitive plants prior to allowing grazing in the area.

 If any sensitive plants are found in these Allotments at some time in the future, they will be 

protected as much as is reasonably possible through adaptive options. Sensitive plants will be 

monitored to ensure that protection measures are adequate.

Adaptive Management Strategy

Adaptive management refers to the concept of allowing decisions, which are focused on desired 

outcomes, to be made with the best information available and to be adjusted during implementation to 

achieve desired conditions. This management strategy is most appropriate to dynamic situations, 

providing flexibility where changing conditions are the norm. Flexibility is essential because 1) all 

inventory and assessments are imperfect and subject to improvement with expanded knowledge or 

measured attention when and if warranted and; 2) unpredictable management situations are caused by 

weather fluctuations (i.e. drought), livestock behavior, or acts of nature such as wildfires. Having 

flexibility in the management strategy recognizes opportunities to improve resources, resource 

management, and grazing management through adaptation to improved knowledge, techniques, and 

changing conditions. An approach that both acknowledges and accommodates adaptation and 

flexibility will optimize the speed of progression toward Desired Conditions. 

Monitoring is a component of any adaptive management strategy, providing means to assess whether 

management actions are effective in meeting goals and objectives. Development of monitoring plans 

is included as part of the adaptive management strategy of the Proposed Action, this process is 

outlined in the section titled “Monitoring Plan”, below. If monitoring indicates that desired conditions 

are not being achieved in a timely manner, management would be modified. Potential adaptive 

management actions would be constrained by Forest Plan direction, NEPA decisions, regulations, 

policy and grazing permit terms and conditions. These are described in the section titled “Potential 

Adaptive Management Actions”, below. 

Monitoring Plan

As a step toward implementing the Proposed Action a monitoring plan will be developed for the 

project area and made a part of the respective Allotment Management Plans. The monitoring plan 

would provide targets and objectives for short- and long-term monitoring that will be needed to 

determine if resources are moving toward desired conditions. Annual monitoring implementation will 

be specified every year in the Annual Operating Instructions and will reflect current monitoring 

priorities and realistic targets. Monitoring may include a combination of the following resources: 

annual utilization, ecological status of meadow vegetation, fen disturbance (% bare peat), proper 

functioning condition (PFC), meadow hydrologic function, streambank disturbance, BMP 

effectiveness evaluation, aspen browse, water quality, stability of hydrologic features (headcuts, knick 

points, incisions), sensitive and watchlist plants and/or monitoring for threatened and endangered 

wildlife species. Additional monitoring may be done if necessary to provide information that will be 

used to determine if management is moving resources toward desired conditions. Review of 

monitoring methodologies and results will be done using the best available science. If monitoring 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 2

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

29

indicates that desired conditions are not being achieved in a timely manner, management would be 

modified in cooperation with the permittee. The following section describes possible changes to 

management using an Adaptive Management Strategy. 

Potential Adaptive Management Actions

The Proposed Action implements an Adaptive Management Strategy to achieve defined desired 

conditions through design criteria, monitoring and constrained flexibility. By monitoring effects and 

evaluating results, managers can assess resource trends and modify management practices by 

adjusting the AMP or AOI. Potential Adaptive Management Actions are grazing management actions 

that can be used to achieve the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan. For example, depending on the 

results of site-specific monitoring and any required additional site-specific NEPA analysis3

, potential 

adaptive management actions may include items such as:

 Adjust stocking rate to light, moderate or heavy grazing intensity. 

 Implement alternative riparian grazing dates based upon specific conditions (topography, range 

rider, upland water sources, and livestock use patterns). 

 Use salt or supplement to draw livestock toward or away from specific areas. 

 Change season of use, animal numbers; do not exceed permitted AUMs. 

 Rest from livestock grazing for one or more seasons. 

 Construct fence to exclude livestock from areas of concern (riparian, streams, springs, wetlands, 

mesic meadows, etc.). 

 Reconstruct fence to ensure effective exclusion of livestock from exclusion areas. 

 Control livestock distribution patterns by constructing cross fences (electric, standard, permanent 

or temporary). 

 Manage livestock trailing locations using barriers to deter cattle traffic (logs and other natural 

barriers). 

 Construct livestock water development (pipeline, tanks, well, submersible pumps, solar). 

 Implement restoration practices, where appropriate, if current grazing is causing or contributing 

to observed degradation (excessive compaction, lowered water tables, or active down cutting). 

 Treat invasive plant infestations by pulling, digging, solarization (covering with a tarp), flaming, 

and other mechanical means.

 Additional fencing may be needed if the proposed grazing system (rotation and distribution) 

cannot be achieved after three years of intensive herding alone. 

OTHER REQUIREMENTS

Surveys and Monitoring

 Prior to the construction of corrals and/or handling facilities, historic and prehistoric sites will be 

“flagged and avoided” for protection per the Regional PA (project record). 

 Once need and location of additional fencing has been determined, the placement will be 

reviewed by the District Archaeologist prior to implementation. 

 Assess proper functioning condition of special aquatic features in the addition areas prior to 

allowing livestock to use those areas.

 Addition areas will be surveyed for special aquatic features and PFC methodology will be used to 

establish baseline conditions of special aquatic features prior to livestock being allowed in those 

areas.

 Monitor the condition of special aquatic features that are rated as Functional At-Risk every 3 to 5 

years to determine trend.

 Monitor forage utilization and meadow condition in key meadows in addition areas. If resource 

concerns are identified, use adaptive management options to make adjustments.

 

3 Additional NEPA may be required for adaptive management fencing not analyzed in the EIS.
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

30

Invasive Plants

 Encourage permittees to clean vehicles that bring cattle and horses onto the allotment and to 

minimize vegetative matter that comes along with the animals.

Permit Administration

If an alternative is selected that authorizes continued grazing on the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, 

and Herring Creek Allotments, a Term Grazing Permit will be issued to authorize the use of National 

Forest System lands for commercial livestock production purposes. These Term Grazing Permits will 

be issued and administered according to the following directives: 

 Forest Service Manual 2200, Chapter 2230 – Grazing and Livestock Use Permit System (USDA 

2005) 

 Forest Service Handbook 2209.13 – Grazing Permit Administration Handbook (USDA 2009) 

 36 CFR, Part 222, Subpart A – Grazing and Livestock Use on the National Forest System (USDA 

2007) 

2.04 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED 

STUDY

NEPA requires that federal agencies rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives and briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in 

detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments suggested the alternatives briefly described below along 

with a brief response discussing the reasons for eliminating them from detailed study. EIS Chapter 

2.04 provides a detailed description these alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study 

along with the reasons why each was eliminated.

a. Water Quality Emphasis

This alternative would minimize livestock grazing along small tributary streams, limit the 

duration of livestock presence in wet meadows and meadows with streams, exclude livestock 

from fens and important wetland features, and exclude or limit livestock grazing along stream 

reaches where substantial recreation activities occur. However, it was eliminated from detailed 

study for the following reasons: 

- This alternative would curtail livestock grazing on all three grazing allotments, and would 

significantly diminish the economic viability of all three allotments by reducing livestock 

numbers while dramatically increasing management workload and expense (herding and 

fencing). 

- It is similar to Alternative 2 (No Action) which would eliminate grazing on these allotments 

and stop all livestock impacts to water quality in the project area. However, even if all cattle 

were removed from the project area, there would still be contamination sources associated 

with timber, mining, wildlife, mineral deposits, and recreational use. Even if all cattle were 

removed from the Forest, the direct consumption of untreated surface waters is never a safe 

or recommended practice. 

- It is similar to Alternative 4 (Resource Protection) which addresses concerns about livestockrelated impacts to water quality by reducing the number of livestock on each allotment. 

Alternative 4 reduces livestock by 20% on the Bell Meadow and Eagle Meadow allotments 

and by 50% on the Herring Creek allotment. Reduction of livestock numbers would abate 

impacts to water quality in the project area.

- All action alternatives would implement standards and guidelines and best management 

practices (BMPs) to minimize livestock impacts to water quality. In addition, all action 

alternatives would update AMPs to prescribe a grazing system where cattle are dispersed 

around the allotments to minimize concentration of waste products in surface waters and all 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 2

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

31

would use adaptive management actions where necessary to control non-point source 

pollution associated with livestock grazing activities on a site-specific level.

b. Habitat and Species Protection

This alternative would provide habitat and species protection by eliminating grazing in all 

Yosemite toad habitats, and eliminating all herding through Yosemite toad occurrences. 

However, it was eliminated from detailed study for the following reasons: 

- Excluding livestock from Yosemite toad habitat without reducing livestock numbers would 

concentrate impacts on areas not excluded.

- It is similar to Alternative 4 (Resource Protection), which addresses concerns about livestockrelated impacts to sensitive species habitat by excluding grazing from all Yosemite toad 

habitat, but also reduces livestock numbers by amounts proportionate to the reduction in 

grazing area on each allotment.

- It is similar to Alternative 2 (No Action) which would eliminate grazing on these allotments 

and stop all livestock impacts to Yosemite toad in the project area. However, even if all cattle 

were removed from the project area, there would still be potential for impacts to Yosemite 

toad and their habitat associated with other uses of NFS lands.

c. Reduced Grazing

This alternative would reduce the amount of acreage within the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, 

and Herring Creek allotments to: reduce conflicts with recreation; reduce costs and time demands 

on Forest Service range management personnel; reduce the amount of fencing needed for 

allotment management; and, reduce the number of cattle to the degree necessary to reduce 

negative impacts caused by livestock. However, it was eliminated from detailed study for the 

following reasons: 

- This alternative would curtail livestock grazing on all three grazing allotments, and would 

significantly diminish the economic viability of all three allotments by reducing livestock 

numbers while dramatically increasing management workload and expense (herding and 

fencing). 

- It is similar to Alternative 2 (No Action), which would eliminate grazing on these allotments. 

- It is similar to Alternative 4 (Resource Protection), which reduces livestock by 20% on the 

Bell Meadow and Eagle Meadow allotments and by 50% on the Herring Creek allotment.

- If, during implementation of the selected alternative, it is determined that livestock numbers 

or permitted grazing area are not compatible with the Forest Plan or resource objectives, 

adaptive management actions could be used to address specific resource concerns associated 

with livestock grazing activities on a site-specific level. Livestock numbers may be reduced 

as necessary through regular permit administration. 
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

32

2.05 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Chapter 3 describes the environmental consequences of the alternatives. This section compares the 

alternatives by summarizing key differences between them and provides a summary of the effects 

analysis. Table 2.05-1 compares the alternatives by summarizing authorization parameters and 

mitigation and other requirements. Table 2.05-2 compares the alternatives by summarizing their 

environmental effects.

Table 2.05-1 Comparison of Alternatives: Parameters and Requirements

Parameter/Requirement Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Authorize Continued Grazing Yes No Yes Yes

Update Allotment Management 

Plans Yes No Yes Yes

Adjust Permitted Grazing Area Additions No grazing Minor adjustment Reduced area

Acres Authorized for Grazing 56,500 0 48,200 43,500

New Infrastructure Proposed Yes No No Yes 

Estimated Miles of New Fence 9.4 0 0 >4.2

New Corrals Yes No No Yes

Permitted Livestock Numbers No change from 

current numbers 0 No change from current numbers

Reduced livestock 

numbers

Season of Use No change None No change No change

Utilization Standards Change standards on 

Eagle Meadow

Not 

applicable No change Change standards on Eagle Meadow

Change Grazing System Yes Not 

applicable No Yes

Exclusion of Sensitive 

Resources If necessary Total exclusion No Yes

Implement Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines Yes Not applicable Yes Yes

Resource Conservation 

Measures Yes Not applicable No Yes

Adaptive Management 

Strategy Yes Not applicable No Yes

Additional Implementation 

Monitoring/Monitoring Plan Yes Not applicable No Yes

Adaptive Management Options Yes Not 

applicable

Limited to terms of 

grazing permit Yes

Other Requirements Yes Not 

applicable Yes Yes
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 2

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

33

Table 2.05-2 Comparison of Alternatives: Summary of Effects

Resource Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Aquatic Species

Yosemite toad

Grazing of breeding 

habitat deferred until 

post-metamorphosis.

No grazing. No 

grazing-related impacts 

to Yosemite toad.

Grazing of breeding 

habitat deferred until 

post-metamorphosis.

Proposed fencing to 

exclude livestock from 

all known Yosemite 

toad habitat.

Sierra Nevada 

yellow-legged frog

Implements Forest 

Plan standard and 

guidelines for 20% 

annual disturbance 

along streambanks and 

shorelines.

No grazing. No 

grazing-related impacts 

to Sierra Nevada 

yellow-legged frog.

Implements Forest 

Plan standard and 

guidelines for 20% 

annual disturbance 

along streambanks and 

shorelines.

Streambank

disturbance standard of 

10% in Sierra Nevada 

yellow-legged frog 

habitat.

Botanical Resources

Stream Channel 

Habitats

No direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects to 

sensitive plants that 

occupy stream channel 

habitats.

No direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects as 

no grazing would 

occur.

No direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects to 

sensitive plants that 

occupy stream channel 

habitats.

No direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects to 

sensitive plants that 

occupy stream channel 

habitats. 

Seeps, Stringer 

Meadows, and 

Meadow Edges

Sensitive plants in 

seeps, stringer 

meadows, and 

meadow edges could 

be impacted by cattle 

trailing and grazing. 

Sensitive plants in the 

addition areas, if any, 

would be vulnerable. 

Sensitive plant 

protection measures 

would be used to 

protect sensitive plants 

from grazing impacts.

No direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects as 

no grazing would 

occur.

Sensitive plants in 

seeps, stringer 

meadows, and 

meadow edges could 

be impacted by cattle 

trailing and grazing. 

Alternative 3 has less 

potential for effects 

because no additions 

are proposed.

Sensitive plants could 

be impacted by cattle 

trailing and grazing, but 

Alternative 4 would 

involve surveys for 

sensitive plants and 

includes protection 

measures if sensitive 

plants are found. 

Sensitive plant 

protection measures 

would be used to 

protect sensitive plants 

from grazing impacts.

Fens and Wet 

Areas Within 

Meadows

No known occurrences 

of sensitive plants that 

occupy this habitat type 

in the project area. 

Effects, if any, are 

assumed to be minor. If 

found, sensitive plants 

would be protected.

No direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects as 

no grazing would 

occur.

No known occurrences 

of sensitive plants that 

occupy this habitat type 

in the project area. No 

additional surveys or 

resource conservation 

measures would occur 

with this alternative, so 

it is possible that 

suitable habitat may 

decline in quality. 

No known occurrences 

of sensitive plants that 

occupy this habitat type 

in the project area. 

Effects, if any, are 

assumed to be minor. If 

found, sensitive plants 

would be protected. 

This alternative would 

have the fewest 

negative impacts of all 

the action alternatives.

Lodgepole Forest

No known occurrences 

of sensitive plants of 

this habitat type in the 

project area. If found, 

sensitive plants would 

be protected.

No direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects as 

no grazing would 

occur.

No known occurrences 

of sensitive plants that 

occupy this habitat type 

in the project area. 

Effects, if any, are 

assumed to be minor 

but would be greater 

than described for 

Alternative 1 because 

no additions are 

proposed.

No known occurrences 

of sensitive plants of 

this habitat type in the 

project area. If found, 

sensitive plants would 

be protected.
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

34

Resource Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Cultural Resources

Cultural 

Resources

The addition of 

proposed infrastructure

may have effects to 

cultural resources. 

Once need and 

location of 

infrastructure has been 

determined the 

placement will be 

reviewed by the District 

Archaeologist prior to 

implementation. 

Grazing would continue 

with no direct effect, 

minimal indirect effects 

and no cumulative 

effects to cultural 

resources.

No anticipated direct, 

indirect or cumulative 

effects to historic or 

prehistoric properties 

under this alternative, 

as no project activities 

(grazing) would occur.

No effects on cultural 

resources without

ground disturbance

from infrastructure. 

Grazing would continue 

with no direct effects, 

minimal indirect effects 

and no cumulative 

effects to cultural 

resources.

The addition of 

proposed infrastructure

may have effects to 

cultural resources. 

Once need and 

location of 

infrastructure has been 

determined the 

placement will be 

reviewed by the District 

Archaeologist prior to 

implementation. 

Grazing would continue 

with no direct effect, 

minimal indirect effects 

and no cumulative 

effects to cultural 

resources.

Invasive Species

Habitat Alteration

There is a moderate 

risk for habitat 

alteration associated 

with this project.

No habitat alteration 

related to grazing.

There is a moderate 

risk for habitat 

alteration associated 

with this project.

There is a moderate 

risk for habitat 

alteration associated 

with this project.

Vectors

Since the project 

represents an ongoing 

activity, the vectors 

remain the same. 

There is a moderate to 

high risk of increased 

vectors as a result of 

project implementation.

No risk for increased 

vectors related to 

grazing.

Since the project 

represents an ongoing 

activity, the vectors 

remain the same. 

There is a moderate to

high risk of increased 

vectors as a result of 

project implementation.

Since the project 

represents an ongoing 

activity, the vectors 

remain the same. 

There is a moderate to 

high risk of increased 

vectors as a result of 

project implementation.

Number of Acres 

Affected

Greatest number of 

acres potentially 

affected by grazing.

No acres affected by 

grazing.

No change in number 

of acres currently 

affected by grazing.

Least number of acres 

potentially affected by 

grazing.

Range

Meadow 

Condition

Key areas that are 

stable or trending 

toward desired 

condition would remain 

the same or continue to 

improve.

Meadows rated as high 

would maintain desired 

condition. Meadows in 

moderate condition 

would continue to 

recover and would 

likely move towards 

desired condition. 

Meadows rated in low 

condition would 

improve overtime by 

natural recovery.

Key areas that are 

stable or trending 

toward desired 

condition would remain 

the same or continue to 

improve, but recovery 

rates would not 

increase.

Key areas that are 

stable or trending 

toward desired 

condition would remain 

the same or continue to 

improve.

Recreation Impacts to Forest 

Visitors

Dispersed user and 

hikers may be affected 

by grazing. No 

anticipated negative 

impacts to users within 

developed 

campgrounds and/or 

recreation residence 

tracts. Overall visitation 

is not anticipated to 

decrease, but visitors 

may adjust use 

patterns to avoid 

evidence of grazing.

No impacts to forest 

visitors from project 

activities, as no grazing 

would occur.

Dispersed user and 

hikers may be affected 

by grazing. No 

anticipated negative 

impacts to users within 

developed 

campgrounds and/or 

recreation residence 

tracts. Overall visitation 

is not anticipated to 

decrease, but visitors 

may adjust use 

patterns to avoid 

evidence of grazing.

Dispersed user and 

hikers may be affected 

by grazing. No 

anticipated negative 

impacts to users within 

developed 

campgrounds and/or 

recreation residence 

tracts. Overall visitation 

is not anticipated to 

decrease, but visitors 

may adjust use 

patterns to avoid 

evidence of grazing.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 2

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

35

Resource Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Society, Culture and Economy

Impacts to 

Permittees

Additional conservation 

measures and 

monitoring may force 

permittees to alter their 

current grazing 

practices, but would 

most likely not affect 

the amount of grazing.

Discontinued grazing 

on federal lands in the 

BEH Allotments would 

negatively affect 

permittee operations 

and possibly ranch 

viability.

No changes are 

expected with 

Alternative 3

Reduced acres 

available for grazing 

and reduced permitted 

livestock numbers 

could affect individual 

ranch viability. 

Increased attention to 

sensitive resources 

would result in 

additional expense to 

permittee operations. 

Impacts to Local 

Communities

May result in temporary 

increase in 

employment 

The economic impacts 

of this alternative would 

be greatest for the local 

economy. This 

alternative would result 

in a loss of jobs in the 

county. The loss of jobs 

would occur in farm 

employment, which is 

already in decline.

Alternative 3 would not 

greatly affect the local 

area economically. 

Additional employment 

would not likely be 

generated.

Alternative 4 may result 

in temporary increase 

in employment. 

However, if this 

alternative dramatically 

affects ranch viability 

this would negatively 

affect the local 

economy in the long 

term. 

Soils

Soil Organic 

Matter

Soil OM status similar 

to Alternative 3 but 

upward trend more 

likely for class 2 

meadows

Soil OM improves in all 

rested meadows as 

herbaceous root 

biomass increases. 

Soil OM likely to remain 

high in class 3 

meadows, fair but 

stable in class 2 

meadows, and poor but 

stable in class 1 

meadows. 

Soil OM status similar 

to Alternative 3 for 

grazed meadows and 

similar to Alternative 2 

for rested meadows. 

Soil Hydrologic 

Function

Similar to Alternative 3. 

Also see Meadow 

Hydrologic function 

below.

Passive improvement 

will occur in rested 

meadows. The degree 

and rate of change is 

uncertain but will be 

site specific for each 

meadow and class of 

meadow. Some 

meadows will not reach 

desired condition 

without active 

restoration.

The water table and 

soil moisture conditions 

will likely continue in 

good condition for class 

3 meadows. Class 2 

meadows will stay 

class 2 (somewhat 

reduced status but 

stable). Class 1 

meadows in poor 

condition and with a 

loss of water table are 

unlikely to improve 

relative to the actual 

meadow soil. Deep 

rooted species can no 

longer reach the water 

table.

Soil hydrologic function 

similar to Alternative 3 

for grazed meadows 

and similar to 

Alternative 2 for rested 

meadows. 
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

36

Resource Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Watershed

Meadow 

Hydrologic 

Function

The meadows in good 

or desired condition will 

continue to maintain 

their status. The 

meadows in fair 

condition will either 

maintain their condition 

or slightly improve. The 

meadows in poor or 

very poor condition 

may see minor channel 

improvements in the 

long run but will not 

likely reach desired 

condition without active 

restoration. 

The no grazing 

alternative may help 

streambanks stabilize 

at a faster rate, may 

promote herbaceous 

vegetation recovery 

along the stream 

channels, and could 

help move channel 

form towards 

rejuvenation. However, 

these small 

improvements in 

condition may take 

years to achieve.

The meadows in good 

or desired condition will 

maintain their status. 

The meadows in fair 

condition will continue 

to maintain their 

condition or move 

toward desired 

condition unless some 

unforeseen 

disturbances or 

management problems 

occur. With two notable 

exceptions (Hammill 

Canyon Meadow #1 

and Upper Willow 

Meadow), the 

meadows in poor or 

very poor condition will 

see channel 

improvements in the 

long run but will not 

likely reach desired 

condition without active 

restoration. 

The hydrologic function 

of grazed meadows 

would be similar to that 

seen under Alternative 

1. The hydrologic 

function of excluded 

meadows would be 

similar to that seen 

under Alternative 2.

Special Aquatic 

Features

Addition areas should 

relieve grazing 

pressure in Eagle 

Meadow and Herring 

Creek Allotments, 

which could assist in 

maintaining PFC at 

special aquatic features 

that are currently at 

PFC and could help 

move sites which are 

FAR towards PFC. On 

the Bell Meadow

Allotment, 

improvements may be 

seen in the Round 

subunit but no change 

is anticipated in the 

other units. Resource 

conservation measures 

would exclude sites 

with downward trend or 

that become nonfunctional.

No grazing-related 

impacts to special 

aquatic features. For 

at-risk special aquatic 

features, Alternative 2 

would likely result in an 

upward trend. Sites 

already at PFC would 

likely maintain that 

condition.

With few exceptions, 

sites which are 

Functional At-Risk are 

in this condition due to 

the effects of current 

grazing practices. Sites 

that are currently at 

PFC would likely 

maintain this condition 

under current 

management. Forest 

Plan Standards and 

Guidelines would 

exclude or otherwise 

modify sites with 

downward trend or that 

become non-functional.

The reduction in 

grazing pressure as a 

result of decreasing 

numbers is anticipated 

to help maintain PFC at 

sites which are 

currently at PFC and 

could help move 

Functional at-risk sites 

towards PFC. 

Resource conservation 

measures would 

exclude sites with 

downward trend or that 

become non-functional.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Chapter 2

Environmental Impact Statement The Alternatives

37

Resource Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Watershed

Water Quality

Sediment deposition 

and accumulation in 

meadow streams, 

indicator bacteria and 

pathogen 

concentrations, and 

nutrient concentrations 

are expected to be less 

than under current 

management. No 

change in water 

temperature or taste 

and odor are 

anticipated. Beneficial 

uses of water should 

be maintained.

No livestock caused 

impacts to water 

quality. Water quality 

may still be impacted 

by other activities in the 

project area.

Sediment deposition 

and accumulation in 

meadow streams is 

expected to remain 

low. Indicator bacteria 

and pathogen 

concentrations should 

remain below the 

recommended 

maximum 

concentration. Overall, 

nutrient concentrations 

are expected to be well 

below EPA levels of 

concern. No change in 

water temperature or 

taste and odor are 

anticipated. Beneficial 

uses of water should 

be maintained.

Sediment deposition 

and accumulation, 

indicator bacteria 

concentrations, and 

nutrient concentrations 

are expected to be less 

than under current 

management. 

Ungrazed (excluded) 

areas would likely have 

lower concentrations of 

sediment, bacteria and 

pathogens, and 

nutrients. Beneficial 

uses of water should 

be maintained.

Wilderness

Wilderness

Character

Alternative 1 is likely to 

have negative effects 

on the natural and 

outstanding 

opportunities for 

solitude qualities of 

wilderness character. 

The untrammeled and 

undeveloped qualities 

will probably not be 

further impacted.

Alternative 2 would 

improve the 

undeveloped, natural, 

and outstanding 

opportunities elements 

of wilderness 

character.

Alternative 3 is likely to 

have negative effects 

on the natural and 

outstanding 

opportunities for 

solitude qualities of 

wilderness character. 

The untrammeled and 

undeveloped qualities 

will probably not be 

further impacted.

Emphasizing resource 

protection through the 

reduction of the 

number of cows on the 

Allotments would 

improve the natural and 

outstanding 

opportunities for 

solitude qualities of 

wilderness character.

Wildlife

Great Gray Owl

1116 acres of 

potentially suitable 

meadow habitat 

potentially affected by 

Alternative 1.

No livestock-related 

effects to potentially 

suitable meadow 

habitat, as no grazing 

would occur.

1116 acres of 

potentially suitable 

meadow habitat 

potentially affected by 

Alternative 3.

893 acres of potentially 

suitable meadow 

habitat potentially 

affected by Alternative 

4. Reduced livestock 

numbers would likely 

improve habitat for prey 

species.

Sierra Nevada 

Red Fox

Alternative 1 has the 

greatest potential for 

Sierra Nevada Red Fox

prey habitat changes.

No livestock-related 

effects to Sierra 

Nevada Red Fox prey 

habitat, as no grazing 

would occur.

The amount of suitable 

habitat potentially 

affected by Alternative 

3 is less than 

Alternative 1 but more 

than Alternative 4. 

Under Alternative 4, the 

least amount of 

suitable Sierra Nevada 

Red Fox habitat is 

potentially affected by 

grazing. 

Willow Flycatcher

Habitat objectives are 

being met for this 

species. This 

alternative complies 

with SNFPA and 

conservation 

assessment standards, 

so habitat should 

remain suitable.

No livestock-related 

effects to Willow 

Flycatcher habitat, as 

no grazing would 

occur.

Habitat objectives are 

being met for this 

species. This 

alternative complies 

with SNFPA and 

conservation 

assessment standards, 

so habitat should

remain suitable.

Habitat objectives are 

being met for this 

species. This 

alternative complies 

with SNFPA and 

conservation 

assessment standards, 

so habitat should 

remain suitable.
Chapter 2 Stanislaus

The Alternatives National Forest

38
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

39

3. Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

3.01 INTRODUCTION

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments that are affected 

by the proposed action and alternatives and the effects on that environment that would result from 

implementation of any of the alternatives. This chapter also presents the scientific and analytical basis 

for comparison of the alternatives presented in Chapter 2. 

The “Affected Environment” section under each resource topic describes the existing condition 

against which environmental effects were evaluated and from which progress toward the desired 

condition can be measured. Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for 

comparison of alternatives, including the proposed action, through compliance with standards set 

forth in the Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (Forest 

Plan). The environmental consequences discussion centers on direct, indirect and cumulative effects, 

along with applicable mitigation measures. Effects can be neutral, beneficial or adverse. The 

“Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources” section is located at the end of this 

chapter. These terms are defined as follows:

 Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same place and time as the action.

 Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time, or further removed in distance, but 

are still reasonably foreseeable.

 Cumulative effects are those that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Analysis Process

The environmental consequences presented in Chapter 3 address the impacts of the actions proposed 

under each alternative. This effects analysis was done at the forest scale (the scale of the proposed 

action as discussed in Chapter 1). However, the effects findings in this chapter are based on sitespecific analyses of each alternative. 

Each resource specialist assessed every alternative at a level sufficient to support their effects analysis 

and identify any necessary site-specific mitigation. The project record contains additional details 

about analysis methodology, data, and assumptions and limitations of effects analyses. 

Resource Reports

Most resource sections in this chapter provide a summary of the project-specific reports, assessments, 

and other documents prepared by Forest Service specialists. These reports are part of the project 

record on file at the Forest Supervisor’s Office in Sonora, California and they are available by 

request. The following reports, assessments and other documents are incorporated by reference: 

Aquatics: Biological Evaluation – Aquatics (Aquatics BE); Biological Assessment – Aquatics 

(Aquatics BA); Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report (MIS Report)

Botany: Botany Report for Watchlist and other Rare Plants, Fens, Noxious Weeds, Invasive Plants 

and Other Botanical Resources (Botany Report); Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plants (Sensitive 

Plants BE) 
Chapter 3.01 Stanislaus

Introduction National Forest

40

Cultural: Heritage Resource Report (Heritage Report); Cultural Resource Management Report (05-

16-3266) 

Range: Rangeland Specialist Report (Range Report)

Recreation: Recreation Report 

Special Areas: Special Areas Report

Social: Social and Economic Report (Economic Report) 

Soil: Soil Management Report (Soil Report) 

Wilderness: Wilderness Specialist Report (Wilderness Report)

Water: Watershed Management Report (Watershed Report)

Wildlife: Biological Evaluation - Terrestrial Wildlife (Wildlife BE); Management Indicator Species 

Report (MIS Report) 

Cumulative Effects

According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, “cumulative impact” 

is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or 

non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). 

The cumulative effects analysis area is described under each resource, but in most cases includes the 

entire Stanislaus National Forest including private and other public lands that lie within the Forest 

boundary. Past activities are considered part of the existing condition and are discussed in the 

“Affected Environment (Existing Conditions)” and “Environmental Consequences” section under 

each resource. 

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action 

and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of 

past actions. Existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural 

events that affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. This cumulative 

effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior 

actions on an action-by-action basis for three reasons. 

First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to 

obtain. Innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond) impacted current conditions and trying 

to isolate the individual actions with residual impacts would be nearly impossible.

Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the 

cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would 

be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because information on the environmental 

impacts of individual past actions is limited, and one cannot reasonably identify each and every action 

over the last century that contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of 

past human actions risks ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events which may 

contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we 

are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of 

which particular action or event contributed those effects. 

Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued an interpretive memorandum on June 

24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate 

cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without 

delving into the historical details of individual past actions” (CEQ 2005). 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

41

The cumulative effects analysis in this EIS is also consistent with Forest Service National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (73 Federal Register 143, July 24, 2008; p. 43084-

43099), which state, in part:

“CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions 

to determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present 

effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the 

effects of the proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate 

those effects. The final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of 

the actions considered (including past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions) on 

the affected environment. With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and 

subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what information regarding 

past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging 

past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect effects of their design and 

implementation could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the 

proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively 

list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about past actions 

may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and 

necessary to inform decision making. (40 CFR 1508.7)”

For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental 

conditions. Appendix B (Cumulative Effects Analysis) lists present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions potentially contributing to cumulative effects.

Affected Environment Overview

All resources share many aspects of the affected environment. In order to avoid repeating these 

shared elements of the affected environment in each resource section, the following general elements 

of the affected environment are provided. 

The project area is located near the crest of the Central Sierra Nevada in Tuolumne County, on lands 

administered by the Summit Ranger District. There are seven grazing Allotments either wholly or 

partially within the District, six of which are active Allotments. The project area consists of lands 

within three active grazing Allotments, as well as three areas proposed for addition to Allotments. 

The Bell Meadow-Bear Lake, Herring Creek, and Long Valley-Eagle Meadow Allotments currently 

encompass about 51,200 acres, of which about 50,300 acres is NFS lands. These Allotments are 

located within Township 4 to 7 North and Range 18 to 21 East. Elevation varies from 6,600 to over 

9,000 feet. Annual precipitation is 40 to 65 inches, most of which occurs as snowfall in winter. The 

analysis area lies within portions of the Clavey River, South Fork Stanislaus River, Lower Middle 

Fork Stanislaus River and Upper Middle Fork Stanislaus River watersheds. 

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

soils. Ecosystems are primarily mixed-conifer forest interspersed with montane meadows and riparian 

corridors. Vegetation cover in the project area is about 75% forested: primarily mixed conifer, but 

with areas of Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, red fir, and western hemlock. The remaining 25% consists 

of forest openings (i.e. meadows, open ridge, rock outcroppings, and slope areas). Forested stands are 

generally denser and exhibit overstocking and decreased growth rates than occurred historically. 

Meadow-riparian vegetation occurs in riparian areas with relatively deep fertile soils and are 

dominated by a mix of native and non-native herbaceous vegetation. The main forage areas used by 

permitted livestock are located primarily in meadows and riparian areas, but also include forested 

areas with an understory forage component, all of which occur as patches within the forest mosaic. 

Land Allocations and Management Areas within the project area include: Proposed Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, Critical Aquatic Refuge (CAR) Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs), Near Natural, Research 

Natural Area (RNA), Scenic Corridor, Wilderness, Pinecrest Basin, Great Grey Owl Protected 

Activity Centers (PACs), Developed Recreation Sites and a Winter Sports Site.
Chapter 3.01 Stanislaus

Introduction National Forest

42

Livestock grazing in the area began in the 1850s and the industry peaked around the turn of the 

century. Regulation of livestock grazing began with the establishment of the Stanislaus National 

Forest in 1905. Initially, activities such as mining, logging, and grazing were more prevalent but have 

been gradually curtailed over time. Livestock numbers in the project area were historically much 

higher than present. As late as the 1960s, the same area was occupied by 6 different Allotments that 

grazed over 400 head of cattle and horses and 3,000 head of sheep. Records indicate that much of the 

Sierra Nevada was overgrazed until the federal government began asserting control over grazing use 

in the Sierra in the early 20th century. Since then both the numbers of livestock and the season of use 

have been dramatically reduced, and the stocking rates brought into balance with forage production. 

Historic overgrazing has resulted in resource degradation and has lasting effects on the environment, 

but natural resources generally appear to be recovering as a result of improved management. 

Currently, the project area has high recreational use year round. Recreation opportunities include 

scenic viewing, hiking, backpacking, biking, camping, fishing, horseback riding and downhill and 

cross country skiing. Other recreation facilities within the project area include: three popular and 

intensively used trailheads that access the Emigrant Wilderness, Aspen Pack Station, and two 

developed horse camps.

Information on Other Resource Issues

The alternatives considered in detail do not affect these resource issues or localized effects are 

disclosed under other resource sections. A brief summary on why they are not further discussed in 

Chapter 3 is provided based upon input received during scoping. 

Air Quality

Actions proposed are in compliance with state air quality regulations and the Forest Plan. Air 

emissions are generally managed and analyzed spatially by air basins 

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/knowzone/basin/basin.swf) where topographic features delineate common air 

quality characteristics. Air quality conditions are highly controlled by short and long term 

meteorological and climate conditions.

Generally, the number of livestock is not expected to change in any alternatives and in two 

alternatives would be reduced. No exceedance of federal and state ambient air quality standards is 

expected to result from any of the alternatives. 

Climate Change

The following elements of climate change are known with near certainty (IPCC 2007): 

 Human activities are changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Increasing levels of 

greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times, are 

well-documented and understood. 

 The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human 

activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. 

 An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 degrees to 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit occurred from 

1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and over the 

oceans. 

 The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods 

ranging from decades to centuries. It is virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of 

greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades. 

 Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet. 

According to IPCC (2007), however, it is uncertain how much warming will occur, how fast that 

warming will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including 

precipitation patterns. Given what is known and what is not known about global climate change, the 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

43

following discussion outlines the cumulative effects of this project on greenhouse gas emissions and 

the effects of climate change on forest resources. 

Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N20) emissions generated by project 

activities are expected to contribute to the global concentration of greenhouse gases that affect 

climate change. Projected climate change impacts include air temperature increases, sea level rise, 

changes in the timing, location, and quantity of precipitation, and increased frequency of extreme 

weather events such as heat waves, droughts, and floods. The intensity and severity of these effects 

are expected to vary regionally and even locally, making any discussion of potential site-specific 

effects of global climate change on forest resources speculative. Land managers have the ability to 

adjust land management activities (grazing) in the future, should adjustments be needed to respond to 

climate change.

Because greenhouse gases from project activities mix readily into the global pool of greenhouse 

gases, it is not currently possible to discern the effects of this project from the effects of all other 

greenhouse gas sources worldwide, nor is it expected that attempting to do so would provide a 

practical or meaningful analysis of project effects. Potential regional and local variability in climate 

change effects add to the uncertainty regarding the actual intensity of this project’s effects on global 

climate change. Further, emissions associated with this project are extremely small in the global 

atmospheric CO2 context, making it impossible to measure the incremental cumulative impact on 

global climate from emissions associated with this project. 

In summary, the potential for cumulative effects is considered negligible for all alternatives because 

none of the alternatives would result in measurable direct and indirect effects on air quality or global 

climatic patterns. Changes that may result from climate change are difficult to predict on a site 

specific scale. However, the adaptive management process will allow managers to make adjustments 

in response to site specific changes are they identified.

Fire

None of the alternatives considered in detail would change the number of human-caused fires or 

affect emergency access. 

Geology

Granite, the most common rock type on the Stanislaus National Forest, is especially evident at the 

higher elevations. Volcanic rocks once covered much of the Forest, but eroded away in many areas. 

The alternatives considered in detail do not affect geology. 

Private Property

About 900 acres of private property exists within the BEH Rangeland Allotments project area. The 

alternatives considered do not affect private property because Forest Service authorizes only grazing 

which occurs on public (NFS) lands. 

Analysis Framework

This section provides the statutes, regulations, Forest Plan and other direction that apply to this 

analysis. NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare 

draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with ...other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.” Each resource section lists the applicable laws, regulations, 

policies and Executive Orders relevant to that resource. Surveys, analyses and findings required by 

those laws are addressed in the resource reports in the project record. 
Chapter 3.01 Stanislaus

Introduction National Forest

44

National Forest Management Act

This section provides the statutes, regulations, Forest Plan and other direction that apply to this 

analysis. NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare 

draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with ...other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.” Each resource section lists the applicable laws, regulations, 

policies and Executive Orders relevant to that resource. Surveys, analyses and findings required by 

those laws are addressed in the resource reports in the project record. 

1995 Rescissions Act

The Rescission Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-19). Section 504(a) requires each National Forest 

System unit to identify all Allotments for which NEPA analysis is needed. These Allotments must be 

included in a schedule that sets a due date for the completion of the requisite NEPA analysis. Section 

504(a) requires adherence to these established schedules. 

Forest Plan Direction

The Forest Service completed the Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Forest Plan) on October 28, 1991. The Stanislaus National Forest “Forest Plan Direction” (USDA 

2010) presents the current Forest Plan management direction, based on the original Forest Plan, as 

amended. Appendix C (Forest Plan Direction) lists the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) 

that specifically apply to commercial livestock grazing on NFS lands.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

45

3.02 AQUATIC SPECIES

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

There are several tiers of requirements for wildlife under the Forest Plan (USDA 2010), ranging from 

broad management goals and strategies to specific standards and guidelines. The most applicable 

direction is provided below.

 Species viability – Maintain and restore habitat to support viable populations of native and 

desired non-native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

 Plant and animal community diversity – Maintain and restore the species composition and 

structural diversity of plant and animal communities in riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows to 

provide desired habitats and ecological function.

 Streamflow patterns and sediment regimes – Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to 

sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment 

regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved.

 Stream banks and shorelines – Maintain and restore the physical structure and condition of stream 

banks and shorelines to minimize erosion and sustain desired habitat diversity.

 Provide habitat for diverse and viable populations of all native and desired non-native wildlife 

and fish. Maintain and improve habitat for federally listed Threatened and endangered species 

and give special attention to sensitive species to see that they do not become Threatened or 

Endangered. 

 Exclude livestock from standing water and saturated soil in wet meadows and associated streams 

and springs occupied by Yosemite toads or identified as “essential habitat” during the breeding 

and rearing season (through metamorphosis). If physical exclusion of livestock is impractical, 

then exclude grazing from the entire meadow. 

 Complete one survey cycle in suitable habitat for the Yosemite toad within this species’ historic 

range to determine presence of Yosemite toads.

 Provide medium to high quality habitat for resident trout species. 

 Maintain high water quality values in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for 

watershed.

 Retain streamside vegetation so that at least 60% of the stream surface is shaded from 11 AM to 4 

PM from June 1 to September 30 to maintain water temperatures at less than 65 degrees for those 

perennial streams which do not normally exceed this temperature.

 In wilderness, ecosystems are unaffected by human manipulation and influences so that plants 

and animals develop and respond to natural forces. 

 Ensure that management activities do not adversely affect water temperatures necessary for local 

aquatic- and riparian-dependent species assemblages.

 Prevent disturbance to streambanks and natural lake and pond shorelines caused by resource 

activities (for example, livestock) from exceeding 20 percent of the stream reach or 20 percent of 

natural lake and pond shorelines.

 Locate new facilities for gathering livestock outside of meadows and riparian conservation areas. 

During project-level planning, evaluate and consider relocating existing livestock facilities 

outside of meadows and riparian areas. 

 Limit browsing to no more than 20 percent of the annual leader growth of mature riparian shrubs 

and no more than 20 percent of individual seedlings. 

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Aquatic Species

The following assumptions are specific to aquatic species:
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

46

1. Primary use areas represent the places where livestock grazing is most frequently concentrated 

and the locations where direct interactions between livestock and the analysis species are most 

likely to occur. Direct and indirect effects to individuals and habitat are readily observable and 

measureable in these habitats. Primary use areas included an “aquatics only” analysis “buffer” of 

100 meters (about 330 feet) from the edge of the meadow to account for livestock lounging in 

close proximity to the meadow. 

2. Secondary use areas include areas with lower availability of forage than primary use areas, and 

are places livestock use on a regular, but less intensive, basis. This use includes lounging, light 

foraging, and principal routes of travel between primary use areas. Direct and indirect effects to 

individuals and habitats have lower intensity based on the reduced number and duration of 

livestock in these areas, and impacts may not be readily observable or measureable.

3. Implementation of the Forest Plan Direction effectively reduces the effect of livestock grazing on 

the species analyzed and allows for the maintenance or improvement of the aquatic/riparian 

habitats relied upon by those species. This would be achieved in part by remaining within 

allowable utilization and streambank disturbance levels. These two measures reflect the extent of 

livestock use in near-stream environments and the implementation of both standards are adequate 

to maintain or improve streambank (and meadow) condition. 

4. An adequate amount of annual or semi-annual monitoring will occur with the implementation of 

the project to inform land and livestock management decisions relative to the species analyzed. 

5. The length of time this analysis covers is the ten year duration of the permit. At the end of the ten 

year period, an adequate review of field conditions is required to confirm habitat condition and 

trend in order to inform the renewal of the permit.

6. All populations of the two species, known and unknown, are affected in essentially the same 

ways. Unknown populations are afforded the protections provided by implementation of the 

Forest Plan Direction upon their discovery. 

7. Permitted livestock grazing poses an unnatural mortality risk to multiple life stages which may 

put some small populations at risk of localized extinction. Factors that result in reduced 

survivorship of multiple life stages (i.e., embryo, larval, metamorph, juvenile, and adult) can 

result in population declines (Biek et al. 2002). When combined with lower survivorship rates of 

adults, reduced survivorship rates of juveniles can result in a greater cumulative reduction of 

population growth which could be expected given the similar life history traits of juvenile and 

adult toads (Biek et al. 2002). Therefore, some of these small populations have a risk of becoming 

non-viable within several generations of the species if “unnatural” mortality is occurring. 

Data Sources

Data sources used in the analysis for the Yosemite toad and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog include 

the following. For current distribution information (occupied habitat), the forest’s aquatic survey 

database (Aquasurv 2011), the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and data from the U. 

S. Forest Service Sierra Nevada Amphibian Monitoring Program were used. Information contained in 

the soil and hydrology reports (project record) prepared for this project and long term trend 

monitoring of key areas in each allotment (USDA 2011a) was used for describing existing condition 

and anticipated trend in meadow condition as related to Yosemite toad habitat. Livestock grazing and 

Yosemite toad interactions were supported by data from the study conducted by the University of 

California and U. S. Forest Service (Allen-Diaz et al. 2010, Lind et al. 2011). Stream condition 

assessments (SSI and SCI) provided information on fine sediment levels in streams in the Allotments 

and from comparable streams across the forest. Additional data specific to the two species was 

obtained from various sources available on the internet or the Forest Service’s library of journal 

subscriptions, and other informative information was obtained from these two sources as well.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

47

Aquatic Species Indicators

Indicators used for Yosemite toad and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog habitat include meadow 

hydrologic function, streambank and lake shore trampling, fine sediment values (pool tail fines and 

pool bed sediments), and forage utilization standards. Occupancy of breeding habitat serves as an 

indicator of population size and recruitment to metamorphosis is an indicator of habitat suitability. 

Aquatic Species Methodology by Action

The methodology used in the analysis for the Yosemite toad and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog 

was very similar. The analysis occurred at two spatial scales: the Sierra Nevada bioregional scale and 

a local scale. The bioregional analysis incorporates the viability analyses completed for the two 

species in the two Sierra Nevada Plan Amendments (USDA 2001, USDA 2004). At the local scale, 

effects analysis was conducted at a generalized level, followed by a discussion for each occupied site 

and predicted outcomes for each site. The generalized discussion applies to all sites and considers 

effects and relative risks to individuals, populations, and habitats required by the species. The main 

emphasis for analysis was to focus on primary use areas (meadows) because cattle use is more 

concentrated as related to forage availability. 

Affected Environment

The Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek Allotments lie within the geographical and 

elevation range and contain suitable habitat for the following aquatic species: Yosemite toad and 

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. A detailed effects analysis for these species is included in the 

Aquatics BE and a summarization is incorporated below.

Several other species are briefly addressed in the BE. Detailed analysis was not completed for the 

following species based on the absence of suitable habitat and/or distributional information: 

California red-legged frog – Federally Threatened (T), Central Valley steelhead (T), delta smelt (T), 

Lahontan cutthroat trout (T), foothill yellow-legged frog - sensitive (S), hardhead (S), limestone 

salamander (S), and western pond turtle (S). 

There is no designated critical habitat within any of the three Allotments for a federally-listed species; 

however, there is proposed critical habitat within the analysis area. There is no habitat required for the 

recovery of a federally-listed species because recovery plans for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged 

Frog and the Yosemite toad have not been developed/prepared by the USFWS.

Criteria for whether a species is considered for detailed analysis include geographic and elevation 

range of each species and presence of suitable habitat. Considerations are classified as: 1) if the 

project area is not within the geographic and elevation ranges of a species, effects from the project 

are not evaluated further in this document; 2) if the project area is within the geographic range of a 

species but is outside of the elevation range of a species, or if there is no suitable habitat within 

primary or secondary use areas, potential effects to the species are not evaluated further in this 

document; or 3) if the project area is within either the geographic or elevation range of a species, and

there is suitable habitat within one mile of the project area, potential effects to the species are 

analyzed. 

Species included in 1) above include: Central Valley steelhead, delta smelt, and limestone 

salamander. These species are excluded from further analysis, and a determination of No Effect is 

made in the Aquatics BE. 

Species included in 2) above include: California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, western 

pond turtle, and hardhead. These species are excluded from further analysis, and a No Effect 

determination is made in the Aquatics BE. 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

48

Species included in 3) above include: Yosemite toad and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. These 

species are included for analysis and a determination is made in the Aquatics BA and BE that the 

project may affect and is likely to adversely affect the toad and frog. Additionally, a determination is 

made that the project is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed 

critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and Yosemite toad.

Lahontan cutthroat trout are not analyzed in this document because the project area is outside of the 

local geographic range, none of the three out of range populations are within the three Allotments. 

There is no critical habitat for this species on the forest. A No Effect determination is made in the 

Aquatics BE for this trout.

Following is a summary of what is known about the species of concern relative to the analysis area. 

Yosemite toad

FOREST-WIDE SPECIES ACCOUNT

The Yosemite toad is known from 60 to 70 localities on the Forest (Aquasurv 2011, CNDDB 2011) 

and from over 400 sites range-wide, with over 300 known occupied meadows on the Sierra National 

Forest (Phil Strand, Sierra National Forest, personal communication). The Stanislaus National Forest 

represents the current known northern extent of the toad (the status of the toad on the Eldorado 

National Forest is uncertain) and there appear to be 3 to 4 clusters of localities across the Forest. 

Populations of the toad are concentrated in the Emigrant Wilderness Area, Herring Creek/Hammill 

Canyon, upper Relief Meadow/Granite Dome, and Highland Lakes areas of the Forest. Across the 

Forest, the remaining toad populations have an apparent spatial disconnect or separation between the 

next closest population. The distance between these isolated populations may be greater than the 

toad’s maximum dispersal distance. 

A full description of the habitats required by the Yosemite toad can be found in the Federal Register 

(2014) and are summarized as follows along with using additional literature, as cited, for reference. 

The Yosemite toad may make a variety of movements during the year that are related to breeding, 

foraging, and overwintering activities. In general, the pattern of movements begins in late spring and 

is as follows: 1) to breeding from overwintering habitats, 2) from breeding to foraging habitats, and 

then 3) from foraging to overwintering habitats. 

Breeding occurs at snowmelt which, locally, is typically from late May through June (also Morton 

1981). Breeding may occur as late as July or August in heavy snow years. Upon snowmelt, the males 

emerge from overwintering sites and reach the breeding site earlier than females in an attempt to 

establish territories. Males are present at the breeding site for several weeks; females remain for a few 

days. Females may not breed every year (Morton 1981, Liang 2010) and there is some indication 

females may reproduce every other to every third year (Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1993, Morton 

and Pereyra 2010). Breeding occurs in discrete wet features in meadows with a variety of moisture 

regimes ranging from wet to mesic (moist). Eggs typically hatch quickly (<12 days) and the tadpoles 

metamorphose in about two months. Mortality is presumably high during the period from tadpole to 

second year juveniles (Brown, et al. 2012). Desiccation of breeding habitat is a primary source of 

mortality, particularly in years with below-average precipitation or in habitats where the water table 

has been extensively modified (that is, stream down-cutting). 

Following breeding, both sexes disperse into the meadow or to upland habitats to forage with females 

typically moving greater distances than males (Morton 1981, Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1984, 

Martin 2008, Liang 2010, Morton and Pereyra 2010). Maximum dispersal distance recorded for the 

toad is about 0.8 mile (Liang 2010). Foraging occurs in meadow, seep/spring, and non-meadow 

upland (including forested) habitats and there is a high association with rodent burrows (Martin 2008, 

Liang 2010). Martin (2008) observed foraging behavior at night which contrasts with previously 

assumed daytime activity. Morton and Pereyra (2010) reported subadult toads were evenly distributed 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

49

through four zones based on distance from the breeding area, and first year juveniles utilized upland 

habitat similar to that used by adults but in close proximity to the breeding site. Other work with the 

toad indicates that recently metamorphosed toads move away from the breeding pools (Cathy Brown, 

personal communication). 

Adults and juveniles feed upon a variety of terrestrial insects, spiders, and the terrestrial phase of 

aquatic macroinvertebrates. Some of these prey items include beetles, ants, dragonfly larvae, 

mosquitoes, moth and butterfly larvae, flies, bees, wasps, spider mites, craneflies, springtails, owl 

flies, and damselflies (Federal Register citing Mullally 1953, Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1984, 

and Martin 1991). 

Upon the onset of regularly occurring freezing temperatures at night, the adults move from foraging 

habitat to overwintering habitat (Martin 2008). Overwintering habitats may be relatively similar to 

foraging habitats and can include willow clumps in and around the meadow, talus slopes, and in 

burrows at the base of trees. 

Alterations to meadow hydrology (stream incision, lowered water table) has been associated with 

historic high intensity livestock grazing and is believed to have extensively degraded suitable 

breeding habitat for the toad (Martin 2008). There are several accounts of declining populations of 

Yosemite toads (Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1993, Drost and Fellers 1996, Martin 2008, Brown et 

al. 2012). As noted by Shaffer, et al. (2000), many declines have occurred in remote regions where 

habitat destruction is not a concern suggesting a larger scale phenomenon may be affecting individual 

populations within the range of the species. An amphibian chytrid fungus, presumably 

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, has been implicated in the cause of death of a Yosemite toad (Green 

and Kagarise-Sherman 2001) and it is possible that the disease resulting from heavy fungal infestation 

levels is attributable to large scale declines in the Yosemite toad.

Several other primary threats or risks have been identified that apply to the three Allotment analysis 

area and include disease, recreation, the Forest Service road system, climate change, and vegetation 

management. These risks can cumulatively impact populations and habitat and are discussed in detail 

in the Aquatics BE. 

ALLOTMENT-SPECIFIC SPECIES ACCOUNT

Bell Meadow Allotment

In 2002 and 2003, surveys for Yosemite toad and suitable habitat were completed for the Allotment. 

Visual encounter survey techniques were used following the USFS Region 5 protocol. Based on these 

survey results, there are no known occurrences of the toad within the Allotment or within one mile of 

the Allotment boundary. 

Eagle Meadow Allotment

There are two toad localities in this Allotment, Shell Meadow and a small meadow to the southwest 

(and connected by the same intermittent stream) of Shell Meadow. Both localities are located within 

primary range, but the Shell Meadow population is within an exclusion area. Surveys for the toad 

have been conducted in all suitable meadow habitats within this Allotment. 

Herring Creek Allotment

The Yosemite toad is known from eleven (11) meadows concentrated in the northeast corner of this 

Allotment. Between 1993 and 2012, multiple survey efforts have detected toads within these 

meadows. Very little is known about the population status within any meadow but all are assumed to 

be relatively small (<20 adults) (Brown et al. 2012). Bluff, Coyote, and Lower Three Meadows 

presumably support the largest populations of toads within this Allotment based on the relatively high 

number of discrete breeding sites that are occupied annually and relative abundance of tadpoles 

encountered. 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

50

FOREST-WIDE HABITAT ACCOUNT

The geographic distribution of the toad extends from Ebbetts Pass (Alpine Co.) in the north to near 

Kaiser Pass (Fresno Co.) in the south. Elevation range of the species is from about 6,400 feet to 

11,320 feet above sea level, with the majority of sites between 8,500 and 10,000 feet. The known 

elevation range of the toad on the forest is from 7,200 to 9,720 feet above sea level with a mean 

elevation of about 8,784 feet and a median elevation of 8,690 feet. The toad generally occurs in 

montane and alpine meadows with willows and a temporary or permanent water source. 

Breeding sites are typically located in shallow water (<7.5 cm) with flow conditions ranging from 

gently moving to still (Lind, et al. 2011). Flooded areas of meadows, potholes, tarns, small streams, 

and the shoreline of ponds and streams with emergent vegetation and loose silt substrate are 

frequently used for breeding. Wet areas in meadows sometime provide “oasis” type habitats that are 

the only suitable areas for breeding within mesic (moist) or relatively dry meadows. Breeding sites in 

meadows with lowered water tables can result in the breeding pools drying out before the larvae can 

metamorphosis, which may affect long term recruitment (adding individuals) to populations. Probably 

the most important factor for maintaining suitable breeding habitat for the toad in the future is to 

maintain or improve meadow hydrology. 

Recently metamorphosed individuals remain in moist areas near the breeding site; however, toads 

have been observed dispersing away from the breeding site (Amy Lind and Cathy Brown, personal 

communications). Martin (2008), Lind et al. (2011), and local observations (by author and staff) 

indicate habitats important for recently metamorphosed individuals can be found within 50 feet of the 

breeding sites in a variety of vegetation including dense, tall vegetation (Carex nebraskensis and C. 

utriculata); in relatively dry, open areas dominated by short sedges (the receded edge of a dry 

breeding pool); and in dry (no surface water, but can be damp) stream channels with undercut stream 

banks. Other local observations have included recent metamorphs moving into relatively dry, upland 

habitat dominated by high elevation conifers (lodgepole pine, red fir). Willow stands close to 

breeding sites provide high quality cover for the small metamorphs in the root networks and leaf 

litter. Also, these willows may provide some protection from winter’s snow pack. 

Adults are known to inhabit drier areas of the meadow, particularly found in willow clumps adjacent 

to breeding sites and can frequently be found in rodent burrows (Martin 2008, Liang 2010). Recent 

information on adult post-breeding habitat indicates the toad can make long distance movements into 

upland habitat (Martin 2008, Liang 2010, Morton and Pereyra 2010). 

Other threats and risks were discussed previously under Forest-wide species account, above. One 

additional area of discussion is considered under this section of other risks and threats: nutrient 

loading in aquatic habitats. Some concern has been raised that livestock grazing results in nutrient 

loading of suitable toad habitat, thereby affecting growth and development. 

Habitat Quality

Breeding habitat quality is largely based upon water persistence. Poor quality habitat is characterized 

by water that does not persist until metamorphosis in most years (<10% of the years, drying before 

August 15). Fair quality habitat is characterized by water that persists until metamorphosis less than 

50% of the time. Good quality habitat is water persisting until metamorphosis >50% of the time 

and/or the presence of two to four suitable breeding site in close proximity (<0.25 mile). Good habitat 

condition is capable of supporting all life stages of the toad. Excellent habitat is water persisting until 

metamorphosis 100% of the time and/or multiple (>4) suitable breeding sites within close proximity. 

Liang (2010) developed a model to explain toad occupancy, but the habitat associations in her study 

area may not fit the typical conditions of meadows in the analysis area. A detailed description of 

assessing habitat quality is available in the Aquatics BE. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

51

The quality of non-breeding meadow habitat is based on the extent and proximity of willow stands 

and burrowing rodent activity. Poor quality sites have no willow stands in the meadow or have no 

rodent activity. Fair sites have some willow coverage (<10%) that is patchily distributed and low 

rodent activity. If willows are common (>20% of the meadow area) and within 300 feet of the 

breeding site, then the site is of good quality. Good quality habitat would also have high levels of 

rodent activity. There are no limitations to the species in excellent quality habitat. 

Meadow function was incorporated into this hierarchy of habitat suitability and is based on the project 

hydrologist’s and soil scientist’s assessment of stream and meadow condition and the reader is 

referred to the Watershed Report and the Soil Report (project record) for a full description of the 

evaluation process. The information in these two reports was used in the following way: if the 

meadow was at proper functioning condition or desired condition for the meadow hydrologic 

function, the toad habitat is assumed to be stable and with good to excellent suitability at the local 

scale. A meadow classified either as Functional – At Risk (PFC methodology) or fair condition 

(meadow hydrologic function methodology) was considered to provide a habitat suitability/quality 

spectrum of fair to good, but habitat quality could be compromised if there is a downward trend in 

condition. Meadows classified as Non-Functional (PFC) or poor/very poor (meadow hydrologic 

function methodology) provide poor to poor-fair quality habitat for the toad because the water table is 

too far removed from the meadow surface to provide suitable breeding habitat in all years. This 

evaluation of habitat suitability based on depth to water table is also supported by Lind, et al. (2011) 

and Roche, et al. (2012a, 2012b) in that a correlation was observed between toad occupancy and 

depth to water table. Unique local factors influence the suitability of some breeding sites outside of 

the above description. 

ALLOTMENT-SPECIFIC HABITAT STATUS

Bell Meadow Allotment

Occupied habitat

At present, the Allotment is assumed to be unoccupied. This assumption is based on the lack of 

detection of toads during the surveys. 

Unoccupied suitable habitat

About 255 acres of wet willow meadows (22 individual meadows greater than two acres), are 

contained within primary use areas in this Allotment. Of the 255 acres, 204 acres are at or below 

7,000 feet in elevation. Since there are no known toad populations below 7,200 feet on the forest, 

these 204 acres are excluded from analysis. There are about 51 acres of suitable breeding habitat in 

ten small meadows. Many of these meadows were not specifically evaluated for hydrologic 

functioning; however, overall habitat quality in these meadows is assumed to be fair or better based 

on the following reasoning. The majority of these small, suitable meadows either has small (<6 inches 

wide by <6 inches deep), palmate drainage networks or the meadows do not have a defined stream 

channel. Ratliff (1985) supports this in stating meadows with small drainage areas and gentle slopes 

(surface gradients of <2%) usually do not have stream channels in them and tend to be 

[hydrologically] stable. Without a stream channel, there is a very low risk that the meadow would be 

degraded because there could be no stream incision to lower the water table. To further inform this 

assumption, the condition of the key meadows and special aquatic features are used as proxies for 

these smaller meadows. Based on the Watershed Report, meadow hydrologic function/condition 

ratings for the key meadows were fair or better for over 70% of the meadows evaluated (31 of 43). 

Further, all 46 of the special aquatic features (fens, springs, seeps, shorelines) evaluated were either at 

desired condition (proper functioning condition) or were functional at risk. These categories reflect 

fair or better condition for these sensitive sites. Combining the information from meadow and special 

aquatic feature function supports the assumption that most of the smaller meadows are likely in 

relatively good condition and provide suitable habitat for the toad in some or all years; however, it is 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

52

possible that some are in poor or very poor condition and do not provide any suitable habitat for the 

toad. 

Eagle Meadow Allotment

Occupied habitat

The breeding habitat at Shell Meadow is in excellent condition because the meadow hydrology is at 

desired condition and the breeding sites retain water through metamorphosis even in drier than 

average years. The non-breeding meadow habitat has good suitability, though the meadow is 

relatively devoid of willows. Dense corn lily patches may provide refuge habitat for postmetamorphic individuals. Non-meadow upland habitat has good to excellent suitability because it is 

relatively undisturbed from management, but the proximity of several forest roads slightly decreases 

the suitability of this type of habitat. This meadow is at desired condition or proper functioning 

condition. 

The primary breeding area in the second occupied site provides excellent breeding habitat. The lower 

end of the meadow is a large flooded area and there are two or three other ponded areas that are used 

by breeding toads. The other breeding sites can support successful recruitment in average and wetter 

than average years. The non-breeding habitat in the meadow is dominated by corn lily and sedges 

with sparse willow cover located at the edge of the meadow. This habitat has fair suitability as based 

on the limited extent of willow growth. The non-meadow upland habitat is in excellent condition as it 

is in a near natural condition. The quality of this habitat is slightly reduced due to the presence of 

roads in close proximity to the meadow. 

The following Forest roads are within one mile of the occupied sites: 5N04, 5N09, 5N09A, 5N09E, 

5N12A, 5N12Y, 5N87, 5N87C, 5N87D, 5N99, 6N19Y and 6N38Y. 5N09 and 5N04 receive 

moderately heavy recreational vehicle traffic while the remaining roads generally have light use.

Unoccupied suitable habitat

There are 39 meadows providing about 480 acres of suitable habitat in the primary and secondary use 

areas of the Allotment. The habitat is considered to be in fair to good condition for the reasons listed 

above under the Bell Meadow Allotment. None of the meadows in the proposed Niagara Unit are 

suitable for the toad because they are below the local elevation limit. 

Herring Creek Allotment

Occupied habitat

Toad populations currently occupy 142 acres of wet willow meadow habitat. Site specific 

descriptions follow and meadow condition is based on evaluations conducted by the hydrologist and 

soil scientist (project record).

Breeding habitat condition at Bloomer Lake is fair to good based on low persistence of water in 

below average precipitation years in the two main areas of breeding habitat. Upland non-breeding 

meadow habitat is good, with many areas of willow present in drier sites and rodent burrows common 

throughout the meadow. As noted previously and as applies to all other occupied sites in this 

Allotment, non-meadow upland habitat is essentially undisturbed and is of excellent quality. This 

meadow is at desired condition and is expected to remain so as long as small headcuts remain stable. 

In 2012, two monitoring stations were established in the meadow to evaluate the stability of the 

headcuts. 

Breeding habitat condition in Bluff Meadow is good to excellent. Non-breeding meadow habitat 

quality and condition is good, there is a large willow area in close proximity to the breeding habitat 

and rodent burrows are common throughout the meadow. Non-meadow upland habitat is good to 

excellent in quality; however, forest road 4N12 lies within dispersal distance of the toad and it 

slightly lowers the overall quality of the upland habitat. Talus slopes with trees are present along 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

53

about 50% of the meadow perimeter. This meadow is at desired condition and is expected to remain 

so as long as small headcuts remain stable. In 2012, a monitoring station was established at this site to 

evaluate the stability of the headcut. 

Breeding habitat condition in Castle Meadow is good because the three discrete breeding sites 

maintain water throughout the summer in most years. Two of the three breeding sites appear to be 

supported by upwelling groundwater flow as evidenced by the springs associated with the sites and 

the third is a deeper (> 0.8 feet) depression that holds ponded water. The ponded third site is located 

off of the main meadow (to the west) and is associated with a small channel that is not immediately 

connected to the degraded stream channel in the main meadow. Non-breeding meadow habitat quality 

is good to excellent. The PFC rating of this meadow is “non-functioning”. If there is further 

degradation of the meadow, it is unclear whether the two upwelling water (fen-like habitats) sites 

would be at risk of drying and if they would become unsuitable for breeding. 

There is typically one breeding site within Coyote Meadow. This site is in good or better condition. 

Non-breeding meadow habitat is in good condition with extensive willow thickets and rodent activity. 

Upland non-meadow habitat is in excellent condition, with a minor exception for the proximity of the 

Coyote Meadows trailhead (and road 5N67) and trail that crosses through the meadow and within five 

feet of the breeding pool. The meadow is at desired condition. Upstream of the breeding habitat there 

is a small headcut between the larger lower meadow and the smaller upper meadow. In 2012, a 

monitoring station was established at this site to evaluate the stability of the headcut. 

There is typically one breeding site used annually in Groundhog Meadow and a secondary site used 

occasionally for breeding. The quality of the breeding habitat is good to excellent in average and 

above average precipitation years. Non-breeding meadow habitat is in good to excellent condition. 

Non-meadow upland habitat has good suitability and is limited from being excellent due to the 

proximity of forest road 4N12 and multiple campsites adjacent to the meadow. There is a small, 

stable headcut located downstream of the breeding area that poses a risk to the toad where the habitat 

could become less or unsuitable if the headcut reinitiates upstream movement and dewaters the 

meadow. In 2012, a monitoring station was established to evaluate the stability of headcut at the 

lower end of the meadow. This meadow is at desired condition. 

The occupied toad habitat in Lower, Middle, and Upper Three Meadows is protected from grazing 

impacts by fencing. As such, livestock have little or no discernible impact to the breeding and nonbreeding meadow habitat. The existing fence line protects a small portion of the non-meadow upland 

habitat, but a majority of this habitat is accessible by livestock. 

The quality of the breeding habitat in the unnamed tributary to Willow Creek Meadow #1 (between 

Eagle and Coyote meadows) is of good quality. Willows are common in the meadow providing good 

quality non-breeding meadow habitat. This site is far away from the road (4N12) and there were no 

other disturbances occurring around the meadow. This site was not directly evaluated using PFC or 

another method. However, there is no defined stream channel in this meadow and it should remain in 

stable condition over time.

The breeding habitat quality in the unnamed tributary to Willow Creek Meadow #2 (near Bluff 

Meadow and adjacent to 4N12) is fair. The breeding site is a large (>500 ft2

) depression filled by 

snowmelt, deep enough (>5 inches) to retain water until metamorphosis about 50% of the time. The 

surrounding non-breeding meadow habitat quality is fair based on the limited presence of willows; 

however, dense stands of corn lily are present at this site and may provide cover for recently 

metamorphosed toads. The non-meadow upland habitat is of good quality and is, again, limited by 

forest road 4N12 bisecting the meadow and campsites located on the north side of the road and in 

close proximity to the breeding site. This site was not directly evaluated using PFC or another 

method. However, field observations of the breeding site in this meadow do not indicate any risks to 

hydrology and it should remain in stable condition over time. 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

54

The breeding habitat quality in the unnamed tributary to Willow Creek Meadow #3 (located west of 

Castle Meadow) is fair to good. The non-breeding meadow habitat is good to excellent in quality 

because there is extensive and abundant willow growth and the meadow has good functional 

condition. The non-meadow upland habitat is excellent in quality as there are no disturbances in the 

forested stand surrounding the meadow. 

Breeding habitat quality in Wire Corral Meadow is excellent. Non-breeding meadow habitat is fair 

based on the willow criteria, with willows being essentially absent from this site. . Non-meadow 

upland habitat is in good condition and is limited by several roads (5N31, 5N67, 5N55Y) in close 

proximity to the meadow edge. The PFC rating of this meadow is “proper functioning” and habitat 

conditions are expected to remain stable or improve over time. 

Unoccupied suitable habitat

There are numerous wet willow meadows greater than 2 acres totaling about 264 acres that are 

considered to be unoccupied based on survey results. Seven of these meadows (66 acres) are more 

than 0.9 miles (1.5 kilometers) from the nearest occupied site. These sites have a very low probability 

of being repopulated by one of the existing populations because they are beyond the dispersal 

distance of the toad. The remaining meadows are within the dispersal distance from multiple discrete 

populations and have the potential for recolonization if suitable breeding habitat is available in those 

meadows. The habitat quality in these meadows will be considered fair or better for reasons given 

under the Bell Meadow Allotment. None of the meadows in the proposed Cascade Unit are above 

7,000 feet and are considered to be unsuitable for the toad.

Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog

FOREST-WIDE SPECIES ACCOUNT

There are about 80 localities of the frog on the forest (Aquasurv 2011, CNDDB 2011). The majority 

of localities are within the Emigrant Wilderness Area, where fish-free lakes, ponds, and potholes 

surrounding larger fish-bearing lakes and streams are common and provide high quality habitat. Few 

(<10) of the known breeding populations occur in streams; however, surveys of this habitat type 

across the forest and within the range of the species are less complete than in pond/lake habitats. To 

date, there has been no large scale attempt to quantify any of the known populations on the Forest, 

though some have been regularly surveyed in recent years. 

Within its entire range, the frog has declined in overall abundance and many localities have gone 

extinct (Jennings and Hayes 1994, USFWS 2002, Lannoo 2005). Vredenburg, et al. (2007) report the 

frog has gone extinct from over 90% of 172 historic localities. Breeding populations of the frog were 

only found in 4.5% and 48% of the total number of surveyed and recently occupied (known presence 

between 1990 and 2001) watersheds, respectively (Cathy Brown, personal communication). Recent 

estimates of population abundance indicate very few large populations remain (Brown, et al. 2012). 

A full description of the habitats required by the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog can be found in 

the Federal Register (2014 (29 April, Volume 79, Number 82)) and is summarized as follows using 

additional literature for reference including Lannoo (2005), USDA (2004), Federal Register (2003), 

Jennings and Hayes (1994), and Zeiner, et al. (1988). Other sources of information used are 

specifically cited. Breeding activity begins shortly after snowmelt in shallow water areas where egg 

masses can be attached to stones, woody debris, vegetation, or the bank of the water. The majority of 

adults travel short distances (<1000 feet) between overwintering sites and breeding sites, but longer 

distances (1 kilometer or 0.6 mile) have been reported. Eggs hatch within one month, and tadpoles 

typically require two to three years to metamorphose. Tadpoles frequent shallow areas taking 

advantage of the warmer water found in those habitats and feeding on algae, detritus, and diatoms. 

Once metamorphosed, individuals may take three to four years to reach sexual maturity. From 

metamorphosis to adult, individuals remain close to water and typically bask on open areas like rocks 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

55

with easy access to water. Post-metamorphic individuals successfully overwinter at the bottom of 

ponds that do not freeze to the bottom (>5 feet deep) or in crevices of rocks near a waterbody. Site 

fidelity is strong with adults returning to the same overwintering and breeding sites from year to year 

(Matthews and Preisler 2010). Survivorship between years is high in adults, also suggesting the frog 

is long-lived (Matthews and Preisler 2010). 

Garter snakes and native and introduced trout are the primary predators of the frog at multiple life 

stages. Mortality is likely in overwintering tadpoles that occur in shallow ponds or streams that freeze 

to the bottom. Tadpoles represent a key component to food webs in the high elevation ecosystems 

they occupy, especially prior to the widespread introduction of trout. Adult frogs are formidable 

predators, as well, and their diet likely includes smaller members of their own species. 

Two factors have been identified as primary causes for the observed widespread declines, the 

introduction of trout to formerly fishless waters and the amphibian chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium 

dendrobatidis, both of which have been amply described in literature. Based on this literature, the 

introduced trout prey primarily on the larval (tadpole) stage of the frog, and the chytrid fungus 

primarily affects post-metamorphic frogs. Other potential decline factors have been associated with 

Sierran amphibians, and include wind-borne pesticide drift, habitat destruction, ultraviolet radiation, 

and climate change (Davidson, et al. 2002, Fellers, et al. 2004). 

ALLOTMENT-SPECIFIC SPECIES ACCOUNT

Bell Meadow Allotment

There is one known population of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog within the Allotment, but 

does not lie within a utilized primary or secondary use area. This stream and pond dwelling 

population is in the headwaters of Bell Creek where streamflow becomes intermittent during the 

summer and fall. The downstream extent of the population coincides with the most upstream 

distribution of trout with a non-overlap zone of about 0.25 mile. The length of stream occupied by the 

frog is about 0.5 mile and includes an unnamed 2 acre ponded area of the stream. Frogs have been 

observed in this vicinity within the last three years. Within one mile of the Allotment, there are three 

known populations of the frog. 

Eagle Meadow Allotment

There are no known occurrences of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog within the Long 

Valley/Eagle Meadow Allotment. One population is known to occur within one mile of the 

Allotment. 

Herring Creek Allotment

There are two occurrence records of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog within the Herring Creek 

Allotment, both in Willow Meadow. A 1993 visual encounter survey detected adults, tadpoles, and 

one egg mass in or adjacent to Willow Creek in Willow Meadow. During a stream survey in 2003, 

there was an incidental observation of an adult frog on the bank of Willow Creek within Willow 

Meadow, coinciding with the other occurrence record. An additional observation record occurred at 

this location from surveyors with the Sierra Nevada Amphibian Monitoring Program (Cathy Brown, 

personal communication). 

FOREST-WIDE HABITAT ACCOUNT

The following account is summarized from Lannoo (2005), USDA (2004), Federal Register (2003), 

Jennings and Hayes (1994), and Zeiner, et al. (1988). The historic range of the Sierra Nevada yellowlegged frog in the Sierra Nevada extended from northern Plumas County in the north to southern 

Tulare County in the south. The frog is known to have an elevation range between 4,500 and 12,000 

feet above sea level; however, locally the frog occurs within a range of 5,400 and 9,720 feet and only 

three populations occur below 7,000 feet (Aquasurv 2011). 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

56

Reproduction in the frog is aquatic and breeding typically occurs in perennial streams, ponds, and 

lakes; however, breeding is known to occur locally in ponds that may not always maintain water and 

in streams that have intermittent flow. Eggs are deposited in clusters and are typically attached to a 

firm substrate such as rocks, stream banks, vegetation, and downed logs. Breeding and egg deposition 

occurs early in spring, coinciding with ice- and snowmelt at higher elevations. Habitat characteristics

in stream breeding populations are poorly documented, but also include features similar to ponded 

water habitat. Shallow water bodies may not be preferred at higher elevations because they may 

freeze down into the substrate during winter, potentially killing the overwintering tadpoles. Tadpoles 

overwinter at least once and may require two to three years in the larval stage before they reach 

metamorphosis. There is some indication the frog makes limited migrations between water bodies (up 

to 0.62 miles (1 km)) during the breeding season. These movements may occur across terrestrial 

environments or along streams connecting lake habitats. Tadpoles presumably feed on algae and 

detritus. 

Adult and juvenile frogs apparently have similar habitat requirements. Following the breeding season, 

the frog is typically found close to the water’s edge when in the terrestrial environment, utilizing 

rocks and bedrock on the shoreline where vegetation is sparse. The frog is apparently absent from 

small headwater streams due to insufficient depth to provide adequate refuge and overwintering 

habitat. While adult and subadult frogs have been observed co-occurring with tadpoles, local 

observations also indicate adult and subadult frogs may disperse from the breeding ponds to smaller, 

shallower waters during the warmest part of the year. 

Habitat Quality

Breeding habitat quality is primarily determined by pond or lake water depth at higher elevations 

(>7,000 feet) and by presence of trout. Poor quality habitat is defined by 1) intermittent, headwater 

streams (stream orders 1 and 2) having water depths less than two feet at any elevation, 2) shallow 

(<1 foot) ponds that dry annually, or 3) presence of trout. Poor quality habitat typically does not 

support successful breeding and rearing until metamorphosis. 

Fair quality breeding habitat is defined by 1) water depths less than three feet at elevations greater 

than 7,000 feet, 2) presence of trout in a nearby waterbody that is apparently restricting the natural 

distribution of the frog, or 3) low number (<2) of breeding sites within a one mile radius. Fair quality 

habitat supports successful breeding and/or rearing until metamorphosis less than 50% of the time. 

Good quality breeding habitat has no trout present, water depths greater than five feet that are 

annually persistent, and more than 3 suitable breeding sites within a one mile radius. Good quality 

habitat would support successful breeding and rearing >50% of the time. If unoccupied, locations 

with good quality habitat have a better than average chance at becoming recolonized from adjacent 

populations. There are no limitations to the species in excellent quality breeding habitat.

Habitat quality for juvenile and adult frogs is primarily based on the presence of trout and the 

presence of suitable habitat adjacent to trout bearing waters. Poor quality habitat has trout and no 

other water body within 100 feet of the trout water. Fair quality habitat may have trout, but there are a 

few (<3) ponds or potholes within 100 feet of the trout bearing water. Also, fair quality habitat 

consists of ponds or lakes without trout, but lake depth is less than 5 feet and may freeze to the 

bottom during winter. Good quality habitat has no trout, but primarily consists of streams rather than 

ponds or lakes. Excellent quality habitat has no trout and lake or pond habitat that does not freeze to 

the bottom during winter. 

ALLOTMENT-SPECIFIC HABITAT ACCOUNT

Bell Meadow Allotment

There are about nine miles of perennial stream and 51 surface acres of ponds and lakes within 

primary and secondary use areas within the Allotment. About one mile of the perennial stream 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

57

mileage is in primary range with the remaining eight miles in secondary use areas. Overall habitat 

condition for the frog in the Allotment is fair, primarily limited by the extensive presence of trout in 

Bell and Lily creeks and in Bear, Camp, and Grouse lakes. 

The habitat quality in Bell Creek where the known population is located is good to excellent. The 

stream flows out of the Emigrant Wilderness Area and habitat quality is compromised by intermittent 

stream flow in drier years and overall lack of deep, bedrock pools. However, isolated deep pools and 

the pond at the upper end of the stream are perennial and provide high quality habitat for the frog. 

The riparian areas surrounding the stream and pond have very little evidence of livestock or human 

use and are very much intact without any disturbances. Habitat quality in almost all of Lily Creek is 

poor to fair based on trout presence and lack of a nearby colonizing source population. Habitat quality 

in Bear, Camp, and Grouse lakes is poor to fair based on trout presence. Bear Lake has slightly higher 

suitability because there is a nearby, upstream population of the frog surrounding Y-Meadow Lake.

Eagle Meadow Allotment

There are nine miles of perennial streams in primary (2.8 miles) and secondary (7.1 miles) use areas. 

Haypress Lake (10.5 acres) is the only notable lake or pond within the Allotment and occurs on 

private property. Within primary and secondary use areas, the habitat quality for the frog is rated as 

poor in about 4.5 miles of Eagle, Long Valley, and Niagara creeks due to trout presence. The 

remaining small perennial and intermittent streams provide fair quality habitat because deep 

overwintering pools are the limiting factor for reproduction and survivorship.

Herring Creek Allotment

There are about 15 miles of perennial streams within primary (4.4 miles) and secondary (10.6 miles) 

use areas, providing fair to good quality breeding and juvenile/adult habitat. About 4.2 miles of 

perennial stream support trout fisheries, reducing the habitat quality in these reaches to poor to fair. 

Bloomer Lake, the pond at Lower Three Meadow, and the pond at Castle Meadow provide poor 

quality breeding and juvenile/adult habitat. The poor rating is based on shallow water depth (<3 feet) 

which increases the potential of freezing to the bottom during winter and heavy shoreline vegetation. 

The functioning condition of Willow Creek is excellent as based on the “proper functioning” PFC 

rating. However, the self-sustaining trout population reduces the habitat quality, especially for 

tadpoles and metamorphs, to poor. Adult habitat suitability is high as adults are too large to be eaten 

by the plentiful population of small trout that inhabit the stream. The following Forest roads lie 

upstream and within one mile of the occupied site: 4N12, 5N04, 5N63, and 5N63B. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECTEFFECTS

Yosemite toad

Direct and indirect effects can result in detrimental impacts to individuals and habitats. The potential 

for direct effects to individuals is discussed and will be based on relative risk to multiple life stages 

(eggs, tadpoles, metamorphs, and subadults/adults) at different times during the grazing season. The 

reason this approach was taken is that there appear to be differential risks for various life stages, time 

of the year, and habitats used that are largely dependent upon dispersal capability. There is also 

discussion of how livestock can affect various habitat types that are used by different life stages at 

different times of the year.

Effects to Individuals

As noted previously, the proposed action would implement the Forest Plan standard and guideline 

that requires the exclusion of cattle from breeding habitat occupied by tadpoles until the tadpoles 

metamorphose. Implementation of this standard should effectively eliminate the risk of trampling or 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

58

disturbance to subadult and adult individuals prior to breeding activities through the time tadpoles 

require to complete metamorphosis. Also, egg and tadpole stage individuals and the early 

metamorphs (if multiple cohorts were present in the same breeding site) would not be subject to 

trampling or disturbance. Cohorts are considered to be age groups based on timing of egg deposition 

where early and late season egg masses could be separated by several weeks or even a month. 

In terms of direct impacts to individual toads, there is the potential for injury or mortality associated 

with livestock grazing through trampling (Martin 2008), capture into deep hoof prints (Martin 2008), 

entrapment by fecal matter (Martin 2008), and physical disturbance. Cattle can step directly on 

metamorphs, subadult, and adult toads resulting in injury or death. The relative risk to the different 

life stages of the toad (metamorph, subadult, adult) is variable and is dependent upon extent of 

dispersal, choice of habitats used, and progression of the grazing season. 

For metamorphs, the risk of direct impacts occurring to any one individual is considered to be 

highest, especially in the two to three weeks following metamorphosis. During this period, the 

metamorphs are concentrated around breeding sites and any use of this habitat by livestock increases 

the potential to be affected. Multiple individuals could be killed or injured if livestock use this habitat 

extensively. The relative risk decreases throughout the breeding season as the small toads disperse 

away from the breeding sites and into the surrounding meadow. Individuals seeking refuge in willow 

thickets or in non-meadow upland habitats are considered to be at a lower risk of direct impact than 

individuals occupying less protected habitats. The roots, logs, rocks, and other substantial surface 

objects decreases the potential for trampling, capture in hoof prints, and entrapment by fecal matter. 

The relative risk is higher for toads occupying unprotected habitats because they are poor hoppers 

(more like crawling) and tend to not sustain hopping for extended distances when disturbed. Other 

factors that may be important in determining risk (increasing or decreasing) include resource 

partitioning between toads and livestock (Roche et al. 2012a), frequency of livestock use in occupied 

meadows (McIlroy 2011), and timing of that use (McIlroy 2011). These implications of these factors 

are discussed in the Aquatics BE. 

For subadults outside of the breeding and metamorphosis periods, the relative risk of direct impact to 

any one individual is considered to be low to low-moderate and is based on the proximity of this life 

stage to the breeding habitat. Morton and Pereyra (2010) indicated immature Yosemite toads were 

widely and evenly dispersed across the studied transect. This suggests the density of individuals is 

low on the landscape and the odds of being directly impacted are reduced due to this density. Also 

supporting the valuation of relative risk is the low rate of metamorph recruitment to later stages 

especially in small populations (Brown et al. 2012) and the three other factors identified for 

metamorphs. The relative risk to individual adults is similarly low and may be even lower given their 

tendency to disperse from breeding sites once breeding activities are over. Based on the dispersal 

behaviors mentioned above, females may be at lower risk than males because they move greater 

distances from the breeding sites. This suggests very low densities in the surrounding landscape and 

the risk of direct effect is very low. In support of this risk classification, Bulger, et al. (2003) state that 

amphibians with low densities in high quality upland habitats have a very low risk of impact to any 

one individual from incidental mortality. As with metamorphs, the choice of habitat plays a role in 

vulnerability to direct impact with open meadow associations increasing vulnerability compared to 

willow or talus associations.

The risk of indirect effects to individuals is considered to be a relatively minor issue and is associated 

with the direct effects of disturbance and loss of overhead cover. Excessive disturbance could result 

in lower fitness because normal behavior is periodically and temporarily interrupted which could 

increase stress and limit foraging opportunities. The anticipated outcome is a very minor effect on 

physiological fitness that would not result in a long term impact to an individual. The loss of 

overhead cover could lead to an increased risk in predation, primarily from avian predators. The risk 

is relatively low as determined by utilization limits and the ability of the animals to seek a range of 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

59

suitable refuge spots. The risk is highest for metamorphs, lowest for adults, and increases as the 

grazing season progresses since utilization levels increase from metamorphosis to the end of the 

season. Information on lower utilization of forage near breeding (Roche, et al. 2012a, 2012b) can be 

cautiously applied and the extent of loss of cover may not be adequate to substantially increase 

predation risk. 

Spread of chytrid fungus by livestock

There is some concern that cattle may be a vector of spread for the amphibian chytridiomycete, 

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, a fungal pathogen that has been implicated in the decline of many 

amphibian species. As cattle walk throughout the Allotment, they could potentially carry the chytrid 

fungus from an infected area to a non-infected area. The fungus can remain viable for many weeks in 

water and presumably in wet soil which could be transported on the hooves or hair of cattle. It should 

be noted that many of these amphibian declines have occurred in relatively undisturbed areas 

(Bradford 1991, Berger et al. 1998, Lips 1998, Lips 1999, Muths et al. 2003) including Yosemite toad 

populations studied at Yosemite National Park (Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1993, Drost and 

Fellers 1996, Green and Kagarise Sherman 2001) where grazing was discontinued almost a century 

prior to the discovery of the disease (Longcore et al. 1999). Chytrid prevalence was also assessed as 

part of the Yosemite toad – grazing study, and the results indicated the fungus was present in almost 

all study meadows and prevalence among individuals was low to moderate (11-32%) (Lind et al. 

2011). The spread of the amphibian chytrid can occur between individuals of same species and can 

also occur between individuals of different species (Rachowicz, et al. 2006). 

Synthesizing this information into a summary suggests that the amphibian chytrid fungus is already 

present in most populations and some primary factor other than livestock is responsible for its 

uncontrolled spread. Livestock are a potential vector for spreading the fungus as they move through 

the Allotments; however, the importance of spreading the fungus seems to be an irrelevant point since 

the fungus is already wide-spread. The pertinent risk appears to be from spreading different strains of 

the fungus between populations at larger geographic scales, where some strains appear to be more 

“virulent” than others (Berger et al. 2005, Piovia-Scott, personal communication) rather than spread 

of the fungus at small spatial scales (that is, within an Allotment).

Effects to breeding habitat

Following metamorphosis, cattle affect/impact breeding and rearing habitat primarily by grazing in 

and walking through these areas. The direct and indirect effects to habitat include reduction in 

overhead cover, deposition of waste products (urine and feces) across the landscape, trampling in 

breeding pools, and sediment delivery to aquatic features. Grazing the herbaceous vegetation removes 

some of the overhead cover used by metamorphs and juveniles (primarily year 2 individuals). As 

noted above, grazing may expose the individuals, making the potential risk for predation greater. The 

consequences of this effect may be relatively minor to individuals. Removing the vegetation also 

allows more air circulation at ground level which can cause the ground to become drier and increase 

the potential that the moist, humid microclimate becomes less suitable. Roche, et al. (2012a) did not 

find a treatment effect from grazing on vegetative cover; however, they only associated cover with 

breeding pool occupancy and were not able to make any associations about the role of cover apart 

from breeding. For metamorphs, the associations between habitat suitability of overhead cover and 

metamorph use are unclear. It is likely that overhead cover is important to recent metamorphs in 

reducing predation by some species (birds), maintaining a cool, moist microclimate at the ground 

surface, and facilitating vegetation-based prey relationships; however, recent metamorphs are 

frequently observed in open habitats (margins of stream channels, bare patches) where they may be 

basking and/or foraging. As the metamorphs disperse across the landscape and utilize other 

vegetation types, the loss of cover may be slightly more important from a predation risk perspective, 

but relatively unimportant from a foraging and basking standpoint because they are capable of 

selecting habitats that provide a gradient of open/heavy cover to meet those needs. 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

60

Cattle walking in and trailing through breeding sites can result in pock marking, loss of soil cover, 

and compact moist soils. Constant trampling of hooves can also increase the amount of bare soil 

present in the meadow which can lead to erosion of sediment into streams or breeding areas. Current 

utilization standards are considered to be adequate to maintain soil cover and prevent erosion of fine 

sediment to aquatic habitats. In most instances, the drier portions of the meadows receive the higher 

levels of use and are more distant from stream channels. This separation of habitats effectively 

buffers the stream from overland runoff, allowing the surrounding meadow vegetation to assimilate 

most of the eroded sediment. Also, the relatively low slope of meadows means there is very limited 

energy in the water flowing across the meadow during periods of inundation. This makes extensive 

transportation (in terms of quantity and distance) of sediment to streams or other waterbodies 

unlikely. 

Excessive cattle defecation in post-metamorphic breeding habitat can potentially increase nutrient 

loading in confined habitats the following year (Lemly 1998), resulting in delayed metamorphosis or 

reduced size at metamorphosis (Gerlanc and Kaufman 2005, D. Martin, personal communication in 

Federal Register 2002). Excessive nutrient loading can decrease aquatic insect diversity (Lemly 1998) 

and reduce the availability of adult aquatic insects as a source of prey. One unknown factor is the 

extent to which nutrient (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) in cow excreta (manure piles or cow 

pats) enters a waterbody when deposited in various environments. For the small proportion of 

depositions occurring directly in waters, it is assumed that all nutrient contained in urine is readily 

diluted into the water and a majority of the nitrogen and phosphorous compounds in fecal pats is 

dissolved into the water. Following each one of these events, measurable increases in nitrogen and 

phosphorus compounds would occur, but the consequence of these events is believed to be minimal 

and limited by the low occurrence of post-metamorphic toads residing in surface water. In a wet 

meadow, it can be assumed that only a small portion of this nutrient is dissolved in surface water 

where it is diluted by snowmelt. This claim is substantiated by the early season water quality samples 

taken during the Yosemite toad/grazing study which indicated very low or no detectable levels of 

nitrogen and phosphorus compounds in surface waters (Allen-Diaz et al. 2010). For terrestrial 

deposits of urine and feces, the combination of ready assimilation of nitrogen and phosphorus from 

excreta and the dilute nature of leaching following snow melt make excessive eutrophication of 

breeding or other aquatic habitat unlikely. 

Alterations to meadow hydrology have been attributed to cattle in meadows occupied by the toad (D. 

Martin, personal communication in Federal Register 2002, Martin 2008). Stream incision can lower 

the water table in meadow habitat and result in breeding habitats drying out prior to metamorphosis. 

As noted previously, many of the meadows in the analysis area were extensively damaged (i.e., 

altered meadow hydrology) by historic heavy livestock grazing and other factors, though a few 

remain in very good condition (water table near the meadow surface). In general, the predicted 

environmental outcome for the meadows relative to maintaining or improving hydrology is either no 

change or slight upward trend in condition from the existing condition (project record). 

Livestock activity in breeding sites can create deep pock marks that are largely remediated in two or 

three years. Roche, et al. (2012a) indicate hoof trampling can fragment and widen breeding pools. 

Though they did not detect changes in occupancy associated with grazing during the study, the short 

time periods analyzed may not have been long enough to detect long-term degradation of this habitat 

type. Shallower, warmer, and higher concentrations of nutrients were associated with higher rates of 

breeding occupancy (Roche et al. 2012b); however, there is some concern that breeding pools could 

gradually become more shallow over long periods of time may be less suitable because they are more 

vulnerable to drying out. There is the possibility that gradual reduction in pool depth may make the 

breeding site unsuitable in some years due to rapid drying. 

Excessive cattle defecation in post-metamorphic breeding habitat can potentially increase nutrient 

loading in confined habitats the following year (Lemly 1998), resulting in delayed metamorphosis or 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

61

reduced size at metamorphosis (Gerlanc and Kaufman 2005, D. Martin, personal communication in 

Federal Register 2002). A delay in metamorphosis could make tadpoles more vulnerable to mortality 

from mid-season (August) snowfall or freezing. However, this effect may be less important than 

desiccation of breeding sites in relatively undisturbed environments (Kagarise Sherman and Morton 

1984). A reduced size at metamorphosis could affect the fitness of individuals following 

metamorphosis and prior to overwintering. Delayed metamorphosis and reduced size at 

metamorphosis could have longer term implications relative to reduced annual recruitment which 

could lead to smaller population sizes over long periods of time. However, this change may not be 

easily observed by the end of the 10 year analysis period because of the irregularity of female 

breeding (once every two to three years) and the variability of tadpole production as tied to annual 

precipitation trends (Allen-Diaz et al. 2011, Lind et al. 2012). 

For the small proportion of depositions occurring directly in waters, it is assumed that all nutrient 

contained in urine is readily diluted into the water and a majority of the nitrogen and phosphorous 

compounds in fecal pats is dissolved into the water. Following each one of these events, measurable 

increases in nitrogen and phosphorus would occur, but the consequence of these events is believed to 

be minimal. Most waters in the Sierra Nevada are nutrient poor (Sickman et al. 2003), and this 

oligotrophic condition allows them to readily assimilate additional nutrients, primarily nitrogen and 

phosphorus compounds. When supplied in limited amounts as expected from the urine and feces, 

there would be a slight increase in primary productivity (algae growth) that can translate to increased 

secondary productivity (aquatic insect production) that could be beneficial to the toad because food 

resources may become more available (Smith et al. 1999). While this hypothetical benefit could 

occur, the real effect is likely very small and may benefit the toad negligibly since toads typically 

forage in upland habitats further away from the “enriched” waters. 

Effects to Non-breeding Meadow Habitat

The main impacts that livestock have on non-breeding meadow habitat is loss of overhead cover, 

browsing and trampling of willows, and trampling of rodent burrows. As noted for other life stages, 

livestock eat vegetation that provides overhead cover for all life stages of the toad which could result 

in an increase in predation risk. There would be an annual impact wherein overhead cover is reduced 

gradually throughout the season. However, there should be no long-term (10 years) effect on the 

persistence of the vegetative types because the intensity of annual grazing is not high enough to cause 

plant community shifts (McIlroy 2008). Livestock also browse on the willows that provide refuge for 

all life stages of the toad. Typically the livestock eat the more nutritious tips of annual growth and not 

the older, woody stems. For established willows and willow patches, only a small portion of the 

plant(s) are available for foraging as the typical species grows taller than the livestock can reach, and 

the dense patches naturally exclude livestock from browsing extensively on the entire plant or patch. 

If allowable browse standards are met, then the vigor of the plants should not be adversely affected 

and the plants should be maintained over the term of the permit and beyond. Since livestock access to 

the above-ground root area is limited, there is no real impact to the spaces in the root network that 

provides protection for the toad. Cattle can also trample and collapse rodent burrows that are used by 

the toad for overwintering or seasonal refuge. A collapsed occupied burrow can trap the toad 

underground permanently (if there is only one entrance) or until the rodent re-opens the burrow 

entrance. Since grazing probably does not adversely impact the persistence of the burrowing animals 

(mainly ground squirrels) in meadow habitats, the result of burrow trampling is probably minor in 

extent (how many are impacted) and duration (annual effect, not additive between years) because the 

rodents continuously create new burrows and maintain existing entrances. 

Effects to Upland (Non-Meadow) Habitat

As mentioned above, cattle can trample and collapse rodent burrows that are used by the toad for 

overwintering or seasonal refuge. Based on the description of the location of use areas and burrows 

((Martin 2008, Liang 2010 and Morton and Pereyra 2010), burrows located in the non-meadow 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

62

upland have a low risk of damage from trampling because they are typically located in habitats (rocky 

areas, tree roots) not prone to collapse and intensity of livestock use is very low due to the lack of 

suitable forage. An exception to the intensity statement would be in lounging areas, typically in trees 

near the edge of the meadow, where livestock use is high despite the lack of forage. However, the risk 

of the burrow collapsing from the cows is considered to be low to moderate because the roots from 

the trees in the lounging areas make the burrows resistant to collapse.

Other Potential Impacts

The permittees and the people who help them manage livestock may also incur incidental and 

dispersed impacts to the toad during routine ranching activities. These activities include maintenance 

of Allotment structures (fences), herding by foot or horseback, and the operation of vehicles to 

support ranching operations. The activities may injure or kill toads in upland habitat by trampling or 

crushing and collapsing rodent burrows with the result of entrapment or mortality, or may briefly 

affect behavior through disturbance. Since the permittees do not extensively manage these Allotments 

(no daily management), the risk of impact to individuals or habitats is considered to be very low 

The effects to occupied habitat that are listed above also apply to suitable unoccupied habitat. 

However, the consequences to the species are likely to be relatively insignificant in extensive areas 

that do not support any populations (as in the Bell Meadow Allotment) or where single populations 

are isolated from other populations by more than several miles or by geographic features that are 

effective barriers to dispersal. These statements are supported by the genetic variation work 

completed on the toad by Shaffer et al. (2000) who state “...we should probably expect that extirpated 

populations will not reestablish.” Shaffer et al. (2000) base this statement on significant genetic 

substructure differences among breeding sites. 

Summary of outcomes

This is a general summary of what is known across the two occupied Allotments which incorporates 

expected outcomes for all populations of the toad in the analysis area. As noted previously, some of 

the populations of the toad, particularly in the Herring Creek Allotment, are assumed to be very small. 

For these very small populations, there is moderate to high uncertainty as to the viability of these 

populations under or without the pressures from livestock grazing. For some of these populations, any 

loss of individuals may result in long-term reductions in population size, especially the loss of 

subadults (ages 2-3) and adults (3+ years). Combined with heavy losses at the tadpole and metamorph 

stages from natural causes and low recruitment to the adult stage, some populations may be at a 

critical stage for continued existence. There is a fair bit of uncertainty for the viability outcomes of all 

of the known populations on the two Allotments with toads. For the most at risk populations in the 

Herring Creek Allotment, there are multiple nearby populations that can serve as sources for 

repopulating or supplementing the numbers and genetics to enhance long-term survival. For other 

populations, regular (presumably annual) successful breeding has occurred even in very dry years. 

This indicates a supply of females that risk laying their eggs in habitats that may not be suitable for 

recruitment, which suggests population sizes that are large enough to be viable longer-term. 

Population declines are apparent across the range of the toad even at locations where grazing has not 

occurred for several decades (Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1993). Livestock grazing may be 

contributing to some of the low population sizes, but grazing at current levels (numbers, duration, 

timing) may not be the primary factor for the continued decline of these populations. The results of 

the Yosemite toad – grazing study indicate the short-term impacts of grazing in and around occupied 

habitats minimally affect occupancy and some habitat factors. The limiting factor, at present, seems to 

be the historic reduction in or loss of suitable habitat in many meadows when the streams incised, and 

the water table lowered to the point where breeding habitats dewatered premature to tadpole 

development. Most of the meadows in the Allotments appear to be stable (even if degraded) and the 

expectation is that without further incision/dewatering, the existing extent of suitable breeding habitat 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

63

will be maintained for the foreseeable future, with or without grazing. This does not take into account 

the possible habitat-related effects associated with changing climate. As noted above, climatic 

variability associated with observed changes over the last several decades further adds uncertainty for 

these populations. Site-specific outcomes are discussed below. 

These anticipated outcomes are consistent with the viability analyses conducted in the Sierra Nevada 

Framework Plan Amendment EIS (USDA 2001) and the Sierra Nevada Framework Plan Amendment 

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) (USDA 2004). A detailed description 

of the methodology used to support these environmental outcomes is provided in Volume 3, Chapter 

3, part 4, pages 2 – 8 in USDA (2001). 

Environmental outcomes (USDA 2001) for the species considered in this document are described 

below and include: 

 Outcome C: Suitable environments are frequently distributed as patches or they exist at low 

abundance, or both. Gaps, where suitable environments are either absent or present in low 

abundance, are large enough that some subpopulations are isolated, limiting opportunity for 

species interactions. In most of the species range, subpopulations have the opportunity to interact 

as a metapopulation; however, some subpopulations are so disjunct or of such low density that 

they are essentially isolated from other populations. 

 Outcome D: Suitable environments are highly isolated or they exist at very low abundance, or 

both. While some subpopulations associated with these environments may be self-sustaining, 

there is limited or no opportunity for population interaction. There has been an overall reduction 

in overall species range from historical conditions, except for some rare, local endemics that may 

have persisted in this condition since the historical period. 

 Outcome E: Suitable environments are highly isolated and exist at very low abundance. 

Populations have little or no interaction, resulting in strong potential for local or regional 

extirpation, and low likelihood or recolonization. 

In USDA (2001), the selected alternative (modified Alternative 8) was evaluated as having the lowest 

risk to the toad and likely to improve conditions for Yosemite toads by increasing the likelihood that 

suitable environments would continue to occur as patches and decrease the likelihood that suitable 

environments would be isolated. The management activities that the Forest Service could influence 

for the benefit of the toad included locally applied chemical toxins (pesticides), exotic fish stocking, 

livestock grazing, and pack stock. Elements of modified Alternative 8 relating to livestock grazing 

included utilization limits, livestock exclusion from willow flycatcher habitats and from toad breeding 

areas, and streambank disturbance standards. The two primary environmental outcomes for modified 

Alternative 8 were Outcome C (80) and Outcome D (18), with the numbers in parentheses indicating 

the average degree of confidence in the outcome being realized in 50 years of implementation of the 

alternative.

In USDA (2004), two action alternatives were considered and their effects (direct, indirect, and 

cumulative) were analyzed, with Alternative S2 chosen as the selected alternative. It is assumed that 

the intent to implement the Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS) would benefit the toad by 

providing protection for Yosemite toads and their habitat. The two factors that were used to assess 

environmental consequences were livestock grazing and pack and saddle stock use and recreational 

activities. Implementation of “Standard & Guideline 53” (in the 2004 Record of Decision) is the 

primary restriction to reduce the impacts of livestock grazing and presence on the toad and its habitat 

while at the larval stage. Other standards and guidelines pertaining to utilization limits, streambank 

disturbance, and willow flycatcher where the flycatcher’s habitat overlaps with the toad’s further 

work to reduce the impact to the toad and it’s habitat. 

The environmental outcomes for the frog determined in USDA (2004) did not change from those 

determined in USDA (2001) which are shown above. 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

64

Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog

As with the Yosemite toad, livestock grazing can affect individuals and habitats. Cattle can step on 

adults, metamorphs, and tadpoles when in immediate riparian habitats or when in an occupied water 

body. The likelihood of injury or mortality is assumed to be very low because field observations have 

shown all three life stages readily invoke an escape response when disturbed. Tadpoles rapidly swim 

away to deeper water, while adults and subadults leap from the shoreline, swim ten feet or more 

through the water, and occasionally embed themselves under logs, rocks, or into the muddy substrate. 

Adults and subadults may be vulnerable in upland habitat that connects two suitable aquatic habitats, 

particularly when shallow habitats become dry and the frog moves overland to more suitable habitat. 

The likelihood of injury or death is assumed to be low because the frog is a good hopper, can sustain 

bursts of hopping, and can travel up to ten feet in ten hops as supported by personal observation. Even 

though the frog may be able to avoid injury or mortality, the cattle do disturb the basic behavior of the 

frog when the two come into immediate contact. 

Even though the frog may be able to avoid injury or mortality, the cattle can disturb the basic 

behavior of the frog when the two come into close or immediate contact. As noted above, a “flight” 

response is typically invoked and individuals escape the perceived predation threat by seeking refuge 

in aquatic habitats. The consequence of infrequent, non-physically injurious disturbance is believed to 

be very minor and should have no consequence on long-term individual fitness. For tadpoles, the 

flight response is retreating into deeper waters and seeking overhead refuge (large woody debris, 

spaces between larger sized substrates). The effect of retreating is an increase in predation risk (trout) 

because the tadpoles are moving out of a low predation risk habitat (shallow water) to a higher risk 

area (deep water) and a temporary move to cooler waters combined with a cessation of feeding. If this 

disturbance occurs frequently, the increased predation risk could become important in constraining 

recruitment because fish (and other predators, example Sierra gartersnakes (Thamnophis couchii)) are 

present in the stream and the tadpoles are the most vulnerable stage to predation. Kupferberg, et al. 

(2011) found greater predation in foothill yellow-legged frog tadpoles that were exposed to changes 

in velocity which forced the tadpoles to seek refuge habitat. 

Another consequence of frequent disturbance could be a minor to moderate effect on growth because 

the tadpoles do not feed when hiding, are in a less than optimal location for growth (they prefer 

warmer water), and may be affected by stress hormones. Slower growth may result in a reduced size 

at metamorphosis or a delay in metamorphosis. The consequences of these effects are not completely 

understood, but they may be important in subsequent population dynamics with larger size at 

metamorphosis affecting post-metamorphic growth, survival, and reproductive performance (Smith 

1987, Semlitsch et al. 1988). Both Smith (1987) and Semlitsch, et al. (1988) found positive 

correlations between larger tadpole size at metamorphosis, larger adult size at reproduction, and 

earlier age at first reproduction in a chorus frog and an ambystomatid salamander, respectively. These 

effects on adults can play important roles in recruitment and population dynamics. If the converse of 

these findings is accurate and smaller size at metamorphosis occurs, then there could be subtle longterm constraints on population growth barring the interaction with other factors. It should be noted 

that neither Smith nor Semlitsch, et al. found a link between tadpole size at metamorphosis and 

survival to adulthood. 

For post-metamorphic individuals, physical disturbance is more likely to interrupt basking than 

foraging, because the frog is an opportunistic ambush predator and likely spends most time in the 

terrestrial environment near the edge of water. Infrequent disturbance (low intensity and duration) is 

not expected to have deleterious impact on individual fitness, but more frequent disturbance could 

lead to increased time spent in refuge habitat or reduction in abundance in areas of high disturbance 

(Rodriguez-Prieto and Fernando-Juricic 2005). These authors suggest the increased time in aquatic 

habitats represents a loss of spatial and temporal terrestrial resources for the frog and is a trade-off 

between predation risk and resource use. The likely effect of more frequent disturbance could be a 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

65

shift in individuals to habitats that have less disturbance and possibly less preferred or available 

resources. Relegation to suboptimal habitats could influence reproductive capacity (a reduction) 

which could have a very long term impact on population size. Cattle presence along the shoreline of 

small ponds and streams can trample or slough the bank, adding sediment to aquatic habitats. 

Trampling and grazing can alter the vegetative structure of the banks, weakening them and making 

them more susceptible to erosion. Trailing paths that are hydrologically connected to suitable or 

occupied water can affect habitat in a similar way by intercepting and concentrating overland flow to 

the point where erosion of the path occurs. In excess, the sediment can reduce the volume of the pond 

or stream pools to the point where overwintering becomes unlikely. 

The grazing of riparian vegetation (particularly tall sedges) can reduce overhead cover, thereby 

reducing the refuge quality of the habitat and exposing the frog to predation or desiccation (Jennings 

1996). The consequences of this effect is considered to very minor because utilization standards limit 

the extent to which cover is removed and the frog has the ability to move and choose preferred 

habitat. 

As noted for the Yosemite toad, livestock grazing in and around suitable aquatic habitat has the 

potential to increase nutrient concentrations in waters by the deposition of metabolic waste products 

(urine and feces). The discussion provided for the toad applies to the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged 

frog, and the reader is referred to the discussion above. 

Cattle moving across the landscape pose a risk of transmitting the chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium 

dendrobatidis, from an infected area to an uninfected area. The implications of this effect are 

addressed under Yosemite toad, and are the same for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. However, 

throughout its range, the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog appears to be more vulnerable to lethal 

infection than the toad thereby making the risk to the frog slightly greater than the risk to the toad.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Yosemite toad

The spatial boundary for cumulative effects at this scale is the area encompassed by the discrete 

boundaries of the three Allotments because the livestock do not significantly stray off of the 

Allotment and the primary use areas are typically well embedded in the interior portions of the 

Allotments. The temporal boundary is from the present date, projecting ten years into the future 

which is the term of the permit. For the Bell Allotment, there would be no cumulative effect to 

individuals or occupied habitat since this Allotment is presumed to be unoccupied. There were no 

proposed actions identified that could cumulatively affect suitable, unoccupied habitat in this 

Allotment. 

For the Eagle Meadow Allotment, there are private lands within the Allotments that are primarily 

seasonal residences. However, none of these private parcels are within the watershed occupied by the 

toad and the private parcels are about four miles from the Shell Meadow area. The distance of the 

private parcels to the nearest occupied site is much greater than the maximum dispersal distance 

known and any actions occurring on those parcels would not cumulatively affect any toad population. 

There is one present federal action that could potentially impact individuals and habitat at Shell 

Meadow. That project, the Shell Meadow Restoration Project , implemented corrective actions on a 

headcut at the lower end of the meadow and will remove encroaching conifers. Implementation of 

this project poses a potential risk to individuals (mortality, disturbance) occupying the meadow and 

upland. Initial mitigation measures include having a person on site to check the work areas for toads 

during the equipment operational period. The long term benefit to this population and breeding 

habitat is preventing the headcut from advancing upstream, causing a dewatering of the breeding 

pool. Implementation of the headcut repair is complete and implementation of conifer encroachment 

is proposed for 2016. 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

66

For the Herring Creek Allotment, all of the lands are publically owned and administered by the Forest 

Service. As such, there could not be any state or private actions that would cumulatively affect the 

Yosemite toad. There was one past project that could have impacted the toad. This project, the 

Hammill Canyon Hazard Tree Project, cut and/or removed dead or high-risk conifers from an area 

300 feet along the roads in the analysis area. Operators and equipment (log skidders) were in close 

proximity to Bluff, Coyote, Groundhog, Lower Three, Middle Three, Tributary to Willow Creek #2, 

Upper Three, and Wire Corral Meadows. There is a possibility that toads were directly affected 

(injury, mortality, disturbance) if they were in the operating area of the equipment. The extent of this 

impact is unknown, but the loss of individuals from the smallest populations could have long term 

detrimental consequences to population viability. The equipment also removed some trees that could 

serve as refuge habitat (downed large woody debris) for the toad, but this effect on long term habitat 

suitability is assumed to be relatively minor because only a portion of the cut trees were merchantable 

and removed. The remaining trees that were felled remained on the ground, thereby providing cover.

Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog

The spatial boundary for generalized cumulative effects at this scale is the area encompassed by the 

three Allotments because the livestock do not significantly stray off of the Allotment and the primary 

use areas are typically well embedded in the interior portions of the Allotments. The temporal 

boundary is from the present date, projecting ten years into the future which is the term of the permit. 

For the Bell and Herring Creek Allotments, all of the lands are publically owned and administered by 

the Forest Service. There are no federal actions proposed for the analysis area that are within the 

watershed occupied by the frog or within one mile of an occupied site. There were no actions 

proposed on private or federally administered lands that could impact the frog or its suitable habitats.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Yosemite toad

While there is no direct quantitative link between grazing and reductions in Yosemite toad 

populations (Federal Register 2002), the documented negative effects from livestock to the toad’s 

habitat and direct mortality are sufficient to infer that livestock grazing has resulted in the decline of 

some populations of the toad (Jennings and Hayes 1994). In the absence of permitted livestock 

grazing, there would be no detrimental direct effects to the toad or its habitats. While unstudied, any 

beneficial direct effect associated with livestock grazing, likewise, would not occur. Based on the 

available literature, the exclusion of livestock would be beneficial to the toad and its habitat by 

alleviating one of the identified stressors (Federal Register 2002). The long term outcome for some 

populations may be a gradual decrease in the rate of population decline associated with the loss of 

individuals through direct mortality from livestock. 

As noted in the Soil Report (project record), under this alternative there would be a slight 

improvement in the rate of recovery for the “functional at risk” and “non-functional” meadows 

relative to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Improvements in streambank stability would be expected 

within several years which could lead to a long term improvement in the overall stability of the 

stream. This improvement could also lead to a very gradual rise in water table as the riparian 

vegetation traps sediment and allows the channel to aggrade. For the breeding areas where water 

persistence is compromised from long term shallowing from trampling, there would be a stabilizing 

effect and the habitat would be expected to maintain its current condition. This could also contribute 

to longer term persistence of the smaller populations. 

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

There would be no direct effects to the frog or its habitats related to livestock grazing under this 

alternative. The areas associated with concentrated livestock presence (primarily trailing paths and 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

67

streambank disturbance) would revegetate in the next 3-5 years and reduce sedimentation from these 

sources. As noted for the toad, increased streambank stability would occur at some sites and the risk 

to functional condition (that is, downward to stable trend) would be partially moderated and 

improvements in functional condition could be observed within 25 years. This benefit would only 

occur at suitable but unoccupied sites because the two frog occurrences are close to desired condition 

(proper functioning). 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Yosemite toad

Since there would be no direct or indirect detrimental effects to the toad or its habitat, this alternative 

would not incrementally and detrimentally add to cumulative effects at the scale of the three 

Allotments. Since there could be a slight improvement in habitat conditions in the long term, there 

could be cumulative effects to habitat; however, no other actions were identified that could affect the 

toad’s habitats in any of the three Allotments.

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

Since there would be no direct or indirect detrimental effects to the frog or its habitat, this alternative 

would not incrementally and detrimentally add to cumulative effects. Since there could be a slight 

improvement in habitat conditions in the long term, there could be cumulative effects to habitat; 

however, no other actions were identified that could affect the frog’s habitats in any of the three 

Allotments.

Alternative 3 (Current Management)

DIRECT,INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Yosemite toad

With the exception of a few specific elements addressed in the site-specific analysis section (Aquatics 

BE), there would be no measurable difference between the effects of Alternatives 1 and 3 on the 

aquatic species addressed in this document because grazing would occur under both with about the 

same timing and duration. Under each of these two alternatives, grazing would occur early in the 

season at lower elevations and then progress to higher elevations, essentially deferred until postmetamorphosis of the Yosemite toad. As such, the effects analysis of implementing Alternative 1 

applies to Alternative 3. For a summary of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternative 3 

refer to the discussion of anticipated effects of Alternative 1, above. 

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog 

As with the Yosemite toad, there would be no discernible difference between implementing this 

alternative and Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). 

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)

DIRECT,INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Yosemite toad

Since livestock grazing would be eliminated entirely from habitats occupied by Yosemite toads, the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on Yosemite toads for this alternative would be the same as 

described for Alternative 2 (No Action). 

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

There would be very little difference between implementing this alternative and implementing 

alternatives 1 and 3. While this alternative implements a 10% bank alteration standard in stream 

reaches occupied by the frog, the primary concerns of livestock grazing in occupied habitat are 

related to the direct effects which would still exist under this alternative. Under Alternative 4, the 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

68

level of near-stream activity would be less which would slightly decrease the risk of trampling (injury 

or mortality) or disturbance. Indirectly, the predation risk to individuals would be slightly reduced. 

For habitat, the direct effect of importance would be the reduction in streambank disturbance which 

could improve streambank stability over the long term. However, since the streams are at or close to 

desired condition, the benefit that could be realized would be small. The levels of allowable use along 

the occupied streams would also mean overhead cover would be slightly higher because grazing 

pressure along the stream would be reduced. The effect would presumably be a higher level of 

suitability for frogs seeking refuge in dense vegetation with high levels of overhead cover. 

Cumulatively, there were no other actions in the past, present, or foreseeable future that would add to 

the direct and indirect effects of this alternative.

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

Implementation of Alternatives 1 (Proposed Action) and 3 (Current Management) would be almost 

indistinguishable in the levels of relative risk and degrees of impact to individuals and habitats 

required by the Yosemite toad and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. Direct effects to individuals of 

both species include injury, mortality, and disturbance from livestock activity in meadows, nonmeadow areas surrounding meadows, and riparian areas. For the Yosemite toad, the greatest risk of 

direct effects is for metamorphs and come immediately following metamorphosis when the Forest 

Plan exclusionary standard is lifted. For all other life stages of the toad, the risk of direct effects 

varies from low-moderate to very low. For the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the ability of all life 

stages to readily flee into habitats less vulnerable to impact reduces the overall risk of direct effect to 

low. The primary indirect effect is associated with an increased predation risk. For the toad, the 

predation risk is increased as overhead cover is reduced from forage utilization. For the frog, the 

predation risk is associated with flight behavior following disturbance and is greatest for tadpoles and 

recent metamorphs. For both species, any livestock-related direct mortality to individuals may 

translate into downward trends in population size because all of the populations are assumed to be 

small or very small (<20 adults). The loss of females is more critical than loss of males, since 

availability of females is essential to supporting recruitment and males can reproduce with more than 

one female.

Livestock also have the potential to directly and indirectly impact habitats used by the toad and frog. 

For the Yosemite toad, direct effects to habitat include creating deep pock marks in breeding habitats, 

deposition of metabolic products (urine and feces) in water, and removal of overhead cover via 

grazing. All of these effects occur on an annual basis (except during years of non-use), and are 

considered temporary in that they are remediated over short periods of time (annually). For the frog, 

similar direct effects to habitat occur, including the deposition of metabolic wastes into water and 

reduction in overhead cover. Increased nutrients in water from urine and feces could result in 

measurable increases in nitrogenous products (primarily ammonia and ammonium), but high 

concentrations would last a short period of time through dilution and not have a long term effect on 

water quality because the nutrients would be assimilated readily into the food web. For both species, 

there is a very low risk that fine sediments could be delivered to critical aquatic habitats (breeding and 

rearing), but this effect should not result in an impairment of these habitats to the point of reduced 

capability or unsuitability. 

Cumulatively, there were very few actions identified with the potential to add detrimental effects to 

the indirect and direct effects associated with implementing either action alternative. Both projects 

would affect the Yosemite toad and not the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. Of the two projects, 

one would largely benefit the Yosemite toad by stopping the upstream movement of a headcut in 

Shell Meadow (Eagle Meadow Allotment). The headcut is active and advancing to breeding habitat 

and this restoration action is a beneficial action. There is little cumulative effect at Shell Meadow 

because the meadow is excluded from grazing. The second action that could have cumulatively 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

69

affected toads in the Herring Creek Allotment is a hazard tree sale along the 4N12 road. Direct effect 

to individuals was the most likely impact and may have resulted in mortality because log skidders 

were operated in forested areas adjacent to breeding habitats. For very small populations, there could 

be a long term decrease in population growth, but in larger populations there may have been no 

change in population size. 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

The most applicable direction is provided below with a brief statement of compliance with that 

direction. 

1. Species viability – Maintain and restore habitat to support viable populations of native and 

desired non-native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

Based on information contained in the Watershed Report and Soil Report (project record), there 

would be no functional changes in the meadow ratings and currently suitable habitat would be 

maintained for meadow dependent species. Continued grazing at presently authorized stocking 

rates would impact aquatic habitats in the same way into the future and aquatic habitats would be 

maintained close to the existing condition. 

2. Plant and animal community diversity – Maintain and restore the species composition and 

structural diversity of plant and animal communities in riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows to 

provide desired habitats and ecological function.

Same compliance rationale given in 1 above.

3. Streamflow patterns and sediment regimes – Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to 

sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment 

regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved.

Utilization and streambank/shoreline disturbance standards would be implemented per Forest 

Plan Direction. Annual monitoring of key areas would document yearly compliance and longterm condition and trend monitoring plots would indicate long-term trends in meadow condition. 

4. Stream banks and shorelines – Maintain and restore the physical structure and condition of stream 

banks and shorelines to minimize erosion and sustain desired habitat diversity. 

Same compliance rationale given in 3 above. 

5. Provide habitat for diverse and viable populations of all native and desired non-native wildlife 

and fish. Maintain and improve habitat for federally listed Threatened and endangered species 

and give special attention to sensitive species to see that they do not become Threatened or 

Endangered. 

Meadow and stream habitats would be maintained under the proposed action because there would 

be no major changes to stocking rates, season of use, or distribution patterns of livestock. 

Livestock exclusion from occupied Yosemite toad habitat would partially protect the most 

vulnerable life stage. Compliance with viability standard may be in question and some 

populations may be at risk of continued viability due to factors unrelated to livestock grazing. 

Both species are federally listed as threatened (Yosemite toad) and endangered (Sierra Nevada 

yellow-legged frog). 

6. Exclude livestock from standing water and saturated soil in wet meadows and associated streams 

and springs occupied by Yosemite toads or identified as “essential habitat” during the breeding 

and rearing season (through metamorphosis). If physical exclusion of livestock is impractical, 

then exclude grazing from the entire meadow. 
Chapter 3.02 Stanislaus

Aquatic Species National Forest

70

The proposed action would implement this standard and guideline for both Allotments occupied 

by Yosemite toad. 

7. Complete one survey cycle in suitable habitat for the Yosemite toad within this species’ historic 

range to determine presence of Yosemite toads.

Surveys of suitable Yosemite toad habitat have been completed. 

8. Provide medium to high quality habitat for resident trout species. 

No fish stocking occurs within the analysis area and resident trout populations are self-sustaining. 

Self-sustaining populations indicate habitat conditions are suitable for meeting the needs for all 

life stages. Fine sediment values combined with aquatic macroinvertebrate assessment data 

indicates no impairment of stream habitat.

9. In wilderness, ecosystems are unaffected by human manipulation and influences so that plants 

and animals develop and respond to natural forces. 

For the population of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog that occurs in the Emigrant Wilderness

Area, livestock do not typically graze in this area due to natural barriers (bare rock expanse). As 

such, there is limited influence on this population from any human source. 

10. Ensure that management activities do not adversely affect water temperatures necessary for local 

aquatic- and riparian-dependent species assemblages.

The percentage of perennial stream that is within primary use areas by Allotment ranges from 

about 5 to 18% with a large majority of the stream mileage lying within forested areas. Because 

primary areas are meadows, the livestock do not affect the shading provided by the taller, woody 

vegetation that provides beneficial shade. Any area experiencing increases in stream temperatures 

is moderated by downstream forested areas. 

11. Prevent disturbance to streambanks and natural lake and pond shorelines caused by resource 

activities (for example, livestock) from exceeding 20 percent of the stream reach or 20 percent of 

natural lake and pond shorelines. 

All action alternatives would implement these forest standards. Some level of annual monitoring 

would occur on the Allotments to determine yearly compliance with the standards.

12. Locate new facilities for gathering livestock outside of meadows and riparian conservation areas. 

During project-level planning, evaluate and consider relocating existing livestock facilities 

outside of meadows and riparian areas. 

The proposed action would create a new holding facility on the Eagle Meadow Allotment. The 

area proposed is in an upland area more than 0.25 mile from the nearest perennial stream. For the 

existing holding structure at Eagle Meadow (Eagle Meadow Allotment), the interdisciplinary 

team identified this structure to be within a riparian area, but a suitable location for a replacement 

structure was not identified. Additionally, the existing structure has historic/cultural significance 

which prohibited removal.

13. Limit browsing to no more than 20 percent of the annual leader growth of mature riparian shrubs 

and no more than 20 percent of individual seedlings. 

All action alternatives would implement this standard and some level of annual monitoring would 

occur to identify compliance. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

71

3.03 BOTANY

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

Management of Sensitive Plants on the Stanislaus National Forest is based on Forest Service policy 

set out in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670) and the Forest Service Handbook (FSH 2609.26), 

the Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010), the Forest Sensitive Plant Management Guide and, where 

applicable, Species Management Guides. 

It is the Secretary of Agriculture's policy to "avoid actions 'which may cause a species to become 

threatened or endangered.'" (FSM 2670.12). Further, it is a Forest Service objective to "maintain 

viable populations of all native ... plant species in habitats distributed throughout their geographic 

range on National Forest System lands" (FSM 2670.22). Forest Service policy set out in FSM 

2670.32 is to "avoid or minimize impacts to [Sensitive] species whose viability has been identified as 

a concern." Further, where it is determined that impacts cannot be avoided, "the line officer with 

project approval authority, [may make] the decision to allow or disallow impact, but the decision 

must not result in loss of species viability or create significant trends toward Federal listing." Forest 

plan Direction states: “conduct field surveys for threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive 

(TEPS) plant species early enough in the project planning process so that the project can be designed 

to conserve or enhance TEPS plants and their habitat. ... If additional field surveys are conducted as 

part of project implementation, document the survey results in the project file (USDA 2010).” It 

further states “Conduct surveys and monitoring necessary to detect potentially damaging 

disturbances, changes in known populations and locations of new populations. 

General direction for management of Sensitive Plants under the LRMP is to "provide for protection 

and habitat needs of sensitive plants, so that Forest activities will not jeopardize their continued 

existence." Forest Plan Direction standards and guidelines advise to "modify planned projects to 

avoid or minimize adverse impacts to sensitive plants." Portions of three of these Allotments also fall 

under the Central Sierra Watershed Assessment. Desired condition number 12 is that “All threatened, 

endangered and sensitive (TES) terrestrial and aquatic plant and plantlike species are maintained as 

viable populations.” 

An additional measure applicable to this project is the following: 

“Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing activities that adversely affect hydrologic processes 

that maintain water flow, water quality, or water temperature critical to sustaining bog and fen 

ecosystems and plant species that depend on these ecosystems. During project analysis, 

survey, map, and develop measures to protect bogs and fens from such activities as trampling 

by livestock, pack stock, humans, and wheeled vehicles. Criteria for defining bogs and fens 

include, but are not limited to, presence of: (1) sphagnum moss (Spagnum [sic] spp.), (2) 

mosses belonging to the genus Meessia[sic], and (3) sundew (Drosera spp.) Complete initial 

plant inventories of bogs and fens within active grazing Allotments prior to re-issuing 

permits.” (USDA 2010)

There is a Conservation Assessment for Meesia triquetra and M. uliginosa (Dillingham 2005). 

Conservation Assessments for Epilobium howellii, Botrychiums, and fens also exist. 

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Botany

Cumulative effects for sensitive plants and fens were analyzed using the three range Allotment

boundaries as proposed in Alternative 1 because it encompasses all of the proposed grazing activities 

and other projects that could affect sensitive plant species and fens within the project area. 
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Botany National Forest

72

This analysis of cumulative effects uses the existing condition as the baseline for analysis because: 1) 

the numbers of permitted livestock have remained constant over the past 10 years and the intensity of 

grazing would not change from the present rate; however, 2) the timing of range use in the Allotments 

with Yosemite toad have shifted to protect the toad. Timing of use can change the impacts to plants. 

In addition, 3) where legacy conditions (those presumed to have been caused by previous overgrazing 

or other management activities) have significantly altered sensitive plants or fen habitats, no 

significant improvement in habitat condition would occur without the intervention of major stream 

restoration. 

Permanently wet areas are impacted more late in the season when most other areas have dried. Early 

season impacts are assumed to be lighter because these areas may be too wet and other resources are 

available.

As a corollary, late season use will affect the sensitive plants that grow in wet areas more than will 

use early in the season. 

Meadows, stringer meadows, and streams are areas that are likely to be used by cattle. The types of 

impacts that could affect sensitive plants include trampling and soil compaction, trail creation, 

changes to hydrology, grazing, defecation, and introduction of noxious weeds. The types of impacts 

can vary depending on timing and duration of grazing, degree of utilization, and whether any rest 

rotation is implemented. Impacts from removal of grazing consist primarily of competition from other 

plants that may increase or grow taller. When grazing is removed, sedges increase in many areas and 

can shade out other, shorter species. Species that grow in dry habitats with less vegetation are 

unlikely to be affected very much by cattle except by weed introduction. 

Grazing in areas that were previously ungrazed and shifting grazing to later in the season can cause 

the greatest impacts to wetland and late seral habitat species. Withholding grazing or increasing 

grazing can impact species that grow in mid seral habitats.

Data Sources

 Literature Review (references are listed in Appendix E). 

 GIS layers with information on range resources and facilities, rare plant habitat and occurrences, 

and survey locations. 

 On the ground surveys provided additional information. 

Botany Indicators

 Occurrences of sensitive plants and their condition

 Suitable habitat for sensitive plants and its condition

 Overall range condition indicators and seral stage

Botany Methodology

A list of all federally listed Threatened, Endangered or Proposed plant species which might occur on 

the Stanislaus National Forest was requested from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website. 

A pre-field review was conducted to determine which species could be present and whether they 

could be affected by the activities of this project. Aerial photographs were examined to find 

additional meadows, particularly stringer meadows that were not included in the GIS meadows layer. 

Surveys were conducted in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2011. All surveys were based on the 

2006 sensitive plant list. Surveys were directed toward those areas where impacts are more likely as 

indicated by the mapped primary use areas. Primary and secondary range areas were established by 

the Forest Range Specialist in conjunction with the permittees. These are the areas that are mainly 

used by the cattle and where most of the impacts would be. These were the areas targeted for surveys.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

73

Affected Environment

In all of the Allotments the soils are weathered granitic till, recent alluvium, and fractured andesitic 

tuff. The recent alluvium is usually in meadows. In the Bell Meadow Allotment, there is also slightly 

weathered granitic rock. Volcanic parent materials are more porous and more likely to carry water to 

create fens. Contact areas between volcanic and granitic parent materials are also areas where more 

moisture is likely. 

Meadow areas are reported to the nearest ten to 25 acres since they are derived from photographs and 

are approximate. Meadow information derives from a GIS layer created quickly from aerial and infrared photos. This layer contains most of the meadows on the forest, and also included some patches of 

mule’s ear (Wyethia mollis), whitethorn (Ceanothus cordulatus) and rock outcrops. It was reviewed 

further for this project by examining orthophotos, and aerial photos where needed. 

Meadows are a small portion of the total Allotment area, but are the major area of cattle impacts and 

of sensitive plant habitats. They are such a focus that two of the Allotments are named after the 

largest meadows in them. They will be the focus of this analysis. Not all of the meadows are in the 

main areas that cattle use. Surveys were directed toward those areas where impacts are more likely as 

indicated by the mapped primary use areas. The elevations range from 6,000 to 9,500 feet. The 

elevation of secondary range extends from about 6,300 to 9,100 feet. 

This project also proposes additions to two of the Allotments. Since these are areas where the use will 

change, they will be addressed in more detail. Three addition areas are proposed: McCormick Pocket 

and Niagara Creek in the Eagle Meadow Allotment, and the Cascade Creek addition in the Herring 

Creek Allotment. McCormick Pocket has one mapped meadow at the upper end, but smaller 

meadows occur in the area. McCormick Pocket also contains areas with dense riparian shrubs, 

willows and mountain alder. In a single day survey, very few areas of grasses and grass-like plants 

were seen. The area is fairly open with both volcanic and some granitic outcrops. The proposed 

Niagara Creek addition is more forested. It has one small mapped meadow and other, smaller stringer 

meadows along the streams. Five plantation units are found in this area. Old wire fence lines and 

scattered dried cow pies are indicative of past use. The Cascade Creek addition is entirely within two 

mapped timber sales from the 1960’s. Over 40 plantations occur in the Cascade Creek addition area. 

There are also three mapped meadows and two springs. The plantations are well distributed over the 

area, and often have grasses and other forage in the understory. 

Sensitive Plant Review

No federally listed Threatened or Endangered plants could occur in this project. A Sensitive Plant is 

defined as a plant species "identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a 

concern, as evidenced by: "a. Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers 

or density." and "b. Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would 

reduce a species' existing distribution." Of the forty-six Sensitive Plant species on the Regional 

Forester's list for the Stanislaus National Forest (Table 3.03-1), known occurrences and unsurveyed 

suitable habitat for eleven species are present in areas of primary and secondary range. The analysis 

area is outside the known geographic or elevational range of Allium jepsonii, Allium yosemitense, 

Arctostaphylos nissenana, Balsamorhiza macrolepis, Calochortus clavatus var. avius, Clarkia 

australis, Clarkia biloba ssp. australis, Clarkia lingulata, Eriophyllum congdonii, Eriophyllum 

nubigenum, Erythronium taylori, Erythronium tuolumnense, Fissidens aphelotaxifolius, Horkelia 

parryi, Hulsea brevifolia, Iris hartwegii ssp. columbiana, Lewisia congdonii, Lewisia kelloggii ssp.

hutchisonii, Mielichhoferia elongata, Mielichhoferia shevockii, Mimulus filicaulis, and Mimulus 

pulchellus. Suitable habitat for Allium tribracteatum and Lomatium stebbinsii (lava caps) does not 

occur in the primary and secondary range. There are only a few areas of possible habitat for 

Cypripedium montanum. They all have either been surveyed in past projects or are known to not be 

suitable habitat. Botrychium tunux (rocky), Dendrocollybia racemosa (shady with high duff), Draba 
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Botany National Forest

74

asterophora var. asterophora, D. a. var. macrocarpa (very rocky) and Eriastrum tracyii and 

Tauschia howellii (dry, open) grow in habitats that are unlikely to be affected by cattle. There is no 

suitable habitat within the elevation range for Botrychium yaaxudakeit. Eriogonum luteolum var. 

saltuarium has been found in small openings adjacent to trails. In one of the locations where it was 

originally reported, it may have been above a creek, but the creek bank was fairly open with low 

vegetation cover. For this reason, it is not considered likely to be impacted in this project. Boechera 

evadens is no longer considered likely on this National Forest. The occurrence on Calaveras is a 

different species. Peltigera gowardii ranges up to about 8,000 feet in elevation, but has not been 

found over 6,000 feet on the Stanislaus. Most of the occurrences are under 5,000 feet. The primary 

and secondary range in these Allotments ranges from 6,400 to 10,600 feet so it is not likely to occur 

in the area covered by this analysis. Boechera tularensis, Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium 

crenulatum, Botrychium lineare, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, B. montanum, B. 

pinnatum, B. pedunculosum, Bruchia bolanderi, Cinna bolanderi, Helodium blandowii and Meesia 

uliginosa will be analyzed in this document. Bruchia bolanderi occurrences are known or tentatively 

identified in the Herring Creek and Bell Meadow Allotments.

Surveys

In 2005 and 2006, survey plans were based on the assumption that meadows are the primary areas 

where cattle congregate and that meadows and streams are the primary areas where impacts are likely 

to occur. Primary and secondary range areas were established by the Forest Range Specialist in 

conjunction with the permittees. These are the areas that are mainly used by the cattle, the areas

where most of the impacts would occur, and the areas targeted for surveys.

Several other steps were taken to target survey areas for sensitive plant species. Aerial photos were 

reviewed and areas that might be fens were delineated within the primary and secondary range. Any 

additional meadows, including stringer meadows and smaller meadows that were below the minimum 

size for the GIS layer, were delineated. Some meadows in the BEH Allotments were surveyed in 

2005 either by sensitive plants surveys for this project or by non-project fens surveys as part of a 

regional effort. Sensitive plant surveys continued during the 2006 field season. Surveys were planned 

to visit the meadows most likely to have fens. Surveys also targeted meadows in most parts of the 

primary/secondary range. Surveys for some Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii habitat were completed in 

2008. In 2009 the Bell Meadow Allotment was surveyed, primarily for non-meadow species. In 2010, 

the Cascade project area was surveyed and there were surveys in the proposed additions and at 

Special Aquatic Features. Due to the change in the sensitive plant species list in late 2013, no surveys 

have been done for Boechera tularensis and Cinna bolanderi. In addition, new occurrences of 

Bruchia bolanderi and Botrychium ascendens were found after most of the surveys were completed. 

These indicated a change in elevation for the former and a better understanding of habitat for the 

other. 

Additionally, Botrychium spp. can grow under fairly dense willows. Those are areas that cattle are 

unlikely to impact and were not surveyed. They can also grow along streams. Those areas were not 

targeted for surveys. Of the higher elevation meadows where Meesia uliginosa is more likely, many 

of the unsurveyed meadows are outside of the primary and secondary range areas where cattle are 

most likely to go.

The most likely areas of habitat have been surveyed in primary and secondary range for Lupinus 

gracilentus. These are the areas where cattle are most likely to be. The nearest known location is onehalf mile from this project.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

75

Table 3.03-1 Sensitive Plant species of the Stanislaus National Forest

Species Scientific Name Species Common Name

Allium jepsonii Jepson's onion

Allium tribracteatum three bracted onion

Allium yosemitense Yosemite onion

Arctostaphylos nissenana Nissenan manzanita

Balsamorhiza macrolepis big-scale balsamroot

Boechera evadens hidden rockcress

Botrychium ascendens upswept moonwort

Botrychium crenulatum scalloped moonwort

Botrychium lunaria common moonwort

Botrychium minganense Mingan moonwort

Botrychium montanum western goblin

Botrychium pedunculosum stalked moonwort

Botrychium pinnatum northwestern moonwort

Botrychium tunu moosewort

Botrychium yaaxudakeit* giant moonwort

Bruchia bolanderi Bolander’s bruchia

Calochortus clavatus var. avius Pleasant Valley mariposa lily

Clarkia australis Small's southern clarkia

Clarkia biloba ssp. australis Mariposa clarkia

Clarkia lingulata Merced clarkia

Cypripedium montanum mountain ladyslipper

Dendrocollybia racemosa branched collybia

Draba asterophora var. asterophora Tahoe draba

Draba asterophora var.macrocarpa Cup Lake draba

Eriogonum luteolum var. saltuarium Jack’s buckwheat

Eriophyllum congdonii Congdon's woolly sunflower

Eriophyllum nubigenum Yosemite woolly sunflower

Erythronium taylori Taylor's fawn lily

Erythronium tuolumnense Tuolumne fawn lily

Fissidens aphelotaxifolius brook pocket moss

Helodium blandowii Blandow’s bog moss

Horkelia parryi Parry's horkelia

Hulsea brevifolia short-leaved hulsea

Iris hartwegii ssp. columbiana Tuolumne iris

Lewisia congdonii Congdon's bitterroot

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii Sierra Valley lewisia

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii Kellogg’s lewisia

Lomatium stebbinsii Stebbins’ lomatium

Meesia uliginosa broad-nerved hump-moss

Mielichhoferia elongata elongate copper-moss

Mielichhoferia shevockii Shevock’s copper-moss

Mimulus filicaulis Hetch-Hetchy monkeyflower

Mimulus pulchellus pansy monkeyflower

Peltigera gowardii veiny aquatic lichen, waterfan

Pinus albicaulis White bark pine

Species Account and Habitat Status

The following paragraphs describe the sensitive plant species which occur or might occur in the 

project area, and their state and federal statuses. Additionally, the suitable habitat is described for 
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Botany National Forest

76

these sensitive plants. Suitable habitat for any species can be defined as the surroundings, substrate 

and environmental factors which allow that species to successfully grow and reproduce. Statuses and 

rankings of sensitive plants are summarized in the BE. Following is a description of the species 

account and habitat status for each sensitive plant species which could occur in the analysis area.

Boechera tularensis

Species Account - First described by Windham and Al-Shehbaz in 2007, this species is primarily 

known to the south of the Stanislaus National Forest with the nearest occurrence at El Capitan, a site 

with an unusually low elevation from 1939. There is a possible report from Emerald Bay in El 

Dorado County from 1930. For this reason, the species is considered to be possible on the Stanislaus 

National Forest. Most of the known collections are over 30 years old; many are much older. 

Habitat status - Boechera tularensis occurs mainly on rocky slopes in montane to subalpine habitats. 

It may also grow near creeks, seeps, or meadows, on saddles or in canyons. It is usually shaded or 

partially shaded, and may favor east aspects. Soils may be derived from volcanic, granitic, 

metamorphic, or limestone parent materials.

Botrychium ascendens

Species Account - First described by Wagner and Wagner in 1986, Botrychium ascendens is widely 

scattered and rare in western North America. This moonwort is known to occur in Canada, Alaska, 

Nevada, California, and the Pacific Northwest. In California, it is known from Butte, El Dorado, 

Mono, Placer, Plumas, Nevada, Shasta and Tehama Counties. In 2011 the California Natural 

Diversity Database (CNDDB) showed 19 small occurrences. There are two known occurrences on the 

Stanislaus National Forest on the Summit and Calaveras Ranger Districts. There is suitable habitat on 

the Eagle Meadow Allotment. There are none known within the project area.

Habitat Status - B. ascendens is normally found in wet meadows or in riparian areas in coniferous 

forests. It has also been found along the dryer areas of fens. It ranges from 4,900 to 10,500 feet in 

elevation.

Botrychium crenulatum 

Species Account - First described by Wagner and Wagner in 1981, Botrychium crenulatum has the 

widest distribution of the sensitive botrychiums across California. The 2011 CNDDB showed 59 

small occurrences. Its range extends through the western United States and western Canada. Eight 

occurrences have been reported on the Stanislaus National Forest including one on the Summit 

Ranger District, but none are known within the project area. However, there is unsurveyed suitable 

habitat. 

Habitat Status - B. crenulatum grows in moist habitats including meadows, seeps, springs, and 

riparian areas. It is most often found on lip or side of creek bank in conifer forest. It is also found in 

calcareous sites. It ranges in elevation from 4,800 to 8,300 feet. 

Botrychium lineare

Species Account: - Botrychium lineare was described as a new species in 1994 by W. H. Wagner, 

based on type specimens from Wallowa County, Oregon. It was removed from the list of candidate 

endangered species in 2007. It is known from Alaska to the Sierra Nevada and southern California 

and extends east to northern Minnesota and western Quebec. Most populations range from 1 to 100 

plants, with most having fewer than 10 plants. There is one known occurrence on the Stanislaus 

National Forest on the Summit Ranger District, but none are known within the project area. There is 

one small area of potential suitable habitat on the Eagle Meadow Allotment.

Habitat Status: - The habitat is generally calcareous and ranges from cliffs to forests, to mine tailings. 

Most occurrences are found in mid-successional meadows over calcareous bedrock or seepage. 

Habitat ranges in elevation from 8,200 feet to over 13,000feet in California.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

77

Botrychium lunaria

Species Account - Botrychium lunaria has a circumboreal distribution. In North America, it occurs 

from Alaska to California, Arizona and the Great Lakes region. In California, it is documented in 

Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Tulare, and Tuolumne counties (CNDDB 2011). Occurrences on federal 

lands include four sites on the Modoc National Forest, two sites on the Inyo National Forest, one site 

on the Tahoe National Forest, and one site in Yosemite National Park. A number of the sites are very 

old and have not been relocated. There are no known occurrences on the Stanislaus National Forest. 

With recent changes in taxonomic understanding, it is unlikely to be found in the project area.

Habitat Status - B. lunaria occurs in moist habitats, often meadows, stream sides, seeps, and springs. 

Habitat ranges from 7,600 to 11,200 feet in elevation. 

Botrychium minganense

Species Account - Botrychium minganense is distributed from Iceland to Alaska down to California. 

It is more abundant than the other rare Botrychium species. In California it is known to Butte, Fresno, 

Modoc, Placer, Plumas, San Bernardino, Shasta, Tehama Tulare, and Tuolumne Counties. The

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2012) shows 28 occurrences. Most are on the Lassen 

National Forest, but they are also on six other national forests. In addition there is at least one 

occurrence in Sequoia Kings Canyon and 14 occurrences in Yosemite (Colwell 2012). Occurrences 

often consist of only a few plants so overall plant numbers in California are low. At least four 

occurrences have been found on the Stanislaus National Forest. None are in the project area.

Habitat Status - Botrychium minganense, Mingan moonwort, is usually associated with riparian areas, 

small streams, or fens in coniferous forests ranging from 5,000 to 10,200 feet in elevation (Baldwin et 

al. 2012). 

Botrychium montanum

Species Account - Botrychium montanum, western goblin, is a small, primitive, perennial fern, 

Botrychium montanum occurs in scattered locations from British Columbia to Montana, California, 

Oregon, and Washington. In California it is found in Butte, El Dorado, Fresno, Lassen, Modoc, 

Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Tehama (CNPS 2012). Only 23 occurrences are currently confirmed in the 

state (CNDDB 2011). The Lassen National Forest has had 19 documented occurrences. The Modoc, 

Plumas, Eldorado, and Sierra National Forests each have one occurrence. There is one known 

occurrence on the Stanislaus National Forest; none are known within the project area.

Habitat Status - B. montanum is found in varied wet habitats from marshes/meadows to coniferous 

forest/montane streamside areas, at elevations ranging from 4,900 to 10,200 feet (CNPS 2012).

Botrychium pedunculosum

Species account - Botrychium pedunculosum (stalked moonwort) was described by W.H. Wagner in 

1986. Botrychium pedunculosum is found in the Rocky Mountains of northwestern Montana and 

northern Idaho and into northeastern Oregon (Farrar 2011a). There are disjunct occurrences in 

northeastern Quebec, northern Alberta and on the Alaska Peninsula (Farrar 2011b). There has been 

only one occurrence found in California. It is located in the Stanislaus National Forest, in the Rim 

Fire Hazard Tree project at the same meadow as the known occurrences of Botrychium crenulatum 

and Botrychium minganense. This occurrence of Botrychium pedunculosum is made up of two 

colonies. It is the most southerly occurrence of the species currently known. There are no occurrences

known in this project.

Habitat status - It occurs in mountain meadows, under conifers or tall forbs, and sometimes in 

forests or woodlands and on roadsides or on scree slopes (Farrar 2011a). The elevation range of this 

species is 4,800 to 7,000 feet. 
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Botany National Forest

78

Botrychium pinnatum

Species account - Botrychium pinnatum was described as a new species in 1929 (Harold St. John 

1929) based on specimens from the state of Washington. It occurs from northern California to near 

sea level in Alaska and extends east to Colorado and Montana. It is known from the Stanislaus and 

from three other occurrences in the state. It occurs from 6,200 to 9,200 feet in California. There are 

none known within the project area. 

Habitat status - Botrychium pinnatum occurs in a range of habitats including closed canopy forests, 

but it is most commonly found in moist grassy sites in open forests and meadows. It often occurs near 

streams and other sites where soil moisture is constant (Wagner 2009). 

Bruchia bolanderi

Species Account - Bruchia bolanderi is a rare, inconspicuous moss. First described from Yosemite 

National Park, it has been found in the central Sierra Nevada and in Oregon (Christy, 1980). At 

known sites, areas of the occurrences are relatively small (project record). At least 28 known 

occurrences exist in California and four on the Stanislaus National Forest (CNDDB 2011, CNPS 

2012, personal observations). There is one occurrence in Cooper Meadow, one in Upper Hull, and 

three other occurrences in the Emigrant Wilderness. Numbers of plants are not recorded for mosses. 

Two specimen collections from the Bell Meadow and Herring Creek allotments are possibly Bruchia 

bolanderi, however moss experts have indicated that the identification could not be conclusive 

without capsules. 

Habitat Status - Bruchia bolanderi is found in the largest amounts on the vertical soil banks of 

streams in upper montane meadows (elevations about 5,500 to 8,500 feet). At higher elevations it can 

occur in fens. It can also occur on root mounds of wind thrown trees or scattered under other 

vegetation (Christy 1980), but locations known so far on the Stanislaus National Forest are on stream 

banks or a similar condition of a road bank above standing water. It is usually in meadows and open 

habitat. 

Cinna bolanderi

Species Account - Cinna bolanderi (Bolander’s woodreed) is a perennial herb in the grass family, 

Poaceae. It was first described by Scribner in 1984. The range of Cinna bolanderi is the southern 

Sierra Nevada from Mariposa County to Tulare County. There are no known occurrences in the 

Stanislaus National Forest. However, there are occurrences in Yosemite National Park.

Habitat Status - C. bolanderi grows in wet meadows and along streams. Members of the genus 

Glyceria are similar in appearance to Cinna bolanderi and grow in the same habitat types. It is likely 

that Cinna bolanderi has been overlooked as a result. Cinna bolanderi grows in both granitic and 

metasedimentary soils. The elevation range of this species is 6,050 to 7,900 feet. 

Helodium blandowii

Species Account - Helodium blandowii is known from Europe, Asia, and across northern United 

States from New Jersey and Ohio west to California and Nevada, and northwards to Canada (Flowers 

1973). In California it has been reported from Fresno, Inyo, and Mono Counties. There is one 

occurrence on the Stanislaus National Forest in Tuolumne County. One area of very good suitable 

habitat is located in the project area in the Eagle Meadow allotment. 

Habitat Status - Helodium blandowii grows in high elevation fens, wet meadows, near alpine lakes, 

and in seeps in forests. The occurrence on this forest is in the largest wetland and fen on known on the 

forest. It ranges in elevation from 6,000 to 9,000 feet. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

79

Meesia uliginosa

Species Account - The geographic range includes Alaska, Canada, and Greenland. There are twenty 

eight occurrences in California, all in National Forest, and State and National Parks. They range from 

the San Jacinto Mountains to the Modoc National Forest. Over half of the occurrences are on the 

Tahoe National Forest (project record). It has not yet been found on the Stanislaus National Forest, 

but has been found to the north and south. 

Habitat Status- Meesia uliginosa grows in meadows and seeps with members of the Carex luzulina

complex. It is often found on or near logs. The elevation range is about 6,500 feet to 9,500 feet. 

Environmental Consequences

The analysis of direct and indirect effects is focused on the cattle use areas. The analysis area 

considered in the cumulative effects portion of the analysis for each Allotment is the entire Allotment, 

including proposed additions. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are analyzed by sensitive plant 

species, which have been grouped according to the habitat types shown in Table 3.03-2. 

Table 3.03-2 Habitat types and sensitive plant species that occupy each habitat type

Habitat Type Sensitive Plant Species

Stream Channels Bruchia bolanderi

Seeps, Stringer Meadows, Meadow Edges

Botrychium ascendens

Botrychium crenulatum

Botrychium lunaria

Botrychium minganense

Botrychium montanum

Epilobium howellii

Fens and Wet Areas of Meadows

Helodium blandowii

Meesia triquetra

Meesia uliginosa

Lodgepole Forest Lupinus gracilentus

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Stream Channel Habitat - Bruchia bolanderi

Most of the suitable habitat for Bruchia bolanderi has been surveyed within the areas of primary and 

secondary range. It has limited habitat at these elevations since many meadows do not have perennial 

streams with steep, moist vertical banks, going through them. This condition is limited in the project 

area. It is fairly unlikely that there are other occurrences that are not known. In the areas outside of 

primary and secondary range, less than half of the known areas of suitable habitat have been 

surveyed. 

Bruchia bolanderi has predominantly been found on steep, moist vertical banks of streams on this 

forest. The occurrences confirmed by the presence of capsules have been in granitic areas. These are 

areas that can be impacted if cattle go down the slope to water or walk up and down the stream. Those 

types of impacts were not seen when the collections were made. Cattle generally avoid steep stream 

banks in favor of those that allow easier access to the stream. They tend to continue to use the same 

access points. Forest plan Direction Standards and Guidelines limit livestock disturbance to no more 

than 20% of the streambank. It is unlikely there would be additional access points created through 

steep banks that are suitable habitat for B. bolanderi. Therefore there would be no direct effects in this 

alternative.
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Botany National Forest

80

An indirect effect would be on the amount of sunlight reaching the sites. There is topographic shading 

provided by the stream banks. There can also be shading by vegetation on the banks. This species is 

very low and does not compete well with other species, so it must be able colonize new areas as 

established areas get revegetated. With grazing, the vegetation along the banks would not be as tall 

and would be less likely to shade it out.

There are no known impacts from cattle to the areas of possible occurrence of Bruchia bolanderi in 

this project and with stream bank alteration standards and proposed addition in the Herring Creek

Allotment, it is unlikely that impacts would increase. No overall effects would result from this 

alternative.

Seeps, Stringer Meadows, Meadow Edges - Boechera tularensis, Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lineare, B. 

lunaria, B. minganense, B. montanum, B. pinnatum, B. pedunculosum, and Cinna bolanderi

Botrychiums are small and are not affected much by the loss of their above-ground structures because 

they derive a portion of their energy from mycorrhizal fungi (Johnson-Groh and Farrar 1996). 

However, if they are pulled rather than clipped the underground structures that would produce the 

next year plants may be damaged. The primary impacts from cattle would be from trampling, soil 

compaction, and defecating in areas where they may be growing. The impacts would be different in 

different habitats. In meadows, grazing could remove taller plants which could be shading the 

Botrychiums. Preliminary observations at an exclosure to protect Botrychiums in a meadow 

suggested that grazing helps the Botrychiums by removing competing vegetation. However in moist 

shaded areas near a stream the numbers were maintained in the exclosure due to the disturbance 

provided by the stream (Ahlenslager, pers. comm. Reported in Beatty et al. 2003). B. minganense was 

trampled heavily and only occurred where a log protected it in a streamside habitat that was near a 

cattle holding pen (pers obs. in Washington). On the Stanislaus visits to known sites after cattle had 

been through showed that only those plants growing in sites protected from cattle were not grazed. On 

the Kootenai National Forest Botrychiums grow in the roadside ditches along with other wetland 

species. Cattle graze in those areas and do not appear to affect B. crenulatum (Vanderhorst 1997). 

These are more open habitat that might resemble meadows. The timing of grazing is also a factor 

since grazing before the spores are mature would prevent reproduction. 

The primary habitat in these Allotments is meadows. Those are the areas where cattle spend the most 

time. That is the type of habitat where impacts from cattle are less apparent. Many of the meadows 

have streams through them and are connected by streams. It is likely that cattle would move along the 

streams where riparian vegetation present. Those are the same conditions where Botrychiums would 

grow. If the vegetation if fairly dense, the effects would be similar to those in the meadow habitat. If 

the vegetation is sparse, then the cattle would probably pass through on the trail or might travel a 

different way. Impacts would be mostly confined to the trail and would not change as a result of this 

alternative. 

For Botrychiums, habitat includes about 9 miles of suitable stream in Bell Meadow, 5 miles in Eagle 

Meadow, and 15 miles in Herring Creek Allotment. About 4 miles of stream in Bell Meadow could 

have suitable habitat and have not been surveyed - two miles of this is likely good habitat. Stream 

channel incision is prevalent, so there may be fewer actual areas of suitable habitat. In Eagle Meadow 

about half of the length is in an addition. It is heavily forested, although about one half mile looks like 

it could be good habitat based on surveys in another part of that addition. The Niagara drainage has 

another mile or so of possibly good habitat. This portion is not near enough to volcanic soils to be as 

likely. Herring Creek contains 3 miles of good habitat in the Cascade Creek addition, and less than a 

mile of unsurveyed suitable habitat in the existing Allotment. 

All of the areas except Bell Meadow have had former timber sales in these areas. Because clearcut 

units are on both sides of a stream, it is more likely that the stream between those units may be 

heavily impacted by cattle (personal observations on Washington). There are three areas with 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

81

plantations on both sides of the stream. All of them are in the Herring Creek Allotment, two in the 

proposed addition, and one in the original Allotment. Since these clearcuts happened long ago, these 

impacts have likely already occurred in the existing Allotment, but may not have occurred in the 

proposed addition. A Botrychium was noted along a range transect in Round Meadow (Bell Meadow 

Allotment). It was not identified to species because it was not in a plot. It is likely to be Botrychium 

simplex ssp. compositum, a more common Botrychium, based on the habitat where it was found. 

Botrychiums found in open meadow are usually this species. If the Botrychium is found and is 

sensitive it will be protected in some way if protection is needed. 

To summarize what this could mean in terms of Botrychiums, if there is cattle trailing and grazing 

along those creeks and there are Botrychiums present, they could be impacted. Over half of the 

unsurveyed habitat is in the proposed additions, particularly the Cascade Creek addition in the 

Herring Creek Allotment. It is not known how the cattle may move in those areas. Due to the 

dispersed plantations in the Herring Creek Allotment, there is likely to be more dispersion in that 

addition. Since two of the areas of particular concern are in an addition to the Herring Creek 

Allotment, this alternative could have the greatest possible effect on Botrychiums. One way to 

mitigate this would be to survey the areas of concern for Botrychiums. 

Since there have been no surveys in the project area for Boechera tularensis and Cinna bolanderi, the 

extent of effects is not completely known. For Cinna bolanderi, I will use continuing presence of 

Glyceria elata as a proxy. Glyceria elata is another tall grass that is more abundant and grows in 

similar habitat to that of Cinna bolanderi. It is primarily along streams and is a little less likely to be 

in general meadow habitat. A review of my survey forms showed that Glyceria elata was present in 

many of the locations surveyed, usually in a patchy or scattered distribution. It was not noted as rare 

on any of those forms. It is a tall grass and it is likely that some would be affected by grazing and 

trampling along streams and in meadow, but that it is likely to persist.

There is no proxy for Boechera tularensis. It is noted as being in dry habitat and also along the edges 

of more moist areas that cattle would use. I have never seen any plants in that genus in moist 

meadows, and that genus is not favored by cattle. So impacts would probably be limited to some 

trampling by cattle as they access the meadow or seek shade under trees adjacent to the meadow and 

random partial consumption. Fens and wet areas of meadows - Helodium blandowii and M. uliginosa

There are no known occurrences of these species in this project area. Project surveys and fen surveys

targeted the type of habitats where these species could occur. After several years of meadow surveys 

in most of the Allotments on the Forest, only one occurrence of Helodium blandowii has been found. 

It is fairly unlikely that these species are present in these Allotments. In addition, Meesia uliginosa

primarily grows on decaying wood in wet habitat and would be less likely to be impacted. It is much 

less common, has not yet been found on this Forest and is unlikely to be found given how limited M. 

triquetra appears to be on this Forest. The most likely areas for Helodium blandowii were surveyed. 

Surveys were done before Helodium blandowii was found on the forest and may not have been 

adequate to identify mosses growing in with sedges. The area with the best habitat for Helodium 

blandowii is in Eagle Meadow, which is used as a gathering pasture. 

Areas of unsurveyed suitable habitat for Meesia uliginosa exist in all three Allotments. Volcanic soils 

and adjacent areas can have more moisture and would be more likely habitat. Unsurveyed areas of 

volcanic soils include 16 locations in the Eagle Meadow Allotment (3 in primary/secondary range), 

47 in Herring Creek Allotment (45), and 8 (2) in Bell Meadow Allotment. The Herring Creek 

Allotment, with far more meadows also has more unsurveyed meadows. These are about one-quarter 

of the meadows or less in each of the Allotments within the primary and secondary range. Generally 

under half of the meadows outside of the primary and secondary range have been surveyed for these 

species. 
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Botany National Forest

82

There is a small chance that these species could be present. If they are present, there could be impacts 

associated with continued grazing, particularly in drought years when the moist habitat where they 

grow is favored by cattle. This alternative increases the amount of area that is available for grazing in 

two of the three Allotments, so impacts should be smaller than may have occurred in the past. There 

is a measure in this alternative that would protect any sensitive plants that are found in the future. 

Cattle can cause bare areas through pocking and would reduce the area of suitable habitat where 

Helodium blandowii could grow. Meesia uliginosa primarily grows on decaying wood in wet habitat 

and is less likely to be impacted.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Stream Channel Habitat - Bruchia bolanderi

Since there would be no direct or indirect effects in this alternative there would be no cumulative 

effects.

Seeps, Stringer Meadows, Meadow Edges - Boechera tularensis, Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lineare, B. 

lunaria, B. minganense, B. montanum, B. pinnatum, B. pedunculosum, and Cinna bolanderi

A meadow restoration in the Gooseberry Ecological Restoration project would affect Round Meadow 

where a Botrychium plant is located. The known plant location would be protected in that project and 

it is some distance from the streams where the work would take place. The primary impacts from this 

action would be shading from the increased growth of other plants, particularly graminoids, while 

cattle are excluded. Botrychiums are able to stay underground for a number of years and do not 

appear to rely on photosynthesis entirely for their energy needs. Since the meadow would be excluded 

for at least five years, this would be only a short term impact. 

The primary effect to Epilobium howellii has been from the fencing of Three Meadows. That took 

place about 15 years ago, but the fence is not always up and effective. Epilobium howellii was found 

in a year when grazing occurred and has not been found in a year when grazing did not occur. The 

overall status and potential cumulative effect to that occurrence is not known. 

Fens and wet areas of meadows - Helodium blandowii and Meesia uliginosa

There are no other known projects that would affect the areas of unsurveyed suitable habitat in the 

future. Past activities include logging, which avoided meadows, a ski area expansion, pack station 

operations, and recreation. Meadows have been increasingly protected by moving roads and trails out 

of them. These would not contribute negative effects to this habitat type. 

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Stream Channel Habitat - Bruchia bolanderi

There would be no direct effects in this alternative since there is no action proposed. The steep bank 

habitat where this species occurs is primarily a legacy of intensive grazing and management in the 

past. It is in recovery now and would eventually have more vegetative cover in the areas where the 

bank is moist. This would reduce suitable habitat. The process is slow and would take decades (Jim 

Frazier personal communication 2006). There would not be much change in the foreseeable future so 

the effect would be negligible. In the short term, the primary effect would be that there could be taller 

plants shading more of the stream banks. Growth of grasses and forbs on the edge of the bank would 

probably cause any occurrences to shift slightly in location. 

Seeps, Stringer Meadows, Meadow Edges - Boechera tularensis, Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lineare, B. 

lunaria, B. minganense, B. montanum, B. pinnatum, B. pedunculosum, and Cinna bolanderi

There would be no direct effects in this alternative since there is no action proposed. The primary 

indirect effect in this alternative would be the growth of sedges and other tall plants that could shade 

out these shorter species. , This could happen to Botrychium plants that occur in meadows. In the 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

83

areas under shrubs they are generally fairly protected already. Since they generally grow in ephemeral 

draws and have been found in areas outside of Allotments, it is likely this alternative would be 

beneficial.

For Cinna bolanderi, this alternative would be beneficial. It is a tall grass and would not be affected 

much by the growth of other plants. For Boechera tularensis, it would be beneficial, but to a lesser 

extent since impacts are less likely.

Fens and wet areas of meadows - Helodium blandowii and Meesia uliginosa

There would be no direct effects in this alternative since there is no action proposed. With the 

removal of cattle a number of meadow areas would move toward late- seral status. This would tend to 

increase cover and increase the amounts of sedges which are some of the dominant fen creating 

species. This would be beneficial for the fens. As discussed above, not all meadows respond to the 

removal of cattle, even over the course of decades. The specific areas where Meesia uliginosa grows 

are less likely to change. At the known occurrence in an Allotment that has not been used for 13 years 

the occurrence is relatively large and appears to be doing well. The effects of this alternative would 

be beneficial. No known harmful effects would occur. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Stream Channel Habitat - Bruchia bolanderi

Since there would be no direct or indirect effects in this alternative there would be no cumulative 

effects.

Seeps, Stringer Meadows, Meadow Edges - Boechera tularensis, Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lineare, B. 

lunaria, B. minganense, B. montanum, B. pinnatum, B. pedunculosum, and Cinna bolanderi

As mentioned above, the Gooseberry Ecological Restoration project could have some short term 

effects to one Botrychium plant that may or may not be a sensitive species. Cumulative effects for this 

alternative would be similar to those described for Alternative 1. 

Fens and wet areas of meadows - Helodium blandowii and Meesia uliginosa

The primary effect to these species is beneficial, so the contribution to cumulative effects would also 

be positive. There are no anticipated effects to fens in the project area from other projects. 

Alternative 3 (Current Management)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

This alternative represents current management and does not incorporate the plant protection 

measures that are in Alternatives 1 and 4. 

Stream Channel Habitat - Bruchia bolanderi

The effects to Bruchia bolanderi for Alternative 3 would be essentially the same as in Alternative 1. 

There would be no change to the Bell Meadow and Herring Creek Allotment areas, so impacts would 

continue unchanged. 

Seeps, Stringer Meadows, Meadow Edges - Boechera tularensis, Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lineare, B. 

lunaria, B. minganense, B. montanum, B. pinnatum, B. pedunculosum, and Cinna bolanderi

Because there are no proposed additions in this alternative fewer possible impacts to Botrychium spp. 

are expected. There is still one area of concern in the Herring Creek Allotment. This would be subject 

to the same impacts that have occurred under previous (current) management. Since it was not 

surveyed, some effects are assumed for these species. For Cinna bolanderi, the effects would be 

somewhat more than in Alternative 1 because there would be less monitoring and adaptive 

management. Impacts to Boechera tularensis would not be very different.
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Botany National Forest

84

Fens and wet areas of meadows - Helodium blandowii and Meesia uliginosa

In this alternative there would be no additional monitoring of special aquatic features, so suitable 

habitat for these species could decline in quality. In addition, the same number of cattle would graze 

in a smaller area for two of the three Allotments in this alternative, so impacts would be somewhat 

greater in this alternative.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Stream Channel Habitat - Bruchia bolanderi

No direct, indirect or cumulative effects in this alternative.

Seeps, Stringer Meadows, Meadow Edges - Boechera tularensis, Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lineare, B. 

lunaria, B. minganense, B. montanum, B. pinnatum, B. pedunculosum, and Cinna bolanderi

The contributions of past and future projects would be the same in this alternative as in Alternative 1.

Fens and wet areas of meadows - Helodium blandowii and Meesia uliginosa

The cumulative effects to these species for this alternative would be the same as in Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)

There are no proposed additions in this alternative, specific areas would be excluded from grazing, 

and mitigation measures would be implemented to protect the condition of special aquatic features 

and meadows. The area that would be excluded in the Herring Creek Allotment has many of the 

unsurveyed meadows and unconfirmed possible fens. It is an area that would be otherwise grazed late 

in the season. Late season grazing is particularly harmful to fens because they remain green all year. 

This alternative also includes measures for sensitive plant protection. 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Stream Channel Habitat - Bruchia bolanderi

All of the possible occurrences of Bruchia bolanderi in this project are in areas that would not be 

considered suitable for grazing in this alternative. So the effects in this alternative for this species 

would be similar to the effects in Alternative 2.

Seeps, Stringer Meadows, Meadow Edges - Boechera tularensis, Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lineare, B. 

lunaria, B. minganense, B. montanum, B. pinnatum, B. pedunculosum, and Cinna bolanderi

As with Alternative 3, the proposed additions are not included in this alternative. This removes the 

two largest areas of concern for the botrychiums. This alternative also maintains a lower density of 

cattle, similar (proportionate) to Alternative 1. Some impacts are expected for this alternative, 

primarily in the unsurveyed area, but the predominant impacts are positive, particularly for 

Botrychium spp. This alternative would have fewer impacts to Cinna bolanderi and Boechera 

tularensis since impacts would correspond to those in Alternative 1, but a smaller area would be 

impacted. 

Fens and wet areas of meadows - Helodium blandowii and Meesia uliginosa

As noted previously, many of the unsurveyed meadows in the Herring Creek Allotment are excluded 

in this alternative. For unsurveyed suitable habitat in the meadows that are excluded, this alternative 

is beneficial. For other unsurveyed suitable habitat the impacts are similar to Alternative 1 because 

the densities of cattle are proportionate to that alternative. In addition, this alternative would monitor 

the condition of special aquatic features, so the habitat would be further protected. This alternative 

would have the fewest negative impacts of all the action alternatives.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

85

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Stream Channel Habitat - Bruchia bolanderi

No cumulative effects would occur under this alternative. 

Seeps, Stringer Meadows, Meadow Edges - Boechera tularensis, Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lineare, B. 

lunaria, B. minganense, B. montanum, B. pinnatum, B. pedunculosum, and Cinna bolanderi

The Botrychium occurrence at Round Meadow is probably the non-sensitive species based on habitat 

and it would be protected in the Gooseberry Ecological Restoration project.

Fens and wet areas of meadows - Helodium blandowii and Meesia uliginosa

No known future projects would affect the areas of unsurveyed suitable habitat for these species. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

Table 3.03-3 Summary of effects across all alternatives

Sensitive Plant 

Species

Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4 

(Resource Protection)

Botrychiums Most impact

(addition areas)

Beneficial Less impact Less impact

Bruchia bolanderi No impact No impact No impact No impact

Epilobium howellii Mixed positive and 

negative, more 

impact than 2 &4

(addition areas)

Mixed positive and 

negative

Most impact Mixed positive and 

negative

(same as 2)

Helodium blandowii Some impact Beneficial Greatest Impact Least impact of 

action alternatives

Lupinus gracilentus No impact No impact No impact No impact

Meesias Some impact Beneficial Greatest Impact Least impact of 

action alternatives

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

The Forest Service Manual, Section 2670.32 states that "the line officer, with project approval 

authority, makes the decision to allow or disallow impact, but the decision must not result in loss of 

species viability or create significant trends toward Federal listing." This project has been modified 

by incorporating protective measures for known sensitive plants and habitat and newly discovered 

sensitive plant occurrences. These modifications are designed to reduce, minimize or alleviate 

adverse effects to sensitive plants. Therefore, this proposed project would comply with current 

management direction and Forest Service policy.
Chapter 3.03 Stanislaus

Botany National Forest

86
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

87

3.04 CULTURAL RESOURCES

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

Direction relevant and specific to the proposed action as it affects cultural resources includes:

The Forest Service is directed to identify, evaluate, treat, protect, and manage cultural resources by 

several laws. However, the NHPA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), provides comprehensive 

direction to federal agencies about their historic preservation responsibilities. Executive Order 11593, 

entitled Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, also includes direction about the 

identification and consideration of cultural resources in Federal land management decisions. 

The NHPA extends the policy in the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-467) to 

include resources that are of State and local significance, expands the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP), and establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and State Historic 

Preservation Officers. NHPA Section 106 directs all Federal agencies to take into account effects of 

their undertakings (actions, financial support, and authorizations) on properties included in or eligible 

for the National Register. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) regulations (36 

CFR 800) implements NHPA Section 106. NHPA Section 110 sets inventory, nomination, protection, 

and preservation responsibilities for Federally-owned cultural resources. 

Section 106 of the NHPA and the ACHPs implementing regulations, Protection of Historic 

Properties (36 CFR Part 800), require that federal agencies take into account the effect of their 

undertakings on cultural resources, and that agencies provide the ACHP with an opportunity to 

comment on those undertakings. Programmatic agreements (36 CFR 800.14(b)) provide alternative 

procedures for complying with 36 CFR 800. Region 5 has such an agreement: Programmatic 

Agreement Among The U.S. Department Of Agriculture, Forest Service, and the Advisory Council On 

Historic Preservation Regarding Rangeland Management Activities on National Forest System Lands 

(Rangeland PA, project record). This agreement provides a national heritage resource management 

strategy by which Forest Service Regions and individual Forests may meet their historic preservation 

mandates for the issuance and administration of term grazing permits, and for management of other 

rangeland activities, such as range improvements and Allotment plans, which require National 

Environmental Policy Act compliance. Additionally, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

Among the USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, California State Historic Preservation 

Officer, and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Rangeland Management 

Activities (Range MOU, project record) provides guidance for Pacific Southwest Region Forests in 

meeting their Section 106 responsibilities for grazing. 

Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, issued May 13, 

1971, directs Federal agencies to inventory cultural resources under their jurisdiction, to nominate to 

the National Register of Historic Places all Federally owned properties that meet the criteria, to use 

due caution until the inventory and nomination processes are completed, and to assure that Federal 

plans and programs contribute to preservation and enhancement of non-Federally owned properties. 

Forest Plan and other management direction specific to cultural resources includes the following:

 Complete a cultural resource inventory prior to any land disposal action or any Forest or Forestpermitted or assisted action, activity or program that has the potential of altering prehistoric or 

historic cultural values to identify all potentially eligible cultural properties which may be 

affected (36 CFR 219.24). 

 Consult with members of the potentially affected local Native American community to identify 

specific locations and issues. 
Chapter 3.04 Stanislaus

Cultural Resources National Forest

88

 Assess the scientific, historic and ethnic significance for each cultural property before 

determining further treatment (36 CFR 219.24). 

 Use appropriate Programmatic Agreements and Treatment Plans whenever possible. 

 Apply the National Register of Historic Places criteria in 36 CFR 60 and regulations in 36 CFR 

63 to determine the eligibility of a cultural property to the National Register. 

 Use FSM 2361, FSM 1680, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's "Treatment of 

Archaeological Properties: A Handbook", and the traditional values of local Miwok, Washoe and 

Paiute Indian communities as guidelines for evaluating significance.

 Evaluate the effect of Forest undertakings on the resource.

 Apply the Criteria of Effect in 36 CFR 800, and follow FSM 2361 for determining the effect of 

an undertaking. 

 All identified cultural resources are to be protected until they are evaluated. The integrity and 

significant values of eligible properties and National Historic Landmarks are to be protected. 

When necessary, mitigative excavation or data recovery may be accomplished.

 Use the guidelines in FSM 2361 and FSM 1680 for developing and implementing protective 

measures.

 Comply with 36 CFR 800 regulations and follow the guidelines in 36 CFR 66, FSM 2361, and 

the 13 principles in the "Treatment of Archaeological Properties" Handbook (ACHP). 

 Utilize law enforcement patrols to help prevent site vandalism and conduct law enforcement 

investigations when cultural resources are impacted using the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act (ARPA), 36 CFR 261.9, and other applicable laws and regulations. 

 Plan interpretation, research and restoration projects for the benefit of the public and of cultural 

resources. 

 Treatments of cultural properties, including maintenance of cultural resources, should be 

appropriate to their assessed values (as documented in the Statement of Significance in the 

Request for Determination of Eligibility and National Register nomination form), the state of 

knowledge and methods of cultural resource disciplines, and the public interest. 

 The significant values of National Register and eligible historic structures shall be conserved by 

physical protection and maintenance or recording to professional standards if physical 

preservation is not possible. 

 Work with Interpretive Services to develop high quality brochures, publications and/or audiovisual presentations. Work with cooperators to develop high quality interpretive, stabilization, 

and/or restoration projects. 

 Encourage the Sierra Miwok, Washoe, and Mono Lake Paiute to contribute to the Forest's 

cultural resource management activities, to enhance public understanding of their traditional and 

contemporary cultures. 

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Cultural Resources

1. Commercial livestock grazing is an ongoing activity and has already affected cultural resources, 

especially within primary range, concentration areas and livestock trails. 

2. Under the action alternatives, in areas currently grazed by livestock, use will continue at current 

levels or be reduced (Alternative 4) with the authorization of continued grazing.

3. According to the Rangeland PA, all archaeological and historical sites identified within the APE 

for all alternatives are considered cultural resources for the purposes of this undertaking, unless 

they already have been determined not eligible in consultation with the SHPO or through other 

agreed on procedures (36 CFR 60.4; 36 CFR 800). 

4. A majority of adaptive options are not considered an undertaking subject to the NHPA. However, 

construction of new range infrastructure is considered an undertaking. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

89

5. Authorization of continued grazing, when combined with the past, present and foreseeable future 

actions are not expected to cumulatively lead to increased impacts to cultural resources.

Data Sources

1. Site-specific cultural resource inventories. The District Archaeologist conducted cultural 

resources field surveys for this undertaking. The primary objectives of these surveys were to 

identify cultural resources in the APE that may be affected by the undertaking and collect 

information on their current condition. 

2. Existing information from cultural resource records, historic archives, maps, and GIS spatial 

layers was also used.

Cultural Resources Indicators

Indicators of direct and indirect effects include exposure of surface artifacts by grazing, trampling 

and/or crushing of vegetation as cattle move through the area. Visual inspection was used to identify 

and document any unusual breakage, shifting or damage to artifacts. 

Cultural Resources Methodology by Action

In August 2005 a survey strategy was designed to investigate areas where high concentrations of 

cattle overlapped with areas of high archaeological probability. Each Allotment was researched using 

land-use patterns already established by previous survey coverage. The strategy focused on areas 

identified by the Forest Range Specialist as primary and secondary range. The strategy was consistent 

with the Rangeland PA and Range MOU. Both agreements encourage survey strategies to be 

commensurate with the level of anticipated affects. Important to the integrity of this design was to 

determine whether evidence of use indicates a high potential for resource damage. Therefore, it was 

important to monitor the effects of grazing on known sites. 

Affected Environment

Existing Conditions 

Bell Meadow Allotment

A Forest Range Specialist’s review of the Bell Meadow Allotment identified that of the total 10,717 

acres, 1,668 acres were determined to primary and secondary range. A pre-field review determined 

that 1,070 acres of this primary and secondary range had been previously surveyed for cultural 

resources through various other projects. An additional 531 acres of primary and secondary range was 

identified as needing archaeological survey in order to make the determination of cattle effects on 

cultural resources. 

Fourteen past and present field surveys have been conducted to identify cultural resources of interest 

likely to be affected by trampling in high cattle concentration areas. The result of these surveys 

identified 37 prehistoric and historic properties within the Allotment boundaries of which 18 are 

located within the areas identified as primary and secondary range. 

Of these, there are 35 prehistoric sites related to food processing (bedrock milling features), stone tool 

processing (lithic scatters) and temporary living areas (rock shelters). These sites are associated with

land use by the native inhabitants of the region, known as the Central Sierra Me-Wuk. 

The two historic properties within the Allotment are primarily associated with early cattlemen and/or 

early settlers. These site types include arborglyphs (aspen carvings) and a collapsed wooden structure 

with associated historic artifacts. 

Contemporary Native American Use

There are no known traditional collection areas within the Allotment boundary and to date no input 

has been received from the Tuolumne Me-Wuk Tribal Council regarding any such locations. This 
Chapter 3.04 Stanislaus

Cultural Resources National Forest

90

project was presented at the Annual Heritage Resource Tribal Consultation Day in April 2011. This 

project is not anticipated to have any effects on cultural values, particularly plant species important to 

California Indian Basketweavers or other Native American gatherers. 

Historic Use

Historic records, maps and oral accounts encompassing the Allotment boundary indicate moderate 

livestock grazing occurred from the 1850’s to present. Much of the existing trail system is probably 

connected to moving livestock to summer pasturage; many of the trails link and/or pass by the areas 

where Kerrick Corral (Aspen Pack Station), Belle Meadow Camp, and Crabtree Camp were located. 

The remains of a collapsed wooden structure (cabin) (FS 05-16-53-577) are most likely a range cabin 

and associated artifacts place an approximate date of the 1920’s for the structure. 

Additionally, early pioneer exploration and settlement impacted the proposed project area. Several 

historic trails pass through the Allotment area, most notably the 1852 Walker River-Sonora route. 

This trail depicted in the APE as Forest Road 4N24 and portions of 4N37 is the accepted alignment of 

the near disastrous Clark-Skidmore Party (1852) and Duckwall Party (1853). Though there are no 

remaining physical features such as “blazed trees”, stone work or earthworks that indicate this route, 

there are historic markers in the form of arborglyphs (aspen carvings) left behind. Site FS 05-16-53-

578,is an aspen carving with a date of July 12, 1885 and letters DOMEK or DONNEK; it is most 

likely related to these early pioneers. 

Eagle Meadow Allotment

A Forest Range Specialist’s review of the Eagle Meadow Allotment identified that of the total 19,200 

acres, 4,375 acres were determined to be range. A pre-field review determined that 3,240 acres of this 

primary and secondary range had been previously surveyed for cultural resources. No additional 

archaeological survey was deemed necessary to make the determination of cattle effects on cultural 

resources. 

Eight previous field surveys have been conducted to identify cultural resources of interest likely to be 

affected by timber sale activity, cattle grazing or other permitted forest activity. The result of these 

surveys identified 100 prehistoric and historic properties within the Allotment boundaries of which 37 

are located within the areas identified as primary and secondary range. 

Of these, there are 92 prehistoric sites related to food processing (bedrock milling features), stone tool 

processing (lithic scatters) and temporary living areas (rock shelters). These sites are associated with

land use by the native inhabitants of the region, known as the Central Sierra Me-Wuk. 

The eight historic properties within the Allotment are the result of early forest activities, livestock 

grazing (cattle and sheep), and mining. These site types include an historic cow camp, historic 

refuse/can scatters, arborglyphs (aspen carvings), and remains of a wooden structure (cabin) with 

associated historic artifacts.

Contemporary Native American Use

There are no known traditional collection areas within the project boundary and to date no input has 

been received from the Tuolumne Me-Wuk Tribal Council regarding any such locations. This project 

was presented at the Annual Heritage Resource Tribal Consultation Day in April 2011. This project is 

not anticipated to have any effects on cultural values, particularly plant species important to 

California Indian Basketweavers or other Native American gatherers. 

Historic Use

Historic records, maps and oral accounts encompassing the Allotment boundary indicate moderate 

livestock grazing occurred from the 1860’s to present. These records indicate that as early as 1861 W. 

F. Cooper (associated with Cooper Cow Camp and Cooper Allotment) drove cattle seasonally up to 

the headwaters of the Stanislaus which includes the Eagle Meadow and Long Valley area. By the 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

91

1880’s the range camp that became Martin’s Cow Camp (FS 05-16-53-313) was constructed by the 

McCormick family as a range cabin and base of operations for butter production in this area. 

Historic evidence of past sheep grazing is evident in the form of carvings on aspen trees (arborglyphs) 

left by Basque sheepherders. These carvings have been found located throughout the Allotment

particularly in Barn Meadow (FS 05-16-53 -790) and along Niagara Creek, Eagle Creek and Long 

Valley Creek. 

Mining activity also impacted the area within the Allotment. In 1955, uranium was discovered at 

Juniper Mine adjacent to Sardine Meadow. Hundreds of test pits, claim markers and other exploratory 

drillings are scattered throughout the Allotment. 

The majority of the claims belong to Carrigan Mines, Inc. whose headquarters/office remains, (FS 05-

16-53-622) are located at Niagara Creek. The office was removed by the Forest Service in 1972. 

Early emigrant routes skirt the boundary of the Allotment but did not directly impact it. The SonoraMono Toll road, finished in 1864, forms the western boundary of the Eagle Meadow Allotment and 

the Niagara addition. Built primarily for hauling goods to the gold and silver boom towns of Aurora 

and Bodie, use of the road diminished until 1901 when it was taken over as a State Highway 

(Highway 108). Major improvements were made to the highway 25 years later. 

As with the Bell Meadow and Herring Creek Allotments, much of the existing recreational trail 

system is connected to moving both cattle and sheep livestock to summer pasturage; many of the 

trails leading in and out of the Allotment boundaries link and/or pass by Martin’s Cow Camp, Cooper 

Cabins (05-16-53-10) and Kennedy Cabin (FS 05-16-53-117) areas. 

Herring Creek Allotment

A Forest Range Specialist’s review of the Herring Creek Allotment identified that of the total 17,246 

acres, 3,182 acres were determined to be primary and secondary range. A pre-field review determined 

that 2,240 acres of this primary and secondary range had been previously surveyed for cultural 

resources through various other projects. An additional 34 acres of primary and secondary range was 

identified as needing archaeological survey in order to make the determination of cattle effects on 

cultural resources. 

Fifteen past and present field surveys have been conducted to identify cultural resources of interest 

likely to be affected by trampling in high cattle concentration areas. The result of these surveys 

identified 68 prehistoric and historic properties within the Allotment boundaries of which 21 are 

located within the areas identified as primary and secondary range. 

Of these, there are 63 prehistoric sites related to food processing (bedrock milling features), stone tool 

processing (lithic scatters) and temporary living areas (rock shelters). These sites are associated to 

land use by the native inhabitants of the region, known as the Central Sierra Me-Wuk. 

The 5 historic properties within the Allotment are the result of early forest activities, logging and 

livestock grazing by early cattlemen. These site types include historic trails, arborglyphs (aspen 

carvings), remnants of a logging activity area, and a collapsed wooden structure with associated 

historic artifacts. 

Contemporary Native American Use

There are no known traditional collection areas within the project boundary and to date no input has 

been received from the Tuolumne Me-Wuk Tribal Council regarding any such locations. This project 

was presented at the Annual Heritage Resource Tribal Consultation Day in April 2011. This project is 

not anticipated to have any effects on cultural values, particularly plant species important to 

California Indian Basketweavers or other Native American gatherers. 
Chapter 3.04 Stanislaus

Cultural Resources National Forest

92

Historic Use

Historic records, maps and oral accounts encompassing the Allotment boundary indicate moderate 

livestock grazing occurred from the 1880’s to present. The first permit issued in 1913 for the 

Allotment was to the Sanguinetti family who currently holds the Allotment permit for the adjacent 

Cooper Allotment. As with the Bell Meadow Allotment, much of the existing recreational trail system 

is connected to the moving of livestock to summer pasturage. Adjacent to one of these trails along 

Herring Creek are the remains of a collapsed wooden structure (FS 05-16-53-188) and iron artifacts 

possibly related to a range cabin. Other historic trails include a supply route (1934) (FS 05-16-53-

576) leading to the location of the former Pinecrest Lookout (1934) (FS 05-16-53-607). 

Additional historic evidence of past sheep grazing is evident in the form of carvings on aspen trees 

(Arborglyphs) left by Basque sheepherders. These carvings have been found located adjacent to 

various trails throughout the Herring Creek Allotment. 

Early emigrant routes skirt the boundary of the Allotment but did not directly impact it. The SonoraMono Toll road, finished in 1864, forms the western boundary of the Herring Creek Allotment and 

the Cascade addition. Built primarily for hauling goods to the gold and silver boom towns of Aurora 

and Bodie, use of the road diminished until 1901 when it was taken over as a State Highway 

(Highway 108). Major improvements were made to the highway 25 years later.

Water development of Herring Creek began in 1857 with the construction of a wood and dirt filled 

dam by the Tuolumne Water and Power Company as part of ditch and flume system to provide water 

to the miners in the Columbia area. Herring Creek Dam (FS 05-16-53-74) was improved in 1931 

when a concrete dam was constructed to provide drinking water to the local community. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Extensive inventory and monitoring has determined that cattle are not causing any direct impacts to 

heritage resource sites. Potential indirect effects are minimal but may include the exposure of surface 

artifacts as vegetation is removed through grazing or as trampling/crushing of brush occurs as cattle 

move through the area. Visual inspection of lithic scatters within the areas identified as high cattle 

concentration found no unusual breakage, shifting or damage to artifacts. 

The addition of proposed infrastructure will have no effect to nearby cultural resources. The proposed 

construction of a new corral at the junction of 5N13Y and 5N01 (Eagle Meadow Road) will have no 

effect to cultural resources. The construction of a corral and handling facility at the junction of Road 

4N25 and Road 4N02Y (Bell Meadow Road) is near several historic and prehistoric sites. These sites 

will be “flagged and avoided” for protection per the Treatment Measure C(V)(D)(2)(a) of the 

Rangeland PA prior to the construction activity. Placement of fencing between Hammill Canyon and 

Bloomer Lake Units will be reviewed by the District Archaeologist prior to implementation. Once 

need and location of additional fencing has been determined, the placement will need to be reviewed 

by the District Archaeologist prior to implementation. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Since there would be no direct effects and indirect effects are expected to be incidental/minimal, there 

are would be no cumulative effects to cultural resources resulting from Alternative 1. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

93

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

There are no anticipated direct or indirect effects to historic or prehistoric properties under this 

alternative, as no project activities (grazing) would occur.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Since there would be no direct effects and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects to 

cultural resources resulting from Alternative 2. 

Alternative 3 (Current Management)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Anticipated direct and indirect effects under Alternative 3 (Current Management) are the same as 

Alternative 1. Historic grazing would continue with no direct effect and minimal indirect effects. 

Because the additional modifications are incidental and have no direct ground disturbing 

ramifications that could affect cultural resources, this alternative will have no effect. Based on this 

analysis and the actions described above, the District Archaeologist has made the determination that 

this undertaking will have no effect on heritage resources. This no effect recommendation is made in 

accordance with the Rangeland PA.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Since there would be no direct effects and indirect effects are expected to be incidental/minimal, there 

would be no cumulative effects to cultural resources resulting from Alternative 3. 

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Bell Meadow Allotment

Anticipated direct and indirect effects under Alternative 4 (Resource Protection) are the same as 

Alternative 1. Historic grazing would continue with no direct effects and minimal indirect effects to 

cultural resources. Based on this analysis and the actions described above, the District Archaeologist 

has made the determination that this undertaking will have no effect on heritage resources. This no 

effect recommendation is made in accordance with the Rangeland PA.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Since there would be no direct effects and indirect effects are expected to be incidental/minimal, there 

would be no cumulative effects to cultural resources resulting from Alternative 4. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

For all action alternatives, historic grazing would continue with no direct effect, minimal indirect 

effects and no cumulative effects to cultural resources. Anticipated effects for alternatives 3 and 4 are 

the same as Alternative 1. There are no anticipated direct, indirect or cumulative effects to cultural 

resources under Alternative 2 (No Action), as no grazing would occur.

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

All alternatives comply with all Forest Plan S&Gs as well as with all federal laws identified in the 

Analysis Framework. 
Chapter 3.04 Stanislaus

Cultural Resources National Forest

94
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

95

3.05 INVASIVE SPECIES

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

Forest Service Manual 2900 Invasive Species Management, Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010) and 

the Region 5 Noxious Weed Management Strategy require that a noxious weed risk assessment be 

conducted to “[d]etermine the risk of introducing, establishing, or spreading invasive species 

associated with any proposed action, as an integral component of project planning and analysis, and 

where necessary provide for alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate that risk prior 

to project approval.”

Invasive species are defined in FSM 2900 as causing, or be likely to cause, harm and be exotic to the 

ecosystem it has infested. Forest Plan Direction for invasive species states:

 Include weed prevention measures, as necessary, when amending or re-issuing permits 

(including, but not limited to, livestock grazing, special uses, and pack stock operator permits). 

 Encourage use of certified weed free hay and straw. Cooperate with other agencies and the public 

in developing a certification program for weed free hay and straw. Phase in the program as 

certified weed free hay and straw becomes available. This standard and guideline applies to pack 

and saddle stock used by the public, livestock permittees, outfitter guide permittees, and local, 

State, and Federal agencies.

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Invasive Species

1. Invasive plants and noxious weed distributions are primarily determined by the vectors that carry 

them. They have potential to infest much more area than they currently infest in the project area. 

2. The areas where the cattle arrive and spend the first few days are the most likely areas to receive 

new introductions of weeds. 

3. Existing weeds may be spread further by cattle movement within the Allotment. 

4. Weeds are likely to persist long-term once they are established in meadows. The habitat is moist 

and sunny and changes slowly. 

5. The cattle enter the Bell Meadow Allotment at Aspen Pack station, which is a commercial pack 

station and a Forest Service pack station. It would be very difficult to attribute weeds to sources 

in that area.

Data Sources

1. References used in the analysis are incorporated into the references section of this document. 

2. GIS layers with information on range resources and facilities, noxious weeds and invasive plants, 

infestations, and surveys locations. 

3. On the ground surveys provided additional information. Most areas were surveyed in 2005 or 

2006. In 2010 the areas where cattle come on the Herring Creek and Eagle Meadow Allotments 

were surveyed. 

Invasive Species Indicators

1. Location and size of infestations of invasive plants and noxious weeds 

2. Distance to nearest infestation of the same species (to show if they are outliers).

Invasive Species Methodology

This invasive plant risk assessment evaluates the risk for invasive plant introduction and spread by the 

project by considering the risks of and vulnerability to invasive plant establishment and possible 

factors for invasive plant introduction and spread. 
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus

Invasive Species National Forest

96

Affected Environment

Invasive species are defined as “causing, or be likely to cause, harm and be exotic to the ecosystem it 

has infested” (FSM 2900). This section evaluates the risk for invasive plant introduction and spread 

by the project by considering the risks of and vulnerability to invasive plant establishment and 

possible factors for invasive plant introduction and spread. 

Known Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants

BELL MEADOW ALLOTMENT

White top (Lepidium latifolium), a State list B weed, was found at Aspen Pack Station. This is one of 

only two or three infestations known on the forest. There is a small infestation of State C list Bull 

thistle (Cirsium vulgare) along a trail near Lily Lake. There is a larger infestation in a meadow south 

of Mud Lake. The invasive plant ox-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) was found in a number of 

locations around the Dodge Ridge ski area. The areas of allotment boundary adjustment are small in 

this project and there are no known weeds in those areas or near those areas.

EAGLE MEADOW ALLOTMENT

State C list Bull thistle and non-native invasive wooly mullein (Verbascum thapsus) are scattered 

along the road to Eagle Meadow. They may have come in on hay. At Martin’s Cow Camp on the edge 

of Eagle Meadow, a number of ruderal species were seen in the horse corral. Most were not in a stage 

that is easy to key and do not have final identifications. Curly dock (Rumex crispus) was found near 

the corral and spreading downstream along Eagle Creek from the Cow Camp area. Knotweed 

(Polygonum aviculare ssp. depressum) was also found. This is a common invasive at lower elevations 

and is primarily found in heavily disturbed areas. It is fairly uncommon at the elevations of the 

project except in areas with high disturbance and vectors. 

HERRING CREEK ALLOTMENT

The State B list weed Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) was found at the Leland Gully Restoration. It 

is associated with timber sale activity there. Cattle are excluded from the area following restoration. 

The infestation is being eradicated. This infestation will not be considered further in this analysis. 

State C list Bull thistle was found along several roads and the stream near Fiddler’s green. It is also in 

Cow and Cascade Creeks. Most of the infestations known in this project are in the Herring Creek

Allotment. It may be due to having had more surveys for other projects. Himalayan blackberry 

(Rubus discolor), an uncommon invasive plant at this elevation, was found at one site just inside the 

Allotment boundary along a road. It was treated, but has not been surveyed recently. Non-native 

invasive wooly mullein is also present. There is cheatgrass along roads and associated with bulldozer 

use outside of primary and secondary range. The corral where cattle enter the Allotment was bare. At 

Burt Reed meadow where cattle stay the first few days, there is Timothy (Phleum pratense) which 

appears to be associated with the old cabin. A number of non-native grasses and dandelions are 

widespread in the meadow. In the area of addition to this allotment, there is bull thistle. The weeds 

are similar to the weeds in the lower portion of this allotment.

Habitat Vulnerability

The meadows, roadsides, and other openings are the most vulnerable to weeds. There are lots of 

meadows in these Allotments and these are the primary use areas for cattle. There are roads through 

about one-third of the Bell Meadow Allotment, two thirds of the Herring Creek Allotment, and most 

of the Eagle Meadow Allotment. About one-sixth of the Bell Meadow Allotment burned in the 

Mountain and Box fires. Smaller areas have burned in the Herring Creek and Eagle Meadow 

Allotments in 2007, 2010, and 2011. It is still very vulnerable to weeds due to increased light, 

moisture, and nutrients. There are extensive areas of open land with seasonal moisture that may be 

sensitive to Bull thistle spread. There are a number of streams where Himalayan blackberry can 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

97

spread. The highest known occurrence on the forest is at 6300 feet which is the lower range of these 

Allotments. It would be most likely in the Bell Meadow Allotment. Due to the higher elevation, there 

are fewer weed species that are likely in the project area. 

Vectors

Since this project involves reauthorization of an ongoing activity, consideration is given to the 

possible vectors and sources for the weeds that are already there as an indication of relative risk in the 

future. Most of the possible sources were mentioned above and generally are not related to cattle. 

Those that could be related to cattle will be discussed below.

BELL MEADOW ALLOTMENT

The two infestations of Bull thistle are away from roads and along trails. The Aspen Pack Station is 

on the edge of this Allotment, so there is a lot of horse use in this area. Although cattle have more 

complex digestive systems than horses and mules, studies have found about the same amounts of 

seeds or that cattle may have more in the manure (Cosyns et al. 2005, Vignolio and Fernandez 2010, 

Malo and Suarez 1995). The ox-eye daisy is in an area where heavy equipment worked on a water 

system and probably was introduced on that equipment. 

EAGLE MEADOW ALLOTMENT

Bull thistle and wooly mullein are scattered along Eagle Meadow Road. They may have come in on 

hay. They have not been found on the road past Eagle Meadow even though there are a number of 

private inholdings. There is at least one large yearly gathering of equestrians in that area that could 

bring in hay. A cow camp at Eagle Meadow has at least two invasive species from lower elevations. 

Dandelions are one of several invasive plants that can spread in wildlands. In another Allotment they 

were primarily observed in areas where cattle move and may have been brought in and moved by the 

cattle or by horses used to herd the cattle. Dandelions can grow at higher elevations than bull thistle 

and wooly mullein and could infest most of these Allotments. 

In summary, most of the known weed infestations have been introduced by non-project vectors. The 

two main vectors associated with cattle that may have introduced weeds are the possible use of hay 

and the introduction on the vehicles that deliver the cattle or on the cattle themselves. These two 

possible sources will be addressed in prevention measures.

HERRING CREEK ALLOTMENT

There is Bull thistle and wooly mullein near the corral in Section 9 where the cattle enter the Herring 

Creek Allotment. There is also Bull thistle just up the road at Fiddler’s Green. It has spread along the 

roads and the stream from there. These introductions could be due to cattle or due to other activities in 

the area. There have been timber and silvicultural activities and there is camping at Fiddler’s Green. 

The activities associated with the Leland Gully Restoration project have reduced the Bull thistle there. 

The non-natives at Burt Reed Meadow probably came in with hay except perhaps the dandelions. 

Environmental Consequences

Habitat Alteration Expected as a result of Project

There is soil disturbance in meadows that can increase bare ground in moist areas where weeds can 

establish. Weeds are likely to persist long-term once they are established in meadows. Disturbed areas 

(such as corrals and gathering areas) are particularly vulnerable to weeds. There is a moderate risk for 

increased weed and invasive species establishment and spread due to habitat alteration. 

Increased Vectors as a result of Project implementation

Since the project represents an ongoing activity, the vectors remain the same except in the areas of 

addition. Those vectors associated with the project are cattle which can have seeds on their hair or in 
Chapter 3.05 Stanislaus

Invasive Species National Forest

98

their intestines when they come onto the Allotment, any hay that is brought in, the vehicles that 

deliver the cattle and any horses associated with the operation. These vectors come from lower 

elevations where weeds are more abundant and where more species of weeds can grow. However, 

many of those weeds may not be able to establish at higher elevations. The risk continues to increase 

over time due to the increasing numbers of weeds species and spread of weeds in the state and in the 

area. In addition, weeds that are less common have been found in areas of fuel reduction even with 

equipment cleaning. 

Although these Allotments are fairly high elevation, the species known on the forest or nearby that 

could still spread into the project areas (based on known elevation ranges) include Russian knapweed 

(Acroptilon repens) - eradicated at Pinecrest stables, diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), spotted 

knapweed (C. maculosa), tocalote (C. melitensis), yellow starthistle (C. solstitialis), which has been 

found at Sonora Pass, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvensis), Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) 

Dyer's Woad (Isatis tinctoria), Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), and Russian thistle 

(Salsola tragus = S. iberica). Canada thistle seems to be at least partially associated with horses and

has been found at a meadow area adjacent to Dimond O Campground and along the County Line 

Trail in the Carson Iceberg Wilderness. 

New corrals are proposed in Bell Meadow and Eagle Meadow Allotments in Alternatives 1 and 4. 

The exact locations were not available at the time surveys were made, so they have not been 

surveyed. These areas have increased risk for weed and invasive plant introductions. There is a 

moderate to high risk of increased vectors or introductions as a result of project implementation.

The areas proposed for addition to the allotments will have increased vectors. Evidence indicates that 

there was cattle use in addition areas in the past, but use would increase from current levels. The

addition areas are not near where cattle enter and leave the allotments, so the risk is somewhat lower. 

They do have open areas and moist areas that are particularly vulnerable to weed introduction. 

Analysis/Synthesis

The greatest areas of risk for weed introduction are the areas where the cattle are brought onto the 

Allotment. If weeds establish in those often heavily disturbed areas, infestations can later spread to 

other parts of the Allotment. For that reason, monitoring for weed introduction would take place in 

the areas in each Allotment where cattle are unloaded (Appendix G, Monitoring Plan). 

Hay is cleaner now and work is ongoing for certification of weed-free hay. Weed-free does not mean 

that it would be free of other invasive plants that could spread. Spotted knapweed was known to be 

spread by cattle in Washington. Russian knapweed occurred at the Pinecrest stables in the past, so it 

was in the hay at one time.

Alternatives 1 and 4 propose new locations where cattle would enter the Bell Meadow and Eagle 

Meadow Allotments. It would help for tracking introductions to survey the area before it is used and 

after a couple of years. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

There is a risk of weed introduction with all of the action alternatives. Mitigation and other 

requirements, including monitoring and adaptive management, would be implemented for 

Alternatives 1 and 4 to reduce the risk of weed and invasive plant introduction and spread. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 would have reduced risk of weed and invasive plant introduction and spread 

compared to Alternative 3.

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

All alternatives except Alternative 3 would meet Forest Plan direction. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

99

3.06 RANGE

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

 P.L. 104-19 Section 504 of the 1995 Rescissions Act, as amended, require each National Forest to 

establish and adhere to a schedule for completing NEPA analysis and updating Allotment 

Management Plans for all rangeland Allotments on National Forest System lands.

 Congressional intent allows grazing on suitable lands where it is consistent with other multiple 

use goals and objectives as authorized through several Congressional Acts (Organic 

Administration Act of 1897, Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 1964, 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the Public Rangelands 

Improvement Act of 1978); 

 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) directs the Forest Service to meet multiple-use objectives, 

including managing for livestock grazing on forage-producing National Forest System lands (36 

CFR 222.2 (c)); 

 It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands 

suitable for grazing consistent with land management plans (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 

2203.1); and 

 It is Forest Service policy to continue contributions to the economic and social well-being of 

people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for 

communities that depend on range resources for their livelihood (FSM 2202.1) 

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

original Forest Plan as amended (USDA 2010): 

FOREST GOAL FOR RANGE: 

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

quality, wildlife, fisheries and riparian zones. 

FOREST GOALS FOR AQUATIC,RIPARIAN, AND MEADOW ECOSYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED SPECIES

The strategy for aquatic management provides broad goals (listed below), which are endpoints toward 

which management moves watershed processes and functions, habitats, attributes, and populations. 

The goals provide a comprehensive framework for establishing desired conditions at larger scales, 

including river basin, watershed, and landscape scales. Moving ecosystem conditions toward these 

goals will restore and maintain the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the region’s waters 

as mandated by the Clean Water Act, and will support the Forest Service’s mission to provide habitat 

for riparian - and aquatic-dependent species under the National Forest Management Act, Organic Act, 

Safe Drinking Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and Electric Consumers Protection Act. The 

following goals are part of the Aquatic Management Strategy:

Water Quality: Maintain and restore water quality to meet goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe 

Drinking Water Act, providing water that is fishable, swimmable, and suitable for drinking after 

normal treatment. 

Species Viability: Maintain and restore habitat to support viable populations of native and desired 

non-native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Prevent new introductions of 

invasive species. Where invasive species are adversely affecting the viability of native species, work 

cooperatively with appropriate State and Federal wildlife agencies to reduce impacts to native 

populations. 
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

100

Plant and Animal Community Diversity: Maintain and restore the species composition and structural 

diversity of plant and animal communities in riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows to provide 

desired habitats and ecological functions. 

Special Habitats: Maintain and restore the distribution and health of biotic communities in special 

aquatic habitats (such as springs, seeps, vernal pools, fens, bogs, and marshes) to perpetuate their 

unique functions and biological diversity. 

Watershed Connectivity: Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and 

riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically and biologically 

unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and reproduction. 

Floodplains and Water Tables: Maintain and restore the connections of floodplains, channels, and 

water tables to distribute flood flows and sustain diverse habitats. 

Watershed Condition: Maintain and restore soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and diverse 

vegetative cover to absorb and filter precipitation and to sustain favorable conditions of stream flows. 

Streamflow Patterns and Sediment Regimes: Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to 

sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment 

regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved. 

Stream Banks and Shorelines: Maintain and restore the physical structure and condition of stream 

banks and shorelines to minimize erosion and sustain desired habitat diversity. 

RANGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Allotment Management

Activities and cooperation to develop and implement allotment management plans. Three levels are 

specified:

1. Intensive

Intensive management of existing grazing allotments with the intent to increase forage production and 

utilization of forage allocated to livestock. All available technology for range and livestock 

management will be considered. Cooperate with range permittees, monitor range use, and maintain 

existing range improvements (replacement of range improvements will be made on a 20 year 

schedule or as needed). Development of structural and nonstructural range improvements and 

implementation of complex grazing systems will be emphasized. Preparation of range allotment plans 

or other plans involving the management of the range resource will be based on a 10 year schedule. 

Existing range agreements with other agencies or landowners will be maintained or amended to 

conform with this plan, as needed. 

2. Extensive

Extensive management of existing grazing allotments with the intent of fully using forage allocated to 

livestock. Management systems and techniques, including fencing and water developments, are 

applied as needed to obtain relatively uniform livestock distribution and plant use, and to maintain 

plant vigor. No attempt is made to maximize livestock forage production by cultural practices such as 

seeding. Generally it involves season-long grazing. Cooperate with range permittees, monitor range 

use, and maintain existing range improvements (replacement of range improvements will be made on 

a 20 year schedule or as needed). No development of nonstructural improvements will occur, 

however, the prudent development of structural improvements will occur for protection and 

enhancement of forage production. Preparation of range allotment management plans or other plans 

involving the management of the range resource will be on a 10 year schedule. Existing range 

agreements with other agencies or landowners will be maintained or amended to conform with this 

plan, as needed. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

101

3. Maintenance

Maintenance of existing range permits where livestock use is within the apparent capacity. 

Improvements are minimal and construction is done only to the extent needed to attain livestock 

control and maintain the range resource in the presence of grazing. No attempt is made to achieve 

livestock distribution. Cooperate with range permittees, monitor range use, and maintain existing 

range improvements. Preparation or revision of range allotment plans or other plans involving 

management of the range resource is based on a 10 year schedule or longer as needed. Existing range 

agreements with other agencies or landowners will be maintained. 

Range Improvements - Nonstructural (Permanent and Transitory Range Types)

Prescribed fire and mechanical practices used to achieve the goals of the allotment management plan. 

Nonstructural improvements such as seeding, use of chemicals and fertilization are included. 

Range Improvements - Structural (Permanent and Transitory Range Types)

New structural improvements designed to achieve AMP goals. Cost of construction will be 

proportioned between the Forest Service, permittee, and any other interested parties. 

Grazing Permit Administration

Activities undertaken to administer allotment grazing permits, including: billing, allotment 

inspections, livestock counts, permit renewals, etc. 

Range Studies

Studies and other activities to inventory, catalog, and evaluate data on range vegetation and soil 

condition, forage production, livestock utilization levels, etc. 

FORESTWIDE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINESFOR 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.

Develop Range resources to their reasonably attainable potential and manage them on a sustained 

yield basis. Manage grazed lands to achieve a stable or upward vegetative trend, except in specified 

areas of transitory range. Use management strategies that protect the soil and vegetative resources and 

other resources in a cost effective manner. Consider all vegetation dependent uses when developing 

allotment management plans.

Revise range allotment management plans to be consistent with law, regulations, Executive Orders, 

Forest Service direction and Forest Standards and Guidelines, by 1997. Revise and develop allotment 

management plans in consultation with all involved parties, including permittees, State or other 

agencies, and any other involved parties. 

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. 
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

102

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. 

On allotments where discontinuous grazing systems are not in effect, adjust the permitted Animal 

Unit Months to achieve allowable use on the primary range. Transportation systems in established 

range allotments will include fences and cattle guards where new roads open up natural livestock 

barriers. Reduce or eliminate livestock grazing from ranges in unsatisfactory range condition which 

cannot be improved through better management or treatment at the current level of grazing.

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: 

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 phonological 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. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

103

Grazing

To protect hardwood regeneration in grazing allotments, allow livestock browse on no more than 20 

percent of annual growth of hardwood seedlings and advanced regeneration. Modify grazing plans if 

hardwood regeneration and recruitment needs are not being met. 

Grazing utilization in annual grasslands will maintain a minimum of 60 percent cover. Where 

grasslands are in satisfactory condition and annual precipitation is greater than 10 inches, manage for 

700 pounds residual dry matter (RDM) per acre. Where grasslands are in satisfactory condition and 

annual precipitation is less than 10 inches, manage for 400 pounds RDM per acre. Where grasslands 

are in unsatisfactory condition and annual precipitation is greater than 10 inches, manage for 1,000 

pounds RDM per acre; manage for 700 pounds RDM per acre where grasslands are in unsatisfactory 

condition and precipitation is less than 10 inches. Adjust these standards, as needed, based on 

grassland condition. This standard and guideline only applies to grazing utilization. 

Where professional judgment and quantifiable measurements find that current practices are 

maintaining range in good to excellent condition, the grazing utilization standards above may be 

modified to allow for the Forest Service, in partnership with individual permittees, to rigorously test 

and evaluate alternative standards.

Grazing Permit Administration

Table 3.06-1 sets forth maximum allowable forage utilization levels for some common range 

vegetation types of the Stanislaus National Forest. Allowable uses limit the extent to which one or a 

group of key species may be grazed in key areas. The allowable use level must provide for sufficient 

herbage residue to ensure favorable plant vigor and soil protection on good and excellent condition 

range, or to contribute to improvement in lower condition range. 

Table 3.06-1 Maximum Forage Use Levels 

Allowable 

Management

Rest-Rotation

(1 year in 2 or 3)

Meadow

Good or Better 75

Fair 60

Poor 30

Very Poor 10

Upland Bunchgrass/shrub

Good or Better 60

Fair 45

Poor 20

Very Poor 10

Riparian Primary Range

Revise “meadow levels as needed to achieve 

riparian area goal.

Allowable use levels for specific areas will be set at or below these maximums to conform to local 

range condition, soil stability, or special circumstances. Allowable use levels will be detailed in the 

allotment management plan for each allotment. Pastures receiving periodic full growing season rest 

can have higher allowable use levels, as shown. If condition classes of vegetation and soil vary, use 

the lower class to establish the allowable level.

Monitor at least 85 percent of allotments yearly to determine grazing use levels and condition of 

range facilities.

Noxious Weed Management

As part of project planning, conduct a noxious weed risk assessment.
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

104

Encourage use of certified weed free hay and straw.

Include weed prevention measures as necessary, when amending or re-issuing permits (including, but 

not limited to, livestock grazing, special uses, and pack stock operator permits).

Water Quality Management

Implement water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) as needed for all Forest management 

activities.

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Range

Key species are generally an important component of a plant community. Key species serve as 

indicators of change and may or may not be forage species. More than one key species may be 

selected for a stratum, depending on management objectives and data needs. In some cases, problem 

plants (poisonous, exotics, etc.) may be selected as key species. Key species may change from season 

to season and year to year.

Key areas are indicator areas that are able to reflect what is happening on a larger area as a result of 

on-the-ground management actions. A key area should be a representative sample of a large stratum, 

such as a pasture, grazing Allotment, wildlife habitat area, herd management area, watershed area, 

etc. depending on the management objectives being addressed by the stud. Key areas represent the 

“pulse” of the rangeland. Proper selection of key areas requires appropriate stratification. Statistical 

inference can only be applied to the stratification unit (USDI 1996b) 

Primary range is defined as those range types that contain a predominant cover of grass and grasslike species. Secondary range are defined as those range types that produce browse and forage and 

are capable of doing so on a sustained basis with consideration that these areas are less accessible or 

less preferred by livestock under the current extensive system of management. Non-capable range is

defined as range types that have no grazing value for domestic livestock or should not be used for 

grazing because of physical or biological restrictions, or lacks improvements that would allow use 

(Range Analysis Planning Guide, Glossary, 1997). This analysis does not imply there would be no 

grazing on non-capable acres. Incidental use likely occurs in otherwise non-capable areas as livestock 

move through the Allotment. 

Data Sources

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

data files were used along with permittee consultation:

 Allotment and unit/pasture boundaries

 Land ownership 

 Key areas Primary and secondary rangeland areas

 Designation of concentration areas and use areas

 Monitoring site locations

 Structural improvements 

Range Indicators

In order to describe site conditions and plant ratings the following indicators and categories were 

used: 

 Meadow Ecological Status: high, moderate, low 

 Meadow condition: excellent, good, fair, poor, very poor 

 Trend: Stable, Up or Down 

 Plant species rating: early-, mid-, late-seral
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

105

Plant species were rated according to an estimated successional seral status: early, mid, or late 

(USDA 1998). These ratings were based on the relative abundance of the functional groups 

represented on a site. Plant function was considered in assigning these rating but not tabulated. The 

R5 Long-Term Condition and Trend Monitoring (R5 LTCTM) uses a different rating that tabulates 

plant functional traits that have been assigned to over 580 plant species occurring throughout 

California. The R5 LTCTM provides rationale for placing species in early, mid, and late seral status 

class. While plant functional ratings/score are similar to the older seral rating, the concept of a linear 

succession is not implicit in the plant functional rating, making the functional approach more 

adaptable to nonlinear successional theory. Thus, the seral status rating of 50% relative cover and the 

40% relative frequency have been found to be in agreement for most species in the key areas 

monitored when compared and examined for condition and trend analysis (Weixelman and Zamudio 

2001, Weixelman 2003, Weixelman Personal Communication April 2012). Additionally, where there 

were no quantitative data available to compare desired condition to existing condition, professional 

judgment by resource specialists was used.

Range Methodology

The method used to determine the effects on rangeland resources was qualitative comparison of each 

alternative’s likelihood of desired conditions identified in Forest Plan Direction. Existing conditions 

were determined through field visits, monitoring data, historical records, grazing permittee 

consultation and scoping of interested public. 

Affected Environment

Ecosystems within the project area are primarily sierra mixed-conifer forest interspersed with 

montane meadows and riparian corridors. Within the forest openings, the vegetation is mostly 

considered herbaceous and browse type vegetation. Herbaceous vegetation occurs within meadows 

and along riparian corridors. Riparian vegetation includes willow, shrubs, other riparian herbaceous 

vegetation and occasional aspen stands. Herbaceous understory vegetation occurs in upland forested 

areas with less than 40% canopy cover. As the forest canopy cover increases, the understory 

vegetation decreases and provides only limited forage. 

Approximately 20-30% of the Allotments are assumed to be covered with primary and secondary 

rangeland vegetation. Species vary depending on the ecological development phase of the plant 

communities (successional continuum). Pioneering plant communities are considered early-seral 

communities that consist of grasses and forbs. The mid-seral plant communities of annual grasses, 

perennial grasses and forbs lead to late-seral successional communities comprised mainly of perennial 

grasses. These perennial communities are better able to withstand a host of environmental stresses. 

Community types from all successional stages are represented in the three Allotments, creating an 

ecologically diverse landscape.

Rangeland Capability and Suitability

A Rangeland Capability/Suitability analysis was performed during project analysis and is summarized 

in Appendix F. Project-level rangeland capability and suitability was determined using a two-step 

process and recommended criteria described in Appendix K of the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment (USDA 2001). Incidental grazing does occur in areas of non-capable range as livestock 

pass through to more favorable vegetation. Occasionally, incidental trespass also occurs in areas

excluded from grazing.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY RANGE

Primary Range - All of the meadows are considered primary range (concentration areas) and are 

about 1 to 20+ acres in size. These meadows make up the majority of the primary range, about .01% 

(181 acres) of the total Allotment acres. Primary range also includes stringers of forbs, grasses and 
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

106

browse along the drainages of the surrounding meadows and streams with adequate forage 

production. Willow and aspen communities along streams are also a component of primary range. 

Secondary Range - The conifer and mixed montane vegetation types with under 40% canopy cover 

are considered secondary range. About 18% (2,343 acres) of the project area (current Allotment

boundaries) has a tree canopy of less than 40% allowing for an understory development of grasses 

and shrubs that meets the secondary range criteria. 

Rangeland Vegetation

The vegetation within the project area is a mosaic of forest stands, meadows and riparian corridors. 

Wet runs and meadows are found throughout the project area and are considered the key areas that 

reflect the primary use. The composition of these meadows consists of various species of sedges, 

rushes, clovers, and grasses. The most characteristic and representative species in wetter herbaceous 

areas are Muhlenbergia filiformis (Pull-up Muhly), Poa pretensis (Kentucky Bluegrass), Trifolium 

spp (clover), Carex nebrascensis (Nebraska sedge), Carex integra (smooth beaked sedge), Carex 

scopulorum (mountain sedge), and Juncus spp. (rushes). The perennial weed types are dominated by 

Wyethia mollis (mule’s ear) and are classified secondary range because of the quality of forage, 

distance to water, a decrease in grass understory, accessibility and/or percent slope. The riparian 

browse species are mostly willows and aspens which are meeting desired condition in most areas. 

Water is abundant in the creeks and drainages, but scarce on the ridges and mid-elevation slopes. 

Historic and Current AllotmentManagement

BELL MEADOW ALLOTMENT

Historic overgrazing in the Bell Meadow Allotment has affected the hydrologic function of meadows 

in the Allotment. The 1965 Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan (AMP) noted that cattle 

grazed exclusively in the Allotment from 1912-1959 and that during these years use varied from 600 

AUMs to 1560 AUMs (project record). For reference, current use in the Allotment is 268 AUMs. 

Allotment boundaries have changed since 1965, but the size of the Allotment is roughly the same. 

The 1965 AMP states, “the unstable nature of the soil and the poor condition of the meadow types 

reflects this history of over-use.” It also notes serious erosion along Bell Creek. In addition, a 1961 

memo from Alan A. McCready, Forest Service staff, noted that deep gullies “lowered the water table 

over much of the private land in Bell Meadow proper” and that there was general agreement that “it 

began with overstocking during the homestead days” (USDA 1961).

Past grazing records, up until 1975, indicated that the overall forage and soil conditions in this 

Allotment ranged from poor to fair with a slight upward or stable trend (project record). 

Improvements to the range condition have been made since 1975 due to reduction of livestock 

numbers and/or improved management. 

Currently, 80 cow/calf pairs graze this Allotment from July 1 to September 15. A majority of grazing 

occurs in meadows, riparian areas, and forest openings. The Allotment, in general, is considered to be 

in fair condition with a stable or slightly upward trend in most key areas with the exception of Crab 

Meadow.

The current Allotment is managed as one pasture unit. The main areas grazed and monitored include 

Crab Meadow, Round Meadow, Gianelli, Mud Lake and Bell Meadow Complex (Lower Bell 

Meadow and Middle Bell Meadow). The following areas are also monitored to ensure grazing is 

meeting desired conditions: Mud Lake Meadow, Pine Valley Meadow, Grouse Lake, and Bear Lake. 

Grazing is not permitted in Upper Bell Meadow which is within the Bell Meadow Research Natural 

Area. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

107

EAGLE MEADOW ALLOTMENT

Historic overgrazing in the Eagle Meadow Allotment has affected the hydrologic function of 

meadows in the Allotment. In 1925 the season of use for the Eagle Meadow Allotment was from June 

1-October 15 and the stocking rate was 4475 sheep. Allotment survey notes from 1925 indicated that 

Eagle Meadow showed past overuse by sheep which depleted the drier portions and caused 

streambank cutting (USDA 1925b). In addition, the Mono-Sonora Road (now Highway 108) was 

used as a sheep and cattle driveway, causing overgrazing along the route. This “driveway” went 

through the proposed Niagara addition (USDA 1925c). 

Current season of use is July 1- September 30 for 150 cow/calf pairs. Cattle are managed through 

intensive herding and dispersal system to control the amount of forage used in a given area. The 

Sardine unit is rested in even years and the Long Valley unit is rested in odd years. The main forage 

units for the Eagle Meadow Allotment are: Niagara, Eagle, Long Valley, Sardine, and Haypress units. 

HERRING CREEK ALLOTMENT

Historic overgrazing in the Herring Creek Allotment has affected the hydrologic function of meadows 

in the Allotment. In 1924 the season of use for the Herring Creek Allotment was from June 1- 

October 15 and the stocking rate was 510 cattle. The boundaries of the Herring Creek Allotment have 

changed slightly since 1924, but the acreage is roughly the same. Records from 1925 indicate that 

meadows to the west and southwest of Cooper Peak were in poor shape due to heavy use and 

streambank erosion (USDA 1925). Range inspection notes from 1953 indicated active erosion along 

creeks in Hammill Canyon and that Castle, Coyote, and Wire Corral have been “fed to the bone and 

absolutely nothing remains” (USDA 1953). 

Current season of use is July 1- September 30 for 156 cow/calf pairs. Cattle are managed under an 

intensive herding and dispersal system to control forage utilization. The main forage units for Herring 

Creek Allotment are the Bull Run, Hammill Canyon and Willow Creek units 

Monitoring

Two types of monitoring have occurred on the Allotments: implementation monitoring and 

effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring is short-term monitoring that is conducted to 

evaluate whether activities are meeting Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Effectiveness 

monitoring is long-term monitoring that is conducted to determine whether the Standards and 

Guidelines are sustaining or moving rangeland conditions toward desired conditions and to establish 

baseline information for future planning. Monitoring records are on file at the Stanislaus National 

Forest Supervisors Office, located in Sonora, California. 

Key areas of the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow and Herring Creek Allotments have been monitored to 

determine rangeland health conditions, range readiness and forage utilization for over 50 years. A 

variety of data have been collected and recorded on these Allotments using various methodologies. 

Long-term monitoring techniques include Parker 3-step, toe point, rooted frequency and rapid 

assessment. These techniques generally involve comparing the species composition of the existing 

plant community to the expected species composition of the desired potential natural (also referred to 

as climax) plant community. In summary, all information was considered from these sources and 

most plots show a general upward or stable trend from previous readings. 

IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING

There are two types of annual, or implementation, monitoring: range readiness and utilization 

monitoring. 

 Range readiness monitoring defines the time in plant growth cycle when grazing may begin and 

determines if the soil is firm enough to prevent trampling damage to soil and vegetation (Heady 

and Child 1994) (USDA 1969). Selected indicator plants are evaluated to determine if the 
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

108

standard of rangeland readiness for that species has been achieved. Rangeland readiness is the life 

cycle of the plant species as related to climate conditions, elevation, and soil saturation.

 Utilization monitoring measures the remaining key vegetative species using either the 

height/weight method (USDI 1996b) or stubble height method (USDI 1996b, Clary & Leininger 

2000). Height/weight monitoring is the measurement of the height of grazed and ungrazed 

vegetative species to determine average utilization, expressed as the percentage of weight 

removed from key vegetative species. Stubble height is the measurement of the average height of 

residual key vegetative species left ungrazed and is typically expressed in inches. One monitoring 

method is used per key area, depending on the management objective and/or key vegetative 

species. The main purpose of annual monitoring is to determine the amount of vegetation being 

utilized by cattle. It is also used as an indicator to move livestock. Utilization standards are based 

on best available science and are designed to ensure a sufficient amount of residual vegetation to 

protect meadows from degradation. Effectiveness monitoring is used to evaluate whether the 

utilization standard set by Forest Plan Direction facilitates trend towards the desired condition. 

The following tables summarize monitoring data and actual use (livestock numbers) information that 

was collected collaboratively by range staff and permittees. Table 3.06-2 summarizes actual use 

(livestock numbers) information. 

Table 3.06-2 Summary of Actual Use (Livestock Number in cow/calf pairs)

Allotment 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Bell Meadow 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

Eagle Meadow 0 156 156 156 156 0 0 80

Herring Creek 0 156 156 156 156 50 0 156

Table 3.06-3 summarizes utilization monitoring data that was collected collaboratively by range staff 

and permittees. The data evaluates whether the Allotments met the forage utilization Standards and 

Guidelines outlined in the Forest Plan Direction. 

Table 3.06-3 Summary of Annual Utilization Monitoring within Key Areas

Allotment Key Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Bell Meadow

Lower Bell Meadow MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

Middle Bell Meadow MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

Mud Lake MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

Pine Valley MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

Crab Meadow NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Round Meadow MS MS MS MS MS MS NS NS

Eagle Meadow

Barn Meadow MS MS MS MS MS NG NG MS

Eagle Meadow MS MS MS MS MS NG NG MS

Lower Eagle Meadow MS MS MS MS MS NG NG MS

Long Valley NG MS NG MS NG MS NG MS

Sardine Meadow MS NG MS NG MS NG NG MS

Red Rock Meadow NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Niagara MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

Herring Creek

Bull Run Meadow NG MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

Herring Creek NG MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

Willow Creek NG MS MS NM NM NM NM NM

Hammill Canyon NG MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

MS=Met Standard NS=Not to Standard NM=Not Measured NG=Not Grazed
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

109

The above information for Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek Allotments indicate that 

within the past eight years, most key areas monitored within these Allotments were meeting 

utilization standards according to Forest Plan Direction. In Crab Meadow, Round Meadow (Bell 

Meadow Allotment), Red Rock Meadow (Eagle Meadow Allotment) and Hammill Canyon (Herring 

Creek Allotment) where annual use data does not meet utilization standards, the discrepancies may be 

due, in part, to legacy issues that are not directly connected to current management. 

The utilization standards, for those key areas that met standards, are set at the proper utilization level,

as verified by meadow ecological status and condition. Where annual utilization met standards but 

meadow ecological status is not consistent with desired conditions, there exists a need to move 

resources towards desired conditions in a manner that is timely and consistent with Forest Plan 

Direction goals and objectives. 

Monitoring for bank trampling and riparian browse are conducted using Multiple Indicator 

Monitoring (MIM) or similar techniques (USDI 2011). This technique is used to monitor the effects 

of livestock management on stream channels and streamside vegetation. Monitoring is recommended 

on sites where field observations indicate browse use and stream bank trampling may be having an 

effect on stream dependent species or contributing to stream erosion. Livestock will be removed from 

any area when streambank disturbance or riparian browse standards are met or exceeded (USDA

2010). 

EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING

Management of mountain meadows to maintain biologic integrity is a common goal of management 

agencies (Ratliff 1985). The R5 Long-Term Condition and Trend Monitoring (R5 LTCTM) provides 

rationale for rating species in early, mid, and late seral status. The purpose of the R5 LTCTM is to 

provide long-term monitoring of range ecological key areas to determine if the range is trending 

towards or meeting desired conditions (USDA 1998). This monitoring is designed to provide 

ecological classification and quantitative condition status for each key area. Key areas are indicator 

areas that reflect what is happening on a larger area as a result of on the ground actions and should be 

considered as a representative sample of Allotment condition. 

Table 3.06-4 Summary of 2005-2011 R5 Long-Term Condition and Trend Monitoring

Allotment Meadow Type* Vegetative 

Score

Overall 

Score

2005

Trend

2010-11

Trend

Bell Meadow Round Meadow RF Moderate Moderate Up Stable

Crab Meadow RF Low Low Down Stable

Eagle Meadow

Barn Meadow RF Moderate Moderate Stable Stable

Red Rock Meadow RF Moderate Moderate Stable Stable

Long Valley Meadow RF Moderate Moderate Up Stable

Herring Creek

Bull Run RF Moderate Moderate Stable Stable

Herring Creek RF Low Moderate Stable Stable

Herring Creek GL Low Low Up Stable

Willow Creek GL Moderate N/A Up --

Wire Corral RF Moderate Moderate Stable Stable

*Type refers to monitoring method, where RF=Rooted frequency and GL=Greenline.

Within these three active Allotments, using R5 LTCTM, initial monitoring was completed to 

determine the baseline ecological status of key areas in 1999-2001. Monitoring is conducted about 

every five years to determine trend. If status and condition are found to be moving in a downward 

trend, modifications to grazing management, including adaptive management options, may be 

implemented to reverse downward trend. If monitoring determines that trend is meeting desired 
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

110

condition an opportunity may exist to increase grazing capacity. Table 3.06-4 provides a summary of 

the 2005-2010 Long-Term Condition and Trend Monitoring.

In addition to the R5 LTCTM plots, other key areas are monitored using the Rapid Assessment 

protocol to determine ecological condition. Some meadows were also rated for condition based on 

field observations by the Forest Range Specialist and interdisciplinary team specialists during site 

specific condition assessment monitoring. In areas where these additional field assessments were 

made, a condition rating of good, fair and poor were applied to further define ecological condition of 

an area for verifying proper utilization levels in these areas to meet desired conditions. Table 3.06-5 

summarizes rapid assessment monitoring of meadow condition and Table 3.06-6 displays range 

condition based on field observations made in 2005 and 2006. 

Table 3.06-5 Rapid Assessment of Ecological Condition 

Allotment Meadow Name Survey Year Ecological Condition % Late Seral Plants

Bell Meadow Mud Lake 2010 Moderate 32%

Bell Meadow Bear Lake 2010 High 87%

Eagle Meadow Haypress Meadow 2006 High 50%

Eagle Meadow Sardine Meadow 2006 High 50%

Table 3.06-6 Range Condition based on field observation

Allotment Meadow Name Survey Year Range Condition

Eagle Meadow Eagle Meadow Pasture (West) 2006 Fair

Eagle Meadow Lower Eagle Meadow 2006 Poor

Herring Creek Bull Run 2006 Good

Herring Creek Bluff 2006 Good

Herring Creek Castle 2005 Fair/Poor

Herring Creek Coyote 2006 Good

Herring Creek Groundhog 2006 Good

Herring Creek Herring Creek Reservoir 2006 Fair

Herring Creek Lower Three Meadows 2006 Fair

Herring Creek Middle Three Meadows 2006 Fair

Herring Creek Upper Three Meadows 2006 Poor

Herring Creek Upper Willow Creek 2006 Fair

Herring Creek Lower Willow Creek 2006 Good

Herring Creek Wire Corral 2006 Good

Sensitive Resources

RIPARIAN VEGETATION

Shaw (1991) studied the effects of cattle grazing on willow. She found no effect on seedling growth 

under light/moderate spring and fall grazing. Shaw also found that heavy deer browsing prevented 

most seedlings from growing beyond the reach of grazing animals. Skovlin (1984) found that heavy 

grazing could result in heavy mortality of seedlings, and concluded that the long-term effect of heavy 

grazing is detrimental to regeneration of woody species. 

Jones et al. (2011) state that during the early-growing season cattle forage mainly on meadow and 

aspen understory herbaceous vegetation, normally avoiding aspen. Pre-season monitoring of these 

meadows and riparian vegetation indicate there is diversity in age class, structure, composition and 

cover of riparian vegetation, including aspen and willow. However, since aspen and willow suckers 

have more nutritional quality compared to aspen understory and meadow vegetation, especially at the 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

111

end of the season, late season grazing can have an impact on regeneration, if not monitored for a 

change in preference. 

Monitoring has noted browsing on aspen and willow during the early-growing season is within 

standards on all Allotments. However, site visits to these meadows in 2004-2005 and again in 2010-

2011 by range staff, wildlife staff and interdisciplinary team members, indicated aspen regeneration 

in several areas is periodically being affected by over-browsing during the late-growing season. Out 

of eighteen sites monitored, six sites had browsing over the 20% standards. However, three of these 

sites had no cattle grazing. Late season field observations have noted increased recreational packstock 

and wildlife use (Cassinetto, personal communication, 2005). 

Occasionally, small groups of livestock return to these aspen areas and may affect aspen health. This 

late-growing season browsing is exceeding standards and guidelines in some areas, but it is unknown 

whether the majority of browse is attributable to livestock, packstock, or wildlife or a combination of 

all browsers (USDA 2010). A need exists to continue monitoring of aspen populations to facilitate 

better understanding of timing, grazing patterns and competition between recreational packstock, 

permitted livestock, and wildlife on aspen browsing. Continued monitoring will also improve 

understanding of livestock preferences and regeneration strategies for restoration efforts, if needed. 

Aspen browsing in the project area has been noted to exceed standards and guidelines in scattered 

locations. Overall, there is diversity in age class, structure, composition and cover of the mapped 

aspen stands within the project area. 

GREAT GRAY OWLHABITAT

Livestock are excluded from a two acre area within the Lower Eagle Meadow Great Gray Owl

(GGO) Protected Activity Center (PAC). The temporary fence is used to protect an historical GGO 

site and enhance prey population habitat. The remainder of the Lower Eagle Meadow area is affected 

by legacy activities including historic floods. These events have changed the stream channel’s 

hydrologic function so that the stream has lost floodplain connectivity and altered the water table. The 

drier meadow currently consists of patches of remnant sedges, perennial grasses and willow that is 

difficult to monitor using current utilization standards. The fence is also a constant maintenance issue 

and is often compromised by other forest users. A need exists to construct a more permanent fence 

around the meadow and to establish a minimum vegetative cover height of 5 inches to better measure 

and assess habitat cover for GGO prey species. 

WILLOW FLYCATCHER

There are four Willow Flycatcher sites in the action area, designated as “occupied” by the 2004 Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment but are now designated as “historically occupied” following results 

of a completed 10-year survey cycle to protocol: Willow Meadow (Herring Creek Allotment), Long 

Valley Creek, Eagle Meadow (Eagle Meadow Allotment), and Upper Bell Meadow (Bell Meadow 

Allotment) (project record). 

YOSEMITE TOAD

A Forest Plan Standard and Guideline (S&G) directs that livestock are excluded from meadows 

occupied by Yosemite toad until after metamorphosis of the toad. This exclusion may be waived if a 

site specific management plan has been initiated. A management strategy was developed in the AOI

to minimize impacts to Yosemite toad and their habitat in the Eagle Meadow and Herring Creek

Allotments to facilitate implementation of livestock exclusion from meadows occupied by Yosemite 

toad. This is accomplished by managing the movement of stock around wet areas by fencing, herding, 

or avoidance. 

The Herring Creek Allotment was one of several Allotments studied in the five-year USFS Yosemite 

toad study (Roche et al. 2012). The purpose of this study was to identify key habitat conditions 
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

112

associated with Yosemite toad occupancy of potential breeding pools. The objective was to determine 

if fencing to exclude cattle from meadows would affect pool habitat conditions. In February 2013, the 

Regional Forester issued “Regional Guidance Regarding Livestock Grazing and Yosemite toad

Conservation”. The document stated that given the implications of Roche et al. 2012, which

constitutes the best available science on the effects of cattle grazing on the Yosemite toad, continued 

exclusion of livestock from meadows occupied by the Yosemite toad may not be necessary for toad 

conservation. 

The results of this study did not support the management strategy to exclude toad breeding areas 

within meadows as a means to improve upon breeding pool habitat conditions. Additionally, the 

results did not indicate habitat impairment under standard Forest Service grazing management, 

suggesting that current grazing management guidelines are meeting toad management objectives and 

that cattle production and amphibian conservation can be compatible goals within a working 

landscape (Roche et al. 2012). However, because there is a strong connection between water table 

levels and plant communities and their associated attributes (McIlroy, Allen-Diaz 2012), some form 

of monitoring such as Multiple Indicator Monitoring may be appropriate on selected sites with

sensitive meadow dependent species no matter which approach is selected. 

This guidance directs local line officers not to be strictly bound by Standards and Guidelines for 

Yosemite toad Conservation and depending on site-specific conditions, may pursue an alternative 

approach with Regional discussion. 

SPECIAL AQUATIC FEATURES

The Forest Service conducted Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) monitoring within the project 

boundaries (BLM 1999) on all known special aquatic features (Fens, seeps, and springs) that were 

identified in Allotment surveys and GIS mapping. Inventory of these sites were conducted to 

determine existing condition, and to identify any impacts to special aquatic features attributable to

grazing. 

About half of the 44 special aquatic features assessed in these Allotments were properly functioning. 

The remaining sites were Functional – At Risk. Further monitoring is needed to determine if these 

aquatic habitats are stable or moving in an upward trend. Adjustments in management will be made 

based on trends in PFC. Detailed PFC monitoring results can be found in the project record. 

MEADOW HYDROLOGIC FUNCTION

Meadow hydrologic function in some meadows appears to have been degraded by legacy activities. 

Nearly all of the alteration appears to have been initiated over 50 years ago, as evidenced from range 

reports, aerial photograph interpretation, and/or indicators of natural recovery. Almost all of the 

degraded meadows are now showing evidence of natural recovery from legacy effects. These effects 

range from slight to severe. While recovery progress varies from slow to substantial between (and 

even within) meadows, the long term trend of hydrologic function in most of these meadows is 

upward due to a combination of natural recovery and much less intensive grazing than in the distant 

past (i.e., reduced number of cattle, lower utilization standards, shorter season of use). 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Bell Meadow Allotment

Skovlin (1984) reported that timing, intensity and duration of grazing has a much greater effect on 

vegetation response than any type of grazing system. Alternative 1 would adjust the grazing rotation 

on the Bell Meadow Allotment, divide the Allotment into units and implement a deferred grazing 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

113

system. This would improve distribution by managing the timing, intensity, frequency and duration of 

forage utilization and facilitate protection of sensitive resources. Skovlin (1999) suggests that proper 

grazing can improve meadow habitat rather than total exclusion. Alternative 1 would reduce stocking 

rates in each unit by controlling herd movement to reduce intensity of grazing. This would implement 

a grazing rotation that improves livestock dispersal and the timing and duration of forage use to 

minimize impacts in sensitive areas. Alternative 1 would alter frequency, the number of times forage 

plants are grazed during a grazing season, decrease revisits of preferred plants during a growing 

season, and increase productivity within the unit by rotating livestock through the units. Alternative 1 

would alter duration to control how long the cattle are allowed to stay. 

These factors would shape the impacts of grazing within the Allotment under Alternative 1 and would 

limit the potential effect of intense grazing on meadows and riparian areas. It would also decrease 

potential loss of cover and introduction of non-native species. Alternative 1 is expected to increase 

plant vigor and productivity, and enhance species composition (Allen-Diaz et al.1999). 

Bell Meadow Allotment is currently one single unit. Alternative 1 proposes creating three units which

would be used to improve distribution of livestock throughout the Allotment improving timing, 

intensity and duration of livestock use. Alternative 1 would split the cattle into two separate herds, 

implement a deferred grazing system, decrease forage utilization to sensitive resources and improve 

livestock production and quality of feed by more manageable control of livestock. These factors are 

expected to benefit rangeland resources through increased herding and more controlled livestock 

movement. 

The new handling facilities for livestock shipping/receiving, away from the Aspen pack station, 

would allow for a more effective and efficient strategy for loading cattle on and off the Allotment, 

increase safety, decrease dust and congestion on the main road and manage recreational stock use 

separate from commercial livestock. 

Modifying the Bell Meadow Allotment boundary along the Northeastern edge of the Allotment to 

align with natural barriers would decrease livestock entry into unauthorized areas and provide a more 

consistent and manageable boundary line.

Crab Meadow has more than 10% of the meadow vegetation in early seral status. However, in 

meadows already impaired, meadow hydrologic function is not likely to show significant 

improvement by changing livestock management alone. 

Eagle Meadow Allotment

Alternative 1 would add the Niagara Creek and McCormick Pocket addition areas to the Eagle 

Meadow Allotment.. The Niagara Creek addition to the west of the current Allotment boundary 

would result in similar improvements to grazing management by altering the timing, intensity, 

frequency and duration of grazing and improving livestock distribution. The Niagara Creek addition 

would add about 2,427 acres to the Eagle Meadow Allotment, of which about 184 acres are capable 

and suitable. This addition would improve distribution, reduce the potential for browsing effects to 

woody riparian vegetation, and extend grazing opportunities in the Niagara unit to delay entry into the 

Sardine unit which will reduce the threat of Larkspur poisoning. 

The McCormick Pocket addition, to the south of Eagle Meadow is about 2426 acres, of which 235 are

capable and suitable acres. This would allow about 20-25 cow/calf pairs to disperse into an area not 

currently used, add opportunities for late season grazing, reduce grazing pressure and trespass on 

private lands, improve livestock distribution, reduce impact to sensitive habitats and reduce overall 

utilization in the Long Valley unit. 

Alternative 1 would change utilization standards to 40% from 60% on the Eagle Meadow Allotment. 

This change would be consistent with Forest Plan Direction for units that are grazed every year. 

Flexibility to adjust to an intensive grazing system would be allowed if the permittee continues a year 
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

114

of rest in between years of grazing in certain units. The maximum allowable utilization could be 

raised to 50% for rested units, as long as resource conditions continue to meet or move towards 

desired condition. 

A change of grazing utilization standards at Lower Eagle Meadow from stubble height to a maximum 

vegetative cover height would properly measure and assess habitat cover for Great Gray Owl prey 

species. Replacement of a temporary exclosure fence with a permanent fence, would better protect the 

prey species in GGO foraging habitat. 

Red Rock Meadow would continue to have a stable ecological status because low seral species are 

slightly decreasing and moderate seral species are slowly increasing. It is unlikely high seral species 

would increase appreciably due to a transition from its historic wet meadow to a sagebrush 

community type. This transition is expected to continue due to the lowered water table and loss of 

floodplain connectivity, although revegetation and aggradation of sediment is occurring at a new but 

lower floodplain level along the stream channel. It is expected the meadow would remain stable but 

would not meet the desired condition of 50% or greater late seral vegetation without restoration. 

Herring Creek Allotment

Alternative 1 would implement a deferred rotational grazing strategy for the Herring Creek Allotment

by creating four units within the Allotment: Bull Run Unit, Cascade Unit, Hammill Canyon Unit and 

Willow Unit. Alternative 1 would improve livestock distribution, reduce utilization in areas that 

receive concentrated use and defer grazing in Yosemite toad habitat. This would result in similar 

improvement in timing, intensity, frequency and duration of grazing and improving livestock 

distribution.. 

Modifying the Herring Creek Allotment by adding 3413 acres to the Northwest of the Allotment 

(Cascade Creek) and by removing 2563 acres to the Southeast (Waterhouse Lake) would result in a 

net gain of about 850 acres to the Herring Creek Allotment. This addition would add about 427 

capable and suitable acres and slow the movement and entry of livestock into Hammill Canyon and 

decrease impacts to Herring Creek. Alternative 1 would improve streambank health and meadow 

condition by improving livestock dispersal and the distribution of forage utilization. 

Alternative 1 is expected to reduce riparian browse. The proposed deferred rotation grazing systems 

would reduce the potential for early season browsing by livestock on woody riparian species. 

Browsing on aspen and willow may still occur in some locations and site specific aspen browsing 

may occasionally exceed standards and guidelines by a combination of browse users (Shaw 1991). It 

is expected that the proposed action would improve distribution and timing of forage utilization of 

livestock that may provide a delay in a change of preference from herbaceous forage to riparian 

browse Allotment-wide. 

It is assumed that most meadows and riparian areas may be affected by up to 5% from hoof action by 

livestock (Allen-Diaz, 1999). Forest Plan Direction limits trampling and trailing from hoof action to 

20% of streambanks and shorelines. In areas where this disturbance or alteration was within standard 

and vegetation was rated as moderate or high, the ecological status are expected to remain stable in 

desired condition or moving towards 50% or more of late seral species. The associated stream 

functions connected to these meadows are expected to continue to improve as floodplains reach their 

potential. In areas where hoof action, including chiseling, trampling and trailing of streambanks, may 

be approaching or exceeding standards in the Forest Plan Direction, it is expected that implementation 

of Alternative 1 would reduce these impacts. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects are most appropriately analyzed at the Allotment boundary level because primary 

and secondary range identified for analysis fits into this assessment scale. At this level cumulative 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

115

effects can be best understood in context with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

management activities.

Ground disturbances within the project area include recreation and fuel reduction activities. All of the 

active Allotments have developed recreation facilities, dispersed recreation use, and Off-HighwayVehicle (OHV) routes. Ground disturbance from dispersed recreation such as campsites, trails (hiking

and pack stock) and OHV routes add to the trailing and trampling effects in some high use areas. 

About one percent of the active Allotments have been disturbed due to recreation activities (Frazier 

personal communication 2006). 

Recreation growth mirrors population growth in and around the project area and leads to an increase 

of more forest users. Unauthorized OHV and motorcycle use impacts livestock distribution in many 

areas. These impacts include disrupting rotation movements, occasionally running livestock through 

fences, leaving gates open and/or cutting fences. These actions may have a cumulative effect on the 

health and condition of rangeland riparian ecosystems due to accelerated erosion or loss of vegetative 

cover. 

Pack stock use is essentially unmanaged use and has been occurring within all of the Allotments. This 

use is expected to increase within the next 10 years as open space in urban areas decreases and 

recreation pressures on the Forest increase. Pack stock grazing in meadows and adjoining aspen 

communities has been reported as impacting aspen regeneration (Cassinetto, personal communication 

2005). It is expected that grazing pressures within meadow complexes would increase from deer, 

pack stock, and domestic livestock within these remaining herbaceous environments.

Fuel reduction projects have occurred in the past and in recent years or are in the planning stages in 

portions of the active Allotments (Appendix C). These projects include hazard fuel reductions, tree 

thinning projects, and salvage harvests. Currently, Bell Meadow (3% of the watershed) and Herring 

Creek (20% of the watershed) have thinning projects proposed that may open up canopy cover and 

increase herbaceous vegetation and forage capacity. 

Sheppard (Sheppard 2004 and Sheppard et al. 2006) suggests aspen regeneration is dependent on 

moderate to intense disturbance. Suppressing natural fires, lack of active management such as cutting 

or ripping to encourage sprouting (suckering) or prescribed fire, and conifer encroachment may be 

contributing to the lack of aspen regeneration in some areas rather than exclusively livestock grazing. 

In addition, the subsequent conversion of aspen stands toward conifer dominated communities has led 

to the loss of aspen. Meadow restoration projects have occurred within the active Allotments and 

would continue into the foreseeable future. These projects typically include stream restoration, 

conifer removal within or along meadow edges. Meadow condition and aspen regeneration are 

expected to improve or remain consistent in these project locations if Forest Plan S&Gs are 

implemented. 

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Under the no action alternative no grazing would be permitted on the Allotments. Meadows rated as 

high (desired condition/good) would maintain desired condition and the meadows would continue to 

support an herbaceous plant community. Late-seral species would increase, and mid- and early-seral 

species would decrease. Meadows would likely become less diverse. 

Meadows in moderate (fair) condition would continue to recover and would likely move towards 

desired condition. Mid-seral species would continue to increase, late-seral species would increase and 

early-seral species would decrease. Most of the hydrologic functions are in satisfactory condition and 

over time natural recovery to the meadows would occur including an increase of willow and riparian 

species to support streambank stability. Willow would likely choke out streams leaving reduced 

access for wildlife.
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

116

Meadows rated in low condition (poor or very poor) are identified as areas that are disconnected from 

their floodplain by widened or gullied channels. It is expected that vegetation cover would improve 

over time by natural recovery as these stream channels reach a new but lowered stream channel. For 

those meadows that are severely degraded (such as Round Meadow and Castle Meadow) it is 

expected these meadows would start to trend towards or reach desired condition in the long term (50+ 

years), , but not likely any faster unless restoration is included. In the case of Crab Meadow, it is 

likely in portions of the meadow, early-seral species would continue to persist and late-seral species 

would stabilize but not significantly increase due to the shallow rocky soils that do not support lateseral species. 

Without intervention, Red Rock Meadow (Eagle Meadow Allotment) is not expected to show 

improvements in ecological status because stream connectivity has been lost and the water table has 

been lowered resulting in the loss of herbaceous cover. This meadow would continue to transition 

from a wet meadow with a sedge type community to a more xeric sagebrush type community. In the 

long term (25-35 years) this meadow habitat would continue to decrease. A new much smaller flood 

plain will develop within the incised channel.

By eliminating livestock grazing, the aquatic habitats, including riparian areas and their associated 

herbaceous plant communities are expected to improve within 1-5 years. In the secondary range 

(uplands), the communities with flatter slopes, relatively close to water, primary travel routes, entry 

and exit gates, and those areas grazed early in the season when upland grasses are at their most 

palatable would improve in cover or composition. In most instances, there would be an increase to 

vegetation with native grass species increasing and some forbs decreasing. 

Conversely, there may be a slow decrease in the biodiversity of the aquatic habitats as some native 

forbs and mosses are suppressed by the increased grass growth. Over time, (20-50 years), grass 

plants, such as bunchgrasses would tend to stagnate due to the absence of disturbance. Without some 

disturbance, such as grazing, conifer encroachment would increase in meadows and riparian species 

composition would decrease. 

Exclusion of livestock would result in some benefits to soils where there are currently trailing or 

trampling impacts. For the most part, these effects are relatively minor and localized. Any 

improvement therefore would not be significant and would likely occur over a short time period as 

indicated by experience with other vacant and/or abolished Allotments. 

Under the no action alternative, aspen communities within the Allotments would continue to provide 

variety in age class, structure, composition and amount of cover within riparian areas. Over time 

aspen stands may decrease due to conifer encroachment from a lack of disturbance. However, it is 

likely that aspen browse may continue to exceed standards where recreational stock horse use and 

other browsers have over browsed individual aspen stands, resulting in a short-term (< 1-2 years) 

effects to those individuals by reducing annual growth. In the long term (5 years plus), in the areas 

where aspen is growing, the aspen communities would continue to be diverse.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

No adverse cumulative effects would occur as a result of livestock grazing since there would be no 

grazing allowed on any of the Allotments under Alternative 2. 

Alternative 3 (Current Management)

DIRECT AND INDIRECTEFFECTS

Under current management, the key areas that are stable or trending toward desired conditions would 

remain the same or continue to improve. Utilization levels in those areas would continue to be 

managed at 40% of available forage, with the exception of rested units in the Eagle Meadow

Allotment. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

117

Bell Meadow Allotment

Under a 40% utilization level, Crab Meadow ecological status is expected to remain in poor condition 

with early-seral species continuing to increase and late-seral species decreasing. This meadow may 

never meet desired condition because portions of the meadow have shallow rocky soils which do not 

support late seral species that are more deeply rooted. The northwest corner is expected to remain 

denuded with limited water holding capacity and the plant community in this area would remain in 

poor ecological status. 

Mud Lake Meadow would continue to be grazed at the current utilization level (40%). A Rapid 

Assessment in 2010 determined the current ecological condition is fair. The Bell Meadow Allotment

was not grazed for a three year period (2002-2004). It is expected the ecological condition would 

remain fair, and trend stable but with season long grazing across the entire Allotment, recovery rates 

would not increase. 

Eagle Meadow Allotment

In the Eagle Meadow Allotment, which is under an intensive grazing system, a 60% utilization 

standard could continue to be implemented in the Sardine, Haypress and Long Valley units, as well as 

Eagle Meadow gathering pasture. The 2006 Rapid Assessment ecological condition in Sardine 

Meadow and Haypress Meadow indicates that at current management these units meet Forest Plan 

Direction. However, it is unknown if grazing this unit consistently at 60% would cause the ecological 

condition to change due to allowable use limits not tested at 60%. 

Eagle Meadow Pasture has several fens, some of which are rated Functional-At Risk. Condition and 

trend of the fens is not apparent and it is unknown if livestock grazing is causing or contributing to 

the drying and exposed bare soil of the fens or whether these factors are within control of 

management. There is also a decadent aspen stand that is in poor condition with little regeneration. 

The eastern side of the meadow is not connected to the streambed and is rated in poor condition and 

no longer functioning as a meadow. The west side of the meadow is in desired condition. The pasture 

is currently used for late season gathering (2 weeks) and the utilization standard is 60%. However, 

60% utilization has not been tested and it is unknown if continued use at 60% could continue to meet 

Forest Plan Direction under an intensive grazing system where a meadow is maintained in a late-seral 

status if meadow-associated species are being impacted. The ecological status of the meadow is 

expected to continue to remain fair in the west side of the meadow that still has connectivity to the 

stream but it is not known if condition of the fens will improve to Proper Functioning Condition 

under 60% utilization.

Red Rock Meadow would continue to have a stable ecological status because early-seral species are 

slightly decreasing and mid-seral species are increasing. However, it is unlikely late-seral species 

would increase appreciably due to a continued transition from its current dry meadow type to a 

sagebrush community type. This transition is expected to continue due to the lowered water table and 

loss of floodplain connectivity, although the stream is showing revegetation and aggradation of 

sediment at a new but lower floodplain level. Utilization would remain the same due to an intensive 

grazing strategy (rest-rotation) developed for the Sardine, Haypress and Long Valley units. This 

strategy is not expected to have any substantial effect on the ecological status of Red Rock Meadow 

because cattle would continue to pass through the meadow due to limited forage. This grazing 

management strategy also moves cattle into the uplands which reduces the concentrations of cattle in 

this meadow. It is expected the meadow would remain stable but would not meet the desired 

condition of 50% or greater late-seral herbaceous vegetation without hydrologic intervention. 

Lower Eagle Meadow would continue to measure utilization at 6” stubble height within the exclosure 

to protect Great Gray Owl habitat. Utilization monitoring occurs mid to late August after cattle have 

left the unit and it is expected that this standard would continue to be met. Rotation into the Sardine 

Unit is timed to allow larkspur to mature and become less toxic to cattle. The 6” utilization standard 
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

118

generally allows cattle to remain long enough to let larkspur cure in the Sardine Unit and limit 

exposure. The 6 inch stubble height standard does not conform to the 5” cover height established by 

the Forest.

Herring Creek Allotment

Under Alternative 3, Herring Creek has several locations of Yosemite toad habitat that are excluded 

from livestock grazing through metamorphosis. Grazing alternatives are severely limited on this 

Allotment until after toad metamorphosis (about the middle of August). The distribution of livestock 

in the current management strategy does not allow movement into any other area including 

Waterhouse Lake area, due to lack of accessibility. This concentrates cattle in the Hammill 

Canyon/Herring Creek area for extended periods of time to meet Forest Plan Direction for Yosemite 

toad conservation. Under this alternative, cattle enter Hammill Canyon and portions of Herring Creek 

at the same time each year with no opportunities for early entry into higher elevation grazing. Proper 

Functioning Condition (PFC) results along Herring Creek indicate that these areas are either 

functioning at risk or non-functional and not consistent with Forest Plan Direction that are, in part, 

due to legacy grazing issues. 

In the remaining areas rated as moderate or properly functioning, the ecological status is expected to 

remain stable or trending towards desired conditions. The associated stream functions connected to 

these meadows are expected to continue to improve as floodplains reach their potential. 

It is expected there would be limited early season grazing of riparian browse, including aspen and 

willow by cattle because there are more palatable herbaceous species available that are favored at this 

time of the year. Monitoring data indicates early season grazing use in riparian areas meets Forest 

Plan Direction. Late season browsing on aspen may still occur in some locations and site specific 

aspen browsing does occasionally exceed standards and guidelines. However, it is difficult to manage 

aspen browse, especially in areas where livestock, deer and recreational packstock co-exist. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative effects of this alternative are the same as for Alternative 1. There is no substantial 

difference between these alternatives in respect to cumulative effects.

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

This alternative was developed in response to scoping comments. Alternative 4 would implement 

resource protection measures immediately where a need for change in management was identified 

during project analysis. The alternative would make forage available to qualified livestock operators 

in a manner that is consistent with management direction but not sustainable economically. 

Alternative 4 would move existing conditions toward desired conditions but limit livestock grazing 

on these Allotments. Livestock grazing would be minimized or excluded in areas where certain 

resource concerns were identified. Permitted livestock numbers for the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, 

and Herring Creek Allotments would be reduced by an amount proportionate to the reduction in 

suitable foraging area caused by exclusion of those areas with resource concerns. The Resource 

Protection Alternative would also reduce the permitted grazing area for all three Allotments due to 

exclusion of sensitive areas. 

Livestock management may have adjustments each year in terms of timing and actual livestock 

numbers. This alternative may not provide permittees with a viable grazing strategy for economic 

stability. The overall objectives may not be met by staying within the sideboards outlined in the 

design criteria depending only on changes to livestock management (Allen-Diaz 1999). 

As with the Proposed Action, the Resource Protection Alternative would move existing conditions 

toward desired conditions while continuing to allow livestock grazing on these Allotments. However, 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

119

the Resource Protection Alternative decreases acres that were identified as suitable and capable for 

resource protection. Reduced grazing areas and livestock numbers may affect the economic viability 

of the Allotments and does not allow for utilization of available forage. It also does not consider the 

management implications of the Yosemite toad Study (Roche et al. 2012), which does not support 

livestock exclusion from breeding habitat. This study suggests that current grazing management 

guidelines are meeting objectives for Toad conservation. It also does not consider other adaptive 

management solutions that could avoid a reduction of livestock numbers or season of use. 

Under Alternative 4, it is unknown whether aspen regeneration would improve or if a reduction in 

suitable acres would increase grazing pressure on aspen stands. It is expected there would be limited 

early season grazing of riparian browse, including aspen and willow by cattle because there are more 

palatable herbaceous species available that are favored at this time of the year. Monitoring data 

indicates early season grazing use in riparian areas meets Forest Plan Direction. Late season browsing 

on aspen may still occur in some locations and site specific aspen browsing does occasionally exceed 

standards and guidelines. However, it is difficult to manage aspen browse, especially in areas where 

livestock, deer and recreational packstock co-exist. 

It is expected that with reduced numbers and acres there will still be a need to improve livestock 

distribution and/or rotation in these areas and continue monitoring of aspen browse and regeneration 

trends.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative effects of this alternative are the same as for Alternative 1. There is no substantial 

difference between these alternatives with respect to cumulative effects.

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

A summary of effects is provided in Table 3.06-7 

Table 3.06-7 Summary of effects to meadow condition 

Resource Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Meadow 

Condition

Key areas that are 

stable or trending 

toward desired 

condition would 

remain the same or 

continue to 

improve.

Meadows rated as high would 

maintain desired condition. 

Meadows in moderate 

condition would continue to 

recover and would likely move 

towards desired condition. 

Meadows rated in low condition 

would improve overtime by 

natural recovery.

Key areas that are 

stable or trending 

toward desired 

condition would remain 

the same or continue to 

improve, but recovery 

rates would not 

increase.

Key areas that are 

stable or trending 

toward desired 

condition would 

remain the same or 

continue to 

improve.

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

This project is in compliance with Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010) because standards and 

guidelines and permit administration are implemented to trend towards or meet desired future 

conditions. 
Chapter 3.06 Stanislaus

Range National Forest

120
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

121

3.07 RECREATION

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

Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010) includes forestwide standards and guidelines and Wild and 

Scenic River, Near Natural, Scenic Corridor, General Forest, and Developed Recreation management 

area direction that apply to this project. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is the basic 

inventory that was used to create recreation-opportunity “zoning” in these plans. In summary, Forest 

Plan direction specific to recreation emphasizes providing a variety of quality recreation opportunities 

while protecting the natural setting and natural resource values. Specific elements address livestock 

grazing and related activities to optimize recreation opportunities while minimizing conflict with 

grazing, encouraging public participation, managing conditions on the ground, and assuring effective 

and sustainable management. Trailheads, campgrounds, and recreation residence tracts generally fall 

within the Developed Recreation Management Area. Forestwide direction for Allotment management 

excludes grazing within all developed recreation sites (Appendix C, Forest Plan Direction). 

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Recreation

1. The authorization of continued grazing does not change ROS classes.

2. The Forest NVUM report accurately expresses the most popular recreation activities for analysis. 

3. An adaptive management strategy will provide options that may be used in the future where a 

need is identified due to conflicts between grazing and recreation. These projects, if needed, may 

need additional NEPA analysis. 

Data Sources

1. Forest Plan

2. GIS

3. NVUM reports

Recreation Indicators

1. The extent of recreation activities that are potentially affected. 

2. The proximity of primary grazing areas to recreation areas.

3. The number of public comments received related to conflicts between grazing and recreation. 

Recreation Methodology

Effects analysis involved consideration of known and potential grazing conflicts with management 

direction for ROS classes and popular recreation activities. 

Affected Environment

Recreation opportunities within the project area include: scenic viewing, hiking, backpacking, biking, 

camping, horseback riding, hunting, and off-highway vehicle opportunities. The recreation use period 

generally occurs from late May (based on snow free access) through mid-November with the highest 

use occurring from July 1 through Labor Day. Higher use within this period occurs on weekend days. 

Use peaks again significantly on the opening weekend of rifle season for deer hunting (the third 

weekend in September). 

The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) reports from 2003 and 2007 indicate that the 

Stanislaus National Forest receives over 1.8 million visitors annually (USDA 2008). About thirty 

seven percent of the respondents to the survey visited the forest from within 75 miles from their home 

location. The study also showed that between 17 and 22 percent of the visitors surveyed used general 
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus

Recreation National Forest

122

forest areas for recreation purposes. A larger percentage of the respondents visiting the forest did so 

to hike versus participate in equestrian activities (6% hiking vs. 2% equestrian). 

Visitors to dispersed use, non-wilderness areas within the project boundaries are generally repeat 

visitors and are aware that the Forest Service is the land management agency whose policy guides 

uses for these areas.

BELL MEADOW ALLOTMENT

Most areas within the project analysis area are within Roaded Natural ROS Class with smaller 

sections within Semi-Primitive Motorized and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS classes. The 

analysis area includes two developed horse campgrounds, one developed trailhead and three 

undeveloped trailheads. There are about 21 miles of non-motorized trails within the analysis area. 

Popular activities within the area include dispersed camping, hunting, day trip horseback riding, 

hiking, backpacking to wilderness destinations, and scenic travel. 

EAGLE MEADOW ALLOTMENT

The project analysis area is within Roaded Natural, Semi-Primitive Motorized and Semi-Primitive 

Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class (ROS). The Eagle Meadow Allotment area 

includes one developed horse campground, one developed OHV campground; one developed nonmotorized trailhead and three undeveloped motorized trailheads. There are about 9 miles of nonmotorized trails and 11 miles of designated OHV trails within the analysis area1

. Popular activities 

within the area include camping, dispersed camping, hunting, OHV and OSV activities, mountain 

biking, horseback riding and scenic travel. 

The Allotment and proposed addition are proximate (within 1⁄4 mile) to two recreation residence tracts 

(Niagara and Mill Creek) and one additional developed campground (Mill Creek Campground). The 

recreation residence tracts have a total of nine permitted cabins. The cabins are used seasonally by the 

permit holders and their families and/or friends.

HERRING CREEK ALLOTMENT

The project analysis area is predominantly within Roaded Natural, with small sections in SemiPrimitive Motorized and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class 

(ROS). The analysis area includes one designated horse campground, two campgrounds; four nonmotorized trailhead and two undeveloped motorized trailheads. There are about 10 miles of nonmotorized trails and 7 miles of designated OHV trails within the analysis area1

. Popular activities 

within the area include camping, dispersed camping, hunting, OHV and OSV activities, mountain 

biking, hiking and backpacking to wilderness destinations, interpretive trail use and scenic travel. 

The proposed addition is proximate (within 1⁄4 mile) to one recreation residence tracts (Cascade 

Creek). The recreation residence tract has a total of fifteen permitted cabins. The cabins are used 

seasonally by the permit holders and their families and/or friends. 

Environmental Consequences

Studies found “limited evidence that perceptions of livestock use are associated with recreation 

activity style...and demographic characteristics”. Hunters were significantly less likely to report that 

seeing cattle detracted from their recreation experiences, and more likely to report that seeing cattle 

enhanced the experience. Anglers were more likely to be aware of riparian impacts from grazing than 

hunters. Mitchell et al. (1996) found that visitors in dispersed campsites tended to be more critical of 

grazing than those in developed campgrounds, which are usually fenced off from livestock use. An 

unpublished study by J.E. Mitchell, G.N. Wallace, and M.D. Wells (1986) found that most visitors 

were neutral about facilities associated with livestock management on rangelands (e.g. corrals, cattle 

guards, watering tanks, salt blocks, and fences).
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

123

Studies were inconclusive regarding the idea that the size of the visitor’s home community affected 

their attitudes about grazing. Studies by Mitchell et al. and Brunson and Gilbert found that visitors 

from rural communities and local visitors were less likely to find that grazing negatively impacted 

their recreation experiences. In the study conducted by Brunson and Gilbert (2003), visitors were 

more likely to say grazing detracted from the experience if they were from an urban area or hiked, 

while the study by Mitchell et al. (1996) found no connection between the size of a visitor’s home 

community and the presence of livestock as a detractor from their recreation experience.

The location of encounters with grazing also affects visitor perceptions (Brunson and Gilbert, 2003). 

Sanderson et al. (1986) found that frequent visitors to an area were more likely to accept intensive 

grazing management, but they also found that people who experienced close contact with cattle were 

more likely to express negative perceptions. Studies also found that visitors tended to be more 

tolerant of grazing in areas known to be managed for multiple uses and/or without a protective status 

such as wilderness or National Parks/Monuments (Johnson et al. 1997). 

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Bell Meadow Allotment

No changes to the ROS designations would be made. July 1 generally starts the highest use period for 

recreation activities throughout the forest. Delivering cattle to an area near Kerrick Corrals Horse 

Camp may have some impact on users of this campground were the animals to be delivered during 

this period. The option to deliver within two weeks on either side of the July 1 start time would lessen 

the possibility of cow/visitor encounters. Users of the Horsecamp are generally from ranching and/or 

local communities, familiar with livestock and grazing use of the forest and are likely more accepting 

of this activity. It is anticipated that the cattle would be managed to stay out of this developed site 

thereby minimizing overlap and potential conflicts.

Dispersing the cattle into units and into small herd sizes will minimize the possibility of potential user 

conflicts in the Crab and Mud units. The Crab and Mud units contain high use trailheads providing 

access to wilderness destinations. Users to these areas are generally mixed, consisting of hikers and 

equestrian enthusiasts. As noted in previous studies, it is likely that hikers may have a different 

perception of cattle grazing on their experience than that perceived by a horseback rider (wilderness 

use impacts will be addressed separately). 

There is an overlap of high use periods at the Crabtree/Gianelli/Bell trailheads and the timing of 

moving the animals into the units. All of these trailheads are adjacent to creeks thereby increasing the 

possibility of animal/visitor encounters. Common complaints by visitors would likely result from the 

increased presence of flies which would reduce the quality of the recreation experience. It is likely 

that visitors to these areas are aware that they are visiting National Forest lands and may be more 

accepting of grazing as a multiple use management activity.

The animals may be moved out of the Allotment prior to opening weekend of rifle season, thereby 

reducing the possibility of potential hunter conflicts. The area is not a popular use area for OHV users 

therefore impacts to this user groups are anticipated to be minimal.

An indirect effect of continued grazing may result in visitors recreating in areas or periods where no 

grazing occurs for future events. There is no net decrease in visitation anticipated as a result of the 

proposed action. 

Eagle Meadow Allotment

No changes to the ROS designations would be made. July 1 generally starts the highest use period for 

recreation activities throughout the forest. Users to these areas are generally mixed, consisting 

predominantly of OHV users and equestrian enthusiasts. Forest Plan guidelines provide that cattle 
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus

Recreation National Forest

124

will be kept out of developed recreation sites. This may be accomplished either through more intense 

herding or fencing. The Forest Service has not received complaints regarding cattle occurrence in 

Niagara Creek Campground or Niagara ORV Campground. It is not anticipated that continued 

grazing will negatively impact user experiences in these two developed sites. 

Users of the Eagle Meadow Horsecamp are generally from ranching and/or local communities, 

familiar with livestock and grazing use of the forest and are likely more accepting of this activity. It is 

anticipated that the cattle would be managed to stay out of this developed site.

While it was noted in some studies that dispersed users were more likely to report that grazing 

negatively affects their recreation experience, based on use in this particular area, impacts are 

expected to be minimal. Some users may experience increased flies in their favorite dispersed 

campsite which will detract from their experience. Additional dispersed sites in the Niagara Creek 

addition, not previously impacted by cattle use may be impacted. Users to these particular sites may 

be more likely to be affected by cattle grazing because it has not previously occurred in this area. 

It is anticipated that fences on the west side of the Niagara Creek addition will minimize the 

occurrence of cattle in or near the Mill Creek Campground and Mill Creek Recreation Residence 

Tract. It is not anticipated that Niagara or Mill Creek Recreation Residence Tracts will be affected by 

the addition of this subunit. 

The Eagle Meadow, Niagara and Long Valley areas provides numerous dispersed camping and OHV 

opportunities. As previously noted dispersed users are the most likely user type to become negatively 

impacted by grazing activities. This is likely the result of the fact that dispersed camping sites 

generally occur near streams or other water features where cattle also congregate. Grazing has 

occurred in this area for decades. Changes that have occurred in this area are the increasing number of 

users to the area. The increasing popularity of OHV activities accounts for much of this increased use. 

As use continues to increase, it is likely that more users will encounter the results of grazing 

activities.

Increased education and visitor information regarding forest multiple use management and grazing 

activities in the area may assist in increasing visitor awareness and setting expectations for their forest 

visit. Users to this area are generally local and/or from the central valley where they may be more 

accepting of grazing activities. 

An indirect effect of continued grazing may result in visitors recreating in areas or periods where no 

grazing occurs for future events. There is no net decrease in visitation anticipated as a result of the 

proposed action. 

Herring Creek Allotment

No changes to the ROS designations would be made. July 1 generally starts the highest use period for 

recreation activities throughout the forest. On a relative scale limited dispersed use occurs in the area 

where the cattle are delivered. While it was noted in some studies that dispersed users were more 

likely to report that grazing negatively affects their recreation experience, based on use in this 

particular area, impacts are expected to be minimal. Some users may experience increased flies in 

their favorite dispersed campsite which will detract from their experience. Additional dispersed sites 

in the Cascade addition, not previously impacted by cattle use may be impacted. Users to these 

particular sites may be more likely to be affected by cattle grazing because it has not previously 

occurred in this area. 

The proposed addition is similar in proximity and features to the Cascade Creek Tract as the existing 

Allotment is to Leland Recreation Residence Tract and Cow Creek Recreation Residence Tract. No 

complaints have been received by the Forest Service regarding the occurrence of cattle in either the 

Leland or Cow Creek Tracts. It is not anticipated that Cascade Creek Recreation Residence Tract will 

be affected by the addition of this subunit. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

125

Cattle have been frequently noted in the Herring Reservoir Campground and the meadow adjoining 

the upper end of Herring Reservoir. The recreation experience for users of this campground is 

negatively impacted by the presence of cattle within the campground. More intensive management of 

cattle movement to prevent entry into this campground would be needed. This may be accomplished 

by fencing or more intensive herding and monitoring efforts. 

The Herring Creek/Hammill Canyon Loop area provides numerous dispersed camping and OHV 

opportunities. As previously noted dispersed users are the most likely user type to become negatively 

impacted by grazing activities. This is likely the result of the fact that dispersed camping sites 

generally occur near streams or other water features where cattle also congregate. Grazing has 

occurred in this area for decades. Changes that have occurred in this area are the increasing number of 

users to the area. The increasing popularity of OHV activities accounts for much of this increased use. 

As use continues to increase, it is likely that more users will encounter the results of grazing 

activities. 

Increased education and visitor information regarding forest multiple use management and grazing 

activities in the area may assist in increasing visitor awareness and setting expectations for their forest 

visit. Users to this area are generally local and/or from the central valley where they may be more 

accepting of grazing activities. Common complaints by visitors would likely result from the presence 

of increased flies from the presence of cattle which would reduce the quality of the recreation 

experience. It is likely that visitors to these areas are aware that they are visiting National Forest lands 

and may be more accepting of grazing as a multiple use management activity.

An indirect effect of continued grazing may result in visitors recreating in areas or periods where no 

grazing occurs for future events. There is no net decrease in visitation anticipated as a result of the 

proposed action. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Proposed projects in the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow and Herring Creek Allotment areas include the

Gooseberry Ecological Restoration Project, the Niagara Fire Salvage Project, the Juniper Mine 

restoration project and the Strawberry Fuels Reduction Project. These projects analyzed potential 

impacts to recreation and visual resources. Grazing has occurred in these overlapping areas for 

decades. Changes in the vegetative landscape resulting from grazing activities are not anticipated to 

contribute significantly to the overall changes in the visual landscape qualities. It is not anticipated 

that recreation opportunities will be cumulatively impacted by the continued use of the area for this 

particular activity.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

If Alternative 2 is selected, commercial livestock grazing would be eliminated from the three 

Allotments and visitors would not be impacted by the presence of livestock. Under this alternative, 

there would be no direct effects or a positive effect to recreation opportunities in the areas 

encompassing the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow and Herring Creek Allotments. An indirect effect of 

removing grazing may be that visitors recreate in new areas that are less desirable when cattle are 

present. Visitor encounters with recreational stock, including horses, burros, and llamas, may still 

occur. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Because there would be no direct or indirect effects on recreation, there would be no cumulative 

effects resulting from this alternative.
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus

Recreation National Forest

126

Alternative 3 (Current Management)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

The effects of this alternative would be similar to those described for Alternative 1, with the 

exception that the addition areas would not be incorporated into the Allotments. No changes to the 

ROS designations would be made. 

There is no net decrease in visitation anticipated as a result of Alternative 3.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects of this alternative are similar to those described for Alternative 1. Changes in the 

vegetative landscape resulting from grazing activities are not anticipated to contribute significantly to 

the overall changes in the visual landscape qualities. It is not anticipated that recreation opportunities 

will be cumulatively impacted by the continued use of the area for grazing.

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

The effects of this alternative on recreation would likely be somewhat less than those described for 

Alternatives 1 and 3, because livestock numbers would be reduced. Reduced livestock numbers and 

reduced available grazing area may make it less likely for users to encounter grazing activity. 

Dispersed sites in the addition areas will not be impacted because the area would not be incorporated 

into the Allotments under this alternative. More intensive management of cattle movement to prevent 

entry into the Herring Reservoir Campground would still be needed. This may be accomplished by 

fencing or more intensive herding and monitoring efforts. 

An indirect effect of continued grazing may result in visitors recreating in areas or periods where no 

grazing occurs for future events. Likewise, an indirect effect of this alternative is the potential for 

increased recreation use in areas, such as the Willow subunit, that would be excluded from grazing. 

No changes to the ROS designations would be made. There is no net decrease in visitation anticipated 

as a result of this alternative.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects of this alternative are similar to those described for Alternatives 1 and 3. Changes 

in the vegetative landscape resulting from grazing activities are not anticipated to contribute 

significantly to the overall changes in the visual landscape qualities. It is not anticipated that 

recreation opportunities will be cumulatively impacted by the continued use of the area for grazing.

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

Dispersed users may be negatively impacted by grazing as a result of the coinciding locations of 

dispersed activities and the presence of cattle along streams. The proposed actions are not anticipated 

to have a negative impact on user experiences within developed recreation areas and/or recreation 

residence tracts based on efforts to manage cattle away from these locations either through physical 

barriers or “herding” strategies. Hikers are the most likely user group to be negatively affected by the 

presence of cattle along trails accessing wilderness destinations resulting from cow pies and increased 

flies. It is not anticipated that overall visitation by any one user group will decrease as a result of the 

proposed actions. It is possible that visitors will adjust their use patterns to areas where cattle have not 

yet been or to areas where grazing does not occur. The number of users changing use patterns is not 

anticipated to be so great as to cause new resource issues in other previously unvisited areas.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

127

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

Trailheads, campgrounds, and recreation residence tracts generally fall within the Developed 

Recreation Management Area in the Forest Plan. Forestwide direction for Allotment management 

within developed recreation areas excludes grazing within all developed recreation sites (USDA 

2010). 

Grazing activities will be managed by the permittee to avoid developed recreation sites or in some 

places, fences will be installed to minimize occurrences within sites like recreation residence tracts.

Dispersed recreation activities occur within Semi-primitive Non-motorized, Semi-primitive 

motorized, and Roaded Natural areas throughout the project areas. 

 Semi-primitive Non-motorized: Manage the area so that on-site controls and restrictions are 

minimized and restrictions are subtle. Resource improvements will normally be limited to 

minimum, unobtrusive facilities.

 Semi-primitive Motorized: Manage the area so that on-site controls and restrictions are evident 

but not dominant. Resource improvements occur but are subordinate to the surrounding natural 

environment. 

 Roaded Natural: Manage the area so there is only moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of 

man. Resource modification practices are evident. A full range of other resource activities is 

permitted to the extent that the general practice description is met. 

No changes are proposed to the ROS classes identified within the Forest Plan. It is not anticipated that 

the proposed action(s) will result in a change to the existing class designations for the project areas.

The Forest Plan standards and guidelines provide that range activities follow Forest Plan Direction for 

Range and Recreation. Grazing activities and recreation should be monitored to identify and 

implement adaptive management options that may be needed to mitigate and minimize conflicts with 

recreation caused by livestock grazing. 

Recreation use and grazing conflicts will be monitored as recreation staff and range specialists 

execute their duties throughout the project areas. Conflicts will be reported to range specialists. 

Rehabilitation and/mitigation needs may be determined through mutual efforts of resource, range and 

recreation specialists. 
Chapter 3.07 Stanislaus

Recreation National Forest

128
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

129

3.08 SOCIETY,CULTURE AND ECONOMY

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

Multiple statues, regulations and executive orders identify the general requirement for the application 

of economic and social evaluation in support of Forest Service planning and decision making. These 

include, but are not limited to, the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (74 Stat.: 16 USC 528-

531), National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852, 42 USC 4321, 4331-4335, 4341-

4347) and the Planning Act of 1974. In addition, the following guidance also applies. 

Executive Order 12898 issued in 1994 orders federal agencies to identify and address any adverse 

human health and environmental effects of agency programs that disproportionately impact minority 

and low-income populations. The Order also directs agencies to consider patterns of subsistence 

hunting and fishing when an agency action may affect fish or wildlife. 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides for nondiscrimination in voting, public accommodations, 

public facilities, public education, federally assisted programs, and equal employment opportunity. 

Title VI of the Act, Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, as amended (42 USC 2000d 

through 2000d-6) prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. 

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Society, Culture and Economy

The Environmental Justice analysis will report what effects might occur to minority and low-income 

populations. Of particular concern is whether job or income discrimination might occur to these 

groups in the area during or resulting from the proposed project. The analysis boundary is Tuolumne 

County with 20 years of comparable data available. 

Data Sources

 Bureau of Economic Analysis

 United States Census

 Tuolumne County Crop and Livestock Report 

 Forest Service 2200 Range Management Files

Society, Culture and Economy Indicators

 Employment and income information at the county level

 Local trends and community statistics

 Commercial uses of the project area

Society, Culture and Economy Methodology

Social Effects considered are short and long term employment opportunities independent of income 

opportunities. Also considered are general forest values, including aesthetic value, cultural value, 

historical value, and recreational value. 

Economic effects can be categorized as direct or indirect. Direct effects are changes directly 

associated with continued authorization of grazing. Indirect effects are the multiplier effects resulting 

from subsequent actions in the analysis area.

Affected Environment

For the Social and Economic analysis, the political boundary of Tuolumne County, California is used. 

This area provides a specific boundary to provide for analysis of key social and economic indicators. 

All three of the Allotments being analyzed are within Tuolumne County and the permittees for the 
Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest

130

Allotments have base ranches and operations based in Tuolumne County, with some operations 

extending into Stanislaus County. Social and economic impacts to Stanislaus County would be 

negligible; therefore Stanislaus County was not included in the analysis.

Where available, up to 20 years of data is used for comparison. The Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

United States Census, and the Tuolumne County Crop and Livestock Report are the data sources. Key 

social and economic indicators used are population, real personal income per capita, and farm and 

nonfarm employment. These indicators provide a description of the project and surrounding area to 

help evaluate the possible effects to Tuolumne County, California. 

Tuolumne County was settled in the 1850s, beginning with the Gold Rush. Valuable forest resources 

such as lumber became one of the primary industries in the early 20th century. Agriculture, such as 

ranching became an important part of feeding the increasing population of the emerging American 

west. The Sierra Nevada foothills and California valley provide almost year round grazing forage. 

The higher elevations also provide seasonal summer forage for grazing, typically between June and 

October. Most ranches established in Tuolumne County and surrounding areas, developed their 

business around winter grazing in the foothills and summer grazing in the mountains on Forest 

Service lands. Over the years the percentage of Forest Service grazing contribution has decreased in 

comparison with total cattle production, but the Forest Service grazing permits are still very important 

to the ranches that rely on those permits for summer forage.

Table 3.08-1 provides information on population, income, and employment in Tuolumne County 

from 1990 to 2010. Population, income per capita and employment have all increased.

Table 3.08-1 Tuolumne County Population, Personal Income, and Employment (BEA 2012)

Year Population

Personal 

Income per 

Capita

Employment,

full and parttime

Farm 

proprietors

Nonfarm 

proprietors

1990 48,845 $16,025 20,448 288 5,522

2000 54,658 $24,272 24,213 377 7,047

2010 55,221 $35,787 24,723 332 7,370

Table 3.08-2 provides number of farms and farms involved in cattle production in Tuolumne County 

from 1992 to 2007. 

Table 3.08-2 Tuolumne County Farm and Farms with cattle production (USDA 2012)

Year Number of 

Farms

Farms with cattle 

production

1992 249 171

2002 358 187

2007 366 195

Nonfarm employment has increased while farm employment has slightly decreased. In 2010, farming 

made up 1.45% of Tuolumne County’s employment. In 2007 of the 366 farms in Tuolumne County 

195, or 53% were involved in cattle ranching.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Executive order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations,” signed February 11, 1994 by President Clinton states (Section 1-101), 

“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 in 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

131

the United States.” For environmental justice analysis, the ethnic distribution and poverty level of 

Tuolumne County and the State of California are 2010 is provided in Table 3.08-3. 

Table 3.08-3 Ethnic Distribution and Poverty Level for Tuolumne County, CA (US Census 2012)

Item Tuolumne County California

2010 population 55,365 37,253,956

White persons 87.2 % 57.6 %

Black or African American 2.1 % 6.2 %

American Indian and Alaska Native 1.9 % 1.0 %

Asian 1.0 % 13.0 %

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.1 % 0.4 %

Persons reporting two or more races 3.7 % 4.9 %

Hispanic or Latino 10.7 % 37.6 %

White, not Hispanic 81.9 % 40.1 %

Persons below poverty level 11.7 % 13.7 %

Table 3.08-4 Alternative Summary Comparison

Item Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Bell Meadow

Cow/calf pairs 80 0 80 64

Season 7/1 – 9/15 None 7/1 – 9/15 7/1 – 9/15

AUM 268 0 268 214

Total acres 13,209 0 13,209 13,209

Capable/Suitable acres 3,257 0 3,257 3,240

Miles of Fence 5 0 5 6*

Eagle Meadow

Cow/calf pairs 150 0 150 120

Season 7/1 – 9/30 None 7/1 – 9/30 7/1 – 9/30

AUM 599 0 599 478

Total acres 25,092 0 20,239 20,239

Capable/Suitable acres 3,390 0 2,941 2,916

Miles of Fence 13.75 0 9.75 10.25*

Herring Creek

Cow/calf pairs 156 0 156 78

Season 7/1 – 9/30 None 7/1 – 9/30 7/1 – 9/30

AUM 623 0 623 310

Total acres 18,146 0 17,263 14,733

Capable/Suitable acres 2,611 0 2,182 1,282

Miles of Fence 13.25 0 7 10*

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Direct effects of the Proposed Action would be a temporary increase in employment due to fence and 

corral construction, conservation measures, and monitoring. The indirect effects may include an 

increase in indirect employment due to the impact of direct employment. 
Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest

132

Social

Broad-scale social effects would be limited in the Proposed Action, as it is similar to current 

management in the area. Additional employment due to fence and corral construction, implementing 

conservation measures, and monitoring may create temporary employment opportunities. 

Those individuals preferring cattle-free area would continue to be negatively affected by grazing, and 

the individuals that enjoy seeing cattle on rangelands as an example of working landscapes and a 

reminder of the historic West would be positively affected. 

Economic

The economic impacts of the Proposed Action would not be greatly different than current 

management, and livestock grazing would continue in a similar manner. Fence and corral 

construction projects, implementation of conservation measures, and monitoring may increase 

employment in the area. The additional conservation measures and monitoring may force permittees 

to alter their current grazing practices, but would most likely not affect the amount of grazing.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

According to the list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the analysis or 

action area found in the EIS, there are fuels reduction, habitat restoration, hazard tree removal, 

grazing, and recreational uses to consider for cumulative effects.

Projects that need to be considered are fuels reduction, habitat restoration, hazard tree removal, 

grazing, and recreational uses. All of these projects would generate jobs in and/or around the project 

area, potentially reducing the unemployment rate. For Alternative 1, job growth would be in addition 

to small increases due to fence and corral construction, conservation measures, and monitoring in 

addition to the existing condition.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

The direct effects of this alternative would likely be a loss of jobs in farm employment and 

subsequent loss of indirect employment in other industries. 

Social

Under the no action alternative, the discontinued grazing on federal lands on the Bell Meadow, Eagle 

Meadow, and Herring Creek grazing Allotments would negatively affect permittee operations and 

possibly ranch viability. Some operations could be shut down. The possible sale of ranch properties 

may invite commercial and/or residential development which would reduce the amount of open space 

and fragment wildlife habitat. Ranching families could experience lifestyle changes.

Those individuals preferring cattle-free areas would be positively affected, and the individuals that 

enjoy seeing cattle on rangelands as an example of working landscapes and a reminder of the historic 

West would be negatively affected.

Economic

The economic impacts of the no action alternative would be greatest for the local economy, as grazing 

permits would be discontinued on federal lands on the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring 

Creek grazing Allotments. This would result in a loss of income for the permittees and a loss of jobs 

in the county. The loss of jobs would occur in farm employment, which is already in decline. 

Because the analysis does not consider the permittees’ personal business and financial information, it 

is difficult to assess whether a ranch would become unviable under this alternative. It could compel 

the permittees to rent or buy additional pasture or purchase additional feed to maintain their current 

livestock numbers. Although this option is unlikely due to the expense for the permittee and short 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

133

supply of pasture, it may create economic opportunity for the suppliers of these products and/or 

needs.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Projects that need to be considered are fuels reduction, habitat restoration, hazard tree removal, 

grazing, and recreational uses. All of these projects would generate jobs in and/or around the project 

area, potentially reducing the unemployment rate. These projects could help to offset the job loss as a 

result of discontinued grazing under Alternative 2. 

Alternative 3 (Current Management)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Alternative 3 would have no direct or indirect socioeconomic effects, as it is a continuation of current 

management.

Social

No broad-scale social changes are expected with Alternative 3, continuing current management with 

minor modifications. Those individuals preferring cattle-free area would continue to be negatively 

affected by grazing, and the individuals that enjoy seeing cattle on rangelands as an example of 

working landscapes and a reminder of the historic West would be positively affected. 

Economic

Alternative 3 would not greatly affect the local area economically. Additional employment would not 

likely be generated.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects for Alternative 3 would be the same as described for Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Direct effects from Alternative 4, could result in a temporary increase in employment due to fence 

and corral construction projects, implementation of conservation measures, and monitoring. Over the 

longer term direct effects of this alternative would likely be a loss of jobs in farm employment and 

subsequent loss of indirect employment in other industries. It is unknown how great of an impact 

Alternative 4 would have on individual ranch viability. Some operations may just be reduced, others 

could be shut down. 

Social

Alternative 4 would affect the permittees operations as it results in reduced permitted livestock 

numbers on the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow and Herring Creek grazing Allotments. Increased 

attention to sensitive resources would result in additional expense to permittees’ operations. Reduced 

acres available for grazing and reduced permitted livestock numbers could affect individual ranch 

viability.

Economic

The economic impact of Alternative 4 could range from the economic impact of a 20-50 percent 

reduction in permitted livestock (something in between current management and no grazing) to 

impacts as great as Alternative 2 – No Grazing, if it dramatically affects ranch viability. Fence and 

corral construction projects, implementation of conservation measures, and monitoring may increase 

employment in the area. The additional conservation measures and monitoring may force permittees 

to alter their current grazing practices, and would likely result in reduced opportunities for grazing. 
Chapter 3.08 Stanislaus

Society, Culture and Economy National Forest

134

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects for Alternative 4 would be the same as described for Alternative 1.

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

Table 3.08-4 provides a summary comparison of the alternatives in term of infrastructure required, 

administration needs, acres available and AUMs authorized. This provides an indication of the 

grazing opportunity that would be available. Table 2.05-2 also provides a summary comparison of the 

basic socio-economic effects between the alternatives.

There are about 20 Ranch operations in the Tuolumne County are that have built their operation with 

reliance upon Forest Service grazing permits. Private land leases may be available for replacement of 

federal permits, but high land values have driven competition for these land and costs up. 

Consequently, permittee operations are quite vulnerable to changes in Federal grazing. Should any of 

these ranches cease operation, land values suggest that residential development would likely replace 

agricultural use of these private lands.

Although an assessment is not possible for this analysis, it is recognized that adjustments to federal 

grazing, whether in terms of Animal Use Months (AUM) reductions or cost increases to permittees, 

can have important consequences to individual ranch operations and ranch viability, as well as 

implications to families, social structure, lifestyle, local economies, and land use.

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

Much of the Forest Plan Direction for Recreation (Appendix C) is intended to sustain high quality 

recreation opportunities that result in quality recreation experiences. Minimizing conflict between 

visitors is a primary goal. It is also a goal to make opportunities available to all types of visitors.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order (EO 12898) requires that 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. 

Potentially affected tribes have been consulted and effects have been considered on their rights and 

concerns within the analysis of alternatives. American Indian populations will not be 

disproportionately impacted under any alternative with avoidance of heritage resources, consideration 

of traditional values, and reasonable access allowed through agreements, permits and recognition of 

their sovereignty and legal rights. None of the alternatives would have a disproportionate economic 

impact on any minority or low-income community. The effects to jobs and income within the study 

area are a very small portion of the overall jobs and income (less than 1%). 

At this time, no evidence suggests that actions being considered (in their entirety) have 

disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

135

3.09 SOILS

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

Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010) provides direction to maintain or improve soil quality and longterm soil productivity of meadows. Two standards and guidelines are useful for describing the desired 

condition of meadow soils. Soil S&Gs address the maintenance of soil organic matter and soil 

hydrology and water table conditions. The upper level of the saturated water zone in a meadow, or 

“water table,” is a critical factor for meadow condition.

Soil Organic Matter - Maintain topsoil organic matter to at least 85 percent of its original total in the 

top 12 inches (applies to forage production areas such as meadows). 

Soil Hydrologic Function - The soil moisture regime is unchanged where productivity or potential 

natural plant community is dependent upon specific soil drainage classes (typically associated with 

wet or moist meadows). Management practices will be designed and implemented to maintain or 

improve soil hydrologic function. 

Meadows soils are known to be fragile and erodible in nature, but they are also the most productive 

and most utilized as a range resource. The focus of the Soil Report will be on meadows and soil 

hydrology of meadows for this reason. Meadows also have other functions beyond range and wildlife 

habitat. A network of healthy meadows will store and meter water to the watershed much beyond 

snowmelt. 

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Soils

The Soil Organic Matter and Soil Hydrologic Function standards are not measured directly in the 

field. They are measured by proxy using the Meadow Hydrologic Function Rapid Assessment 

protocol (project record). 

Data Sources

Meadow specific data collected in the field using established protocols and user guides: Meadow 

Hydrologic Function Rapid Assessment Protocol (project record); Assessing Proper Functioning 

Condition for Fen Areas in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Ranges in California 

(Weixelman 2009); Meadow Hydrogeomorphic Types for the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade 

Ranges in California (Weixelman et al. 2011). 

Soils Indicators

The Soil Organic Matter and Soil Hydrologic Function standards are not measured directly in the 

field. They are measured by proxy using the Meadow Hydrologic Function Rapid Assessment 

protocol. The MHF protocol consists of five environmental attributes: channel form, floodplain 

connectivity, water table alteration, stream bank stability and herbaceous plant community. The 

factors are scored and the overall condition of the meadow is determined. Meadows that are scored as 

being in desired condition or good condition will meet the two soil standards, in general. 

The attributes water table alteration and abundance of deep rooted herbaceous plants are more direct 

measures of soil quality. The two attributes are combined into one metric or indicator, hydro-soil 

class. This report describes the soil existing condition component of BEH meadows primarily in 

terms of the following classes defined below: 

 hydro-soil class 3 – The meadow surface has full floodplain connectivity. The natural soil 

drainage class (poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained, moderately well drained) has not been 
Chapter 3.09 Stanislaus

Soils National Forest

136

altered. The water table has not been altered. Deep rooted vegetation can reach the water table. 

Herbaceous roots (density and length) fully occupy the natural A horizon. The functional status of 

the meadow is properly functioning condition. 

 hydro-soil class 2 – Transition to a drier meadow is starting to occur (increase in mid and low 

seral species, decrease in soil organic matter, some loss of water table noted). A water table drop 

of 0.25 meters can reduce deep rooted herbaceous species and result in a decline of rooting depth 

and topsoil quality. Herbaceous roots (density and length) do not fully occupy the natural A 

horizon. The functional status of the meadow is functioning at risk. 

 hydro-soil class 1 – Transition to drier meadow has already occurred. The water table is now too 

shallow to maintain the natural vegetation and natural soil drainage class. The critical drop in 

water table is generally 0.5 meters, since that is often associated with a change in plant 

community from deep-rooted sod forming herbaceous plants to plants that can exist in drier soils 

(Weixelman et al. 2011). The natural soil drainage class is shifted downward by one whole class. 

The functional status of the meadow is non-functioning.

Soils Methodology by Action

The existing condition of individual meadows was accessed using the MHF protocol, the indicators, 

and the assumptions stated above. Hydro-soil class is the metric used to judge the soil existing 

condition of individual meadows. As such, it defines the baseline condition for the soil resource. In 

addition, the meadows are classified by Meadow Hydrogeomorphic Types (Weixelman et. al. 2011). 

Weixelman’s new classification is expected to help scientists better understand the soil hydrology 

component of meadows, a fundamental requirement of any meadow management system. 

Affected Environment

Soils are quite varied in depth, productivity and parent materials within the high elevation landscape 

of Bell, Eagle and Herring watersheds. Parent materials include granitic, volcanic, glacial till and 

alluvial geology. In the broadest sense there are well drained upland soils growing upper montane and 

sub-alpine conifer vegetation and valley bottom soils with high water tables growing meadow 

vegetation. The high elevation meadows are geologically youthful features, a product of glacial 

erosion and depositional processes that have scoured and deposited sandy materials in low points and 

where low gradient streams naturally deposit sediment. Often rock outcrop or small glacial moraines 

(boulder deposits) will alter the valley floor just enough to slow runoff, hold sediment back, and 

create meadow soil conditions

SoilExisting Condition

Soil existing condition of BEH meadows is reported for the major meadows in the Bell, Eagle and 

Herring Creek Meadow Allotments (Table 3.09-1). Hydro-soil class 1 and 2 are considered nonfunctioning and functioning at risk respectively, relative to natural soil processes. Both classes are 

considered degraded relative to the natural soil meadow condition. Class 3 is considered at or close to 

desired condition. 

About half the BEH meadows are functioning properly (Class 3 meadows) that is the water table is 

maintaining the naturally wet soil conditions and vegetation. 

The other half of the BEH meadows are functioning at risk or non-functioning as a result of historic 

gully or channel erosion and drop in water table (Class 2 and Class 1 meadows). 

Some meadows have organic soils or peatlands, also known as fens. Peatlands are rare in extent and 

sensitive to disturbance. Most peatlands are less than an acre in extent and may be found as a fen 

complex such as in Barn Meadow and Eagle – West Meadow. Peatlands are a specific wetland soil 

type and are given status as special aquatic features if they meet certain depth requirements (USDA

2010). 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

137

Legacy Effects 

The BEH meadows have had a history of grazing and overgrazing going back to the 1890s. The past 

poor condition of the range resource is reflected in historic reports (project record). Current condition 

of meadows is strongly rooted in the past. 

In 1912-1959 for the Bell Allotment use varied from 600 AUMs to 1560 AUMs. For reference, 

current use in the Allotment is 268 AUMs. 

In 1925 for the Eagle Meadow Allotment the stocking rate was 4475 sheep. Current use is 150 

cow/calf pairs are allowed. Allotment survey notes from 1925 indicated that Eagle Meadow showed 

past overuse by sheep which depleted the drier portions and caused stream bank cutting. 

In 1924 for the Herring Creek Allotment use was 510 cattle. Current use is 156 cow/calf pairs are 

allowed. Records from 1925 indicate that meadows to the west and southwest of Cooper Peak are in 

poor shape due to heavy use and stream bank erosion. 

Past stocking levels were quite high and at the peak of the 1920’s were 6 to 10 times more than 

present levels. Stocking levels were reduced in the 70’s and management and meadow conditions 

have improved in general as a result. Nearly all of the alteration appears to have been initiated over 40 

years ago, as evidenced from range reports.

Mountain meadows are essentially long term indicators of collective impacts or actions over time 

(actions over the past 100 plus years). The current condition therefore, is largely a product of past 

actions, in the case of BEH meadows.

However, meadows such as Upper Bell Meadow in the Bell Meadow Allotment, Red Rock Meadow 

in the Eagle Meadow Allotment, and Castle and Upper Three Meadow in the Herring Creek

Allotment remain in a non-functioning condition relative to soil and stream hydrologic function. 

Complete exclusion of cattle would not result in an improvement of condition. The reason is that 

effects of past actions (legacy grazing) are quite large and the effects of current actions are quite small 

in comparison. 

Special Aquatic Features

Special Aquatic Features are fens (also referred to as peatlands), springs, seeps and shorelines. Proper 

Functioning Condition was assessed on a total of 46 such sites in the BEH landscape in 2010 (USDI 

2003, Weixelman and Cooper 2009). Sixteen sites were inventoried in the Bell Meadow Allotment, 

13 sites in Eagle Meadow Allotment and 17 sites in the Herring Creek Allotment. More detailed 

information about Special Aquatic Features in the project area can be found in the project record. 

About half of the special aquatic features assessed were at proper functioning condition. The 

remaining sites were functional – at risk. The trend was not apparent at most of these sites, so further 

monitoring is needed to determine if these springs, fens, and shorelines are moving in an upward or 

downward trend. Adjustments in management will be made based off of these trends. 
Chapter 3.09 Stanislaus

Soils National Forest

138

Environmental Consequences

The Forest Plan S&Gs give direction to maintain soil productivity in general by implementing 

practices that avoid accelerated erosion and maintain or improve soil hydrologic function and soil 

organic matter. The effects analysis asks the question: how will the alternatives alter the baseline or 

current condition of meadow soils and ultimately does this meet Forest Plan S&Gs? 

Table 3.09-1 displays soil effects by major actions for BEH meadows. Actions are meadows grazed, 

meadows rested and meadows restored. The purpose is to display like soil effects by like actions and 

hydro-soil classes. The hydro-soil class reported for each meadow largely determines the potential of 

the meadow. Soil effects are generalized by reporting a functional status such as “remains Class 1; 

stays NF or non-functional”. Soil effects are closely tied to the meadow class as described below:

Class 1 Meadows: The hydro-soil class is rated 1. Meadows have lost their water table and floodplain 

connectivity, and have little potential for recovery (at the scale of the whole meadow). Left 

undisturbed or with light grazing, streams can rebuild channel form and riparian vegetation at a lower 

base, but a transition to drier meadow conditions (increase in low seral species, decrease in soil 

organic matter) has already occurred. A cumulative soil effect has already occurred and is thought 

irreversible without active restoration. Bell, Eagle and Red Rock Meadows are examples of larger 

meadows where this is the case. Complete exclusion of cattle would not result in an improvement of 

condition from class 1 to class 2. 

Class 2 Meadows: The hydro-soil class is rated 2. These meadows have a lowered water table and 

have lost floodplain connectivity over parts of the meadow surface. They are presently considered as 

functioning at risk (FAR). Some cumulative soil effect has already occurred (increase in mid and low 

seral species, decrease in soil organic matter, some loss of water table) but it is thought to be largely 

reversible with appropriate management inputs and a continuous upward trend. 

Class 3 Meadows: The hydro-soil class is rated 3. These are meadows that are considered in proper 

functioning condition. Deep rooted vegetation can reach the water table. Herbaceous roots (density 

and length) fully occupy the natural A horizon. They are at desired condition or would be with some 

improvement. Some meadows presently in good condition do have potential for headcut 

advancement. 

Meadow Class verses Soil Quality Standards:

A recent study of high elevation meadows within the Stanislaus National Forest investigated soil 

organic matter processes and found differences in soil carbon and nitrogen storage in relation to 

meadow condition (Norton et.al. 2011). Soil metrics important to soil productivity declined in the 

degraded non-functioning meadows verses those considered properly functioning (43 percent 

decline). Soil organics declined about 18 percent in the functioning at risk meadows.

The Norton study is important because it ties PFC and MHF field data collected for BEH project to 

the Soil Quality Standards 13A and 13C. The significance is that 1) all the non-functioning Class 1 

meadows do not meet the soil standard; 2) the functioning at risk Class 2 meadows may not meet the 

standard; and 3) the properly functioning condition Class 3 meadows do meet the soil standards. 

Effects are further discussed in terms of direct, indirect and cumulative effects. Direct project effects 

on soils would include trampling and compaction, grazing and the reduction of cover, and hoof 

activity along stream banks and cattle trails. Indirect project effects on soils can be one or more of the 

following: erosion and gully formation; loss of productivity and reduction in soil organic matter; soil 

compaction; alteration of soil hydrology and water tables. The collective effect of past, present and 

foreseeable future action is the cumulative soil effect.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

139

Table 3.09-1 Soils Effects Analysis for BEH Meadows

Soil Effects by Action HSC1 Meadow B E H Change From Existing Condition

Active Grazing (Alts 1,3 and 

4 unless noted)

Status: remains Class 1; 

stays NF

1 

Eagle-East x Little change expected. Legacy erosion downcut 

channel and lowered water table. Transition to 

drier mew already occurred. Active restoration 

required for recovery.

Eagle-Lower x

Red Rock x

Hammill #1,3 x

Castle x Alt 4 rests meadow in poor condition. Minor 

improvement with time. Otherwise as above.

Mdw. restoration planned (all 

alternatives)

Status: restored to Class 3; 

PFC likely

1 Round x 

Active restoration proposed with Gooseberry 

project to improve meadow conditions from NF to 

PFC.

2 Crab Mdw x 

Active restoration, fencing and monitoring 

proposed with Gooseberry project to improve 

meadow conditions from FAR to PFC.

3 Shell x 

Active restoration proposed on small headcut to 

maintain PFC. Alternatives continue to rest 

meadow.

Active Grazing (Alts 1,3 and 

4 unless noted)

Status: remains Class 2 with 

limited improvement over 

time; FAR likely; Stronger 

improvement if rested

2 

Pine Valley x 

Little change expected in conifer-alluvial flat with 

lower water table and invading lodgepole pine 

following wildfire.

Hammill #2,4,5,6 x

Must improve stream bank stability and form to 

slowly improve herbaceous plant community and 

soil organics. Active restoration needed for full 

recovery (lower water table and poor channel 

form continues as limiting factors).

Round-lower x

Long Valley-upper x

Long Valley-lower x

Mud Lake Mdw x

Herring Ck. Res. x

Willow-upper x Same as above for Alt 1 and 3. Alt 4 effectively 

rests. Stronger improvement if rested.

Meadows Rested (all 

alternatives)

Status: passive 

improvement, upward trend 

expected

3 Three Mdw-lower x Active restoration in 70s raised water table. Mdw 

now at PFC.

2 Three Mdw-mid x 

Legacy erosion downcut channel. Rested since 

70s. Moderate but slow upward trend expected 

with continued rest. Active restoration required 

for full recovery.

Status: only minor 

improvement with time; 

remains class 1; stays NF

1 

Three Mdw-upper x Legacy erosion downcut channel. Rested since 

70s Transition to drier meadow already occurred. 

Active restoration required for recovery. Bell Mdw-upper x 

Active Grazing (Alts 1 and 3 

but not 4)

Status: some improvement 

necessary to maintain Class 

3; PFC likely

3 

Ground Hog x Must maintain meadow stability of small 

headcuts, peatlands or stream banks. 

Improvement possible and stronger where 

monitoring shows upward trend or if meadow is 

rested. Monitor for trend. (Alt 4 rests meadows)

Coyote x

Bloomer Lake x

Bluff x

Wire Corral x

Active Grazing

(Alts 1,3 and 4)

Status: requires stable or 

upward trend to maintain

Class 3; PFC likely

Eagle-West x 

Little change in wet meadow conditions. Hoof 

activity may initiate some loss of peatlands. Mdw 

used as gathering pasture.

Punch Bowl

lower and upper x 

Hoof activity may initiate some loss of peatlands 

if grazing intensity increases bare peat. Meadow 

PFC will be maintained if monitoring shows 

upward trend in peatlands.

Bell Mdw

middle x 

PF soil conditions maintained except where Bell 

Ck has downcut toe of mdw. Mdw has limited

grazing as gathering pasture. More stream bank 

recovery for Alt 2.

Active Grazing (Alts 1,3,&4 

unless noted)

Status: requires stable trend 

to maintain Class 3; PFC

likely

3 

Hammill #7 x Meadows at desired condition. Alt 1 and 3 

continues to use Bell-lower as gathering pasture. Bell-Lower x

Cascade 5N39Y x

Willow-lower x At desired condition. Alt 4 rests mdw.

Barn

Meadows at desired condition including 

peatlands. Sardine

Mud Lake x 1 adapted from MHFRA data (project record). 
Chapter 3.09 Stanislaus

Soils National Forest

140

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

In the Bell Meadow Allotment, changes from current management include breaking the Allotment 

into three subunits – Round, Crab, and Mud to implement a deferred grazing system. In the Herring 

Creek Allotment, the addition of the Cascade subunit would increase available forage before the cattle 

move into the upper portions of the Allotment, delaying their movement to the upper units. This could 

assist in the recovery of meadow hydrologic and soil function of some of the meadows. In the Eagle 

Meadow Allotment, the Niagara addition would increase forage available to cattle, potentially 

reducing pressures elsewhere. In addition, utilization standards in all units grazed every year would 

be reduced. The McCormick Pocket addition would add little forage. Relative to meadow forage only, 

a GIS exercise to determine change in meadow acres per AUM showed no change for the Bell 

Meadow Allotment, an increase of 8 percent for the Eagle Meadow Allotment and an increase of 13 

percent for Herring Creek Allotment. 

Generally, meadow soil conditions are not expected to change much for grazed meadows with 

Alternative 1. The reason for this is that stocking levels, herding and utilization will be similar to 

what has occurred for the last 40 years. In general, the meadows will continue on the same current 

trajectory. 

Alternative 1 will have a small advantage over Alternative 3 (Current Management) because of the 

forage capacity in grazed meadows will be somewhat greater, theoretically. The difference in soil 

disturbance (direct effects) between action alternatives are expected to be small and similar in degree. 

Table 3.09-1 summarizes soil effects by action (active grazing, meadow restored, and meadows 

rested) and by meadow class. Under Alternative 1, Class 3 meadows are expected to maintain proper 

function as long as small headcuts and peatlands remain stable. Class 2 meadows by definition are 

functioning at risk and need improvement. Streambank stability and form must improve to slowly 

improve herbaceous plant community and soil organics. These meadows are likely to see a limited 

upward trend over time with both Alternatives 1 and 3. Class 1 meadows have lost their water table 

and floodplain connectivity, and have little potential for recovery (at the scale of the whole meadow). 

Complete exclusion of cattle from Class 1 meadows is not likely to result in an improvement of 

meadow condition to Class 2.

The reduced grazing pressure anticipated under Alternative 1 may help streambanks stabilize at a 

faster rate, may promote deep rooted herbaceous vegetation recovery along the stream channels (but 

not on the meadow surface where the water table is lowered), and could help move channel form 

towards rejuvenation (channel stabilizes at a lower elevation). These processes are currently occurring 

in most meadows, but reduced grazing pressure may speed these recoveries. However, these small 

improvements in condition may take years to achieve. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Loss of water table and decrease in soil organic matter are the primary cumulative and indirect soil 

effects. In fact, the footprint of past actions is still very much dominant today with current, proposed 

and future actions expected to shape or modify meadows to a much smaller degree. 

Any change in meadow conditions will be largely dependent on the success of management 

requirements or design criteria built in to the alternatives. Design criteria (Standards and Guidelines, 

Resource Conservation Measures, and Adaptive Management) are described for each alternative in 

Chapter 2, Alternatives. Soil monitoring requirements emphasize monitoring of stream bank stability 

and headcuts in specific meadows, and this will be equally important to avoid cumulative impacts to 

both the stream channel and meadow soils. Monitoring of stream bank stability and headcuts would 

be implemented as described for Resource Conservation Measures – Meadow Hydrologic Function, 

and will help to avoid cumulative impacts to both the stream channel and meadow soils. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

141

Ongoing activities other than grazing that could affect the soil meadow resource include OHV 

activity. The Juniper mine reclamation when completed will have a positive effect on the upper 

watershed contributing water and sediment to Red Rock meadow. The Leland gully repair is an 

example of where active restoration has not only recreated moist meadow conditions in the local 

riparian area but has also created wetter conditions in the two meadows immediately downstream. 

Repair of a small headcut in Shell Meadow is a present action that should maintain a PFC and avoid a 

downward trend. Foreseeable future actions could include possible road closure, and stream or 

meadow restoration projects. 

Damage from occasional un-authorized use of meadows by OHVs would be expected to be evaluated 

and repaired. All stream or meadow restoration projects that raise the water table of the individual 

meadow will have a positive cumulative effect. Mine reclamation, possible road closures and future 

restoration projects would have a positive cumulative effect on the soil meadow resource.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Rested meadows will have their own trajectory of passive improvement because direct effects will be 

eliminated by Alternative 2, the no grazing option. Table 3.09-1 compares soil effects by actions and 

alternatives. Passive improvement is expected for all rested meadows. Alternative 2 would have a 

presumed advantage where class 3 meadows and class 2 meadows require an upward trend to 

maintain PFC or move towards PFC. Any advantage in class 1 meadows is less clear.

Improvement in some factors (herbaceous cover, stream bank stability) is more likely to occur with 

Alternative 2, but the degree and rate of recovery is uncertain, based on a review of the literature 

(Sarr 2002). Soil effects are likely to be different for each meadow class. Class 3 meadows would 

maintain their favorable stream and soil characteristics. Class 2 meadows would sustain an upward 

trend (increase in late and mid seral species, increase in soil organic matter, possibly a small 

improvement in water table over time). Class 1 meadows will see only small improvements in 

herbaceous cover and soil organics, but the loss of water table will remain as a critical limiting factor, 

unless active restoration occurs.

Hence, some areas would move fairly quickly towards PFC and some might not change very much at 

all, as was seen in the middle and upper Three Meadows of Herring Creek watershed after fencing in 

the 70s. Riparian systems did return to PFC after removal of livestock from Santa Rosa Island, 

California (Wagner et al. 2004). Passive improvement in the rested meadows is somewhat of an 

unknown because there are few long-term recovery studies of Sierra Nevada meadows and results can 

be difficult to interpret without appropriate scientific controls.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

No cumulative effects would occur since there would be no grazing under this alternative. 

Alternative 3 (Current Management)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

The effects of Alternative 3 would be similar to those described for Alternative 1. Soil effects are 

likely to vary by meadow class as described in Alternative 1 and summarized in Table 3.09-1. No 

additions are proposed as in Alternative 1. 

Design criteria for Alternative 3 would be limited to established Standards and Guidelines. Resource 

conservation measures would not be implemented and adaptive management would be more limited 

than for Alternatives 1 and 4. Alternative 1 and 4 (with stronger adaptive management factored in) 

would have a presumed advantage over Alternative 3 for those meadows requiring an upward trend to 

maintain PFC or to move towards PFC. 
Chapter 3.09 Stanislaus

Soils National Forest

142

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects of Alternative 3 would be similar to those described for Alternative 1. 

Any change in meadow conditions will be largely dependent on the success of management 

requirements or design criteria built in to the alternatives. Design criteria for Alternative 3 would be 

limited to established Standards and Guidelines. Resource conservation measures would not be 

implemented and adaptive management would be more limited than for Alternatives 1 and 4. 

Monitoring of stream bank stability and headcuts is important to avoid cumulative impacts to the 

stream channel and to meadow soils; however additional monitoring is much less likely to occur 

under the Current Management alternative.

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

In the Bell Meadow Allotment, livestock numbers would be reduced by 20% under Alternative 4. In 

the Eagle Meadow Allotment livestock numbers would also be reduced by 20% under Alternative 4. 

In addition, three meadows would be excluded. 

For the Bell Meadow Allotment and the Eagle Meadow Allotments the anticipated effects of 

Alternative 4 are similar to those described for Alternative 1. The reason for this is that stocking 

levels, herding and utilization may be similar (or similar enough) to what has occurred for the last 40 

years. Meadow condition will likely continue on the same current trajectory. 

In the Herring Creek Allotment, numerous meadows would be excluded from grazing. The Cascade

addition would not be added to the Allotment. To account for reduced forage, livestock numbers 

would be reduced by 50%. The hydrologic and soil function of grazed meadows may be similar to 

that seen under Alternative 1. The hydrologic and soil function of excluded meadows would be 

similar to that seen under Alternative 2.

Table 3.09-1 describes how the existing conditions may change with individual meadows or actions. 

Alternative 4 may have some advantage over current management because livestock numbers would 

be reduced on the three Allotments. But this is less clear for the Herring Creek Allotment because 

Alternative 4 appears to put greater grazing pressure on meadows (34 % reduction in meadow acres 

per AUM) by removing certain meadows from the forage base. Generally speaking, reduced livestock 

numbers should lessen the grazing pressure on the BEH Allotments. The reduced grazing pressure 

anticipated under Alternative 4 may help streambanks stabilize at a faster rate, may promote deep 

rooted herbaceous vegetation recovery along the stream channels, and could help move channel form 

towards rejuvenation. These processes are currently occurring in most meadows, but reduced grazing 

pressure may speed these recoveries. However, these small improvements in condition may take years 

to achieve. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects are similar to those described for Alternatives 1 and 3, and are previously 

discussed in more detail. Loss of water table and decrease in soil organic matter are the primary 

cumulative and indirect soil effects. 

Any change in meadow conditions will be largely dependent on the success of management 

requirements or design criteria built in to the alternatives. Monitoring of stream bank stability and 

headcuts would be implemented as described for Resource Conservation Measures – Meadow 

Hydrologic Function, and will help to avoid cumulative impacts to both the stream channel and 

meadow soils. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

143

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

Surveys indicate that most meadows are slowly recovering from legacy grazing effects. Most BEH 

meadows have more or less reached a new equilibrium in the last 40 years with reduced grazing 

pressures. That new equilibrium is expressed simply in terms of the 3 meadow soil condition classes 

described in the Environmental Consequences, soil effects section of the EIS. 

That same state of equilibrium is likely to continue for Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 (stocking levels, 

herding and utilization is similar to recent past). In general, the meadows will continue on the same 

trajectory. For the most part change away from this new equilibrium is unlikely, with the exception of 

planned restoration or possibly the no grazing alternative. 

Class 1 meadows will not meet Soil Quality Standards without active restoration. There is some 

uncertainty with Class 2 meadows relative to rates and degree of recovery. Some Class 1 and Class 2 

meadows are candidates to be further evaluated as a soil improvement project. Fully meeting the 

standards may not be possible without some active restoration. On the other hand, a strong upward 

trend for Class 2 meadows may improve stream bank stability & form to slowly improve herbaceous 

plant community and soil organics. Upward trend is possible for all alternatives, but more likely for 

alternative 2 and those meadows rested under Alternative 4. Class 3 meadows are expected to 

continue meeting the soil standards, with some monitoring of headcuts and peatlands being necessary 

in some meadows. 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

All Alternatives comply with Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010). 
Chapter 3.09 Stanislaus

Soils National Forest

144
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

145

3.10 SPECIAL AREAS

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

Special Areas are identified on the Stanislaus National Forest for their special attention and 

management direction by the Forest Service, as designated by the Regional Forester or Chief. The 

U.S. Congress designates Wilderness or Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) are managed to protect the following characteristics(66 

Federal Register 9, January 12, 2001; p. 3245): High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air; 

Sources of public drinking water; Diversity of plant and animal communities; Habitat for 

threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species 

dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land; Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non- Motorized, and 

Semi-Primitive Motorized recreation opportunities; Reference landscapes; Natural appearing 

landscapes with high scenic quality; Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and Other 

locally identified unique characteristics. 

 Research Natural Areas (RNAs) are managed to maintain select vegetative, aquatic, and/or 

geologic elements in natural conditions. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 4063.3 provides protection 

against any activities that directly or indirectly modify ecological processes (USDA 2010). 

RNAs, established for research and study purposes, are a discrete land area large enough to 

represent a specific natural ecosystem. RNAs are important because they provide benchmarks for 

comparison of present and future management of the National Forests and will prove to be an 

invaluable asset in the future. 

 Special Interest Areas (SIAs) are managed to protect values, make educational opportunities 

available and preserve the integrity of the special interest feature for which the areas were 

established (USDA 2010).

 Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers are managed to protect and enhance Wild and Scenic River 

characteristics and manage the same as designated Wild and Scenic Rivers (USDA 2010). 

Management of Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers within Wilderness complies with Wilderness 

designations and the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Special Areas

1. Special areas in the project area will be managed according to Forest Plan Direction specific to 

those areas. 

2. Permitted grazing is an ongoing activity, so the effects of grazing on special areas are considered 

to be the existing situation.

Data Sources

 Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010) 

 GIS

 RNA Establishment Records 

 Wild and Scenic River Study

Special Areas Indicators

The environmental consequences described for the alternatives below identify only the individual 

special areas affected by that alternative using the following indicators. 

Roadless Area Characteristics: Roadless areas are often characterized by the following values or 

features: High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air; sources of public drinking water; diversity 

of plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and 
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus

Special Areas National Forest

146

sensitive species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land; Primitive, SemiPrimitive Non- Motorized, and Semi-Primitive Motorized recreation opportunities; reference 

landscapes; natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality; traditional cultural properties and 

sacred sites; and other locally identified unique characteristics.

Research Natural Area Values: RNA values are specific to each RNA and may include selected 

aquatic, geologic or vegetation elements.

Special Interest Area Values: SIA values are specific to each SIA and may include unique botanic, 

cultural, geologic, scenic, historic and memorial features.

Wild and Scenic River Values: For a river to be eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation it 

must be free-flowing and, with its adjacent land area, must possess one or more outstandingly 

remarkable values. For the purpose of this analysis Wild and Scenic River or Outstandingly 

Remarkable (OR) values are interchangeable. OR values are specific to each river segment any may 

include cultural, ecologic, fish, geologic, historic, scenic, recreation, wildlife or other special and 

unique features (USDA 1991). 

Special Areas Methodology

Effects analysis involved consideration of potential grazing conflicts with all applicable management 

direction for special areas.

Affected Environment

Special Areas located in the project area are listed in Table 3.10-1. 

Table 3.10-1 Special Areas

Special Areas Within Allotments (acres)

Category Name acres Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Roadless Area Bell 8,200 6,200 6,200 6,200

Roadless Area Dome 11,400 4,100 4,100 4,100

Roadless Area Eagle 16,000 14,500 9,800 9,800

Roadless Area Waterhouse 4,400 2,100 2,100 2,100

Research Natural Area Bell Meadow 490 490 490 490

Special Interest Area Bull Run 230 230 230 230

Proposed Wild and 

Scenic River

Clavey 3,700

(12 miles)

3,700

(12 miles)

3,700

(12 miles)

3,700

(12 miles)

Inventoried Roadless Areas

There are 4 IRAs, totaling about 28,200 acres within the project area. 

BELL MEADOW

The Bell Meadow IRA (8,200 acres) is located in the central part of the Forest. Elevations range from 

6,300 feet at the trailhead near the west end of Bell Meadow to 7,600 feet on the upper slopes of Bell 

Mountain. The area receives heavy day use due to its proximity to the popular Pinecrest recreation 

area. Ten miles of maintained non-motorized trails exist in the area. It is a popular entry point to the 

Emigrant Wilderness. Moderate livestock grazing occurs. It is heavily hunted for deer in the fall. 

Soils between extensive rock outcrops on the uplands are generally shallow to moderately deep, stony 

coarse sandy loams developed from volcanic and granitic bedrock and glacial debris. Bell Meadow 

has deep, organic sandy loams developed from alluvium. Vegetation is true fir, mixed conifer and 

lodgepole pine mixed with montane shrubs such as mountain whitethorn. Large stands of aspen as 

well as other wet meadow and riparian vegetation are found adjacent to the stream courses. This area 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

147

contains important wildlife habitat, including several key deer fawning areas, and habitat for goshawk 

and fisher. Bell Meadow (110 acres) is surrounded by large groves of quaking aspen with high scenic 

value. Table 3.10-1 shows the project area contains 6,200 acres of the Bell Meadow roadless area.

DOME

The Dome IRA (11,400 acres) is located in the northeast part of the Forest generally between 

Highway 108 and Eagle Meadow Road (5N01). Elevations range from 6,200 to 8,700 feet. Recreation 

use within the area is low due to the steep terrain. Table 3.10-1 shows the project area contains about 

4,400 acres of the Dome IRA. 

EAGLE

The Eagle IRA (16,000 acres) is located in the northeast part of the Forest. Elevations range from 

6,300 to 9,700 feet. The area is characterized by bare volcanic ridges and rock outcrops, scattered 

timberland, and small sub-alpine meadows. Hiking and backpacking occur along Eagle Meadow and 

Cooper Meadow trails. Soil over most of the area is generally very thin, coarse sandy loam developed 

mainly from volcanic rock, except for a few areas of granitic rock. Much of the area is covered by 

bare volcanic rock outcrop. The Three Chimneys rock formation is a recognized landmark which can 

be seen from many viewpoints. Two of the peaks are on the Emigrant Wilderness boundary. The area 

contains many key deer fawning sites. Table 3.10-1 shows the project area contains 14,500 acres of 

the Eagle IRA. 

WATERHOUSE

The Waterhouse IRA (4,400 acres) is located in the central portion of the Forest just east of Pinecrest 

Lake adjacent to the Emigrant Wilderness. Elevations vary from 5,700 to 8,200 feet. The area consists 

of the canyon of the upper South Fork Stanislaus River. This area receives recreation use in the form 

of hiking, fishing, and hunting. Its proximity to the Pinecrest Lake recreation area makes it readily 

accessible for day use. A trail extends eastward, up the river canyon, from Pinecrest Lake to a series 

of attractive granite pools and falls. Vegetation is predominantly red fir forest on upper north slopes 

with mixed conifer forest on upper south slopes. Lower slopes and the drainage bottom, once scoured 

by glaciers, are characterized by large expanses of granite with small pockets of vegetation. Pockets 

of soil are scattered between large expanses of bare, glaciated granitic rock in the lower part of the 

canyon, while on the ridge to the north, near Pinecrest Peak, soils are very shallow to shallow sandy 

loams developed from volcanic bedrock. On the slopes between, the soils are shallow to moderately 

deep, developed from granitic glacial debris. Meadows located in the area are important fawning 

grounds. The project area contains about 3100 acres of the Waterhouse IRA (Table 3.10-1), a portion 

of which would be removed from the Herring Creek Allotment under all action alternatives 

(Alternatives 1, 3 and 4). 

Research Natural Areas

BELL MEADOW RESEARCH NATURAL AREA

The Bell Meadow RNA, totaling about 490 acres on the Stanislaus National Forest, is the only RNA 

located in the project area. This RNA is completely within the project area and is located in the 

central part of the Bell Meadow Allotment. Bell Meadow RNA was designated in 1994 for aspen 

research. It contains 110 acres of aspen stands in Bell Meadow along with wet mountain meadow, 

riparian habitat and examples of the aspen-meadow complex on deep soils. Grazing is not permitted 

in the upper part of the Bell Meadow RNA. Livestock are excluded from Upper Bell Meadow by a 

permanent exclosure fence. 
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus

Special Areas National Forest

148

Special Interest Areas 

BULL RUN SCENIC AND GEOLOGIC AREA

The Bull Run SIA (230 acres) consists of a rugged lava-capped ridge of horseshoe shape enclosing a 

forested bowl. It contains a variety of unique rock formations formed through volcanic and glacial 

action. The project area encompasses all 230 acres of the Bull Run SIA (Table 3.10-1). 

Wild and Scenic Rivers and Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers

Wild and Scenic Rivers and Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers are managed to preserve their notable 

values or features as part of, or for eventual inclusion in, the National Wild and Scenic River System. 

On the Stanislaus National Forest this management applies to those National Forest lands within 1/4 

mile on either side of Wild and Scenic Rivers and Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Clavey 

Proposed Wild and Scenic River is the only Proposed Wild and Scenic River in the Project Area. 

There are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in the project area.

The following river segments are located within the project area. 

 Clavey River: portion of Segment 1, Bell Creek (6.6 miles) 

 Clavey River: portion of Segment 2, Lily Creek (5.3 miles) 

To date, Congress has not designated the Clavey River for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River 

System; however, since the Clavey River is eligible and recommended for Wild and Scenic 

designation, it is managed to protect the values that resulted in its eligibility. All activities – including 

administration and operation and maintenance – within 1⁄4 mile of the high water elevation for the 

portions determined eligible must be implemented in a manner to ensure continued eligibility. 

Appendix E (Wild and Scenic River Study) of the Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA 1991) outlines the details of the recommendations for these river segments, 

identifying outstandingly remarkable scenic, heritage/cultural, and ecological values for the Bell 

Creek segments.

Within the analysis area, Bell Creek may be accessed from Pine Valley Horse Campground, trails 

41836A and 19E2, and National Forest System (NFS) roads 4N02Y and 4N26B/4N26B1. Trail 

19E21 parallels Bell Meadow and is proximate to Bell Creek in some sections.

CLAVEY RIVER

The Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River includes a total of 28 miles of Wild and 14 miles of 

Scenic segments including its tributaries Bell Creek and Lily Creek. Bell Creek and Lily Creek flow 

through the Bell Meadow Allotment. The main stem of Bell Creek is proposed for Scenic/Wild 

classification under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The main stem of Lily Creek is proposed for 

Wild classification under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Forest Plan Direction requires that these 

streams and the 1⁄4 mile buffer around them will be managed the same as if they were designated Wild 

and Scenic River segments. The Outstandingly Remarkable (OR) values of the Bell Creek Proposed 

Wild and Scenic River segment include Scenic, Historic/Cultural, and Ecologic. The OR value of Lily 

Creek is Ecologic. Maintaining the free-flowing condition of both creeks is necessary to meet the 

Ecologic OR value. The activities proposed under any action alternative would not affect the freeflowing condition of the proposed Wild and Scenic River. About 6.6 miles of Bell Creek and 5.3 

miles of Lily Creek are within the Bell Meadow Allotment. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

149

Environmental Consequences

The following section describes how the alternatives affect special areas using the following 

indicators: 

 Roadless Area Characteristics

 Research Natural Area values

 Special Interest Area values

 Wild and Scenic River Values (Outstandingly Remarkable values)

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Continued grazing may have minimal localized effects on the characteristics and values of special 

areas (cattle presence, soil disturbance, streambank alteration/erosion, animal excrement), but effects 

from grazing activities are not expected to measurably alter the qualities identified for each special 

area. The management actions proposed for this alternative are expected to maintain or improve 

special area values and characteristics. Alternative 1 includes design criteria (Standards and 

Guidelines, Resource Conservation Measures, Adaptive Management) that would likely benefit 

resource conditions and enhance values and characteristics of special areas. Monitoring and adaptive 

management would be used to change management practices that are leading to undesirable changes 

in special areas. Grazing practices could be modified to ensure that effects to special areas are 

minimal and that ecological conditions are stable or improving. Overall, effects to special areas are 

expected to be minimal and possibly beneficial under this alternative.

Bell, Dome, Eagle and Waterhouse Inventoried Roadless Areas

Authorization of continued grazing is expected to maintain or improve the following roadless 

characteristics:

 High quality or undisturbed soil, water and air 

 Sources of public drinking water 

 Diversity of plant and animal communities 

 Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those 

species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land

 Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality

Where addition areas overlap with roadless areas (the Cascade, Niagara, and McCormick Pocket 

addition areas lie within portions of the Eagle Roadless area), roadless characteristics may be altered 

to some extent by grazing. However, effects to roadless characteristics are expected to be localized 

and would maintain or improve roadless characteristics. 

Bull Run Scenic and Geologic Special Interest Area

The Forest Plan Direction allows grazing within the Bull Run Special Interest Area. Grazing 

management will be specified in management plans for the area and the surrounding Allotment. 

Management is designed to protect the areas special characteristics (USDA 2010). No direct or 

indirect effects are anticipated to the Bull Run Scenic and Geologic Special Interest Area values as a 

result of continued grazing. 

Bell Meadow Research Natural Area

Continued grazing is expected to have minimal localized effects to the Bell Meadow Research 

Natural area. The Bell Meadow RNA and surrounding areas are used for only a limited time period 

during late-season gathering. Some browsing of aspen by livestock is expected where aspen 

regeneration is not protected by exclosure fencing. Mitigation measures (Standards and guidelines for 

riparian browse, and resource conservation measures for hardwood regeneration) would be applied to 
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus

Special Areas National Forest

150

protect hardwood regeneration. Grazing would be modified if it is determined that hardwood 

regeneration and recruitment needs are not being met. Authorization of continued grazing is not 

expected to interfere with aspen research or to negatively affect the value of the area as a RNA. This 

alternative would maintain or improve research natural area values.

Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River (Bell Creek and Lily Creek)

The Outstandingly Remarkable (OR) values of the Bell Creek Proposed Wild and Scenic River 

segment include Scenic, Historic/Cultural, and Ecologic. The OR value of Lily Creek is Ecologic. 

Maintaining the free-flowing condition of both creeks is necessary to meet the Ecologic OR value. 

The General Direction provided in the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) provides 

for grazing activities as allowed under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, protecting the Wild and 

Scenic River values. The activities proposed under this alternative would not affect the free-flowing 

condition of the proposed Wild and Scenic River. Natural materials would be utilized for all 

improvements within the Bell and Lily Creek segments of the Clavey River proposed Wild and 

Scenic river. It is not anticipated that project activities will result in changes that could disqualify the 

Bell Creek and/or the Lily Creek segment from future consideration as Wild and Scenic River. 

Authorization of continued grazing is expected to maintain or improve the outstandingly remarkable 

values of the Clavey Proposed Wild and Scenic River

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions do not include any actions likely to affect 

special areas. Therefore, the potential direct and indirect effects disclosed above are the only 

cumulative effects anticipated.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Under this alternative, grazing would not be authorized on the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow and 

Herring Creek Allotments. Evidence of past grazing activities would fade over time and 

characteristics of special areas may improve over time as grazed areas passively restore to natural 

conditions. There would be no direct or indirect effects to special areas as a result of this alternative.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Because there would be no direct or indirect effects to special areas, there are no cumulative effects 

expected as a result of this alternative.

Alternative 3 (Current Management)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

The effects of Alternative 3 on special areas would be similar to that described for Alternative 1. 

Continued grazing may have minimal localized effects on the characteristics and values of special 

areas (cattle presence, soil disturbance, streambank alteration/erosion, animal excrement), but effects 

from grazing activities are not expected to measurably alter the qualities identified for each special 

area. No additions are proposed for this alternative, so those portions of roadless areas that occur in 

addition areas (Niagara, Cascade, and McCormick Pocket additions) would not be affected under this 

alternative. Alternative 3 includes design criteria (Standards and Guidelines) that are designed to 

maintain or improve resource conditions, which would maintain or improve the values and 

characteristics of special areas. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions do not include any actions likely to affect 

special areas. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects disclosed above are the only cumulative effects 

anticipated. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

151

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

The effects of Alternative 4 on special areas would be similar to that described for Alternative 1. 

Continued grazing may have minimal localized effects on the characteristics and values of special 

areas (cattle presence, soil disturbance, streambank alteration/erosion, animal excrement), but effects 

from grazing activities are not expected to measurably alter the qualities identified for each special 

area. No additions are proposed for this alternative, so those portions of roadless areas that would be 

included in addition areas (Niagara, Cascade, and McCormick Pocket additions) would not be 

affected under this alternative. Effects to special areas from grazing would be eliminated where 

exclusion areas overlap with special areas, however the presence of exclosure fencing would 

negatively affect the values and characteristics of special areas. Alternative 4 includes design criteria 

(Standards and Guidelines, Resource Conservation Measures, Adaptive Management) that are 

designed to maintain or improve resource conditions, which would maintain or improve the values 

and characteristics of special areas. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions do not include any actions likely to affect 

special areas. Therefore, the potential direct and indirect effects disclosed above are the only 

cumulative effects anticipated.

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

The effects of each alternative on the characteristics and values of Special Areas are summarized in 

Table 3.10-2. 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

All alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan Direction and other Federal Laws for special areas. 
Chapter 3.10 Stanislaus

Special Areas National Forest

152

Table 3.10-2 Summary of Effects across All Alternatives: Special Areas 

Attribute Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Roadless Area 

Characteristics

Effects to roadless 

characteristics are 

expected to be 

localized and would 

maintain or improve 

roadless 

characteristics.

No direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects.

Effects to roadless 

characteristics are 

expected to be 

localized and would 

maintain or improve 

roadless 

characteristics.

Effects to roadless 

characteristics are 

expected to be 

localized and would 

maintain or improve 

roadless 

characteristics.

Research 

Natural Area

Authorization of 

continued grazing is 

not expected to 

interfere with aspen 

research or to 

negatively affect the 

value of the area as a 

RNA. This alternative 

would maintain or 

improve research 

natural area values.

No direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects.

Authorization of 

continued grazing is 

not expected to 

interfere with aspen 

research or to 

negatively affect the 

value of the area as a 

RNA. This alternative 

would maintain or 

improve research 

natural area values.

Authorization of 

continued grazing is 

not expected to 

interfere with aspen 

research or to 

negatively affect the 

value of the area as a 

RNA. This alternative 

would maintain or 

improve research 

natural area values.

Special 

Interest Area

No direct, indirect or 

cumulative effects to 

Bull Run Scenic and 

Geologic SIA.

No direct, indirect or 

cumulative effects to 

Bull Run Scenic and 

Geologic SIA.

No direct, indirect or 

cumulative effects to 

Bull Run Scenic and 

Geologic SIA.

No direct, indirect or 

cumulative effects to 

Bull Run Scenic and 

Geologic SIA.

Proposed Wild 

and Scenic 

River

Authorization of 

continued grazing is 

expected to maintain or 

improve the 

outstandingly 

remarkable values of 

the Clavey Proposed 

Wild and Scenic River

No direct, indirect or 

cumulative effects to 

the outstandingly 

remarkable values of 

the Clavey Proposed 

Wild and Scenic River

Authorization of 

continued grazing is 

expected to maintain or 

improve the 

outstandingly 

remarkable values of 

the Clavey Proposed 

Wild and Scenic River

Authorization of 

continued grazing is 

expected to maintain or 

improve the 

outstandingly 

remarkable values of 

the Clavey Proposed 

Wild and Scenic River
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

153

3.11 WATERSHED

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

Direction relevant to the proposed action as is affects water resources includes: 

 Clean Water Act of 1948 (as amended in 1972 and 1987): establishes as federal policy for the 

control of point and non-point pollution, and assigns the states the primary responsibility for 

control of water pollution. Compliance with the Clean Water Act by National Forests in 

California is achieved under state law (listed below).

 Non-point source pollution on National Forests is managed through the Regional Water Quality 

Management Handbook (USDA 2011b), which relies on implementation of prescribed best 

management practices (BMPs), as well as national BMPs (USDA 2012b). The Water Quality 

Management Handbook and the national BMPs include three BMPs for range. Both the regional 

and national BMPs prescribe the same practices, described below.

 Regional BMP 8-1, National BMP Range-1: Rangeland Management Planning. Use the 

Allotment management planning process to develop measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate and/or 

restore adverse impacts to water and aquatic and riparian resources during rangeland management 

activities.

 Regional BMP 8-2, National BMP Range-2: Rangeland Permit Administration. Manage 

rangeland vegetation and grazing to protect water and aquatic and riparian resources through 

administration and monitoring of grazing permits and annual operating instructions. 

 Regional BMP 8-3, National BMP Range-3: Rangeland Improvements. Implement range 

improvements to protect, maintain or improve water and aquatic and riparian resources and 

associated beneficial uses.

 The California Water Code consists of a comprehensive body of law that incorporates all state 

laws related to water, including water rights, water developments, and water quality. The laws 

related to water quality (sections 13000 to 13485) apply to waters on the National Forests and are 

directed at protecting the beneficial uses of water. Of particular relevance for the Proposed Action 

is section 13369, which deals with non-point-source pollution and best management practices.

 The Porter-Cologne Water-Quality Act, as amended in 2006, is included in the California Water 

Code. This act provides for the protection of water quality by the state Water Resources Control 

Board and the regional water quality control boards, which are authorized by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce the Clean Water Act in California.

 The Forest Plan Direction includes standards and guidelines for Range Management. In order to 

meet the intent of the Aquatic, Riparian and Meadow Ecosystems Goals and Strategy in the 

Forest Plan Direction, and to protect Water Quality, ensure that the following Standards and 

Guidelines and Resource Conservation Measures are implemented:

 Forest Plan Direction Standards and Guidelines. 

The following Standards and Guidelines associated with Riparian Conservation Objectives are 

applicable related to protection of water quality:

 Riparian Conservation Objective #1

- Water temperature

 Riparian Conservation Objective #2

- Stream channel condition

- Streambank disturbance 
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

154

- Riparian vegetation

 Riparian Conservation Objective #5 

- Meadow hydrologic function

- Fen protection 

- Livestock gathering facilities

- Herbaceous forage utilization

- Woody riparian vegetation utilization

Effects Analysis Methodology

The four alternatives were reviewed in all watersheds within the project area to determine effects on 

water resources. This consisted of a review of meadow hydrologic function surveys, surveys of 

special aquatic features, and water quality data. The methodologies of each of these surveys are 

discussed in detail below in the Watershed Methodology section. Refer to Appendix B of the 

Watershed Report for details on the Cumulative Effects Analysis. 

Beneficial uses of water and water quality objectives in the California Water Quality Control Plan 

(Basin Plan) of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (California EPA 2011) 

were utilized as a regulatory benchmark regarding the existing condition and to assess the effects of 

the proposed action and its alternatives on water quality. The water quality parameters considered in 

the water resources analysis were bacteria, biostimulatory substances (nutrients), sediment, taste and 

odor, and water temperature. These are the pollutants with the potential of being affected by range 

management activities. 

Assumptions Specific to Watershed

The following assumptions are specific to the watershed management analysis: 

1. Water quality standards: The stream reaches sampled for fecal coliform bacteria in the Allotments 

are not specifically listed in the Basin Plan. Therefore, their beneficial uses are interpreted based 

on how the activities occurring in these waters fit the definition of REC-1 or REC-2. These 

activities, as well as the likelihood of ingestion, are described for each water quality sampling site 

in the Watershed Report. Photos and maps of sampling site locations are located in Appendix A 

of the Watershed Report.

2. Water quality sampling: Some of the water quality sampling conducted by the USFS/UCD 

occurred on the Allotments during periods of non-use or reduced use. Assumptions, such as 

bacteria concentrations likely being lower under reduced numbers than if there were full numbers, 

were made in order to assist in interpreting the data. Descriptions of these assumptions are 

described in detail in the Watershed report. 

Data Sources

Refer to the Watershed Methodology section below. 

WatershedIndicators

The following water resource indicators were used to analyze effects of the alternatives considered: 

1. Channel form, floodplain connectivity, water table alteration, streambank stability, and 

herbaceous plant community were indicators of meadow hydrologic function. 

2. Hydrology, vegetation, and erosion/deposition were indicators of spring and shoreline condition 

following the Proper Functioning Condition protocol for lentic features.

3. Hydrology, vegetation, and soil and erosion were indicators of fen condition following the Proper 

Functioning Condition protocol for fens.

4. Bacteria, nutrients, sediment, taste and odor, and water temperature were indicators of water 

quality. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

155

5. Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) was an indicator of cumulative watershed effects.

Indicators 1-4 were most applicable to analyzing direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and 

alternatives. Indicator 5 was used in the analysis of cumulative watershed effects. 

Watershed Methodology

MEADOW HYDROLOGIC FUNCTION

Meadow hydrologic function was assessed using two methodologies:

1. Meadow Hydrologic Function (MHF) Rapid Assessment – The MHF rapid assessment protocol 

consists of five environmental attributes of meadow hydrologic function (project record). These 

attributes are tiered to the desired conditions for Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) in the 

Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010). The attributes are channel form, floodplain connectivity, 

water table alteration, streambank stability, and herbaceous plant community. For each meadow, 

the condition of each attribute is assessed in the field and assigned a numerical score. The score 

for each attribute is then summed to determine a total score which corresponds to an adjective 

rating of very poor, poor, fair, good, or desired condition. 

2. Proper Functioning Condition – This widely accepted methodology was used as a crosswalk with 

the MHF protocol to make the overall meadow hydrologic function assessment more robust 

(USDI 1998). Though PFC is designed to assess a broader array of attributes than the MHF 

protocol, the results of using the two methods correlated well. 

The two methods have a different number of adjective ratings. The MHF method has five (described 

above) and the PFC method has three (proper functioning condition, functional-at risk, and 

nonfunctional). The MHF Rapid Assessment method was designed to distinguish between desired 

and good condition, and between poor and very poor. The PFC definition of proper functioning 

condition includes desired condition (i.e., full potential) and the approximate equivalent of what the 

MHF Rapid Assessment describes as good condition. The PFC definition on functional-at risk is 

comparable to the fair category of the MHF Rapid Assessment. At the lower end of the condition 

scale, the PFC methodology’s rating of non-functional includes both the poor and very poor 

categories in the MHF Rapid Assessment method. 

Additional monitoring data collected in the Allotment meadows includes utilization and condition and 

trend. The Range Report describes these monitoring methodologies. 

SPECIAL AQUATIC FEATURES

It is a Riparian Conservation Area desired condition in the Forest Plan Direction that “The 

distribution and health of biotic communities in special aquatic habitats (such as springs, seeps, vernal 

pools, fens, bogs, and marshes) perpetuates their unique functions and biological diversity.” In 

addition, Standard and Guideline #117 states, “Assess the hydrologic function on meadow habitats 

and other special aquatic features during range management analysis. Ensure that characteristics of 

special features are, at a minimum, at Proper Functioning Condition, as defined in the appropriate 

Technical Reports (or their successor publications)” (USDA 2010).

Meadows in the Allotments were assessed as described in the previous section. Springs, fens, and 

shorelines were assessed using the appropriate Proper Functioning Condition protocol (USDI 2003, 

Weixelman and Cooper 2009). 

WATER QUALITY

It is also a Riparian Conservation Area desired condition in the Forest Plan Direction that “Water 

quality meets the goals of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act; it is fishable, 

swimmable, and suitable for drinking after normal treatment.” This is a focus of the assessment 

because the Forest Service has a Management Agency Agreement with the state Water Quality 
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

156

Control Board to apply Best Management Practices to maintain and protect water quality on national 

forest lands in California (USDA 2011b). 

Methods for assessing water quality include determining beneficial uses of water in the assessment 

watersheds, assessing the risk and occurrence of potential pollutants, and field assessment of 

indicators and/or measures of pollutants. 

Beneficial Uses of Water

Beneficial uses of water for the Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers that are applicable to this assessment 

are municipal and domestic, contact and non-contact recreation, cold freshwater habitat, and wildlife 

habitat (California EPA 2011). Domestic and municipal includes local water supplies for the Sonora 

area that is served by the Tuolumne Flume originating at Lyons Reservoir on the South Fork 

Stanislaus River. Local water supplies for Strawberry originate at Herring Creek just upstream of the 

confluence with the South Fork Stanislaus River or, when Herring Creek dries up, at the South Fork 

Stanislaus River near the Herring Creek confluence. Contact and non-contact recreation includes 

activities such as swimming, camping, fishing, hiking, and hunting. Cold freshwater habitat includes 

aquatic fish and wildlife (including invertebrates), and wildlife includes amphibian and aquaticdependent reptile species.

Risk Assessment

Water quality parameters with the most likely potential to be affected by the proposed action are 

sediment, bacteria and other pathogens, and nutrients. Cattle waste products are known to introduce 

bacteria and other pathogens into water (Suk 1983, Suk et al. 1986), and can cause increased nutrient 

levels. Cattle can also cause physical impacts to streambanks that can result in stream sedimentation 

(Marlow and Pogacnik 1985, Siekert et al. 1985). The proposed action also has the potential to affect 

water temperature, taste and odor. Physical impacts to streambanks can lead to channel widening and 

associated increases in stream water temperature. Reductions in stream shading as a result of grazing 

could also lead to an increase in stream temperatures (Lile et al. 1995). By defecating in or around 

water, cattle also have to potential to affect the odor and taste of water.

The degree to which, if at all, the above parameters affect beneficial uses of water is key to describing 

environmental effects of the proposed action. That is, if there is some introduction of pollutants by 

grazing is it to the extent that it adversely affects the beneficial uses of the water?

Methods of Assessment

The following methods are used to address the potential extent and effect of pollutants from cattle 

grazing:

Sediment – Field measurement of pool tail surface fine sediment is a common indicator of potential 

cattle impact to aquatic habitat. A threshold of about 20% fines is used to determine if habitat is 

adversely affected. An additional field indicator for fish bearing streams is evidence of reproduction 

in reaches in and downstream of concentrated grazing areas. A threshold is presence of multiple age 

classes of fish – adults, juveniles and young of the year – which can indicate that waters are not 

adversely affected. 

Bacteria and other pathogens – It is well established in the literature that fecal coliform, Giardia, etc. 

can be introduced into water by cattle. Recent studies conducted by Derlet have shown that bacteria 

(E. coli and other coliform types) are present in waters on the Stanislaus National Forest as a result of 

cattle grazing (Derlet et al. 2004, Derlet and Carlson 2006, Derlet et al. 2008). In addition to Derlet’s 

studies, Myers has collected and analyzed water samples on the Stanislaus National Forest during the 

2009-2011 field seasons (Myers and Kane 2010, Myers and Whited 2010, Myers 2011). A joint 

USFS and UC Davis (UCD) cooperative study also tested for E. coli and fecal coliform in 2010 and 

2011 (Roche et al. 2013). The results of the Myers and USFS/UCD studies will be focused on in this 

analysis because samples were collected in the three Allotments being assessed. While Derlet 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

157

collected samples on the Stanislaus National Forest, only one sample was within an Allotment being 

assessed. This was the Grouse Lake inlet stream in the Bell Meadow Allotment (Derlet and Carlson 

2006). In his study, Derlet identified this sample site as a site with stock (horses and pack animals) 

and not a cattle grazing site. His results, therefore, are not a focus of this analysis. The threshold for 

this parameter is presence of an elevated level of bacteria and other pathogens such that there is an 

adverse effect on beneficial uses of water. 

It is difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to test directly for the presence of a large variety of 

pathogens. Therefore, monitoring for pathogens involves testing for “indicator” species, such as fecal 

coliform and E. coli, whose presence in the water suggests that fecal contamination may have 

occurred. Although fecal coliform and E. coli are generally not harmful themselves, they indicate the 

possible presence of pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and protozoans (such as Cryptosporidium parvum

and Giardia duodenalis) that also live in human and animal digestive systems. E. coli is a species of 

fecal coliform bacteria that is specific to fecal material from humans and other warm-blooded 

animals, including livestock. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends E. coli as the best indicator of health 

risk from water contact in recreational waters (USEPA 2012a). The EPA has developed recreational 

water quality criteria (RWQC) for E. coli. These recreational water quality criteria recommendations 

are “national recommendations for all waterbody types designated for swimming, bathing, surfing, or 

similar water contact activities”, also known as “primary contact recreational use”. 

The 2012 RWQC offers two sets of numeric concentration thresholds, both of which are designed to 

protect the public from exposure to harmful levels of pathogens. The more stringent of the two 

thresholds is a Statistical threshold Value (STV) of 320 Colony Forming Units (CFU)/100ml or a 

geometric mean of 100 CFU/100ml. The less stringent threshold is STV 410 CFU/100ml or a 

geometric mean of 126 CFU/100ml (USEPA 2012b). For the purposes of this analysis, the more 

stringent standard will be compared to measured E.coli values. Some states have changed their 

standards from fecal coliform to E. coli to reflect these recommendations. The Central Valley 

Regional Water Quality Control Board uses fecal coliform as the standard indicator. 

The Basin Plan states, “In waters designated for contact recreation (REC-1), the fecal coliform 

concentration based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period shall not 

exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 ml, nor shall more than ten percent of the total number of 

samples taken during any 30-day period exceed 400/100 ml.” The Basin Plan does not identify a 

numeric standard for non-contact recreation waters (REC-2). 

The “tributary rule” in the Basin Plan states that “the beneficial uses of any specifically identified 

water body generally apply to its tributary stream.” The Tuolumne River (source to Don Pedro) and 

the Stanislaus River (source to New Melones Reservoir) are identified as having both REC-1 and 

REC-2 waters. Its tributaries would therefore also have some combination of these designations, 

based on the different activities in the tributaries and the likelihood of ingestion. The Basin Plan also 

states, “In some cases a beneficial use may not be applicable to the entire body of water.” Therefore, 

even if the Tuolumne River is identified as having REC-1 uses, it may have tributaries where the 

beneficial use is REC-2, not REC-1. Because the stream reaches sampled for fecal coliform bacteria 

in the Bell Creek, Herring Creek, and Eagle Creek Allotments are not specifically listed in the Basin 

Plan as REC-1 or REC-2, the likelihood of ingestion is described for each site as a way of analyzing 

risk. 

Nutrients – Cattle waste products contain nitrogen and phosphorous, biostimulatory substances, 

which may affect the trophic status of waters. Eutrophication can result from nutrient introduction if 

sufficient quantities are present. A field indicator of increased nutrient loading is presence of 

unwanted aquatic growths –vascular plants or algae. This can be evaluated by observing the type of 

aquatic plants in grazing areas and/or comparing those waters with similar waters where there is no 
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

158

cattle grazing. The threshold of concern (TOC) is an amount of such growths that adversely affects 

beneficial uses of water (i.e., aquatic life such as fish or amphibians). A second, quantitative indicator 

of eutrophication is nitrogen and phosphorous concentration in water via water sampling. The 

threshold for this parameter is presence of an elevated level of nitrogen or phosphorous such that 

there is an adverse effect on beneficial uses of water. Nitrogen and phosphorous sampling was 

conducted on the Allotments, so this quantitative indicator of eutrophication is the focus of this 

analysis rather than the non-quantitative observations of algal growth. 

Water Temperature – A reduction in shading vegetation and an increase in stream channel width to 

depth ratios as a result of cattle trampling has the potential to increase stream water temperatures. 

Continuous field measurement of water temperature using a data logger was taken in all three 

Allotments. Temperature data will be assessed to determine if beneficial uses of water, particularly 

cold freshwater habitat, are being affected by grazing in the Allotments.

Taste and Odor – The Basin Plan states that “Water shall not contain taste- or odor-producing 

substances in concentrations that impart undesirable tastes or odors to domestic or municipal water 

supplies or to fish flesh or other edible products of aquatic origin, or that cause nuisance, or otherwise 

adversely affect beneficial uses” (California EPA 2011). Cattle defecating in or near water could have 

the potential of affecting the taste or odor of the water. This can be evaluated by determining if cattle 

have caused taste or odor issues for the downstream water distributors.

Affected Environment

The three Allotments being assessed are within portions of two of the four major rivers within the 

Stanislaus National Forest – the Tuolumne and the Stanislaus. The Bell Meadow Allotment is almost 

entirely within the Tuolumne River watershed, while the Herring Creek and Eagle Meadow

Allotments are within the Stanislaus River watershed. Table 3.11-1 displays the watershed delineation 

for each Allotment using the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) system (USGS 2009). 

BELL MEADOW ALLOTMENT

This Allotment lies predominately in the upper reaches of the Clavey River watershed and occupies 

the upper reaches of its two headwater streams – Lily Creek and Bell Creek. Segments of Bell Creek 

in the Allotment are proposed for Scenic or Wild classification under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

The main stem of Lily Creek in the Allotment is proposed for Wild classification under the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act. The remainder of the Allotment lies within the Upper South Fork Stanislaus River 

watershed.

Vegetation on the slopes of the watershed consists of heavily forested stands in the lower half of the 

Allotment. As elevation increases, mixed conifer at the lower elevations grades into Jeffrey pine, 

lodgepole pine, red fir and western hemlock. Some of the slopes have openings in the forest cover 

that provide scattered forage. However, the majority of the forage is located in the valley bottoms.

Vegetation in the valley bottoms of Lily and Bell Creeks is dominated by numerous meadowassociated plant communities. The Bell Meadow complex is the dominant meadow system in the 

Allotment, including three segments of Bell Meadow and two segments of Round Meadow. The three 

segments of Bell Meadow are comprised of a mix of herbaceous plants, woody shrubs and obligate 

riparian trees. The species of note is quaking aspen; these trees rim each Bell Meadow segment to 

combine to form the largest aspen forest in the Sierra Nevada south of Lake Tahoe. The site is an 

aspen Research Natural Area. Two small meadows of note exist along upper Bell Creek tributaries – 

Crab Meadow and Gianelli Trailhead Meadow. Along the low gradient portion of Lily Creek in the 

southern part of the Allotment, Pine Valley and the Mud Lake area provide additional meadow 

community types. Pine Valley has an herbaceous understory with a scattered overstory of lodgepole 

pine. Mud Lake is a large wetland area and the adjacent Mud Lake Meadow, between Mud Lake and 

Lily Creek, is an herbaceous dominated meadow. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

159

Table 3.11-1 Allotment Assessment Watersheds by Alternative 

Allotment

Name

HUC 

Level* HUC Names

% Allotment in 

Watershed

(Alt 1)

% Allotment in 

Watershed (Alt 

3 & 4)

Bell Meadow

4 Tuolumne River 89 89

5 Clavey River 87 87

6 Upper Clavey River 87 87

4 Tuolumne River 89 89

5 North Fork Tuolumne River 2 2

6 Upper North Fork Tuolumne 2 2

4 Stanislaus River 11 11

5 South Fork Stanislaus River 11 11

6 Upper South Fork Stanislaus 11 11

Herring Creek

4 Stanislaus River 100 100

5 South Fork Stanislaus River 70 87

6 Upper South Fork Stanislaus 70 87

4 Stanislaus River 100 100

5 Lower Middle Fork Stanislaus 29 13

6 Cow Creek – Middle Fork Stanislaus River 12 12

6 Mill Creek – Middle Fork Stanislaus River 17 1

Eagle Meadow

4 Stanislaus River 100 100

5 Upper Middle Fork Stanislaus 66 70

6 Eagle Creek 44 43

6 Douglas Creek – Middle Fork Stanislaus River 17 21

6 Summit Creek 5 6

4 Stanislaus River 100 100

5 Lower Middle Fork Stanislaus 34 30

6 Niagara Creek – Middle Fork Stanislaus River 27 30

6 Mill Creek – Middle Fork Stanislaus River 7 0

* HUC’s applicable to this assessment are classified into levels based on the following size classes: 4th level - 

>250,000 acres; 5th level – 40,000 to 250,000 acres; 6th level – 10,000 to 40,000 acres.

Meadow Hydrologic Function

Historic overgrazing in the Bell Meadow Allotment has affected the hydrologic function of meadows 

in the Allotment. The effect of historic overgrazing in the Bell Meadow Allotment is reflected in the 

current hydrologic function of some of the meadows. As shown in Table 3.11-2, there is a full range 

of meadow hydrologic function condition at the present time. Of the 10 meadows inventoried, three 

are at desired condition and two are rated good (thus a total of five at proper functioning condition). 

Two are in fair condition, or functional-at risk by PFC methodology, and two are poor and one is very 

poor (thus three non-functional by PFC rating). 

In summary, based on Meadow Hydrologic Function Rapid Assessment data, stream channel incision 

and widening is mostly over and most streams in the meadows are rejuvenating toward their prealteration channel form at a new base level – some close to the former stream level and some 

substantially lower. The extent of this recovery process varies along the degraded channels (usually 

more advanced in the lower section of a meadow, where incision is least), but is nonetheless evidence 

of natural recovery from past disturbance. In the meadows in good or desired condition, where past 

disturbance has been minimal, natural recovery to near-natural condition is likely to occur. The poor 

condition meadows will not naturally recover to pre-alteration water table level and a vigorous deeprooted plant community but the stream channels will eventually stabilize at a lower elevation. Plant 

communities will remain capable to support limited forage utilization but will be unable to withstand 

heavier grazing. 
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

160

Table 3.11-2 Meadow Hydrologic Function, Bell Meadow Allotment

Bell Meadow Allotment

Meadow Name Survey 

Year

Existing Condition

Comments

MHF (Rapid Assessment 

Protocol)* PFC** 

CF FC W

T SB PC Rating

Bell – Lower 2010 3 3 3 2 3 Desired PFC Portion of Bell Meadow that 

contains snow survey course.

Bell – Middle 2010 2 2 3 2 3 Good PFC Portion of Bell Meadow at Bell 

Meadow trailhead.

Bell – Upper 2010 1 1 1 1 1 Very Poor NF

Largest portion of Bell Meadow.

Meadow currently excluded from 

grazing.

Crab 2009 3 3 2 2 1 Fair FAR 

Barren ground exists in western 

part of meadow. This area 

proposed for restoration under 

Gooseberry EA.

Gianelli Trailhead 2010 3 3 3 3 3 Desired PFC

Mud Lake 2005, 

2010 3 3 3 3 3 Desired PFC Meadow surrounds Mud Lake. Very wet meadow.

Mud Lake Meadow 2005, 

2010 3 2 2 1 1 Fair FAR Meadow is adjacent to right bank of 

stream east of Mud Lake.

Pine Valley 2005, 

2010 3 3 2 3 1 Good PFC Moderate lodgepole pine overstory in meadow.

Round 2010 1 1 1 2 1 Poor NF Meadow proposed for restoration 

under Gooseberry EA.

Round – Lower 2010 1 1 2 2 1 Poor NF

*Rapid Assessment codes: CF=channel function, FC=floodplain connectivity, WT=water table alteration, 

SB=streambank stability, PC=herbaceous plant community. A score of 3 is best, 1 is worst. Scores for all five 

attributes are added together for an overall rating.

**PFC=proper functioning condition, FAR= functional-at risk, and NF=nonfunctional

Special Aquatic Features

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) was assessed on sixteen springs, fens, and shorelines in the Bell 

Meadow Allotment in 2010 (USDI 2003, Weixelman and Cooper 2009). PFC methodology assesses 

impacts to hydrology, vegetation, and soils/erosion. Data are summarized in Table 3.11-3. While the 

overall PFC determination reflects these three attributes, the focus of the following discussion is on 

how cattle have affected the hydrologic function of springs, fens, and shorelines. 

Eight of the sixteen special aquatic features surveyed were determined to be at proper functioning 

condition. Although some of these sites had evidence of hoof action, it did not appear to impact the 

function of the feature. 

Eight special aquatic features were determined to be functional – at risk. Hoof action altering flow 

patterns was the primary hydrologic issue at these sites. Trend was not determined for seven of the 

sites. This is because the original surveys were conducted in 2010 and Dave Weixelman, one of the 

authors of the PFC fen protocol, recommended waiting at least 3 years and then resurveying the site 

in order to accurately determine the trend (Weixelman, personal communication 2010). Photos were 

taken at each of the special aquatic features in 2010 and will be used when assessing trend. Trend was 

assessed at one site, Bear Lake. The impacts to this shoreline were a result of the dam. Since the dam 

is collapsing and over time natural flows will resume, an upward trend was determined. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

161

Table 3.11-3 Special Aquatic Features, Bell Meadow Allotment

Site Location Site Type PFC

Determination Comments

Gianelli #1 Fen 

(Sloping)

Functional – At 

Risk

Evidence of hoof action and a little bit of a channel.

Gianelli #2 Spring Proper ID Team observed hoof action, but this did not appear to be 

altering the flow pattern at the spring.

Gianelli #3 Near fen 

(Mound)

Functional – At 

Risk

This site had a fen-like feature, but O horizon was only 4 inches. 

Some soil movement upslope, possibly as a result of the road, 

which is depositing mineral soil along periphery. There is 

evidence of trailing along perimeter of feature – there is potential 

for dewatering but this has not occurred.

Crab Meadow 

Fen Complex #1 

(lower fen 

complex)

Fen 

(Mound)

Functional – At 

Risk

A nearby road, sheet erosion, conifer encroachment, and 

previous logging may have affected sediment and water 

movements. Flow patterns have been altered by hoof action. 

Site proposed for exclusion under Gooseberry EA.

Crab Meadow 

Fen Complex #2 

(upper fen 

complex)

Fen 

(Mound)

Functional – At 

Risk

Channeling of water is occurring in the wet area adjacent to the 

fen. Channeling above the fen is going around the fen. There is 

considerable chiseling along the perimeter of the fen due to 

livestock hoof action. Flow patterns are altered. Site proposed 

for exclusion under Gooseberry EA.

Crab Meadow 

Spring

Spring Proper Some evidence of hoof action near the spring, but this is 

currently not causing any issues.

Crab Meadow 

Seep

Seep Functional – At 

Risk

Two areas of hoof action could form drainage downslope.

West of Crab 

Meadow 

(Permittee 

Spring)

Spring Functional – At 

Risk

Surface flow patterns are altered by hoof action.

West of Crab 

Meadow (spring 

above fen)

Spring Functional – At 

Risk

Trampling/chiseling/hoof action is starting to widen channel.

Lily Lake 

Shoreline

Shoreline Proper Some hoof action near the inlet, but this is not altering flow 

patterns.

Lower Round 

Meadow Spring

Spring Proper Hoof action was observed along spring and channel, but did not 

appear to alter flow patterns.

Mud Lake 

Shoreline

Shoreline Proper

Mud Lake Island 

Fen

Fen 

(Basin)

Proper Basin fen surrounded by water; cattle do not reach it often (only 

after a few dry years)

Mud Lake Trail 

Spring 

Spring Proper No evidence of grazing, such as hoof action or cow pats. 

Drainage within 20 yards of spring is downcut, but this does not 

appear to be a threat to the spring.

Bear Lake Shoreline Functional – At 

Risk

Natural flow patterns were altered by the dam (not cattle). The 

dam is collapsing. As dam continues to degrade the natural 

surface flow patterns will be restored and site will move towards 

PFC.

Above Camp 

Lake

Fen 

(Basin)

Proper

Water Quality

Sediment – Pool sediment and fish reproduction in streams in this Allotment show that sediment is 

below the TOC. Pool tail surface fine sediment is below 20% and a good distribution of age classes of 

fish is present on fish bearing streams (Bell and Lily Creeks) (USDA 2006b). 

Bacteria and Other Pathogens – Water sampling for fecal coliform and E. coli was conducted in the 

Bell Meadow Allotment in 2009 and 2011 by Myers (Myers and Kane 2010, Myers 2011) and in 
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

162

2010 and 2011 by the USFS/UC Davis (Roche et al. 2013). The Watershed Report includes

discussion on EPA and Basin Plan standards for E. coli and fecal coliform, descriptions of water 

quality sample sites, water quality monitoring results, and for photos and maps of sampling site 

locations. 

Non-cattle sources of indicator bacteria may include humans and other mammals, including wildlife 

and pack stock (University of California 2000). If elevated concentrations of indicator bacteria were 

found, the USFS/UCD study was designed to pinpoint the potential source of contamination. This 

was done by selecting sample points above and below areas such as gathering pastures, trailheads, 

and horse camps. 

Results of the 2010 and 2011 USFS/UCD sampling in the Bell Meadow Allotment indicate that fecal 

coliform and E. coli concentrations in the waters generally increased in areas where cattle use is 

concentrated (i.e. meadows and gathering pastures). These increased concentrations decreased shortly 

after removing cattle from the Allotment. The largest increase was seen in 2010 at BM8, Bell Creek 

below Middle Bell gathering pasture (fecal coliform = 580 CFU/100ml and E. coli = 459 

CFU/100ml). This spike occurred when the cattle were being gathered adjacent to the stream. Site 

BM3 is about 1 mile downstream of BM8. Concentrations of fecal coliform at this site were only 1 

CFU/100ml. Because no samples were taken later in the year, it is unclear if the bacteria were filtered 

out/diluted between BM8 and BM3 or if the bacteria had not moved downstream yet. In 2011, fecal 

coliform concentrations at BM8 reduced about 30 percent between the 9/13/11 sample (during 

gathering) and the 10/11/11 sample (11 days after cattle off Allotment). Fecal coliform concentrations 

downstream at BM3 were reduced by a similar amount during the same timeframe. 

Despite the increased bacteria concentrations in cattle high use areas, fecal coliform bacteria 

concentrations remained below that required for REC-1 standards (200 CFU/100ml) at the sample site 

where ingestion was likely (BM1). The USEPA recommendation for E. coli samples, applicable at 

primary contact recreation sites, was also not exceeded at BM1.

In 2009 and 2011, Myers et al. collected bacteria samples in Lower Round Meadow both before and 

after cattle came on the Allotment (Myers and Kane 2010, Myers 2011). Concentrations of fecal 

coliform and E. coli increased following cattle coming onto the Allotment during both years. Both the 

fecal coliform and E. coli results reported by Myers in 2011 were considerably higher than the results 

at the USFS/UCD sample site BM2, which was established at about the same location. The reason for 

the differences is unknown. 

The Tuolumne Utilities District (TUD) distributes water to the Sonora area. They have seen increased 

concentrations of Cryptosporidium at isolated locations. This is leading them to make changes to 

treatment plants to address the issue. TUD has not done any testing on USFS lands and do not intend 

to do so (Scesa personal communication 2012). However, there are additional treatment plants 

between the Stanislaus National Forest and the “problem” treatment plants. These additional 

treatment plants have not seen the elevated concentrations of Cryptosporidium that were seen at the 

“problem” treatment plants further downstream. Therefore, the increase in Cryptosporidium does not 

appear to be a result of forest activities, including cattle grazing on the Bell Meadow Allotment. 

In summary, both the Myers et al. sampling and the USFS/UCD sampling indicated that 

concentrations of indicator bacteria in the Allotment increased as a result of cattle grazing. 

USFS/UCD sampling was not frequent enough to be considered compliance monitoring. However, 

when comparing test results to the REC-1 standards for fecal coliform at the sample site where 

ingestion of water was likely, sampling results were below the standard. E. coli also remained below 

the recommended maximum concentration at the primary contact recreation sample site (max of 3 

CFU/100ml in 2010 and max of 40 CFU/100ml in 2011). There is no record of Cryptosporidium

causing impacts to drinking water supplies as a result of grazing on the Bell Meadow Allotment. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

163

Nutrients – There is the potential for increased nutrient introduction as a result of cattle grazing. The 

USFS/UCD monitored total nitrogen (TN), nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N), ammonium-nitrogen (NH4-N), 

total phosphorous (TP), and phosphate phosphorous (PO4-P) in 2010 and 2011. Nineteen samples 

were collected in 2010 and 45 samples were collected in 2011. Overall, monitoring indicated low 

concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous. The Watershed Report shows monitoring results, 

including percentages of samples below detection limits (dl) and EPA levels of concern.

In 2010, the only site which approached or exceeded the EPA levels of concern was BM2 (Lower 

Round Meadow). This is a very small stream (wetted width = 10 inches, and average depth = 1.75 

inches on 8/18/10) and water can often be stagnant. BM4 is about 300 feet downstream of BM2 and is 

located on the main stem of Bell Creek. Concentrations of all parameters described above were well 

within the EPA levels of concern at BM4, indicating that the slightly elevated nutrients at BM2 are 

quickly diluted by the higher flows in Bell Creek and pose no risk further downstream. In 2011, EPA 

levels of concern were not exceeded at any site. 

Water Temperature – Continuous water temperature data was collected in 2010 with data loggers at 

six sites in the Bell Meadow Allotment. Data was collected from 8/18-9/15 and thus represent peak 

summer temperatures. The average daily minimum temperature was 49°F, the average daily 

maximum temperature was 59°F, and the overall average daily temperature was 53°F. Continuous 

water temperature data was collected in 2011 with a data logger at one site in the Bell Meadow 

Allotment. Data was collected from 7/19-10/10. The average daily minimum temperature was 50°F, 

the average daily maximum temperature was 62°F, and the overall average daily temperature was 

55°F. These temperatures support the beneficial use of the stream as a cold water fishery.

Taste and Odor – The Basin Plan states that “Water shall not contain taste- or odor-producing 

substances in concentrations that impart undesirable tastes or odors to domestic or municipal water 

supplies or to fish flesh or other edible products of aquatic origin, or that cause nuisance, or otherwise 

adversely affect beneficial uses” (California EPA 2011). There are no known complaints of taste or 

odor on fish flesh reported to the Forest Aquatic Biologist (Holdeman personal communication 2012). 

The Tuolumne Utilities District (TUD) has received complaints about the taste and odor (T/O) of the 

local water supply. They attribute this issue primarily to decomposing organics (leaves, limbs, 

needles, etc.) in the water and have stated that “current levels of grazing do not have an impact on 

T/O” (Scesa 2012).

EAGLE MEADOW ALLOTMENT

This Allotment lies principally within two 6th level HUC watersheds – Niagara and Eagle Creeks. 

Both are tributaries to the Middle Fork Stanislaus River. Eagle Creek has a tributary called Long 

Valley Creek that lies entirely within the Allotment. The addition of the McCormick Pocket, 

proposed under Alternative 1, would add the headwaters of Eagle Creek to the Allotment (about 

2,400 acres). 

The eastern portion of the Allotment contains several smaller streams that drain easterly into the 

Middle Fork Stanislaus River in the Relief Reservoir area. These small drainages are within the 

Summit Creek and Douglas Creek watersheds. The Niagara addition, proposed in Alternative 1, 

would add an additional 2,400 acres to the Allotment, most of which are in the headwaters of Mill 

Creek.

Elevations within the Allotment range from about 6,550 to 9,900 feet. This elevation range would 

expand under Alternative 1 with the Niagara addition to about 6,400 to 9,900 feet. Geology consists 

of a mix of granitic bedrock and volcanic mudflows overlying the granite on slopes and ridges. The 

entire Allotment was glaciated and, as a result, has a substantial amount of glacial till on slopes and 

glacial fill in valley bottoms. Precipitation in the Allotment ranges from about 50 to 65 inches per 

year, dominated by a deep snowpack. 
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

164

Vegetation on the slopes in this Allotment is similar to the Bell Meadow Allotment, although there is 

less mixed conifer since the lowest elevations here are higher than in that Allotment. There are 

numerous meadows in the Allotment, and several notable ones along the valley bottoms. Barn 

Meadow lies along the headwaters of Niagara Creek, with segments in contact with the stream. Shell 

Meadow and an unnamed meadow to the southeast of Shell Meadow (Meadow at T1N, R6E, Section 

35) are smaller meadows in the Niagara Creek watershed. Eagle Creek runs through Eagle Meadow

just upstream of road 5N01 and Lower Eagle Meadow about one mile downstream. The upper portion 

of Long Valley Creek drains through a long, narrow meadow. In the northeastern portion of the 

Allotment, Sardine and Red Rock meadows lie close to one another. These are both within the 

Douglas Creek watershed and drain east towards the Middle Fork Stanislaus River. There are small 

unnamed stringer meadows in the headwaters of Mill Creek in the Niagara Creek addition. There is 

also one mapped meadow in the headwaters of Eagle Creek in the McCormick Pocket addition. 

Meadow Hydrologic Function

Historic overgrazing in the Eagle Meadow Allotment has affected the hydrologic function of 

meadows in the Allotment. In 1925 the season of use for the Eagle Meadow Allotment was from June 

1-October 15 and the stocking rate was 4475 sheep. Current season of use is July 1-September 30 and 

150 cow/calf pairs are allowed. Allotment survey notes from 1925 indicated that Eagle Meadow and 

Relief Meadow showed past overuse by sheep which depleted the drier portions and caused 

streambank cutting (USDA 1925b). In addition, the Mono-Sonora Road (now Highway 108) was 

used as a sheep and cattle driveway, causing overgrazing along the route. This “driveway” went 

through the proposed Niagara addition (USDA 1925c). The effect of historic overgrazing in the Eagle 

Meadow Allotment is reflected in the current hydrologic function of some of the meadows, as 

displayed in Table 3.11-4. 

Table 3.11-4 Meadow Hydrologic Function, Eagle Meadow Allotment

Eagle Meadow Allotment

Meadow Name Survey 

Year

Existing Condition

Comments

MHF (Rapid Assessment 

Protocol)* PFC** C

F FC WT SB PC Rating

Barn 2010 3 3 3 3 3 Desired PFC

Eagle Meadow -East 2010 1 1 1 1 1 Very Poor NF Along main channel of Eagle 

Creek

Lower Eagle Meadow 2006 1 1 1 1 1 Very Poor NF Along main channel of Eagle 

Creek

Eagle Meadow -West 2010 3 3 3 3 3 Desired PFC Along tributary to Eagle Creek

Long Valley - Lower 2010 2 2 2 2 2 Fair FAR Small meadow at Long Valley 

key area

Long Valley - Upper 2010 1 1 3 2 2 Fair FAR

Red Rock 2010 1 1 1 2 1 Poor NF

Sardine 2010 3 3 3 3 2 Desired PFC

Shell 2010 3 3 3 3 3 Desired PFC Currently excluded from 

grazing

Meadow at T6N, 

R19E, Section 35

2010 3 3 3 3 2 Desired PFC Unnamed meadow southeast 

of Shell Meadow

*Rapid Assessment codes: CF=channel function, FC=floodplain connectivity, WT=water table alteration, 

SB=streambank stability, PC=herbaceous plant community. A score of 3 is best, 1 is worst. Scores for all five 

attributes are added together for an overall rating.

**PFC=proper functioning condition, FAR= functional-at risk, and NF=nonfunctional
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

165

Special Aquatic Features

Proper Functioning Condition was assessed on thirteen sites in the Eagle Meadow Allotment in 2010 

(USDI 2003, Weixelman and Cooper 2009). This included springs and fens. PFC determinations 

involved assessing impacts to hydrology, vegetation, and soils/erosion. While the overall PFC 

determination reflects these three attributes, the focus of the following discussion is on how cattle 

have affected the hydrologic function of springs and fens. These sites were not grazed in 2010 as the 

Allotment was in non-use, so any evidence of hoof action was from the 2009 season. Table 3.11-5 

describes the sites surveyed.

Six of the thirteen special aquatic features surveyed were determined to be at proper functioning 

condition. Although some of these sites had evidence of hoof action, it did not appear to impact the 

function of the feature. 

Seven special aquatic features were determined to be functional – at risk. Hoof action altering flow 

patterns was the primary hydrologic issue at these sites. Trend was not determined for these sites. 

This is because the original surveys were conducted in 2010 and Dave Weixelman, one of the authors 

of the PFC fen protocol, recommended waiting at least 3 years and then resurveying the site in order 

to accurately determine the trend (Weixelman 2010). Photos were taken at each of the special aquatic 

features in 2010 and will be used when assessing trend. 

Table 3.11-5 Special Aquatic Features, Eagle Meadow Allotment

Site Location Site Type PFC

Determination Comments

Barn Meadow 

Fen Complex #1

Fen 

(Mound)

Proper

Barn Meadow 

Fen/Spring 

Complex

Fen 

(Mound)

Proper Evidence of trailing in fen has the potential to channel some 

water.

Barn Meadow 

Fen #3

Fen 

(Mound)

Functional – At 

Risk

Small channel flows out of fen – it is unknown if this has been 

influenced by cattle trailing or is natural.

Long Valley Seep 

Complex

Seep Functional – At 

Risk

Pocking/hoof action is evident. There is a cattle trail 

immediately above the seep, but it does not appear to be 

affecting the seep.

Eagle Meadow

Gathering Spring 

#1

Spring Proper Spring source is located immediately below trail.

Eagle Meadow

Gathering Spring 

#2

Spring Proper No evidence of hoof action from previous season

Eagle Meadow

Gathering Fen #1

Fen 

(Sloping)

Functional – At 

Risk

There is a depression in the center of fen which may have been 

created by hoof action.

Eagle Meadow

Gathering Fen #2

Fen 

(Mound)

Proper

Eagle Meadow

Gathering Fen #3

Fen 

(Mound)

Functional – At 

Risk

There is a channel on one side of fen which is more incised 

than most.

Eagle Meadow

Gathering Fen #4

Fen 

(Mound)

Functional – At 

Risk

There is a depressional feature in the fen which may have been 

caused by hoof action.

Eagle Meadow

Gathering Fen #5

Fen 

(Mound)

Functional – At 

Risk

Flow patterns are altered, but not to a large extent. Where hoof 

marks are there is water emanating out of them. Also, some 

hoof action on the lower edge and along one side of the mound 

fen.

Allotment NW -

5N09 Fen

Fen 

(Mound)

Proper Small gully from road ends before reaching fen

Allotment NW -

5N09B Fen

Fen Functional – At 

Risk

Lots of pocking. Scattered areas of bare ground. Channels 

around both sides of the fen are draining the fen.
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

166

Water Quality

Sediment – Observations of pool sediment and fish reproduction on fish bearing streams show that 

sediment is below the TOC in this Allotment. Pool tail surface fine sediment is below 20% in all 

stream reaches with pools, and a good distribution of age classes of fish is present on fish bearing 

streams. 

Bacteria and Other Pathogens – Water sampling for fecal coliform and E. coli was conducted in the 

Herring Creek Allotment in 2009 and 2011 by Myers (Myers and Kane 2010, Myers 2011) and in 

2010 and 2011 by the USFS/UC Davis (Roche et al. 2013). The Allotment was in non-use in 2010 

and 2011, so results represent the non-grazing condition. The Watershed Report shows water quality 

sample sites in the Eagle Meadow Allotment, water quality monitoring results, and photos and maps 

of sampling site locations. 

In 2009 and 2011, Myers and others collected bacteria samples in Barn Meadow (Myers and Kane 

2010, Myers 2011). Fecal coliform concentrations at three sample sites ranged from <2 to >1600 

CFU/100ml and E. coli ranged from <2 to 500 CFU/100ml after livestock were brought onto the 

Allotment. Both fecal coliform and E. coli concentrations were lower prior to livestock entry. 

However, the variability seen in the duplicate sampling results at BM1 exceeded the precision goals 

identified in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). Despite the fact that precision goals were 

not met, the 2009 Myers data still indicates that concentrations of fecal coliform and E. coli increased 

during the grazing season as a result of cattle use on the Allotment. The data is also useful because it 

was the only water quality sampling on the Allotment conducted when there were full numbers of 

cattle and a full season of use. However, all the samples were collected on small tributaries where 

ingestion of water is unlikely. This is particularly apparent since the first sample site dried up by July 

9th and had to be moved downstream. No samples were collected further downstream where ingestion 

of waters was “reasonably possible”. 

Results of the 2010 and 2011 USFS/UCD sampling in the Eagle Meadow Allotment indicate that 

fecal coliform and E. coli concentrations in the water are generally low when the Allotment is in nonuse. Despite the non-use status of the Allotment, there was an elevated concentration of fecal coliform 

and E. coli in 2011 at a site downstream of a horse pasture and camp. The site upstream of the horse 

pasture and camp did not have elevated concentrations of indicator bacteria. Therefore, the elevated 

concentrations seen at this site were likely a result of recreational stock use or were a result of the 

road crossing (ford) across Eagle Creek which may have stirred up bacteria in the sediments if a 

vehicle passed right before sampling, or a combination of both the road and horse camp. 

Concentrations were lower at the next site downstream. The Tuolumne Utilities District (TUD) has 

seen increased concentrations of Cryptosporidium at isolated locations. However, the increase in 

Cryptosporidium is not a result of forest activities, including cattle grazing on the Eagle Meadow 

Allotment (Scesa, 2012). 

To summarize the results of water quality testing on this Allotment, concentrations of bacteria in the 

Allotment increased as a result of cattle grazing in 2009. Cattle were not on the Allotment in 2010 or 

2011, so data where ingestion is “reasonably possible” was not available. By looking at the results 

seen in the nearby Bell Meadow Allotment where concentrations of indicator bacteria were low at the 

site where ingestion of water was likely, it can be assumed that elevated concentrations of bacteria 

would be diluted before reaching areas where ingestion of water was “reasonably possible.” In 

addition, there is no record of Cryptosporidium causing impacts to drinking water supplies as a result 

of grazing on the Eagle Meadow Allotment. 

Nutrients – There is the potential for increased nutrient introduction as a result of cattle grazing. The 

USFS/UCD monitored total nitrogen (TN), nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N), ammonium-nitrogen (NH4-N), 

total phosphorous (TP), and phosphate phosphorous (PO4-P) in 2010 and 2011. Twenty-six samples 

were collected in 2010 and 18 samples were collected in 2011. Overall, monitoring indicated low 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

167

concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous. The Watershed Report shows monitoring results, 

including percentages of samples below detection limits (dl) and EPA levels of concern.

The USFS/UCD monitoring indicated low concentrations overall of nitrogen and phosphorous in 

2010 and 2011, both seasons of non-use. Overall, mean concentrations of nutrients in the Eagle Creek 

Allotment were similar to those seen in the Bell Meadow and Herring Creek Allotments. However, 

both Bell Meadow and Herring Creek had isolated sampling locations where nutrient concentrations 

were elevated above the EPA level of concern. It is assumed that if Eagle Meadow had cattle on the 

Allotment in 2010 that there may also be isolated increases in nutrients. It is also likely that any

elevated nutrient concentrations would no longer be elevated at the next downstream sampling site, as 

was the case in the other two Allotments. 

Water Temperature – Continuous water temperature data was collected in 2010 with data loggers at 

eleven sites in the Eagle Meadow Allotment. Data was collected from 8/18-9/15 and thus represent 

peak summer temperatures. Although cattle were not on the Allotment during this time, increased 

width to depth ratios from disturbance during the 2009 season would not likely have recovered by the 

2010 season, so elevated temperatures as a result of cattle trampling was still potentially represented 

in the temperature data. Possible reductions in shade from the 2009 season likely would have 

recovered by the 2010 season and thus would not be represented with the recorded data. The average 

daily minimum temperature was 48°F, the average daily maximum temperature was 59°F, and the 

overall average daily temperature was 52°F. These temperatures support the beneficial use of the 

stream as a cold water fishery. They are also similar to temperatures measured in 2010 in the Bell 

Meadow and Herring Creek Allotments, where grazing did occur. 

Taste and Odor – The Basin Plan states that “Water shall not contain taste- or odor-producing 

substances in concentrations that impart undesirable tastes or odors to domestic or municipal water 

supplies or to fish flesh or other edible products of aquatic origin, or that cause nuisance, or otherwise 

adversely affect beneficial uses” (California EPA 2011). There are no known complaints of taste or 

odor on fish flesh reported to the Forest Aquatic Biologist (Holdeman 2012). The Tuolumne Utilities 

District (TUD) has received complaints about the taste and odor (T/O) of the local water supply. They 

attribute this issue primarily to decomposing organics (leaves, limbs, needles, etc.) in the water and 

have stated that “current levels of grazing do not have an impact on T/O” (Scesa 2012).

HERRING CREEK ALLOTMENT

This Allotment is nearly all within the Upper South Fork Stanislaus River watershed. The watershed 

has two headwater streams, Herring Creek and Willow Creek, as well as the upper South Fork 

Stanislaus River. Herring Creek and Willow Creek join just above Herring Creek Reservoir, a small 

impoundment of about 30 acre feet. The reservoir’s dam, a concrete structure built in the 1930’s, no 

longer has a functional outlet valve. Thus, the reservoir is essentially a shallow lake rather than a 

storage facility with regulated outflow. The South Fork Stanislaus River and Herring Creek join 

downstream of Pinecrest Lake at the watershed boundary.

The remainder of the Allotment lies within Cow Creek, a tributary of the Lower Middle Fork 

Stanislaus River. However, under Alternative 1, the addition of the Cascade unit would add about 

3,400 acres to the Allotment, most of which would be in the Mill Creek watershed. Alternatives 1, 3 

and 4 would eliminate about 2,500 acres from the southern part of the Allotment (Upper South Fork 

Stanislaus River watershed) because livestock are not currently utilizing this area.

Elevations within the Allotment range from about 5,700 to 9,500 feet. Geology consists of a mix of 

granitic bedrock and volcanic mudflows overlying the granite on slopes and ridges. The entire 

Allotment was glaciated and, as a result, has a substantial amount of glacial till on slopes and glacial 

fill in valley bottoms. Precipitation in the Allotment ranges from about 50 to 60 inches per year, 

dominated by a deep snowpack above about 7,000 feet. 
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

168

Vegetation on the slopes in the Allotment is similar to the situation in the Bell Meadow Allotment. 

The valley bottoms in Herring Creek and Willow Creek have numerous meadows, principally Willow 

Meadow, one relatively large and several smaller ones in Hammill Canyon along Herring Creek, and 

one at the upper end of Herring Creek Reservoir (the reservoir impounds the bulk of this meadow). In 

addition, numerous meadows exist on the upper tributaries of Willow and Herrings Creeks, notably 

Groundhog Meadow, Castle Meadow, Coyote Meadow, Three Meadows, Bluff Meadow, Bloomer 

Lake, and Wire Corral Meadow. Three meadow areas exist in the Cow Creek portion of this 

Allotment – Bull Run, Burt Reed, and the Punch Bowl. Another meadow, often referred to as Big 

Basin, lies at the southern border of the Allotment along the South Fork Stanislaus River. It has rarely 

been grazed, largely due to difficult access. This meadow would no longer be included in the Herring 

Creek Allotment under any of the action alternatives. There is one main meadow in the proposed 

Cascade addition (Alternative 1). This unnamed meadow is adjacent to 5N39Y. 

Meadow Hydrologic Function

Historic overgrazing in the Herring Creek Allotment has affected the hydrologic function of meadows 

in the Allotment. In 1924 the season of use for the Herring Creek Allotment was from June 1-October 

15 and the stocking rate was 510 cattle. Current season of use is July 1-September 30 and 156 

cow/calf pairs are allowed. The boundaries of the Herring Creek Allotment have changed slightly 

since 1924, but the acreage is roughly the same. Records from 1925 indicate that meadows to the west 

and southwest of Cooper Peak are in poor shape due to heavy use and streambank erosion (USDA 

1925a). Range inspection notes from 1953 indicated active erosion along creeks in Hammill Canyon 

and that Castle, Coyote, and Wire Corral have been “fed to the bone. Absolutely nothing remains.” 

(USDA 1953). 

The effect of historic overgrazing in the Herring Creek Allotment is reflected in the current 

hydrologic function of some of the meadows, as displayed in Table 3.11-6. 

Thirteen of the meadows in this Allotment are either in good condition or at desired condition (or at 

proper functioning condition using the PFC methodology). Floodplain connectivity and channel 

morphology are normal or near normal, the water table and related plant communities are near 

potential, and streambank stability is very good. 

The four meadows that are rated as fair, or functional at-risk (FAR), have some alteration of the 

attributes used in rating meadow hydrologic function. That is, floodplain connectivity and channel 

morphology may be altered in some portions of the meadows, and the water table may be slightly 

lowered but not enough to cause a major change in plant community composition. These four FAR 

meadows, all located along Herring Creek in Hammill Canyon, are currently maintaining a functional 

condition but remain at risk of further degradation. 

Six meadows are in poor or very poor (non-functional) condition. Willow Creek is incised and 

widened throughout nearly all of Castle Meadow. With the exception of the few isolated spots with 

upwelling groundwater, the water table has lowered substantially and there is virtually no floodplain 

connectivity. Bank stability is poor and there are few deep rooted herbaceous plants in the meadow. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

169

Table 3.11-6 Meadow Hydrologic Function, Herring Creek Allotment

Herring Creek Allotment

Meadow Name Survey 

Year

Existing Condition

Comments

MHF (Rapid Assessment 

Protocol)* PFC** 

CF FC W

T SB PC Rating

Bloomer Lake 2010 2 3 3 3 3 Desired PFC

Bluff 2010 2 2 3 3 3 Good PFC Used as a gathering pasture.

Bull Run 2010 3 3 3 2 3 Desired PFC

Burt Reed 2010 3 3 3 3 3 Desired PFC Small headcuts in channel have 

not yet affected hydrology. 

Restoration planned completed in 

fall 2012 to stabilize headcuts.

Castle 2006 1 1 1 1 1 Very Poor NF

Coyote 2006 3 3 3 3 3 Desired PFC

Groundhog 2006, 

2010

3 3 3 3 3 Desired PFC

Hammill Canyon 1 2010 2 2 1 2 1 Poor NF Location of R5 Condition and 

Trend plot, greenline plot, and 

utilization.

Hammill Canyon 2 2010 2 2 2 2 2 Fair FAR

Hammill Canyon 3 2010 2 2 1 2 1 Poor NF

Hammill Canyon 4 2010 2 2 2 2 2 Fair FAR

Hammill Canyon 5 2010 3 2 2 3 1 Fair FAR

Hammill Canyon 6 2010 2 2 2 3 2 Fair FAR

Hammill Canyon 7 2010 3 3 3 3 3 Desired PFC Headcut restoration completed in 

2011.

Herring Creek

Reservoir

2010 1 1 2 2 1 Poor NF

Lower Punch Bowl 2010 3 3 3 2 3 Desired PFC

Upper Punch Bowl 2010 3 3 3 2 3 Desired PFC

Lower Three 

Meadows

2010 3 3 3 3 2 Desired PFC Excluded from grazing.

Middle Three 

Meadows

2010 2 2 3 2 3 Good PFC Excluded from grazing.

Upper Three 

Meadows

2010 1 1 1 2 1 Poor NF Excluded from grazing.

Lower Willow 

Meadow

2010 3 3 3 3 3 Desired PFC Identified on USFS maps as 

Willow Meadow

Upper Willow 

Meadow

2010 1 1 2 2 2 Poor NF

Wire Corral 2010 3 3 3 3 3 Desired PFC

*Rapid Assessment codes: CF=channel function, FC=floodplain connectivity, WT=water table alteration, 

SB=streambank stability, PC=herbaceous plant community. A score of 3 is best, 1 is worst. Scores for all five 

attributes are added together for an overall rating.

**PFC=proper functioning condition, FAR= functional-at risk, and NF=nonfunctional

Special Aquatic Features

Proper Functioning Condition was assessed on seventeen sites in the Herring Creek Allotment in 

2010 (USDI 2003, Weixelman and Cooper 2009). This included springs, fens, and shorelines. PFC

determinations involved assessing impacts to hydrology, vegetation, and soils/erosion. While the 

overall PFC determination reflects these three attributes, the focus of the following discussion is on 
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

170

how cattle have affected the hydrologic function of springs, fens, and shorelines. Table 3.11-7 

describes the sites surveyed.

Table 3.11-7 Special Aquatic Features, Herring Creek Allotment

Site Location Site Type PFC

Determination Comments

Herring Creek

Reservoir

Shoreline Functional – At 

Risk

Surface flow patterns altered by dam.

Bloomer Lake 

Shoreline

Shoreline Proper Hoof action may alter surface flows in some isolated areas, but 

overall shoreline is still functioning properly.

Bloomer Lake 

Fen

Fen 

(Sloping)

Functional – At 

Risk

Rills in meadow and in and around fen. It is unknown if these were 

caused by cattle or other outside factors.

Wire Corral

Spring 1

Spring Proper

Wire Corral

Spring 2

Spring Proper Ephemeral snowmelt channels in meadow near spring sources. 

Minor hoof action in places in and around channels.

Pinecrest Peak 

Spring

Spring Proper

Bluff Meadow 

Fen

Fen 

(Mound)

Functional – At 

Risk

Hoof action has created a small channel toward the lower end of 

the fen.

Herring Creek

NW - 5N74 

Spring

Spring Proper Spring located in the proposed Cascade addition

Herring Creek

NW - 5N74 Fen

Fen Proper Fen located in the proposed Cascade addition

Herring Creek

NW - 5N11Y 

Spring Complex

Spring Proper Spring complex located in the proposed Cascade addition. Low 

width to depth channels with vertical sides; some undercutting. 

Surface water is well covered by canopy – water is cold. Road may 

be adding more water to the stream channel, but it is fairly stable 

due to large channel substrate.

Herring Creek

NW – Ridge 

Spring 1

Spring Proper

Herring Creek

NW – Ridge 

Spring 2

Spring Proper Part of spring site has a mound fen shape, but this location does 

not have organic soil below about 20 cm.

Willow Meadow Spring Proper Some hoof action at spring. However, not enough to alter flow 

patterns.

Lower Punch 

Bowl Fen 1

Fen 

(Mound)

Functional – At 

Risk

Hoof action altered flow patterns.

Lower Punch 

Bowl Fen 2

Fen 

(Mound)

Functional – At 

Risk

Hoof action is readily present and has altered flow patterns.

Upper Punch 

Bowl Fen

Fen 

(Mound)

Proper

Bull Run Spring Spring Functional – At 

Risk

Old road/skid provides some sedimentation.

Eleven of the seventeen special aquatic features surveyed were determined to be at proper functioning 

condition. Although some of these sites had evidence of hoof action, it did not appear to impact the 

function of the feature. 

Six special aquatic features were determined to be functional – at risk. Hoof action altering flow 

patterns was the primary hydrologic issue at these sites. Trend was not determined for these sites. 

This is because the original surveys were conducted in 2010 and Dave Weixelman, one of the authors 

of the PFC fen protocol, recommended waiting at least 3 years and then resurveying the site in order 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

171

to accurately determine the trend (Weixelman 2010). Photos were taken at each of the special aquatic 

features in 2010 and will be used when assessing trend. 

Water Quality

Sediment – Observations of pool sediment and fish reproduction on fish bearing streams show that 

sediment is below the TOC in this Allotment. Pool tail surface fine sediment is below 20% in all 

stream reaches with pools, and a good distribution of age classes of fish is present on fish bearing 

streams. 

Bacteria and Other Pathogens – Water sampling for fecal coliform and E. coli was conducted in the 

Herring Creek Allotment in 2009 and 2011 by Myers (Myers and Kane 2010, Myers 2011) and in 

2010 and 2011 by the USFS/UC Davis (Roche et al. 2013). The Watershed Report includes a 

discussion on EPA and Basin Plan standards for E. coli and fecal coliform, for a description of sample 

sites in the Herring Creek Allotment, indicator bacteria monitoring results, or for photos and maps of 

sampling site locations. 

Results of the 2010 USFS/UCD sampling in the Herring Creek Allotment indicate that fecal coliform 

and E. coli concentrations in the waters were generally low, even in areas where cattle use is 

concentrated (i.e. meadows and gathering pastures). However, only 1/3 of typical cattle numbers were 

on the Allotment during the season and it is assumed that these bacteria concentrations would have 

been higher had there been full numbers on the Allotment. There were three sites in the Allotment

(HC2, HC3, and HC9) where ingestion of water was determined to be “likely” or “possible”. At these 

sites, the highest fecal coliform concentration was 19 CFU/100ml and the highest E. coli

concentration was 2 CFU/100ml. Sites HC3 and HC4 are the two locations where water is 

diverted/pumped to provide water to the community of Strawberry. Both sites had low concentrations 

of E. coli and fecal coliform bacteria. Concentrations at the sites where ingestion of water is 

“reasonably possible” would have to increase by more than an order of magnitude for standards to be 

exceeded. It is unlikely that tripling the number of cattle on the Allotment (from the 55 cow/calf pairs 

on the Allotment in 2010 to full numbers of 156) would increase indicator bacteria concentrations 

enough that Basin Plan standards and EPA recommendations would be exceeded. 

Results of the 2011 USFS/UCD sampling in the Herring Creek Allotment indicate that fecal coliform 

and E. coli concentrations in the waters are generally low when the Allotment is in non-use. However, 

the two sites around Bloomer Lake (HC14 and HC15) had higher concentrations in 2011 than in 

2010, when there were cattle on the Allotment. This may be attributed to recreation use, pack stock, 

wildlife, or other sources of bacteria. 

In 2009 and 2011, Myers and others collected bacteria samples in Upper Fiddlers Green Meadow 

(Myers and Kane 2010, Myers 2011). In 2009, variable concentrations of fecal coliform were 

reported. “Low” and “Very low” flow was reported for many sample sites after livestock arrival, so it 

is likely that the increased flow from Herring Creek, about 1 mile downstream of the sample site, 

would greatly reduce the concentration of bacteria by dilution. In addition, some variability was seen 

in the duplicate sampling results at this site. Precision goals identified in the Quality Assurance 

Project Plan (Myers 2009) were exceeded. An explanation as to why this variability may have 

occurred was not provided in the document. Samples collected in 2011 represent the “no grazing” 

condition because no cattle were on the Allotment. These samples had low concentrations of indicator 

bacteria.

Despite the fact that the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) was higher than desired, the 2009 Myers 

data still indicates that concentrations of fecal coliform and E. coli increased during the grazing 

season as a result of cattle on the Allotment. The data is also useful because it was the only water 

quality sampling on the Allotment conducted when there were full numbers of cattle and a full season 

of use. However, all the samples were collected on small tributaries where ingestion of water is 
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

172

unlikely. No samples were collected further downstream where ingestion of waters was “reasonably 

possible”. 

Water samples taken in August 2000 in the South Fork Stanislaus River downstream of the Herring 

Creek Allotment for a hydropower relicensing project showed <.1 organism per liter for both Giardia

and Cryptosporidium (Pacific Gas and Electric Co. 2002). 

The Tuolumne Utilities District (TUD) distributes water to the Sonora area. They have seen increased 

concentrations of Cryptosporidium at isolated locations. However, the increase in Cryptosporidium is 

not a result of forest activities, including cattle grazing on the Herring Creek Allotment (Scesa 2012). 

In summary, concentrations of bacteria in the Allotment increased as a result of cattle grazing. 

USFS/UCD sampling was not frequent enough to be considered compliance monitoring. However, 

when comparing 2010 monitoring results to the REC-1 standard for fecal coliform at the sample sites 

where ingestion of water was “reasonably possible”, sampling results were below the standard. E. coli

also remained below the recommended maximum concentration at the primary contact recreation 

sample sites (max of 8 CFU/100ml in 2010). It is acknowledged that this sampling was conducted 

with reduced numbers of cattle on the Allotment and during a shortened season of use. However, by 

looking at the results seen in the adjacent Bell Meadow Allotment, as well as by assessing how far 

below standards the Herring Creek Allotment “likely” or “possible” ingestion sites were, it can be 

deduced that standards were likely not exceeded in the Herring Creek Allotment during years with 

full numbers of livestock. In addition, there is no record of Cryptosporidium causing impacts to 

drinking water supplies as a result of grazing on the Herring Creek Allotment. 

Nutrients – There is the potential for increased nutrient introduction as a result of cattle grazing. The 

USFS/UCD monitored total nitrogen (TN), nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N), ammonium-nitrogen (NH4-N), 

total phosphorous (TP), and phosphate phosphorous (PO4-P) in 2010 and 2011. Thirty-one samples

were collected in 2010 and 24 samples were collected in 2011. Overall, monitoring indicated low 

concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous. The Watershed Report shows a detailed discussion of 

monitoring results, including percentages of samples below detection limits (dl) and EPA levels of 

concern. 

In 2010, concentrations of NO3-N were not elevated at any sample sites. Concentrations of 

phosphorous were elevated at a total of four of sixteen sample sites in 2010. However, all 

concentrations at the next sample point downstream were well below EPA levels of concern, so 

elevated concentrations appear to be isolated. Phosphorous concentrations were all within EPA levels 

of concern for 2011. 

Water Temperature – Continuous water temperature data was collected in 2010 with data loggers at 

ten sites in the Herring Creek Allotment. Data was collected from 8/18-9/15 and thus represent peak 

summer temperatures. The average daily minimum temperature was 48°F, the average daily 

maximum temperature was 56°F, and the overall average daily temperature was 51°F. These 

temperatures support the beneficial use of the stream as a cold water fishery. 

Taste and Odor – The Basin Plan states that “Water shall not contain taste- or odor-producing 

substances in concentrations that impart undesirable tastes or odors to domestic or municipal water 

supplies or to fish flesh or other edible products of aquatic origin, or that cause nuisance, or otherwise 

adversely affect beneficial uses” (California EPA 2011). There are no known complaints of taste or 

odor on fish flesh reported to the Forest Aquatic Biologist (Holdeman 2012). The Tuolumne Utilities 

District (TUD) has received complaints about the taste and odor (T/O) of the local water supply. They 

attribute this issue primarily to decomposing organics (leaves, limbs, needles, etc.) in the water and 

have stated that “current levels of grazing do not have an impact on T/O” (Scesa 2012).
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

173

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Meadow Hydrologic Function

In the Bell Meadow Allotment, changes from current management include breaking the Allotment 

into three subunits – Round, Crab, and Mud to implement a deferred grazing system. This grazing 

system should help relieve pressure in the Round subunit by limiting drift back into this unit until the 

end of the grazing season. This could result in improved recovery in the meadows in the Round 

subunit. Reductions in grazing pressure are not anticipated in the Crab or Mud subunits, so recovery 

would be similar to current management (Alternative 3).

In the Herring Creek Allotment, the addition of the Cascade subunit should relieve grazing pressure 

throughout the Allotment. This additional acreage would increase available forage before the cattle 

move into the upper portions of the Allotment, delaying their movement to the upper units. This could 

assist in the recovery of meadow hydrologic function of some of the meadows. 

In the Eagle Meadow Allotment, the Niagara addition would increase forage available to cattle, 

potentially reducing pressures elsewhere. In addition, utilization standards in all units grazed every 

year would be reduced. This could assist in the recovery of meadow hydrologic function of some of 

the meadows. There is only minimal forage available in the McCormick Pocket. The addition of this 

area would likely have no discernible impact on improving the current condition of meadows 

throughout the Allotment. 

Many meadows in the Allotments have been impacted by historic overgrazing, leading to lowered 

water tables and channels being disconnected from floodplains. PFC cannot be achieved in these 

meadows without active restoration projects. The reduced grazing pressure anticipated under 

Alternative 1 may help streambanks stabilize at a faster rate, may promote herbaceous vegetation 

recovery along the stream channels (but not on the meadow surface since the water table is lowered), 

and could help move channel form towards rejuvenation (channel stabilizes at a lower elevation). 

These processes are currently occurring in most meadows, but reduced grazing pressure may speed 

these recoveries. However, these small improvements in condition may take years to achieve.

Meadow research conducted in the Sierra Nevada has indicated that meadow restoration projects 

result in raised water table levels and increased volume of subsurface water storage (Hammersmark et 

al. 2008, Tague et al. 2008). This is because raised channel beds increase water table elevations and 

facilitate the sponge-like characteristics of meadow ecosystems, storing water that is released slowly, 

providing for a late-season water supply. Incised channels, on the other hand, typically exhibit lower 

water table elevations and drain water quickly from meadow ecosystems. Therefore, meadows that 

are currently hydrologically functional are believed to have high water tables and subsurface water 

storage as described by Hammersmark et al. and Tague et al. Meadow restoration at sites that are not 

hydrologically functional should result in improvements in these conditions.

As described in the management requirements, monitoring is needed in meadows not currently at PFC

to ensure that conditions do not worsen prior to implementation of restoration projects. Utilization is 

often not the best indicator for meadow hydrologic function, so monitoring will focus on bank 

stability, herbaceous vegetation, or deep rooted vegetation. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 

limit streambank disturbance to 20% of stream reach. Meeting these requirements would help 

prevent/minimize permanent damage to streambanks. The Watershed Report describes how 

Alternative 1 varies from the existing condition and monitoring recommendations for each meadow. 

In summary, under Alternative 1 the meadows in good or desired condition will continue to maintain 

their status. The meadows in fair condition will either maintain their condition or slightly improve. 
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

174

The meadows in poor or very poor condition may see minor channel improvements in the long run 

but will not likely reach desired condition without a substantial investment in active restoration where 

intervention is technically and economically feasible. 

The addition of the Cascade unit to the Herring Creek Allotment would add one large meadow and 

numerous small stringer meadows to the Allotment. The large meadow, located off of 5N39Y, does 

not have a stream channel flowing through it, so it is less susceptible to channel incision than 

meadows with a stream channel. If the Cascade addition is added to the Allotment the meadows 

would be monitored to ensure that management requirements for meadow hydrologic function are 

met.

The addition of the Niagara unit to the Eagle Meadow Allotment would add small stringer meadows 

in the headwaters of Mill Creek to the Allotment. Most of the stream length along Mill Creek is 

forested and is less susceptible to grazing impacts than meadow areas. If the addition is added to the 

Allotment, the small acreage of meadows would be monitored to ensure that the conditions are 

meeting the requirements outlined in the management requirements.

The addition of the McCormick Pocket unit to the Eagle Meadow Allotment would add a small 

amount of meadow acreage to the Allotment. These meadows are dominated by willows and have 

little herbaceous vegetation. Because of the overall lack of vegetation in this unit, these meadows are 

susceptible to over browse and would need to be closely monitored to ensure compliance with 

management requirements.

Indirect effects of livestock impacts to meadow hydrologic function are related to aquatic habitat in 

meadows. Aquatic habitat in meadows has been altered to varying degrees as a result of change in 

meadow hydrologic function initiated in the past. However, fish bearing streams (even in poor 

condition meadows) presently have adequate populations, and reproduction is occurring at a rate that 

appears to be maintaining population viability. Current management is not adversely affecting this 

indicator of habitat suitability. Therefore, management proposed under Alternative 1 is not 

anticipated to adversely affect this indicator.

Special Aquatic Features

In the Bell Meadow Allotment, changes from current management include breaking the Allotment 

into three subunits – Round, Crab, and Mud to implement a deferred grazing system. This grazing 

system should help relieve pressure in the Round subunit by limiting drift back into this unit until the 

end of the grazing season. Lily Lake Shoreline and Lower Round Meadow Spring were the two 

special aquatic features assessed in the Round subunit. Both sites were at PFC, so a reduction in 

grazing pressure is anticipated to help maintain PFC. Reductions in grazing pressure are not 

anticipated in the Crab or Mud subunits, so special aquatic feature condition would be similar to 

current management (Alternative 3). All three sites in the Mud subunit were at PFC. In the Crab 

subunit there are three sites currently at PFC. There are an additional eight sites that are functional – 

at risk (FAR). One of the eight sites, Bear Lake, was FAR due to the effects of the dam, not cattle 

grazing, and was already determined to have an upward trend. The other seven sites in the Crab 

subunit that are functional – at risk do not have an apparent trend. To meet management 

requirements, these sites will be re-surveyed to determine trend. If the trend is upwards then grazing 

would continue and the site would be monitored. If the trend is downwards or the site becomes nonfunctional then grazing would be excluded. 

In the Eagle Meadow Allotment, the Niagara addition would increase forage available to cattle, 

potentially reducing pressures elsewhere. In addition, utilization standards in all units grazed every 

year would be reduced. This could assist in maintaining PFC at special aquatic features that are 

currently at PFC and could help move sites which are FAR towards PFC. No trend was determined at 

the seven special aquatic features in the Allotment that were FAR. To meet management 

requirements, these sites will be re-surveyed to determine trend. If the trend is upwards then grazing 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

175

would continue and the site would be monitored. If the trend is downwards or the site becomes nonfunctional then grazing would be excluded. There is little forage available in the McCormick Pocket. 

The addition of this area would likely have no impact on improving the current condition of special 

aquatic features throughout the Allotment. 

One potential fen (not verified due to frozen ground) and three springs were identified in the Niagara 

addition by the district botanist. These sites have not yet been surveyed following the PFC protocol. If 

this area is added to the Allotment, then PFC surveys will be conducted prior to cattle being allowed 

in the area in order to establish a baseline condition from which to monitor future use. One potential 

fen was identified in McCormick Pocket by the district botanist. If this area is added to the Eagle 

Meadow Allotment then PFC surveys will be conducted on this or any other springs/fens found.

In the Herring Creek Allotment, the addition of the Cascade subunit should relieve grazing pressure 

throughout the Allotment. This additional acreage would increase available forage before the cattle 

move into the upper portions of the Allotment, delaying their movement to the upper units. This could 

assist in maintaining PFC at special aquatic features that are currently at PFC and could help move 

sites which are FAR towards PFC. No trend was determined at the six special aquatic features in the 

Allotment that were FAR. To meet management requirements, these sites will be re-surveyed to 

determine trend. If the trend is upwards then grazing would continue and the site would be monitored. 

If the trend is downwards or the site becomes non-functional then grazing would be excluded. 

Three special aquatic features were assessed following PFC protocols in the proposed Cascade 

addition. All three were at PFC. If the Cascade addition is added to the Herring Creek Allotment then 

these special aquatic features will be monitored to ensure that PFC is maintained. If additional special 

aquatic features are found in the Allotment they would be monitored as well. 

Water Quality

Sediment – A deferred grazing system implemented in the Bell Meadow Allotment is expected to 

reduce grazing pressure in the Round subunit. The Niagara Creek and Cascade Creek additions to the 

Eagle Meadow and Herring Creek Allotments should also reduce grazing pressure. As such, sediment 

deposition and accumulation in meadow streams is expected to be less than under current 

management. Currently, fine sediment in pool tails is minimal, usually 10% or less on a stream reach 

basis. All age classes of fish are present in fish bearing streams, indicating reproduction frequency 

that supports a viable population. This is expected to continue under Alternative 1. Slight increases in 

stream sediment may occur in the additions, but these increases are not expected to be of the extent to 

affect beneficial uses of water. This conclusion is made because use in the additions is not expected to 

be heavier than what is currently seen in the existing Allotment, and beneficial uses with regards to 

sediment are currently being met.

Bacteria and Other Pathogens – Based on monitoring conducted by the USFS/UCD and Myers 

(Myers and Kane 2010, Myers 2011), concentrations of indicator bacteria in the Allotments increased 

as a result of current cattle grazing on the Allotments. However, concentrations were below REC-1 

standards at all sites where ingestion of water was “reasonably possible”. In addition, E. coli

concentrations remained below the recommended maximum concentration at the primary contact 

recreation sample sites. Reduced grazing pressure in the Allotments under Alternative 1 is expected to 

result in indicator bacteria concentrations that are less than those seen under current management. 

Cattle are one factor in the contribution to water-borne pathogens, as other mammals also introduce 

these contaminants (Derlet and Carlson 2006, University of California 2000). Giardia, particularly, is 

well established in waters throughout the Sierra Nevada including non-grazed areas such as national 

parks. Elevated Cryptosporidium observed downstream of the Stanislaus National Forest does not 

appear to be originating on the Forest. Reduced grazing pressure in the Allotments under Alternative 

1 should result in decreased levels of pathogens when compared to current management, as cattle 

should be better spread throughout the Allotments.
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

176

It has been a common practice for decades to address the concern about consuming raw water in 

wildland streams by treating it in the field prior to drinking. Water filter technology is such that 

bacteria and other pathogens can be effectively filtered out of raw water, and boiling is a safe 

alternative as are other treatment methods such as chemical tablets (Recreational Equipment 

Incorporated 2007). Public education about this issue is long-standing and widespread. For example, 

the Stanislaus National Forest routinely informs the public to filter, boil or use other treatment 

methods before drinking water (USDA 2003, USDA 2006). This information is also on the forest 

website and numerous other websites. In addition, the California Central Valley Water Quality 

Control Board recommends treating raw water before drinking (California EPA Correspondence, 

project record). Mitigating the concern over drinking raw water by field-treatment has become an 

effective method of dealing with water-borne contaminants that may affect human health. The risk is 

essentially eliminated by treatment. The risk of contracting pathogenic disorders while washing with 

raw water or swimming in streams or lakes is, with prudent care, very low. That is, washing with 

filtered or boiled water and attempting to avoid ingesting water while swimming. 

Nutrients – Overall, concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous on the Allotments were low. There 

were some instances of nutrients exceeding the EPA recommended level of concern, but these seemed 

to be isolated events. All concentrations at the next sample point downstream of the elevated nutrient 

concentration site were well below EPA levels of concern. Nutrient concentrations are expected to be 

lower under Alternative 1 than seen under current management, as cattle should be better spread 

throughout the Allotments.

Water Temperature – Water temperatures in all three Allotments were generally cool and supported 

the beneficial use of the streams as cold water fisheries. This is expected to continue under 

Alternative 1 as cattle numbers are not increasing and anticipated reduced grazing pressures should 

prevent channel widening and reductions in shading. 

Taste and Odor – Current levels of grazing does not appear to have an effect on taste and odor of 

water. Therefore, the beneficial use of the water should be maintained under the reduced grazing 

pressure under Alternative 1. 

Indirect water quality effects related to sedimentation on aquatic habitat are the same as described 

under meadow hydrologic function. 

The potential for introduction of bacteria or other pathogens by cattle would continue under 

Alternative 1. This could affect waters downstream of the concentrated grazing areas and could last 

longer than the term of the permit. These contaminants are not expected to pose a risk to human 

health since normal treatment of wildland waters can effectively mitigate the hazard. 

No indirect effects of nutrient loading by cattle are expected. That would include elevated levels of 

undesirable plant growths downstream that, in addition to presence, may last longer than the term of 

the permit. Since increased nutrient concentrations occurred only at isolated locations under current 

management, off-site or later effects are not expected under Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Meadow Hydrologic Function

Ground disturbance from grazing that may affect meadow hydrologic function occupies an extremely 

small portion of all of the 6th level HUCs in this analysis. It occurs primarily at areas of cattle 

concentration; that is, meadows with streams. Cattle forage in other capable/suitable areas, but the 

ground disturbance is generally dispersed and not hydrologically connected to streams. Cattle rarely 

concentrate along streambanks outside of meadows because of higher stream and slope gradients, 

difficult footing and limited forage. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

177

Meadows with streams occupy less than 1% of the stream length in the assessed Allotments. While 

ground disturbance from cattle grazing in meadows is usually present to some degree (i.e., watering 

access, streamside trailing, stream crossings) it is essentially a site rather than watershed scale issue. 

Field surveys have not suggested the need of upgrading the risk of cumulative watershed effects in 

the affected watersheds, as meadow condition is generally stable or improving (with some noted 

exceptions). Cumulative downstream effects of stream sedimentation are negligible and largely 

undetectable. Any effect would be masked by other weather-related erosion events or management 

activities in the watershed. Minimization/mitigation of site specific effects, such as an effect at a 

specific meadow, would be implemented on a site specific basis following the Adaptive Management 

Strategy. 

Even though physical disturbance by cattle is extremely low at the watershed scale, the Equivalent 

Roaded Acre (ERA) methodology used to evaluate cumulative watershed effects (CWE) on 

vegetation management projects was completed to verify this. Appendix B of the Watershed Report 

describes the Cumulative Watershed Effects analysis, methodology, and results. The individual 

watershed ERA spreadsheets describe activities in each watershed, including, but not limited to, 

timber harvest, meadow restoration, prescribed fire, grazing in nearby Allotments, and recreation. 

Results of the ERA analysis confirmed that effects of cattle grazing at the watershed scale were low. 

ERA values for Alternative 1 ranged from a low of 0.02% in the Mill Creek – Middle Fork Stanislaus 

River watershed to a high of 0.47% in the Eagle Creek watershed. When the proposed action was 

combined with other current and future activities, previous activities, and constant features, the total 

ERA for the Eagle Creek watershed in 2013 was only 1.22%, compared to a TOC of 12-14%. The 

highest total ERA in the analysis watersheds in 2013 was in the Upper South Fork Stanislaus River 

watershed, with a value of 2.39%. This was also well below the 12-14% TOC. Overall, the 

cumulative amount of intensive land use in these watersheds, including grazing, is negligible to 

minimal. 

In summary of consequences of Alternative 1, although numerous meadows in the assessed 

Allotments are not at desired condition, the effects of the proposed action on meadow hydrologic 

function remains minimal. Historic grazing practices have deteriorated the conditions of many 

meadows to the point that complete exclusion of cattle would not result in an improvement of 

condition (Alternative 2, Meadow Hydrologic Function Direct Effects). Surveys indicate that most 

meadows are recovering from these more intense practices. This would continue under Alternative 1. 

Meadows in fair, poor, or very poor condition may reach desired condition with intervention where 

restoration is technically and economically feasible. These meadows would not likely reach desired 

condition without restoration. 

Special Aquatic Features

Cumulative effects of grazing on special aquatic features are similar to that described for meadow 

hydrologic function. Springs and fens make up such a small amount of the analysis watershed acreage 

that ground disturbance is essentially a site rather than a watershed scale issue. Trend has not been 

determined at most of the functional-at-risk special aquatic features. Once trend is determined, 

mitigations described in the Resource Conservation Measures for special aquatic features will be 

employed where needed to minimize effects.

Water Quality

Sediment – Cumulative effects of sedimentation from grazing have been described under meadow 

hydrologic function. 

Bacteria and Other Pathogens – Although cattle have been documented to contribute to fecal 

coliform, Giardia, etc., in streams, some other mammals are also contributors (Derlet and Carlson 

2006). Derlet and Carlson documented that while cattle contributed E. coli at all 15 sites sampled, 
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

178

pack stock contributed the same approximate amount of E. coli to streams as cattle at 12 of 15 sample 

sites. Other mammals known to contribute pathogenic materials to wildland waters include squirrels, 

coyotes, deer, skunks and humans (Atwill et al. 2002). Water quality monitoring in the Bell Meadow, 

Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek Allotments indicated that although cattle caused an increase in 

fecal coliform and E. coli concentrations, these concentrations were low in waters where ingestion of 

water was “reasonably possible”. 

Pathogens can move off-site, or downstream, and persist in the water environment. However, there 

are limits on accumulative effects of cattle waste products. Tate et al. (2006) found that about 95% of 

E. coli loads were retained within 0.1 meter of manure deposition sites in grassland settings. Water 

samples taken in August 2000 in the South Fork Stanislaus River downstream of the Herring Creek 

Allotment for a hydropower relicensing project showed <.1 organism per liter for both Giardia and 

Cryptosporidium (Pacific Gas and Electric Co. 2002). On-site attenuation of pathogens prior to 

reaching water plus annual snowmelt flushing and other factors such as very cold temperatures have 

the ability to moderate the amount of pathogens. 

Under Alternative 1, although cattle in the Allotments assessed are likely to continue to be part of the 

cumulative effect of pathogen introduction to waters in and downstream of the Allotments analyzed, 

there is expected to be a very low cumulative risk to human health due to attenuation factors and 

normal preventive care regarding use of wildland water. 

Nutrients – No cumulative effects are anticipated under Alternative 1, as nutrient concentrations were 

generally low throughout the watersheds under current management.

Water Temperature – No cumulative effects are anticipated under Alternative 1, as water 

temperatures were generally low throughout the watersheds under current management and no future 

activities in the watersheds (such as timber harvest) are anticipated to cause measureable increases in 

temperature.

Taste and Odor - No cumulative effects are anticipated under Alternative 1, as cattle did not appear to 

affect taste and odor for downstream water users under current management.

In summary, beneficial uses of water under Alternative 1 are expected to be maintained. The desired 

condition for water quality in the Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010) would also be maintained. 

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Meadow Hydrologic Function

Many meadows in the Allotments have been impacted by historic overgrazing, leading to lowered 

water tables and channels being disconnected from floodplains. PFC cannot be achieved in these 

meadows without active restoration projects. The no grazing alternative may help streambanks 

stabilize at a faster rate, may promote herbaceous vegetation recovery along the stream channels (but 

not on the meadow surface since the water table is lowered), and could help move channel form 

towards rejuvenation (channel stabilizes at a lower elevation). These processes are currently occurring 

in most meadows, but excluding all grazing may speed these recoveries. However, these small 

improvements in condition may take years to achieve. 

The Watershed Report describes how meadow hydrologic function under Alternative 2 varies from 

the existing condition. 

Aquatic habitat in meadows that have been altered by past degradation should improve gradually as 

natural recovery progresses. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

179

Special Aquatic Features

In the Bell Meadow Allotment, eight special aquatic features were determined to be functional – at 

risk (FAR). One of these sites, Bear Lake, was FAR because of the effects of the dam. This site would 

not be affected by this alternative – it would continue to move in an upward trend as the dam 

collapses and natural flow patterns are restored. Trend has not yet been determined at the other seven 

FAR sites. However, all of these sites have flow patterns that have been altered by hoof action. It is 

likely that removal of cattle from the Allotment would result in an upward trend. Sites already at PFC

would likely maintain that condition. 

In the Herring Creek Allotment, six special aquatic features were determined to be FAR. One of these 

sites, Herring Creek Reservoir shoreline, was FAR because of the effects of the dam (altered surface 

flow patterns). This site would not be affected by this alternative. It will have an upward trend only if 

the dam is removed and the area is restored, in which case there will no longer be a shoreline to 

assess. Trend has not yet been determined at the other five FAR sites. It is unknown if the rills seen in 

Bloomer Lake Fen can be attributed to cattle activity. Therefore, it is also unknown the extent to 

which removal of cattle would benefit the site. The other four sites have flow patterns that have been 

altered by hoof action. It is likely that removal of cattle from the Allotment would result in an upward 

trend at these locations. Sites already at PFC would likely maintain that condition. 

In the Eagle Meadow Allotment, seven special aquatic features were determined to be functional – at 

risk (FAR). Two fens in Eagle Meadow were identified as having depressions that may have been 

caused by cattle. An additional fen in Barn Meadow has a small channel that is likely natural and it is 

unknown if and to what extent cattle trailing is affecting this channel. Because the extent of cattle 

influence is not yet known at these sites, it is unknown the extent to which the removal of cattle 

would benefit these sites. The other four special aquatic features which are FAR have flow patterns 

that have been altered by hoof action. It is likely that removal of cattle from the Allotment would 

result in an upward trend at these locations. Sites already at PFC would likely maintain that condition.

Water Quality

Sediment – There would be no sedimentation from streambank disturbance by cattle once previously 

disturbed locations have healed over with vegetative cover. The period of recovery to suitable cover 

is variable depending on site specific current conditions within each meadow. 

Bacteria and Other Pathogens – The contribution of bacteria and pathogens from cattle would cease. 

Some level of these contaminants would remain in the streams from other sources such as horses and 

other native mammals (Derlet and Carlson 2006, Atwill et al. 2002). 

Nutrients – The contribution of cattle to nutrient loading would cease. Only a minimal change from 

present condition is expected as there have been only isolated areas with increased nutrient 

concentrations as a result of current management.

Water Temperature – No change from present condition is expected as cattle do not appear to have 

caused increases in water temperature under current management.

Taste and Odor – No change from present condition is expected as cattle do not appear to have caused 

taste and odor issues under current management.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

No adverse cumulative effects would occur since there would be no grazing. 
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

180

Alternative 3 (Current Management)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Meadow Hydrologic Function

Table 3.11-2 describes the hydrologic function of meadows under current management. 

Meadows in Good or Desired Condition – The meadows rated as good or at desired condition appear 

to be maintaining their condition under current management. That is, floodplain connectivity is 

functioning properly and channel form is at or near potential for the stream type. The water table 

remains in close enough proximity to the meadow surface over nearly all of the meadow to support a 

widespread herbaceous plant community of stable, deep rooted plants. Streambank stability is high. 

No degradation of meadow hydrologic function is expected under current management. 

Meadows in Fair Condition – The meadows rated as fair are either maintaining their condition or are 

slightly improving under current management. They have floodplain connectivity in most of the 

meadow and the channel form is approaching potential. The water table remains high enough to 

support a suitable plant community in most of the meadow. Streambank stability ranges from good to 

high. These meadows are functioning hydrologically as they should but are not yet at suitable 

conditions through all or nearly all of the meadow. Current management is not causing adverse 

effects as long as management practices are followed. Many of these sites would require restoration 

to move to good or desired condition. 

Meadows in Poor or Very Poor Condition – The meadows rated as poor or very poor are disconnected 

from their meadow surface floodplain and the channel morphology is altered from potential (i.e., 

largely gullied compared to a relatively small, narrow surface stream). The water table has lowered 

and the herbaceous plant community has been altered from deep-rooted plants to a mix of deep and 

shallower rooted ones, or dominated by the latter. Streambank stability is usually poor. However, the 

existing condition of the plants can usually withstand the present limited grazing and current 

management does not appear to be further degrading meadow hydrologic function, and stream 

channel condition will likely improve in the long term. There are two exceptions to this, one of which 

is at Hammill Canyon #1. There is some natural recovery potential at Hammill Canyon #1, 

particularly the establishment of vegetation along the point bars which would also improve bank 

stability. However, photo monitoring shows no indication of improvement under current 

management. The other exception is at Upper Willow Meadow, where photos taken in 2006 indicated 

no improvement in condition between 2006 and 2010. 

In summary, under current management the meadows in good or desired condition are maintaining 

their status. The meadows in fair condition will continue to maintain their condition or move toward 

desired condition unless some unforeseen disturbances or management problems occur. With two 

notable exceptions, the meadows in poor or very poor condition will see channel improvements in the 

long run but will not likely reach desired condition without a substantial investment in active 

restoration where intervention is technically and economically feasible. Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines limit streambank disturbance to 20% of stream reach. Meeting these requirements would 

help prevent/minimize permanent damage to streambanks and help maintain conditions in meadows 

that are at PFC and prevent conditions from worsening in meadows not at PFC. 

Indirect effects of livestock impacts to meadow hydrologic function are related to aquatic habitat in 

meadows. Aquatic habitat in meadows has been altered to varying degrees as a result of change in 

meadow hydrologic function initiated in the past. However, fish bearing streams (even in poor 

condition meadows) presently have adequate populations, and reproduction is occurring at a rate that 

appears to be maintaining population viability. Current management is not adversely affecting this 

indicator of habitat suitability.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

181

Special Aquatic Features

In the Bell Meadow Allotment, current management has resulted in eight special aquatic features 

which are at PFC and eight special aquatic features which are functional – at risk (FAR). Seven of the 

eight sites which are FAR are in this condition due to the effects of current grazing practices (the 

exception is Bear Lake which is affected by the dam). Trend has not been determined at these sites. 

To meet Forest Plan Direction requirements, these sites would be re-surveyed to determine trend. If 

the trend is upwards then grazing would continue and the site would be monitored to ensure that the 

site is moving towards PFC. If the trend is downwards or the site becomes non-functional then 

grazing would need to be excluded or otherwise modified so that the site moves towards PFC. Fence

was installed around the two fen complexes at Crab Meadow as part of the Gooseberry EA. Sites that 

are currently at PFC would likely maintain this condition under current management. 

In the Eagle Meadow Allotment, current management has resulted in six special aquatic features 

which are at PFC and seven special aquatic features which are FAR. Trend has not been determined 

at the sites which are FAR. To meet Forest Plan Direction requirements, these sites would be resurveyed to determine trend. If the trend is upwards then grazing would continue and the site would 

be monitored to ensure that the site is moving towards PFC. If the trend is downwards or the site 

becomes non-functional then grazing would need to be excluded or otherwise modified so that the site 

moves towards PFC. Sites that are currently at PFC would likely maintain this condition under 

current management. 

In the Herring Creek Allotment, current management has resulted in eleven special aquatic features 

which are at PFC and six special aquatic features which are FAR. Four of the six sites which are FAR 

are in this condition due to the effects of current grazing practices (the exceptions are at Herring 

Creek Reservoir shoreline which is affected by the dam and Bloomer Lake Fen where the cause of 

rilling was uncertain). Trend has not been determined at these sites. To meet Forest Plan Direction

requirements, these sites would be re-surveyed to determine trend. If the trend is upwards then 

grazing would continue and the site would be monitored to ensure that the site is moving towards 

PFC. If the trend is downwards or the site becomes non-functional then grazing would need to be 

excluded or otherwise modified so that the site moves towards PFC. Sites that are currently at PFC 

would likely maintain this condition under current management. 

Water Quality

Sediment – Sediment deposition and accumulation in meadow streams is expected to remain low 

under current management as evidenced by suitable existing condition. Fine sediment in pool tails is 

minimal, usually 10% or less on a stream reach basis. All age classes of fish are present in fish 

bearing streams, indicating reproduction frequency that supports a viable population. 

Bacteria and Other Pathogens – Based on monitoring conducted by the USFS/UCD and Myers 

(Myers and Kane 2010, Myers 2011), concentrations of indicator bacteria in the Allotments increased 

as a result of current management. However, concentrations were below REC-1 standards at all sites 

where ingestion of water was “reasonably possible”. In addition, E. coli concentrations remained 

below the recommended maximum concentration at the primary contact recreation sample sites. 

Cattle are one factor in the contribution to water-borne pathogens, as other mammals also introduce 

these contaminants (Derlet and Carlson 2006, University of California 2000). Giardia, particularly, is 

well established in waters throughout the Sierra Nevada including non-grazed areas such as national 

parks. According to the District Engineer at the Tuolumne Utilities District, the local water supply is 

not being infected with Cryptosporidium originating on the Stanislaus National Forest (Scesa 2012).

It has been a common practice for decades to address the concern about consuming raw water in 

wildland streams by treating it in the field prior to drinking. Water filter technology is such that 

bacteria and other pathogens can be effectively filtered out of raw water, and boiling is a safe 
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

182

alternative as are other treatment methods such as chemical tablets (Recreation Eqiupment 

Incorporated 2007). Public education about this issue is long-standing and widespread. For example, 

the Stanislaus National Forest routinely informs the public to filter, boil or use other treatment 

methods before drinking water (USDA 2003, USDA 2006). This information is also on the forest 

website and numerous other websites. In addition, the California Central Valley Water Quality 

Control Board recommends treating raw water before drinking (California EPA Correspondence, 

project record). Mitigating the concern over drinking raw water by field-treatment has become an 

effective method of dealing with water-borne contaminants that may affect human health. The risk is 

essentially eliminated by treatment. The risk of contracting pathogenic disorders while washing with 

raw water or swimming in streams or lakes is, with prudent care, very low. That is, washing with 

filtered or boiled water and attempting to avoid ingesting water while swimming. 

Nutrients – Overall, concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous on the Allotments were low. There 

were some instances of nutrients exceeding the EPA recommended level of concern, but these seemed 

to be isolated events. All concentrations at the next sample point downstream of the elevated nutrient 

concentration site were well below EPA levels of concern.

Water Temperature – Water temperatures in all three Allotments were generally cool and supported 

the beneficial use of the streams as cold water fisheries. This is expected to continue under 

Alternative 3.

Taste and Odor – Current levels of grazing does not appear to have an effect on taste and odor of 

water. Therefore, continuation of current management is not anticipated to create a taste and odor 

issue. 

Indirect water quality effects related to sedimentation on aquatic habitat are the same as described 

under meadow hydrologic function. 

The potential for introduction of bacteria or other pathogens by cattle would continue under current 

management. This could affect waters downstream of the concentrated grazing areas and could last 

longer than the term of the permit. These contaminants are not expected to pose a risk to human 

health since normal treatment of wildland waters can effectively mitigate the hazard. 

No indirect effects of nutrient loading by cattle are expected. That would include elevated levels of 

undesirable plant growths downstream that, in addition to presence, may last longer than the term of 

the permit. Since increased nutrient concentrations occurred only at isolated locations, off-site or later 

effects are not expected under current management. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Meadow Hydrologic Function

Cumulative effects of grazing on meadow hydrologic function are similar to those described under 

Alternative 1. 

Results of the ERA analysis confirmed that effects of cattle grazing at the watershed scale were low. 

ERA values for Alternative 3 ranged from a low of 0.00% in the Mill Creek – Middle Fork Stanislaus 

River watershed (no activities in this watershed because there would be no Cascade addition) to a 

high of 0.45% in the Eagle Creek watershed. When the proposed action was combined with other 

current and future activities, previous activities, and constant features, the total ERA for the Eagle 

Creek watershed in 2013 was only 1.20%, compared to a TOC of 12-14%. The highest total ERA in 

the analysis watersheds in 2013 was in the Upper South Fork Stanislaus River watershed, with a 

value of 2.38%. This was also well below the 12-14% TOC. Overall, the cumulative amount of 

intensive land use in these watersheds, including grazing, is negligible to minimal. 

In summary of consequences of current management, although numerous meadows in the assessed 

Allotments are not at desired condition, the effects of current management on meadow hydrologic 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

183

function remains minimal. Historic grazing practices have deteriorated the conditions of many 

meadows to the point that complete exclusion of cattle would not result in an improvement of 

condition (Alternative 2, Meadow Hydrologic Function Direct Effects). Surveys indicate that most 

meadows are recovering from these more intense practices. This would continue under Alternative 3. 

Meadows in fair, poor, or very poor condition may reach desired condition with intervention where 

restoration is technically and economically feasible. These meadows would not likely reach desired 

condition without restoration. 

Special Aquatic Features

Cumulative effects of grazing on special aquatic features under current management are similar to 

that described under Alternative 1. Springs and fens make up such a small amount of the analysis 

watershed areas that ground disturbance is essentially a site rather than a watershed scale issue. Trend 

has not been determined at most of the functional-at-risk special aquatic features. Once trend is 

determined, mitigations described in the Resource Conservation Measures for special aquatic features 

will be employed where needed to minimize effects and meet Forest Plan Direction requirements.

Water Quality

Cumulative effects of current management on sediment, nutrients, bacteria and pathogens, water 

temperature, and taste and odor are similar to that described under Alternative 1. 

Beneficial uses of water under Alternative 3 are expected to be maintained. The desired condition for 

water quality in the Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010) would also be maintained. 

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Meadow Hydrologic Function

In the Bell Meadow Allotment, the hydrologic function of meadows under Alternative 4 would be 

similar to that seen under Alternative 1. The primary difference between these alternatives is that 

livestock numbers would be reduced by 20% under Alternative 4. 

In the Eagle Meadow Allotment, the hydrologic function of meadows under Alternative 4 would be 

similar to that seen under Alternative 1. The primary difference between these alternatives is that 

livestock numbers would be reduced by 20% under Alternative 4 to account for not adding 

McCormick Pocket and the Niagara addition to the Allotment. In addition, three meadows would 

have exclusions.

In the Herring Creek Allotment, numerous meadows would be excluded from grazing. The Cascade

addition would not be added to the Allotment. To account for this reduced forage, livestock numbers 

would be reduced by 50%. The hydrologic function of grazed meadows would be similar to that seen 

under Alternative 1. The hydrologic function of excluded meadows would be similar to that seen 

under Alternative 2. 

The Watershed Report describes how Alternative 4 varies from the existing condition and monitoring 

recommendations for each meadow. 

In summary, under Alternative 4 the meadows in good or desired condition will continue to maintain 

their status. The meadows in fair condition will either maintain their condition or slightly improve. 

The meadows in poor or very poor condition may see minor channel improvements in the long run 

but will not likely reach desired condition without a substantial investment in active restoration where 

intervention is technically and economically feasible. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines limit 

streambank disturbance to 20% of stream reach. Meeting these requirements would help 

prevent/minimize permanent damage to streambanks and help maintain conditions in meadows that 

are at PFC and prevent conditions from worsening in meadows not at PFC. 
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

184

Indirect effects of livestock impacts to meadow hydrologic function are related to aquatic habitat in 

meadows. Aquatic habitat in meadows has been altered to varying degrees as a result of change in 

meadow hydrologic function initiated in the past. However, fish bearing streams (even in poor 

condition meadows) presently have adequate populations, and reproduction is occurring at a rate that 

appears to be maintaining population viability. Current management is not adversely affecting this 

indicator of habitat suitability. Therefore, management proposed under Alternative 4 is not 

anticipated to adversely affect this indicator.

SPECIAL AQUATIC FEATURES

In the Bell Meadow Allotment, five special aquatic features which are most at risk to grazing impacts 

would be excluded from grazing. This includes Gianelli #3, Crab Meadow Fen Complex #1, Crab 

Meadow Fen Complex #2, and two springs west of Crab meadow. In addition, livestock numbers on 

the Allotment would be reduced by 20%. This may help Gianelli #1 and Crab Meadow Seep, both 

FAR, move towards PFC. To meet management requirements, these sites will be re-surveyed to 

determine trend. If the trend is upwards then grazing would continue and the sites would be 

monitored. If the trend is downwards or the sites become non-functional then grazing would be 

excluded. Bear Lake shoreline is already moving towards PFC as the dam collapses. The reduction in 

grazing pressure as a result of decreasing numbers on the Allotment is anticipated to help maintain 

PFC at sites which are currently already at PFC.

In the Eagle Meadow Allotment, none of the thirteen special aquatic features surveyed would be 

excluded from grazing. The condition of these special aquatic features would be similar to that 

described under Alternative 1. The primary difference between these alternatives is that livestock 

numbers would be reduced by 20% under Alternative 4 to account for not adding McCormick Pocket 

and the Niagara addition to the Allotment. As described under Alternative 1, no trend was determined 

at the seven special aquatic features in the Allotment that were FAR. To meet management 

requirements, these sites will be re-surveyed to determine trend. If the trend is upwards then grazing 

would continue and the site would be monitored. If the trend is downwards or the site becomes nonfunctional then grazing would be excluded. 

In the Herring Creek Allotment, ten of seventeen surveyed special aquatic features would be excluded 

from grazing. This includes Bloomer Lake shoreline and fen, both springs at Wire Corral, Bluff 

Meadow fen, Willow Meadow spring, and Bull Run spring. It also includes two springs and one fen 

in the Cascade addition, which would not be added to the Allotment under Alternative 4. Of the seven 

special aquatic features which would not be excluded from grazing under Alternative 4, four are 

currently at PFC. This condition would likely be maintained because livestock numbers would be 

reduced by 50% to account for reduced forage due to not adding the Cascade addition and excluding a 

large portion of the upper Allotment. Three sites which are FAR would not be excluded from grazing. 

Herring Creek Reservoir has surface flow patterns which are altered by the dam. Cattle are not 

currently affecting this site, nor are they anticipated to affect the site under Alternative 4. The two 

fens in Lower Punch Bowl have evidence of hoof action which has altered flow patterns. Reduced 

numbers in the Allotment could help move these sites from FAR towards PFC. No trend has yet been 

determined at these sites. However, to meet management requirements, these sites will be re-surveyed 

to determine trend. If the trend is upwards then grazing would continue and the site would be 

monitored. If the trend is downwards or the site becomes non-functional then grazing would be 

excluded. 

Water Quality

The direct and indirect effects of this alternative on water quality are similar to that described under 

Alternative 1. Both Alternative 4 and Alternative 1 would result in reduced grazing pressures and 

resultant improvements in water quality over the current condition. However, there is one primary 

difference between the two alternatives. Less acreage is available for grazing under Alternative 4. As 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

185

such, these ungrazed areas would likely have lower concentrations of sediment, bacteria and 

pathogens, and nutrients than if they were grazed. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Meadow Hydrologic Function

Cumulative effects of grazing on meadow hydrologic function are similar to those described under 

Alternative 1. 

Results of the ERA analysis confirmed that effects of cattle grazing at the watershed scale were low. 

ERA values for Alternative 4 ranged from a low of 0.00% in the Mill Creek – Middle Fork Stanislaus 

River watershed (no activities in this watershed because there would be no Cascade addition) to a 

high of 0.44% in the Eagle Creek watershed. When the proposed action was combined with other 

current and future activities, previous activities, and constant features, the total ERA for the Eagle 

Creek watershed in 2013 was only 1.19%, compared to a TOC of 12-14%. The highest total ERA in 

the analysis watersheds in 2013 was in the Upper South Fork Stanislaus River watershed, with a 

value of 2.15%. This was also well below the 12-14% TOC. Overall, the cumulative amount of 

intensive land use in these watersheds, including grazing, is negligible to minimal. 

In summary of consequences of Alternative 4, although numerous meadows in the assessed 

Allotments are not at desired condition, the effects of current management on meadow hydrologic 

function remain minimal. Historic grazing practices have deteriorated the conditions of many 

meadows to the point that complete exclusion of cattle would not result in an improvement of 

condition. Surveys indicate that most meadows are recovering from these more intense practices. This 

would continue under Alternative 4. Meadows in fair, poor, or very poor condition may reach desired 

condition with intervention where restoration is technically and economically feasible. These 

meadows would not likely reach desired condition without restoration.

Special Aquatic Features

Cumulative effects of grazing on special aquatic features under Alternative 4 are similar to that 

described under Alternative 1. Springs and fens make up such a small amount of the analysis 

watershed areas that ground disturbance is essentially a site rather than a watershed scale issue. Trend 

has not been determined at most of the functional-at-risk special aquatic features. Once trend is 

determined, mitigations in the adaptive management strategy will be employed to minimize effects.

Water Quality

Cumulative effects of Alternative 4 on sediment, nutrients, bacteria and pathogens, water 

temperature, and taste and odor are similar to that described under Alternative 1. 

Beneficial uses of water under Alternative 4 are expected to be maintained. The desired condition for 

water quality in the Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010) would also be maintained. 

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

Under Alternatives 1, the meadows in good or desired condition will continue to maintain their status. 

The meadows in fair condition will either maintain their condition or slightly improve. The meadows 

in poor or very poor condition may see minor channel improvements in the long run but will not 

likely reach desired condition without a substantial investment in active restoration where 

intervention is technically and economically feasible. 

Under Alternative 2, the exclusion of grazing may help streambanks stabilize at a faster rate, may 

promote herbaceous vegetation recovery along the stream channels, and could help the channel move 

towards rejuvenation. However, these improvements may take years to achieve and active restoration 

projects would be required in many meadows to achieve PFC. 
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

186

Under Alternative 3, the meadows in good or desired condition will maintain their status. The 

meadows in fair condition will continue to maintain their condition or move toward desired condition 

unless some unforeseen disturbances or management problems occur. With two notable exceptions 

(Hammill Canyon Meadow #1 and Upper Willow Meadow), the meadows in poor or very poor 

condition will see channel improvements in the long run but will not likely reach desired condition 

without a substantial investment in active restoration where intervention is technically and 

economically feasible. 

Under Alternative 4, the meadows excluded from grazing would achieve the same conditions 

described under Alternative 2. The meadows not excluded from grazing would achieve conditions 

similar to those described under Alternative 1. 

SPECIAL AQUATIC FEATURES

Under Alternative 1, addition areas should relieve grazing pressure in Eagle Meadow and Herring 

Creek Allotments, which could assist in maintaining PFC at special aquatic features that are currently 

at PFC and could help move sites which are FAR towards PFC. In Bell Meadow, improvements may 

be seen in the Round subunit but no change is anticipated in the other units. 

Under Alternative 2, no grazing-related impacts to special aquatic features would occur. FAR special 

aquatic features would likely result in an upward trend. Sites already at PFC would likely maintain 

that condition. 

Under Alternative 3, sites that are currently at PFC would likely maintain this condition. With few 

exceptions, sites which are FAR are in this condition due to the effects of current grazing practices. 

Existing trends (to be determined) would likely continue. 

Under Alternative 4, the reduction in grazing pressure as a result of decreasing numbers is anticipated 

to help maintain PFC at sites which are currently at PFC and could help move FAR sites towards

PFC.

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, resource conservation measures and Standards and Guidelines would 

exclude or otherwise modify sites with a downward trend or that become non-functional. Under 

Alternative 3, sites that are not meeting desired conditions may still be excluded or modified if it is 

determined that the trend is downward or the site becomes non-functional. 

WATER QUALITY

Under Alternative 1, sediment deposition and accumulation in meadow streams, indicator bacteria 

and pathogen concentrations, and nutrient concentrations are expected to be less than under current 

management. No change in water temperature or taste and odor are anticipated.

Under Alternative 2, no livestock caused impacts to water quality would occur. Water quality may 

still be impacted by other activities in the project area.

Under Alternative 3, sediment deposition and accumulation in meadow streams is expected to remain 

low. Indicator bacteria and pathogen concentrations should remain below the recommended 

maximum concentration. Nutrient concentrations are expected to remain below EPA levels of 

concern. No change in water temperature or taste and odor are anticipated. 

Under Alternative 4, sediment deposition and accumulation in meadow streams, indicator bacteria 

and pathogen concentrations, and nutrient concentrations are expected to be less than under current 

management. Ungrazed (excluded) areas would likely have lower concentrations of sediment, 

bacteria and pathogens, and nutrients. No change in water temperature or taste and odor are 

anticipated.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

187

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

FOREST PLAN DIRECTION STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

The following Standards and Guidelines associated with Riparian Conservation Objectives are 

applicable related to protection of water quality:

 Water temperature. The action alternatives will not adversely affect water temperature.

 Stream channel condition. Resource conservation measures, monitoring, and/or site-specific 

restoration actions are described for meadow streams that are not at PFC. 

 Streambank disturbance. BMP monitoring will continue to be conducted under any action 

alternative to ensure that the 20% streambank disturbance standard is not exceeded. If 

exceedances occur, corrective actions will be taken. 

 Riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation condition was assessed using the meadow hydrologic 

function protocol. Resource conservation measures, monitoring, and/or site-specific restoration 

actions are described for each meadow.

 Meadow hydrologic function. The hydrologic function f meadows were assessed for this project. 

Recommendations to move sites towards PFC were made.

 Fen protection. During project analysis, fens were surveyed and mapped and protective measures 

were developed. For sites where fens were FAR and trend was not yet determined, resource 

conservation measures were developed that will be applied as needed once trend is known.

 Livestock gathering facilities. Livestock gathering facilities were analyzed to determine if sites 

could be relocated outside of meadows and riparian areas.

 Herbaceous forage utilization. BMP monitoring will continue to be conducted under any action 

alternative to ensure that utilization standards are not exceeded. If exceedances occur, corrective 

actions will be taken. 

 Woody riparian vegetation utilization. BMP monitoring will continue to be conducted under any 

action alternative to ensure that woody riparian utilization standards are not exceeded. If 

exceedances occur, corrective actions will be taken. 

BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER

All alternatives are expected to result in maintenance of the applicable beneficial uses of water in the 

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Central Valley Water Quality Control 

Board (California EPA 2011). Bacteria, biostimulatory substances, sediment, taste and odor, and 

water temperature are not expected to be adversely altered. Domestic and municipal water supplies 

are not adversely affected by the proposed action or alternatives. Recreational contact and noncontact waters are suitable for human use. Cold freshwater habitat and wildlife habitat are not 

adversely affected by the proposed action or alternatives.

WATER QUALITY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) 

Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 comply with the intent and procedural requirements of BMPs (USDA 2011b, 

USDA 2012b). If any of those alternatives is implemented, or a combination thereof, applicable 

BMPs would be followed. BMPs applicable to livestock grazing would not be implemented under 

Alternative 2 (No Action), as grazing would not occur under this alternative. 
Chapter 3.11 Stanislaus

Watershed National Forest

188
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

189

3.12 WILDERNESS

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

The Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577) defines the concept of wilderness and the unique values that 

wilderness areas should preserve. The Act states that designated wilderness shall be administered 

“...for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired 

for future use and enjoyment as wilderness and so as to provide for the protection of those areas, 

[and] the preservation of their wilderness character...” (Sec. 2(a)). The Act further requires that, 

“except as otherwise provided in this Act, each agency administering any area designated as 

wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so 

administer such area for other purposes for which it may have been established so as to preserve its 

wilderness character” (Sec. 4(b)). 

Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010) directs forest staff to “manage livestock grazing to preserve the 

characteristics and values of wilderness”. The Forest Plan Direction further requires that range 

managers “strongly discourage the use of cowbells on commercial grazing Allotments. [And] explore 

methods for reducing or eliminating the use of cowbells in cooperation with the permittees during 

development of annual operating plans.” Forest Plan Direction also sets range management objectives 

by Opportunity Class within the Emigrant Wilderness. The popular destination lakes within the 

Emigrant are in Opportunity Class IV areas which have the following objectives:

 Ecosystems are unaffected by human manipulation and influences so that plants and animals 

develop and respond to natural forces. Localized human uses may have limited effects in few 

areas. 

 Human influences on aquatic life hydrologic processes, soils (and) vegetation are minimal.

 The opportunity for solitude is low to outstanding. 

 The imprint of human influences is substantially unnoticeable. 

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Wilderness

Section 4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act states: “the grazing of livestock, where established prior to 

September 3, 1964, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are 

deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture.”

For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the presence of cattle will degrade the natural 

quality of wilderness character to an extent proportional to the number of cows present and acres 

grazed.

Data Sources

1. Forest Plan

2. Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577) 

3. GIS

4. Forest Service Manual 2300 Recreation (USDA 2008) 

WildernessIndicators

The four qualities that represent wilderness character are untrammeled, undeveloped, natural and, 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. 
Chapter 3.12 Stanislaus

Wilderness National Forest

190

WildernessMethodology by Action

For the purpose of this analysis the qualities listed above serve as the four analysis elements for 

evaluating the effects to wilderness.

Affected Environment

Four range Allotments cover 31,930 acres (28%) of the 112,911 acre Emigrant Wilderness, including 

8,976 acres of primary and secondary range. The alternatives under consideration in this EIS include 

2,318 acres of the Bell Meadow Allotment and 1,453 acres of the Herring Creek Allotment within the 

Emigrant Wilderness.

Livestock grazing in the wilderness portions of the Bell Meadow and Herring Creek Allotments was 

established prior to wilderness designation. The popularity of wilderness recreation destinations 

within these Allotments developed in the context of existing grazing use. 

Most of the wilderness recreation use in both of the Allotments occurs from early July through early 

September. Recreation use does occur outside of the peak times, but visitation is considerably lower 

due to weather, access, school schedules, and the start of deer season.

BELL MEADOW ALLOTMENT

The eastern portion of the Bell Meadow Allotment includes a portion of the western Emigrant 

Wilderness. Three Wilderness trailheads are located within this Allotment; Crabtree, Gianelli and 

Bell Meadow. Crabtree Trailhead is the largest, most highly developed and most heavily used of all 

wilderness trailheads on the Stanislaus National Forest. Gianelli is the fourth most heavily used 

trailhead. The Aspen Meadow Pack Station, under an Outfitter and Guide Special Use Permit, 

provides horseback riding on a network of trails that are within this Allotment as well as pack and 

saddle service to Wilderness visitors. Currently cattle are trucked to and off loaded at temporary 

corrals just to the east of the Aspen Meadow Pack Station.

Recreation within the Emigrant Wilderness is concentrated at Camp, Bear and Grouse Lakes, all of 

which lie within the eastern portion of the Allotment. These easily accessible wilderness destinations 

are among the most heavily visited in the Emigrant Wilderness. Access to these popular areas is via 

trails which are all heavily used by both hikers and equestrian riders, including pack station clients. 

Wilderness visitors often complain about cattle. The most common complaints are about the manure, 

biophysical effects such as post holing in wet ground both on and off trail and the noise of cowbells.

EAGLE MEADOW ALLOTMENT

Eagle Meadow Trailhead serves a small number of Emigrant Wilderness visitors heading south about 

21⁄2 miles to the wilderness boundary at Eagle Pass and down into Cooper Meadow. None of the 

Allotment lies within the Emigrant Wilderness.

HERRING CREEK ALLOTMENT

Two undeveloped Wilderness trailheads are located within this Allotment; Waterhouse Lake and 

Coyote Meadows. Both provide access to destinations in the Emigrant Wilderness. Waterhouse Lake, 

accessible via a primitive route, is a popular wilderness destination. Adele Lake, a small lake just east 

of Waterhouse Lake, receives fewer visitors.

Environmental Consequences

Four qualities of wilderness character were used to analyze the effects of the alternatives on 

wilderness. These qualities were selected as the most appropriate elements for analysis of effects of 

the alternatives, based on the Wilderness Act as described below. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

191

WILDERNESSCHARACTER

The Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577) defines the concept of wilderness and the unique values that 

wilderness areas should preserve. The Act states that designated wilderness shall be administered 

“...for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired 

for future use and enjoyment as wilderness and so as to provide for the protection of those areas, 

[and] the preservation of their wilderness character...” (Sec. 2(a)). The Act further requires that, 

“except as otherwise provided in this Act, each agency administering any area designated as 

wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so 

administer such area for other purposes for which it may have been established so as to preserve its 

wilderness character” (Sec. 4(b)). 

In 2005, a multidisciplinary team of scientists and managers led by the interagency Aldo Leopold 

Wilderness Research Institute noted that preservation of wilderness character is the primary 

responsibility mandated by the Act, but that neither the Act itself, legislative history, nor any 

subsequent legislation has clearly defined it (Landres et al., 2005). The Wilderness Act does,

however, refer to the unique values of Wilderness when it defines Wilderness in Section 2(c): 

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the 

landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of 

wilderness if further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining 

its primeval character and influence, without permanent human improvements or human 

habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which 

(1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint 

of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is 

of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; 

and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, 

scenic or historical value. 

From this definition, Landres et al. (2005) identified four qualities that represent wilderness character. 

These qualities, also serve as the four analysis elements for evaluating the effects to wilderness of the 

four alternatives under consideration in this EIS: 

 Untrammeled: Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or 

manipulation. 

 Undeveloped: Wilderness is essentially without permanent human improvements or modern 

civilization. 

 Natural: Wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern 

civilization.

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation: 

Wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for people to experience solitude or primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation, including the values of inspiration and physical and mental challenge. 

In general, wilderness character is degraded when any of these four qualities is reduced without a 

corresponding improvement in another quality. For example, building a fence inside of wilderness to 

separate cows from Yosemite toad habitat may improve the natural character by protecting habitat, 

but it will also degrade the undeveloped quality of wilderness by creating another human 

improvement. Wilderness specialists are responsible for evaluating the balance of positive and 

negative changes to wilderness character to determine the net effect.

For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the presence of cattle will degrade the natural 

quality of wilderness character to an extent proportional to the number of cows present and acres 

grazed. As Landres et al note in their interagency technical guide to monitoring wilderness character:
Chapter 3.12 Stanislaus

Wilderness National Forest

192

“Grazing Allotments introduce large nonindigenous herbivores such as domestic cattle, 

horses, and sheep in a wilderness. By their grazing and trampling activities, these 

nonindigenous herbivores may significantly diminish the natural quality of wilderness 

character by directly altering habitat for wildlife, reducing populations of rare or at-risk 

plants, introducing disease and other pathogens, increasing soil erosion, and altering 

hydrologic flow regimes (Belsky and Blumenthal 1997, Belsky and others 1999, Fleischner 

1994). A decrease over time in the number of acres of grazing Allotments with authorized use 

in a wilderness would indicate an increase in the natural quality. Conversely, an increase over 

time of the number of acres of grazing Allotments with authorized use would indicate a 

decrease in the natural quality.” (Landres et al, 2009)

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

In general, this alternative is likely to have negative effects on the natural and outstanding 

opportunities for solitude qualities of wilderness character. Naturalness may be degraded through the 

continued effects of grazing on the various natural systems that comprise the wilderness resource 

even if these effects do not exceed range management standards. Outstanding opportunities for 

solitude could be degraded through the continued presence of cattle and cow bells in locations that are 

also commonly used by wilderness visitors for hiking and camping. 

The untrammeled and undeveloped qualities will probably not be further impacted because no new 

range developments or ecological manipulations are proposed within the wilderness portions of the 

Allotments.

Bell Meadow Allotment

The proposed action will make minor adjustments to the Bell Meadow Allotment boundary resulting 

in a small net decrease (about 200 acres) to the portion of the Allotment within the Emigrant 

Wilderness. This change is not expected to significantly alter the effect of grazing on wilderness 

character. While the boundary adjustments should help simplify prevention of cattle drift further into 

the wilderness, grazing will still continue to degrade the natural character of wilderness.

The outstanding opportunities for solitude quality of wilderness character will also continue to be 

degraded due to the ongoing presence of cattle and the sound of cowbells in the areas of the western 

Emigrant Wilderness. Destinations, such as Camp Lake, Bear Lake, and Grouse Lake are some of the 

most heavily visited portions of the Emigrant. The drift of cattle outside of the Allotment boundary 

into the vicinity of Powell Lake and Lake Valley that was reported on three occasions in 2009 is also 

likely to continue unless the entire Allotment boundary is located on easily identifiable terrain 

features such as ridgelines.

The untrammeled and undeveloped qualities will probably not be further impacted because no new 

range developments or ecological manipulations are proposed within the wilderness portions of the 

Allotments.

Eagle Meadow Allotment

No effects. No portion of the Allotment is within the Emigrant Wilderness. 

Herring Creek Allotment

The proposed action alternative will adjust the Herring Creek Allotment boundary to remove most of 

the portion that is currently within the Emigrant Wilderness. However, the portion that will be 

removed is not used by cows due to the inaccessibility of the terrain and lack of forage, so no change 

in effect to wilderness character is expected. The only area of the Allotment that will remain inside 

wilderness is the about 100-acre portion that cows may actually graze. As a result, some degradation 

of natural character is possible, as is the likely drifting of cows further into the Emigrant Wilderness 

toward Horse and Cow Meadow. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

193

Effects to naturalness could be reduced by aligning the Allotment boundary with the ridgeline that 

separates the Emigrant Wilderness from the general forest. Aligning the Allotment boundary with the 

terrain is an effective method of reducing livestock drift.

The area of the Allotment that would remain inside wilderness is lightly used by wilderness visitors, 

with the possible exception of hunters. Effects on solitude and primitive or unconfined recreation are 

likely low.

The untrammeled and undeveloped qualities will probably not be further impacted because no new 

range developments or ecological manipulations are proposed within the wilderness portions of the 

Allotments.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude will continue to be degraded as they have been 

each summer that grazing has occurred in the wilderness portions of the Allotments. There are no 

other reasonably foreseeable projects within wilderness that would affect wilderness character.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

This alternative would improve the undeveloped, natural, and outstanding opportunities elements of 

wilderness character. Ending cattle grazing would allow the removal of all range improvements 

including fencing. Cattle would no longer impact natural systems and processes, and wilderness 

visitors would no longer encounter cows on the trail or in camp. Visitors also would not hear 

cowbells while in the wilderness.

Bell Meadow Allotment

This alternative would significantly improve the undeveloped, natural, and outstanding opportunities 

elements of wilderness character. Cattle would no longer be present within the Emigrant Wilderness, 

including the popular public destinations of Camp, Bear, and Grouse Lakes. As a result, the 

outstanding opportunities for solitude quality of wilderness character would improve substantially. 

The undeveloped quality would improve due to the removal of range fencing and gates within the 

wilderness. Naturalness would also improve over time as the local ecology recovered from previous 

grazing effects.

Eagle Meadow Allotment

The no action alternative would yield a small positive effect to the undeveloped quality of wilderness 

by allowing the removal of fencing on the wilderness boundary on the Eagle Pass trail. The natural, 

untrammeled, and solitude/primitive and unconfined recreation elements of wilderness character 

would not be substantially altered since grazing in the Allotment does not occur within the Emigrant 

Wilderness. 

Herring Creek Allotment

This alternative would result in minor improvements to the undeveloped, natural, and outstanding 

opportunities elements of wilderness character. Grazing in this Allotment only occurs in a small 

portion (about 100 acres) of the Emigrant Wilderness. Removal of cows from this area would permit 

the elimination of any range structures such as fencing, allow the gradual improvement of natural 

conditions, and reduce the potential for the interaction between wilderness visitors and cows or 

cowbells.
Chapter 3.12 Stanislaus

Wilderness National Forest

194

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

There would be no negative cumulative effects to wilderness character from the removal of cows 

from the Allotments since the source of impacts would no longer be present. There are no other 

reasonably foreseeable projects within wilderness that would affect wilderness character.

Alternative 3 (Current Management)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Like Alternative 1, the current management alternative is likely to have negative effects on the natural 

and outstanding opportunities for solitude qualities of wilderness character. Naturalness may be 

degraded through the continued effects of grazing on the various natural systems that comprise the 

wilderness resource even if these effects do not exceed range management standards. Outstanding 

opportunities for solitude could be degraded through the continued presence of cattle and cowbells in 

locations that are also commonly used by wilderness visitors for hiking and camping. 

The untrammeled and undeveloped qualities will probably not be further impacted because no new 

range developments or ecological manipulations are proposed within the wilderness portions of the 

Allotments.

Bell Meadow Allotment

The natural quality of wilderness character may be degraded through the continued effects of grazing 

on the various natural systems that comprise the wilderness resource even if these effects do not 

exceed range management standards. The drift of cattle outside of the Allotment boundary into the 

vicinity of Powell Lake and Lake Valley that was reported on three occasions in 2009 is also likely to 

continue unless the entire Allotment boundary is located on easily identifiable terrain features such as 

ridgelines. 

The outstanding opportunities for solitude quality of wilderness character will also continue to be 

degraded due to the ongoing presence of cattle and the sound of cowbells in the areas of the western 

Emigrant Wilderness. Destinations, such as Camp Lake, Bear Lake, and Grouse Lake are some of the 

most heavily visited portions of the Emigrant. Solitude will also likely continue to be degraded in the 

vicinity of Chewing Gum and Powell Lakes due to cows straying outside of the Allotment. 

The untrammeled and undeveloped qualities will probably not be further impacted because no new 

range developments or ecological manipulations are proposed within the wilderness portions of the 

Allotments.

Eagle Meadow Allotment

No effects. No portion of the Allotment is within the Emigrant Wilderness. 

Herring Creek Allotment

The current management alternative is likely to have minor negative effects on the natural quality of 

wilderness character. Naturalness may be degraded through the continued effects of grazing on the 

various natural systems that comprise the wilderness resource even if these effects do not exceed 

range management standards. Effects will probably be minimal due to the small portion (about 100 

acres) of the Allotment within the Emigrant Wilderness that is actually grazed.

The Waterhouse Lake area of the Allotment is heavily used by wilderness visitors. However, cattle do 

not graze near the lake due to inaccessible terrain and little forage. With the possible exception of 

early hunters, effects on solitude and primitive or unconfined recreation are likely low. 

The untrammeled and undeveloped qualities will probably not be further impacted because no new 

range developments or ecological manipulations are proposed within the wilderness portions of the 

Allotments.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

195

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude will continue to be degraded as they have been 

each summer that grazing has occurred in the wilderness portions of the Allotments. There are no 

other reasonably foreseeable projects within wilderness that would affect wilderness character.

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Emphasizing resource protection through the reduction of the number of cows on the Allotments 

would improve the natural and outstanding opportunities for solitude qualities of wilderness character 

due to the removal of a portion of the source of the effects. 

Bell Meadow Allotment

Alternative 4 would make minor adjustments to the Bell Meadow Allotment boundary resulting in a 

small net decrease (about 200 acres) to the portion of the Allotment within the Emigrant Wilderness. 

This change is not expected to significantly alter the effect of grazing on wilderness character. While 

the boundary adjustments should help simplify prevention of cattle drift further into the wilderness, 

grazing will still continue to degrade the natural character of wilderness.

Like Alternative 3 (Current Management), the natural quality of wilderness character may be 

degraded through the continued effects of grazing on the various natural systems that comprise the 

wilderness resource even if these effects do not exceed range management standards. The drift of 

cattle outside of the Allotment boundary into the vicinity of Powell Lake and Lake Valley that was 

reported on three occasions in 2009 is also likely to continue unless the entire Allotment boundary is 

located on easily identifiable terrain features such as ridgelines. Effects may be reduced 

commensurate with the removal of a portion of the currently authorized number of cattle. 

The outstanding opportunities for solitude quality of wilderness character will also continue to be 

degraded due to the ongoing presence of cattle and the sound of cowbells in the areas of the western 

Emigrant Wilderness. Destinations, such as Camp Lake, Bear Lake, and Grouse Lake are some of the 

most heavily visited portions of the Emigrant. Solitude will also likely continue to be degraded in the 

vicinity of Chewing Gum and Powell Lakes due to cows straying outside of the Allotment. However, 

the intensity of the negative effect to solitude may be reduced due to the presence of fewer cows in 

the Allotment. 

The untrammeled and undeveloped qualities will probably not be further impacted because no new 

range developments or ecological manipulations are proposed within the wilderness portions of the 

Allotments.

Eagle Meadow Allotment

No effects. No portion of the Allotment is within the Emigrant Wilderness. 

Herring Creek Allotment

Alternative 4 will adjust the Herring Creek Allotment boundary to remove most of the portion that is 

currently within the Emigrant Wilderness. However, the portion that will be removed is not used by 

cows due to the inaccessibility of the terrain and lack of forage, so no change in effect to wilderness 

character is expected. The only area of the Allotment that will remain inside wilderness is the about 

100- acre portion that cows may actually graze. As a result, some degradation of natural character is 

possible, as is the likely drifting of cows further into the Emigrant Wilderness toward Horse and Cow 

Meadow. Drift outside the Allotment is less likely with this alternative because a majority of the 

Allotment area adjacent to wilderness would be excluded (Willow Unit). 
Chapter 3.12 Stanislaus

Wilderness National Forest

196

Effects to naturalness could be reduced by aligning the Allotment boundary with the ridgeline that 

separates the Emigrant Wilderness from the general forest. Aligning the Allotment boundary with the 

terrain is an effective method of reducing livestock drift.

The area of the Allotment that would remain inside wilderness is lightly used by wilderness visitors, 

with the possible exception of hunters. Effects on solitude and primitive or unconfined recreation are 

likely low.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

There would be reduced negative cumulative effects to wilderness character from the removal of 

some cows from the Allotments since the source of impacts would be diminished. There are no other 

reasonably foreseeable projects within wilderness that would affect wilderness character.

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

Table 3.12-1 summarizes the effects of all four alternatives on wilderness character in the wilderness 

portions of the Bell Meadow and Herring Creek Allotments. In general, Alternative 1 (Preferred 

Alternative) will degrade the natural and solitude elements of wilderness character while having no 

new effect on the untrammeled and undeveloped qualities. Alternative 2 (No Action) would result in 

the greatest improvement to wilderness character by reducing development, increasing naturalness, 

and expanding outstanding opportunities for solitude. The untrammeled quality of wilderness 

character would not change. Alternative 3 (Current Management) would have essentially the same 

effects to wilderness character as Alternative 1. Alternative 4 (Resource Protection) would improve 

naturalness and solitude while the untrammeled and undeveloped qualities would remain unchanged. 

Table 3.12-1 Effects of Alternatives on Wilderness Character

Wilderness Quality Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Untrammeled stable stable stable stable

Undeveloped stable improving stable stable

Natural degrading improving degrading improving

Solitude/Primitive and 

Unconfined Recreation degrading improving degrading improving

Net Effect degrading improving+ degrading improving

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

WildernessAct

The central mandate for wilderness stewardship is the Wilderness Act of 1964’s assertion that “each 

agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the 

wilderness character of the area” (Sec. 4(b)).

Section 4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act states: “the grazing of livestock, where established prior to 

September 3, 1964, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are 

deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture.”

These two provisions of the Wilderness Act are in conflict and have not yet been resolved through 

litigation. While Alternatives 1 and 3 will likely degrade wilderness character, “reasonable 

regulations,” such as streambank stability and aspen browse standards, are in place to attempt to 

mitigate negative effects. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

197

Agency Policy

Forest Service policy, as outlined in the Forest Service Manual, states: “Where there are alternatives 

amongst management decisions, wilderness values shall dominate over all other considerations except 

where limited by the Wilderness Act, subsequent legislation, or regulations.” (FSM 2320.3.1) 

The 1982 Congressional Grazing Guidelines (FSM 2323.22, Exhibit 01) clarifies the above policy 

direction by noting that “livestock grazing and activities and the necessary facilities to support a 

livestock grazing program, will be permitted to continue in National Forest Wilderness, when such 

grazing was established prior to classification of an area as Wilderness” (USDA 2007).

The three action alternatives under consideration in this EIS propose the continuation of grazing in 

wilderness subject to adjustments for the purposes of resource protection and Allotment

administration as directed by the Wilderness Act, agency policy, and the Forest Plan. Consideration 

of the no action alternative is mandated by NEPA. 

Forest Plan Direction

Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010) directs forest staff to “manage livestock grazing to preserve the 

characteristics and values of wilderness”. The alternatives under consideration attempt to manage 

effects to the natural qualities of wilderness character through monitoring of site-specific resource 

conditions, minor boundary adjustments, reduction of stocking numbers, exclusion areas, and/or 

adjustments in herding. The untrammeled and undeveloped qualities of wilderness character are not 

expected to be substantially altered by any of the alternatives. The outstanding opportunities for 

solitude element of wilderness character is not specifically addressed by any of the alternatives, but 

this is likely consistent with agency policy which generally directs that range be managed the same 

both inside and outside of wilderness, with some limited exceptions. 

The Forest Plan Direction further requires that range managers “strongly discourage the use of 

cowbells on commercial grazing Allotments. [And] explore methods for reducing or eliminating the 

use of cowbells in cooperation with the permittees during development of annual operating plans.” 

Although methods may have been “explored” for reducing cowbells during the development of the 

preferred alternative, no alternatives indicate that the use of cowbells has been “strongly 

discouraged.” 

Forest Plan Direction also sets range management objectives by Opportunity Class within the 

Emigrant Wilderness. The popular destination lakes within the Emigrant are in Opportunity Class IV 

areas which have the following objectives:

 Ecosystems are unaffected by human manipulation and influences so that plants and animals 

develop and respond to natural forces. Localized human uses may have limited effects in few 

areas.

 Human influences on aquatic life hydrologic processes, soils (and) vegetation are minimal.

 The opportunity for solitude is low to outstanding. 

 The imprint of human influences is substantially unnoticeable. (LRMP p.79-80) 

Objectives 1 and 2 are addressed in Chapters 3.02 Aquatic Species, 3.03 Botany, 3.09 Soils, 3.11 

Watershed and 3.12 Wildlife. Objective 3 is met by all alternatives as described above. Objective 4 is 

likely met by Alternative 2 and improved in Alternative 4 due to the removal of all or some cows. 

Meeting objective 4 is subject to debate for Alternatives 1 and 3 since the imprint of grazing activity 

in heavily visited areas is likely to be noticeable.
Chapter 3.12 Stanislaus

Wilderness National Forest

198
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

199

3.13 WILDLIFE

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

Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects terrestrial wildlife includes the following:

Endangered Species Act (ESA): The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) 

requires that any action authorized by a federal agency not be likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a Threatened or Endangered (TE) species, or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. Section 7 of the ESA, as 

amended, requires the responsible federal agency to consult the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning TE species under their 

jurisdiction. It is Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to TE species to ensure management 

activities are not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a TE species, or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. A 

Wildlife BE was written to determine if a Biological Assessment (BA) needs to be prepared. 

Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670): Forest Service Sensitive species are 

species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern. The Forest 

Service develops and implements management practices to ensure that rare plants and animals do not 

become threatened or endangered and to ensure their continued viability on National Forests. It is 

Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to sensitive species to ensure management activities do not 

create a significant trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. This assessment is documented in 

the Wildlife BE. 

Forest Plan: The Forest Plan provides the following standards and guidelines applicable to livestock 

grazing and wildlife, which will be considered in the analysis process. 

 Detection of a wolverine or Sierra Nevada red fox will be validated by a forest carnivore 

specialist. When verified sightings occur, conduct an analysis to determine if activities within 5 

miles of the detection have a potential to affect the species. If necessary, apply a limited operating 

period from January 1 to June 30 to avoid adverse impacts to potential breeding. Evaluate 

activities for a 2-year period for detections not associated with a den site. 

 Conduct additional surveys to established protocols to follow up reliable sightings of Great Gray 

Owls.

 In meadows with occupied willow flycatcher sites, allow only late-season grazing (after August 

15) in the entire meadow. 

 Standard and guideline #57 above may be waived if an interdisciplinary team has developed a 

site-specific meadow management strategy. This strategy is to be developed and implemented in 

partnership with the affected grazing permittee. The strategy objectives must focus on protecting 

the nest site and associated habitat during the breeding season and the long-term sustainability of 

suitable habitat at breeding sites. It may use a mix of management tools, including grazing 

systems, structural improvements, and other exclusion by management techniques to protect 

willow flycatcher habitat. 

 For historically occupied willow flycatcher sites, assess willow flycatcher habitat suitability 

within the meadow. If habitat is degraded, develop restoration objectives and take appropriate 

actions (such as physical restoration of hydrological components, limiting or re-directing grazing 

activity, and so forth) to move the meadow toward desired conditions. 

 In meadow areas of Great Gray Owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs), maintain herbaceous 

vegetation at a height commensurate with site capability and habitat needs of prey species. 

Follow regional guidance to determine potential prey species and associated habitat requirements 

at the project level.
Chapter 3.13 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

200

 Prevent disturbance to streambanks and natural lake and pond shorelines caused by resource 

activities (for example, livestock, off-highway vehicles, and dispersed recreation) from exceeding 

20 percent of stream reach or 20 percent of natural lake and pond shorelines. Disturbance 

includes bank sloughing, chiseling, trampling, and other means of exposing bare soil or cutting 

plant roots.

 Under season-long grazing:

- For meadows in early seral status: limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to 

30 percent (or minimum 6-inch stubble height). 

- For meadows in late seral status: limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to a 

maximum of 40 percent (or minimum 4-inch stubble height). 

- Determine ecological status on all key areas monitored for grazing utilization prior to 

establishing utilization levels. Use Regional ecological scorecards and range plant list in 

regional range handbooks to determine ecological status. Analyze meadow ecological status 

every 3 to 5 years. If meadow ecological status is determined to be moving in a downward 

trend, modify or suspend grazing. Include ecological status data in a spatially explicit 

Geographical Information System database. Under intensive grazing systems (such as restrotation and deferred rotation) where meadows are receiving a period of rest, utilization 

levels can be higher than the levels described above if the meadow is maintained in late seral 

status and meadow-associated species are not being impacted. Degraded meadows (such as 

those in early seral status with greater than 10 percent of the meadow area in bare soil and 

active erosion) require total rest from grazing until they have recovered and have moved to 

mid or late seral status. 

 Limit browsing to no more than 20 percent of the annual leader growth of mature riparian shrubs 

and no more than 20 percent of individual seedlings. Remove livestock from any area of an 

Allotment when browsing indicates a change in livestock preference from grazing herbaceous 

vegetation to browsing woody riparian vegetation. 

 Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan IV-114. Mule deer – Protect 

habitat needs on identified critical summer and winter range, especially where fawning areas are 

located. 

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Wildlife

As long as a risk factor is present to the wildlife resource, a probability of impact exists. In this case, 

the relevant risk factor is livestock grazing. When no risk factor to wildlife is present as in Alternative 

2, it is obviously the best choice for the wildlife resource. With the risk factor present, the primary 

question is “how does the potential impact differ by each action alternative?”

A general discussion of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects applying to livestock grazing in the 

Sierra Nevada can be found in USDA (1999) which is incorporated by reference here. Further 

discussions on life history, habitat associations, and potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 

applying to livestock grazing for specific species can be found in USDA (2001, 2004, 2013), also 

incorporated by reference. 

Data Sources

 GIS databases.

 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 

 Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) Wildlife database.

Wildlife Indicators

 The potential for death, injury, or disturbance to the species of concern. 

 The potential for habitat loss or reduction in habitat quality.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

201

Wildlife Methodology

Effects analysis methodology for wildlife involved comparison of wildlife indicators by action 

alternative. As it is determined that Alternative 2 would be wholly beneficial to wildlife and there 

would be no negative impact to any wildlife species, the analysis below details the comparison among 

the action alternatives.

Affected Environment

The Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek Allotments lie within the geographical and 

elevation range of the following terrestrial species: Sierra Nevada Red Fox, Great Gray Owl, and 

Willow Flycatcher. A detailed effects analysis for these species is included in the BE and is 

incorporated below. The Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek Allotments also lie within 

the geographical and elevation range of critical summer deer range.

Several other species are briefly addressed in the BE. These include the following: , Townsend’s bigeared bat, pallid bat, fringed myotis, American marten, Pacific fisher, California wolverine, bald 

eagle, Northern Goshawk, and California spotted owl. A detailed analysis for these species is not 

included in the BE for one of the following reasons:

1. Action area is not within the species’ elevation range. 

2. Livestock grazing is not identified as a current risk factor to the species. 

Following is a summary of what is known about the species of concern relative to the analysis area. In 

addition, all the elements of each species' habitat which are potentially affected by the proposed 

project are identified and quantified as much as possible. Recovery plans (for listed species), 

conservation plans (for sensitive species), regional aquatic conservation strategies, or available habitat 

capability models were used to help determine habitat elements of importance to each species or 

special habitat. Habitat elements can exist at a variety of scales and scale was considered in the 

definition of action area above. Habitat capability models and the best available information were

used to determine: 1) for each species, which habitat elements are potentially affected; and 2) the 

appropriate area of analysis. The affected environment is described relative to the areas of analysis 

and habitat elements potentially affected for each species of concern.

Sierra Nevada red fox

SPECIES ACCOUNT

1. Historical information. The Sierra Nevada red fox is the rarest of three subspecies of red fox 

inhabiting montane areas of the western United States; a southern Sierra Nevada population, 

largely thought to be extirpated, was re-discovered in August 2010 in the area of Sonora Pass 

(Rich et al. 2011). The Sonora Pass area borders the BEH action area. The Sierra Nevada red fox 

was petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act (CBD 2011). The 12-month finding 

status review by the US Fish & Wildlife Service concluded that listing is warranted but precluded 

for the Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment (Federal Register 2015). The current shortest 

straight-line distance from the project area to a confirmed occurrence record is about 10 miles. 

2. Recent survey efforts. Survey efforts have been concentrated in the Sonora Pass area; a “creeping 

survey from known presence” strategy is currently being employed to better determine the extent 

of this recently re-discovered population in the southern Sierra Nevada. Sample units have 

extended to border areas of the BEH action area (Rich, unpubl data). 

3. Occurrence of species relative to land allocations or special management areas that may have 

been established for them: Currently there are no land allocations or special management areas 

established for Sierra Nevada red fox.

4. The project area relative to the distribution of the desired species: The action area is

approximately ten miles distant from the nearest confirmed occurrence of the recently re-
Chapter 3.13 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

202

discovered southern Sierra Nevada population of red fox. Suitable habitat is contiguous between 

the action area and the Sonora Pass population so it is reasonable to predict that Sierra Nevada 

red fox may occur in suitable habitat within the BEH action area. Only two small isolated 

populations of Sierra Nevada red fox are currently known, one in the vicinity of Sonora Pass and 

the other in the vicinity of Lassen Peak (Federal Register 2012, Statham et al. 2012; Federal 

Register 2015; USFWS 2015). Given the vulnerabilities inherent in small isolated populations 

(Federal Register 2012), and that the project area contains suitable high-elevation habitat for 

Sierra Nevada red fox contiguous with known occupied habitat, the location of the project area is 

very likely of key importance to the species. 

HABITAT STATUS

Suitable habitat for Sierra Nevada red fox and risk factors to that habitat are defined in USFS 2001, 

2004, Biological Evaluation, and supporting references, Perrine et al. 2010, and the USFWS 12-

month finding (Federal Register 2012; USFWS 2015); this section is tiered to those documents and 

incorporates them here by reference. Suitable habitat consists primarily of alpine and subalpine open 

areas with interspersed stands of trees (USDA 2001, Perrine et al. 2010). In the southern Sierra 

Nevada, suitable subalpine and alpine habitats as well as confirmed occurrences of Sierra Nevada red 

fox occur primarily above 8,000 feet (Rich et al. 2011, Statham et al. 2012). In addition, the 8,000 

foot level appears to be the upper elevation band for the regular occurrence of coyote (Canis latrans) 

in winter (Rich et al. 2011, Sacks et al. 2012). Interspecific competition with coyote is believed to 

represent a significant risk factor to Sierra Nevada red fox and likely plays a role in the distribution of 

Sierra Nevada red fox (Federal Register 2015). The project area with high elevation habitat above 

8,000 feet overlaid with known occurrences of Sierra Nevada red fox shows that potential habitat in 

the area of analysis is contiguous with known occupied habitat. Estimated acreage of potential habitat 

in the analysis area is as follows:

Table 3.13-1 Estimated suitable habitat for Sierra Nevada Red Fox

Area Acres of suitable SNRF habitat

Bell Meadow Allotment 2,411

Eagle Meadow Allotment 8,653

Proposed McCormick addition 2,085

Proposed Niagara addition 321

Herring Creek Allotment 6,847

Proposed Cascade addition 20

Total 20,337

Site visits indicate that overall habitat status in the proposed additions is in good condition with 

adequate food and cover for Sierra Nevada red fox prey. However, some areas of localized impact 

from trespass or stray cattle have been observed. Habitat status within current Allotment boundaries is 

largely unassessed as it relates to Sierra Nevada red fox due to time and budget constraints but is 

probably highly variable depending on livestock movements and vulnerability of high-elevation soils 

and supported vegetation. 

Great Gray Owl

SPECIES ACCOUNT

1. Historical information. Great Gray Owl reproduction was documented at Lower Eagle Meadow 

in 1992. In that year, two Great Gray Owl young and one adult were observed and described by 

qualified personnel. The Great Gray Owls were first detected that year incidental to a Spotted 

Owl survey. A stand search was conducted for the nest tree in 1992; the nest stand was 

determined but the actual nest tree could not be confirmed. Additional scattered Great Gray Owl 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

203

sightings have been recorded periodically in all three Allotments but have not been confirmed to 

date. 

2. Recent survey efforts. Survey efforts have been made, particularly at Lower Eagle Meadow, but 

none have met Regional protocol (USDA 2000b) owing to the time and expense needed to 

overcome logistical difficulties of accessing high elevation meadows during early spring when 

protocol site visits are required (e.g. requiring the use of snowmobiles, etc.). In the future, a 

protocol revision by Pacific Southwest (PSW) Research and/or the use of Automated Recording 

Units (ARUs) may help overcome logistical challenges in the current protocol and better 

determine presence/absence of Great Gray Owl (Rognan 2007). Seven meadows in the action 

area were surveyed for Great Gray Owl prey as part of a management study to better determine 

potential prey species and associated habitat requirements (Powers et al., 2011, Kalinowski et al. 

2014).

3. Occurrence of species relative to land allocations or special management areas that may have 

been established for them: There is one Great Gray Owl Protected Activity Center (PAC) 

established in the analysis area at Lower Eagle Meadow based on the 1992 detection. The PAC 

consists of 50 acres of the highest quality nesting habitat and the meadow complex that supports 

the prey base for nesting owls. 

4. The project area relative to the distribution of the desired species. The project area is on the 

northern fringe of what is known as the southern Sierra Nevada population. The southern Sierra 

Nevada population is thought to consist of fewer than 100 pairs and is centered on Yosemite 

National Park and immediately adjacent National Forest. The southern Sierra Nevada population 

appears to be an isolated metapopulation and disjunct from the rest of this species’ breeding range 

and a distinct subspecies (Hull et al. 2010). 

HABITAT STATUS

Suitable habitat for Great Gray Owl is defined in CDFG 2005 and USDA 2001, USDA 2004, 

biological evaluation, and supporting references; this analysis tiers to those documents and 

incorporates them here by reference. Habitat requirements of Great Gray Owls in the Sierra Nevada 

were summarized nicely by Beck and Winter (2000), studied specifically by Greene (1995) and Sears 

(2006), and are recently investigated by a local management study (Powers et al. 2011, Kalinowski et 

al. 2014). Basically, suitable habitat for Great Gray Owls in the Sierra Nevada consists of coniferwoodland habitats near montane meadows. Meadows or meadow complexes at least 25 acres in size 

appear to be necessary for persistent occupancy and reproduction but meadows as small as 10 acres 

will support infrequent breeding (Beck and Winter 2000). Reproductive sites are associated with high 

vole abundance and high vole abundance is associated with meadow vegetation height (Beck 1985; 

Greene 1995; Kalinowski et al. 2014). Potential Great Gray Owl habitat in the analysis area was 

estimated based on meadow complex groupings meeting minimum size requirements. 

The status of the habitat in the area of analysis overall is mostly in moderate to high ecological 

condition with stable to improving trends (Range Report, project record). Range condition of Lower 

Eagle Meadow is poor and the trend is unknown (Range Report, project record). Within Lower Eagle 

Meadow there is a three acre inclusion of meadow vegetation in high ecological status; this inclusion 

has been excluded from livestock use by electric fence since 2004. The historical nest stand in the 

Lower Eagle PAC is dominated by lodgepole pine and has an herbaceous understory likely to support 

Microtus spp. prey. 

Great Gray Owl prey populations were assessed at 7 sites in the action area in 2010 and 2011. Sample 

sites were selected randomly as part of a larger management study; maximum abundance results 

follow (Kalinowski 2012).

Vole numbers were exceptionally high in the proposed Cascade addition. This indicates the Cascade 

addition has high potential for a reproductive Great Gray Owl site. Vole numbers were surprisingly 
Chapter 3.13 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

204

low overall although Barn Meadow in Eagle Meadow Allotment appears to support habitat needs for 

both prey species. 

Table 3.13-2 Estimated suitable meadow habitat and potential territory for Great Gray Owl

Area Acres of suitable 

meadow habitat

Potential territory 

estimate

Bell Meadow Allotment 177 2

Eagle Meadow Allotment 538 4

Proposed McCormick addition 0 0

Proposed Niagara addition 0 0

Herring Creek Allotment 458 8

Proposed Cascade addition 16 1

Table 3.13-3 Great Gray Owl prey abundance

Site Gophers / acre Voles / acre

Bell Meadow Allotment

Upper Bell Meadow 31 1

Lower Bell Meadow 19 1

Round Meadow 16 1

Crab Meadow 13 0

Eagle Meadow Allotment

Barn Meadow 3 4

Herring Creek Allotment

Bull Run 4 0

Pike’s (Proposed Cascade addition) 6 16

Willow Flycatcher

SPECIES ACCOUNT

1. Historical information. There are four Willow Flycatcher sites in the action area, designated as 

“occupied” by the 2004 FSEIS Appendix D but are now designated as “historically occupied”. 

The current designations follow results of a completed 10-year survey cycle to protocol: Willow 

Meadow of Herring Creek Allotment; Long Valley Creek 2 and Eagle Meadow of the Eagle 

Meadow Allotment; and Upper Bell Meadows of Bell Meadow Allotment. There was a Willow 

Flycatcher sighting at Lily Lake in the Bell Meadow Allotment in late summer of 2012. Followup surveys conducted to determine breeding status were inconclusive. The 2012 sighting is 

therefore best classified as a presumed migrant (USDA 2003). 

2. Recent survey efforts. Surveys have been conducted to Regional protocol at all sites classified as 

occupied by the SNFPA. A ten year survey cycle was completed to protocol at all sites shifting 

their classification from occupied to historically occupied as per USDA 2004 (ROD p. 57). A site 

classified as “conditional” in the 2004 ROD (Long Valley 1) was surveyed with negative results 

and that site was subsequently removed from the conservation network as per USDA 2004 (ROD 

p. 58). The SNFPA defined emphasis habitat as suitable habitat within five miles of occupied 

Willow Flycatcher sites. Emphasis habitat was surveyed as required by the 2001 ROD with 

negative results (USDA 2012c).

3. Discuss the occurrence of species relative to land allocations or special management areas that 

may have been established for them: There are four occurrences in the action area and they are 

designated as “historically occupied”: Willow Meadow of Herring Creek Allotment; Long Valley 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

205

Creek 2 and Eagle Meadow of Eagle Meadow Allotment; and Upper Bell Meadows of Bell 

Meadow Allotment. 

4. Discuss the project area relative to the distribution of the desired species. For sites within the 

analysis area, most records are from the early 1990s. Based on survey results since then, it 

appears that all Willow Flycatcher sites on the Stanislaus National Forest have “blinked out” from 

the metapopulation network (USDA 2012c). In 1999, the last Willow Flycatcher on the Stanislaus 

National Forest was recorded at Ackerson Meadow (outside of the analysis area). As in Yosemite 

National Park, it is not known why this species has apparently been extirpated from the greater 

Yosemite area (Siegel et al. 2008). However, reoccupation of sites on other National Forests has 

been documented (Loffland [Bombay], pers.comm.). 

HABITAT STATUS

Suitable habitat for this species is defined in USDA 2001, USDA 2004, biological evaluation, and 

supporting references. Habitat requirements for Willow Flycatcher in the Sierra Nevada are discussed 

thoroughly by USDA 2003 and Green et al. 2003. Suitable habitat for Willow Flycatcher essentially 

consists of meadows larger than 15 acres that have standing water on June 1 and a riparian deciduous 

shrub component.

The status of the habitat in the area of analysis overall is mostly in moderate to high ecological 

condition with stable to improving trends (Range Report, project record). Willow Meadow has a fair 

to good range condition. Long Valley has a moderate vegetation score and the 5 year trend is up. 

Eagle Meadow is rated overall as fair condition. Upper Bell Meadow is in poor ecological condition 

but cattle are excluded and other parts of the meadow are in good ecological condition. Habitat 

assessments conducted as part of the 10-year survey cycle show that all of the sites classified as 

historically occupied on the Stanislaus still represent highly suitable habitat and have the capability of 

being re-occupied by Willow Flycatcher. 

Mule Deer

SPECIES ACCOUNT

1. Historical information. The mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) is widespread across the project 

area at varying densities largely depending on habitat conditions. All three Allotments encompass 

critical summer deer range for the Stanislaus and Tuolumne deer herds. Critical summer deer 

range consists of a mix of forage and cover necessary for fawn recruitment and survival. Fawn 

recruitment and survival is a major factor that determines deer herd population trends. The 

population trend has been steadily downward since 1980 (CDFW unpublished data). Based on a 

20 percent adult doe mortality rate of collared does during 1987-1996 (CDFW unpublished data), 

the spring fawn ratio must be at 35 fawns per 100 does to maintain the population. Prior to the 

summer of 1980, over 80% of the years had spring fawn ratios at or above herd maintenance 

levels (30-40 fawns per 100 does). After 1980, 52% of the years were at or above herd 

maintenance levels. Composition counts have shown a spring fawn ratio averaging 29 fawns per 

100 does for the Stanislaus herd and 33 fawns per 100 does for the Tuolumne herd between 1994 

and 2006 (CDFW, unpublished data). The relative contributions of potential factors resulting in 

the low spring fawn ratio for these herds are currently being studied by CDFW (Gerstenberg and 

Graveline, pers.comm.). 

2. Recent survey efforts. Herd composition counts are conducted annually by the California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in cooperation with the US Forest Service. A multiyear telemetry study by CDFW is in progress that is examining low fawn recruitment and other 

deer population issues (Graveline, pers.comm.).

3. Discuss the occurrence of species relative to land allocations or special management areas that 

may have been established for them. The 1991 Forest Plan identifies deer summer concentration 
Chapter 3.13 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

206

areas and critical summer deer range in Appendix 1, Map 2. There is broad overlap of deer 

summer range with the project area across all three livestock Allotments.

4. Discuss the project area relative to the distribution of the desired species. Mule deer in the 

project area are migratory, spending summers in the project area and wintering at lower 

elevations. Deer population status and distribution in the project area is thought to be highly 

dependent on fawning habitat condition (Graveline, pers.comm.). CDFW has concerns about the 

health of the migratory deer herd in the project area because the population level and trend has 

not been increasing and is below herd management goals. 

HABITAT STATUS

Suitable habitat for this species is defined in USDA 2001, USDA 2004, biological evaluation, and 

supporting references; this analysis tiers to those documents and incorporates them here by reference. 

Habitat requirements for mule deer specific to the project area discussed thoroughly by Leopold et al. 

(1951) and Kucera and Mayer (1999). In particular, meadow and aspen cover types are of critical 

importance given the low fawn recruitment levels observed in the local deer population. More fawns 

are born in meadow than in any other habitat (Leopold et al. 1951) and aspen habitats are important to 

mule deer as foraging sites and areas where fawns are born and reared (Kucera and Mayer 1999).

The status of the habitat in the area of analysis overall is mostly in moderate to high ecological 

condition with stable to improving trends, with localized areas not meeting range management goals 

(Range Report, project record). In proposed Allotment additions, deer habitat was judged to be highly 

suitable based on site visits conducted by the local CDFW deer biologist (Graveline, pers. comm.). 

Habitat mainly consisted of multi-aged timber providing a variety of openings intermixed with 

thermal cover. Additionally, some wet meadow areas and aspen stands were observed and found to be 

in very good condition. Diverse species of browse important to deer were noted including service 

berry, Ceanothus spp., Ribes spp., Salix spp., mountain maple and other high-value forage plants. 

Environmental Consequences

Sierra Nevada red fox

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Death, injury, and disturbance

Death, injury, and disturbance from livestock grazing are probably not an issue for Sierra Nevada red 

fox (SNRF). The SNRF is fully protected by the State and has been since 1974 (Statham et al. 2012). 

In the past, activities associated with livestock operations such as the use of rodenticides, predatorbaits, and direct shooting may have resulted in death, injury, and disturbance (USFWS 2015) but 

those activities have not been permitted in the action area for decades. Direct effects are not an issue 

given that the protective measures that have been place for many years appear to be effective and 

adequate. 

Potential reduction in habitat quality

It is unclear to what degree livestock grazing may be a risk factor to Sierra Nevada red fox. The 

Sierra Nevada red fox conservation assessment (Perrine et al. 2010) as well as the US Fish & Wildlife 

Service’s 12-month finding materials (Federal Register 2015, USFWS 2015) disclose considerable 

uncertainty when evaluating the potential impacts livestock grazing may have on SNRF habitat. For 

example, the conservation assessment describes how Grinnell et al. (1937) considered overgrazing of 

alpine meadows a significant impact to fox productivity due to the reduction of forage available for 

prey species but then notes that current livestock grazing does not occur at the intensity of the past 

and that some rodent populations may actually increase due to grazing practices (Perrine et al. 2010). 

Likewise, the USFWS 12-month finding describes how the petition to list SNRF provides some 

evidence that livestock grazing may alter the availability of some prey species for SNRF, but then 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

207

notes that there is also evidence grazing may not reduce prey availability overall, but rather cause a 

shift in prey species (Federal Register 2015). In its finding, the USFWS concluded that there is 

insufficient existing information to support the contention that domestic livestock grazing, as it relates 

to reduced prey, may be a threat to the subspecies (Federal Register 2015). Clearly, more research is 

needed to provide additional information on this important management question. For this analysis, 

acres of suitable SNRF habitat potentially affected was used as the primary evaluation criterion and 

permit compliance was assumed in making comparisons. 

The acres of suitable SNRF habitat potentially affected varies by action alternative (Table 3.13-4). 

Table 3.13-4 Suitable Sierra Nevada Red Fox potentially affected by Alternatives 1, 3 and 4

Allotment

Alternative 1

(Proposed 

Action)

Alternative 3

(Current 

Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Bell Meadow 2,411 2,411 2,411

Eagle Meadow 11,059 8,653 8,653

Herring Creek 6,867 6,847 2,874

Proposed additions have varying amounts of suitable SNRF habitat potentially affected: 

Table 3.13-5 Suitable Sierra Nevada Red Fox habitat potentially affected by proposed additions

Proposed Addition Acres of suitable 

SNRF habitat

Percent of the 

addition

Eagle Meadow Allotment

Proposed McCormick addition 2,085 85

Proposed Niagara addition 321 13

Herring Creek Allotment

Proposed Cascade addition 20 1

Under Alternative 4, the least amount of suitable SNRF habitat is potentially affected (13,938 acres) 

while Alternative 1 has the most (20,337 acres) and Alternative 3 totals 17,911 acres. Of the proposed 

additions, the amount of suitable SNRF habitat potentially affected is small for the Niagara addition 

and minimal for the Cascade addition (321 acres and 20 acres respectively). The amount of suitable 

SNRF habitat potentially affected is substantial for the McCormick addition which totals 2,085 acres 

representing a large proportion of the addition at 85%. 

While habitat condition in proposed additions is good overall (based on site visits), there are signs of 

impact in areas where trespass from stray cattle has occurred in localized spots of the proposed 

McCormick addition. This indicates that livestock grazing may contribute to downward trends and 

degrade habitat for some fox prey species such as Microtus spp. while shifting prey abundance to 

other species such as Thomomys spp. Thus, grazing may not reduce prey availability overall, but 

instead result in a shift in prey species (Federal Register 2012; 2015). The extent to which prey shifts 

may impact Sierra Nevada red fox is completely unknown (Perrine et al. 2010) and is an important 

research question that needs to be investigated in order to inform management decisions. In 

conclusion, the potential for SNRF prey habitat changes would be greatest under Alternative 1 and 

least under Alternative 4 (Tables 3.13-4 and 3.13-5) but there is a great deal of uncertainty as to how 

any changes may impact Sierra Nevada red fox. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

For the site-specific analysis of cumulative effects for this species the spatial scale of potential 

suitable habitat that overlaps the action area was used. For past action considerations relied on current 

environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions because the existing condition 
Chapter 3.13 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

208

reflects the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the 

environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. There are some private inholdings in the 

Eagle Meadow Allotment boundaries; most of these parcels have summer cabins. Livestock are not 

permitted to use private inholdings. No State lands occur in the action area. State activities include 

authorization of hunting and fishing and maintenance of a livestock exclosure on a 30 acre parcel in 

the Long Valley unit for deer habitat improvement. Other activities that are presently occurring and 

that are reasonably foreseeable to continue in the action area are recreational trail use and camping. 

Domestic dogs are associated with recreation use and the potential for domestic dog predation and 

disease may be a threat to Sierra Nevada red fox (Federal Register 2012; 2015). However, it is noted 

the action alternatives do not add to or promote recreation uses. Exposure of Sierra Nevada red fox to 

Salmon Poisoning Disease (SPD) from infected fish is a concern in some areas. However, the Sierra 

Nevada red fox population in the Sonora Pass area is not located in an SPD endemic area (Federal 

Register 2012; 2015). 

Great Gray Owl

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Death, injury, and disturbance

Death, injury, and disturbance from livestock grazing is not a factor for Great Gray Owl. The Great 

Gray Owl is a highly mobile tree-nesting species.

Potential reduction in habitat quality

Livestock grazing can influence habitat conditions for Great Gray Owl prey. Vegetation height has 

been used as a key indicator of habitat capability for Great Gray Owl prey-- specifically, habitat for 

Microtus which is associated with successful owl reproduction (Winter 1981, 1982; Greene 1995; 

USDA 2001, 2004). In meadow areas of Great Gray Owl Protected Activity Centers (PAC), 

herbaceous vegetation height must be maintained at a height commensurate with site capability and 

habitat needs of prey species by Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010). At the Lower Eagle PAC, site 

capability was determined using small utilization cages in 2003. The cage results demonstrated that 

herbaceous vegetation at the site was capable of attaining a 10 -12 inch height. For determining the 

habitat needs of prey species, we undertook a management study in cooperation with Humboldt State 

University (Powers et al., 2011; Kalinowski et al. 2014). Study results indicate that vole occupancy 

was predicted best by a positive relationship with sward height and presence of ungrazed plants such 

as corn lily (Veratrum californicum) providing cover. Sward height is a measure of vegetation height 

and density obtained from a sward stick. A sward stick consists of a 170 gram plate with a meter stick 

placed through a slit in the middle. The plate is dropped from 80 cm and the height at which the plate 

rests is recorded as sward height. Average sward height on vole-occupied sites was 5.6 inches while 

average sward height on unoccupied sites was 3.29 inches. Statistical models indicated that a sward 

height of 5.9 inches was needed for a predicted probability of vole occurrence greater than 50 percent 

and that a sward height of 11.4 inches was needed for a predicted probability of vole occurrence 

greater than 90 percent (Kalinowski, in prep). These results indicate that a sward height of 5 to 6 

inches is commensurate with habitat needs of Microtus spp. and correspond well to guidelines found 

in Beck (1985) as well as findings in Greene (1995). The Beck (1985) guidelines required a minimum 

standard of five inches of ungrazed herbaceous vegetation for Great Gray Owl meadows with 10 

inches preferred. The Beck model was used on the Stanislaus National Forest at Ackerson Meadows 

and was shown to be compatible with successful owl reproduction over multiple years. Greene (1995) 

associated a 12 inch herbaceous vegetation height with vole abundance.

Pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) may serve as an alternate prey species for Great Gray Owls when 

vole densities are low and in the Stanislaus management study, grazed meadows had higher gopher 

density and gophers were associated with lower vegetation cover, density, height, and thatch 

thickness (Powers et al., 2011). The differences found between vole and gopher habitat relationships 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

209

may be used to inform grazing management options (Kalinowski et al. 2014) by managing the spatial 

arrangement of grazed and ungrazed sites to optimize Great Gray Owl foraging opportunities for both 

primary and alternate prey species (Powers et al. 2011). 

In the Lower Eagle PAC, vegetation height for voles would be maintained by a fenced exclusion area. 

Within the fenced exclusion area, foraging habitat quality would be maximized as a 10” preferred 

height for vole habitat would be achieved. Under Alternatives 1 and 3 the exclusion area was 

delineated based on an assessment of the meadow portion with the highest capability closest to the 

owl activity center. Under Alternative 4, the exclusion area would be expanded beyond the meadow 

to include the herbaceous vegetation within the historic nest stand itself. While not a meadow habitat 

type, the historic nest stand is dominated by lodgepole pine with an herbaceous understory capable of 

supporting voles; this portion of the PAC is representative of habitat utilized by Great Gray Owls in 

other portions of its range (Bull and Henjum 1990). 

For the primary evaluation criteria in this analysis, acres of PAC meadow habitat maintained at a 

height optimal for primary prey at a reproductive site (Microtus spp.), acres of potentially suitable 

meadow habitat for primary and alternate prey (Microtus spp. and Thomomys spp. respectively) 

within an Allotment, and the estimated number of potential territories were used. Permit compliance 

was assumed in making comparisons. 

Alternative 4 potentially affects the least meadow acres and potential reproductive territories. This is 

largely the result of the large exclusion area in the Willow Unit of Herring Creek Allotment. Acres 

vary slightly by alternative for the Eagle Meadow Allotment but these acres represent acres within a 

PAC, a verified reproductive site. The Bell Meadow Allotment acres and potential territories do not 

vary by alternative because a large exclosure is in place in suitable habitat at Bell Meadow and 

remains so under all action alternatives.

The Cascade addition includes one potential territory and a meadow with one of the highest vole 

numbers of any in the prey management study. Thus, there is high potential for a reproductive Great 

Gray Owl site in the Cascade addition to be affected under Alternative 1. The other proposed 

additions, McCormick and Niagara, lack habitat capability for Great Gray Owl. 

Table 3.13-6 Suitable meadow habitat and potential territory estimate for Great Gray Owl

Area Suitable Meadow

Habitat (acres)

Potential

Territory

Bell Meadow Allotment 177 2

Eagle Meadow Allotment 538 4

Proposed McCormick addition 0 0

Proposed Niagara addition 0 0

Herring Creek Allotment 458 8

Proposed Cascade addition 16 1

Given the small census population size and limited geographic distribution of the southern Sierra 

population of Great Gray Owl (Hull et al. 2010), changes in the number of potential reproductive 

territories could have important conservation implications for this distinct population.

Table 3.13-7 PAC meadow habitat acres maintained at a height optimal for Microtus spp.

Protected Activity Center (PAC) Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Lower Eagle Meadows 3 3 10
Chapter 3.13 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

210

Table 3.13-8 Potentially suitable meadow habitat potentially affected by action alternative (accounting for 

exclusions that maintain meadow vegetation at a height optimal for Microtus spp)

Allotment Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Bell Meadow 228 228 228

Eagle Meadow 505 505 498

Herring Creek 383 367 167

Total 1,116 1,100 893

Table 3.13-9 Potential reproductive territories affected by action alternative (accounting for exclusions that 

maintain meadow vegetation at a height optimal for Microtus spp)

Allotment Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Bell Meadow 1 1 1

Eagle Meadow 3 3 3

Herring Creek 9 8 4

Total 13 12 8

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The proposed project implements the SNFPA and tiers to the SNFPA analysis. The SNFPA analysis 

considered and modeled the cumulative effects of implementing SNFPA compliant projects at broad 

landscape scales within the Sierra Nevada bioregion covered by the plan. 

For the site-specific analysis of cumulative effects, the spatial scale of occupied site and potentially 

suitable meadow habitat were used for the species being analyzed. For past action considerations, 

current environmental conditions were used as a proxy for the impacts of past actions because the 

existing condition reflects the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that 

have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. There are some private 

inholdings in the Eagle Meadow Allotment boundaries; most of these parcels have summer cabins. 

Livestock are not permitted to use private inholdings. No State lands occur in the action area. State 

activities include authorization of hunting and fishing and maintenance of a livestock exclosure on a 

30 acre parcel in the Long Valley Subunit for deer habitat improvement. 

Lower Eagle Meadow is the only known occupied site. There are no private or State lands or 

activities that coincide with this occupied site. For past action considerations current environmental 

conditions were used as a proxy for the impacts of past actions because the existing condition reflects 

the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment 

and might contribute to cumulative effects. Activities that are presently occurring and that are 

reasonably foreseeable to continue at this site are dispersed recreation, trail use, and unauthorized Off 

Highway Vehicle (OHV) use. There is no roaded access to Lower Eagle Meadow. Non-motorized 

uses, mainly hiking and horseback riding occur on trails located near the meadow edge. The use level 

appears to be relatively infrequent (i.e. an estimated couple times per week) and below thresholds that 

would cause site abandonment. Occasionally, perhaps once or twice a year, small groups appear to 

utilize stone fire rings in the forest along the meadow edge but outside the nest stand. For the last two 

years, quad tracks from OHVs have been observed in the meadow after hunting season. Such use is 

unauthorized and if not curbed, could become a significant risk factor to Great Gray Owl and meadow 

habitat. OHVs could cause disturbance to owl nesting and foraging; wheel rutting could develop and 

result in erosion. A gate closure repair completed in Fall 2007 (addressing the apparent point of 

access off Forest Road 5N80) has been effective in curbing the unauthorized OHV use. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

211

Some meadow restoration work is reasonably foreseeable and will benefit Great Gray Owl habitat 

suitability at the following locations: Crab Meadow and Round Meadow (Bell Meadow Allotment); 

Burt Reed Meadow (Herring Creek Allotment).

For potentially suitable meadow habitat, other activities that are presently occurring and that are 

reasonably foreseeable to continue in the action area are recreational trail use and camping. The 

action alternatives do not add to or promote recreation uses. As camping within meadow habitat is 

discouraged and generally does not occur, and as most human activity occurs during the day and the 

owls are mainly nocturnal, it was concluded that the spatial and temporal overlap of these cumulative 

effects is not an issue.

Willow Flycatcher

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Death, injury, and disturbance

The Willow Flycatcher is susceptible to death, injury, and disturbance by livestock. For example, 

livestock can knock over nests (USDA 2001, 2003, 2004). This potential effect appears to be 

adequately mitigated by protection requirements in Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010). If breeding 

Willow Flycatcher is confirmed (e.g. at Lily Lake), those areas will be protected from livestock 

during the nesting season. 

Potential reduction in habitat quality

Livestock grazing can alter willow habitat and exacerbate chronic conditions that influence meadow 

hydrology (Green et al. 2003). The contemporary influence of managed livestock grazing on Willow 

Flycatcher status in high quality habitat is unknown at the bioregional scale (Green et al. 2003) as 

well as locally. However, the two main conditions as per the conservation assessment (Green et al. 

2003): meadow drying and meadow condition to maintain meadow wetness throughout the breeding 

cycle have been maintained as indicated by existing condition. No downward changes are expected 

under any of the action alternatives. 

Brood parasitism

Livestock grazing indirectly affects Willow Flycatcher through the association of Brown-headed 

Cowbird (Molothrus ater) with livestock (Verner and Ritter 1983, Morrison et al. 1999, USDA 2001). 

On a local level, cowbirds may greatly influence flycatcher productivity, even at high elevations 

(Green et al. 2003). Generally however, higher elevation forest simply may not provide a full 

component of habitat requisites for cowbirds, and/or most cowbirds may arrive (with cattle) too late 

in the nesting season to greatly impact breeding Willow Flycatchers (Green et al. 2003). This appears 

to be the case for the Allotments in question as Willow Flycatcher protocol surveys conducted on 

these Allotments indicated very low cowbird numbers (USDA 2008). Locally then, it appears 

cowbird numbers are well below thresholds to be a conservation concern in these Allotments at this 

time. 

As habitat objectives are being met for this species (Weixelman 2006) and as the SNFPA (USDA 

2004) puts protective measures in place for the Willow Flycatcher, and as the proposed action 

complies with those standards and those of the Conservation Assessment, Willow Flycatcher habitat 

should remain suitable. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The proposed project implements the SNFPA and tiers to the SNFPA analysis. The SNFPA analysis 

considered and modeled the cumulative effects of implementing SNFPA compliant projects at broad 

landscape scales within the Sierra Nevada bioregion covered by the plan. 
Chapter 3.13 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

212

For the site-specific analysis of cumulative effects, the spatial scale of “historically occupied site” 

was used for the species being analyzed. The spatial scale of occupied site is the appropriate scale for 

a site-specific analysis addressing site-specific impacts to the species being addressed. 

There are no private or State lands or activities that coincide with occupied sites in the analysis area. 

For past action considerations, current environmental conditions were used as a proxy for the impacts 

of past actions because the existing condition reflects the aggregate impact of all prior human actions 

and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. 

Activities that are presently occurring and that are reasonably foreseeable to continue at historically 

occupied sites are identified and discussed below by site based on specialist experience making field 

visits to the sites:

Willow Meadow

Other activities at Willow Meadow are quite limited. A little used horse trail is present; there is no 

roaded access. No vegetation management activities are planned. 

Long Valley 2

The Long Valley 2 site receives moderate recreation use in that recreational users are typically 

present most weekdays and probably all weekends. A designated motorized trail skirts one boundary 

of the site and an unclassified horse trail skirts the other. OHV noncompliance probably occurs on the 

order of several times each month (i.e. unauthorized cross-country travel off the designated trail). 

Portions of the horse trail meander through willow habitat. The Long Valley OHV Restoration

(Decision Memo, April 10, 2015) project will improve water quality, soil productivity and natural 

vegetation resources by stabilizing, restoring and protecting water, soils, vegetation, and wildlife 

habitat damaged by unauthorized motorized use in areas hydrologically connected to Long Valley 

Creek. 

Eagle Meadow

Eagle Meadow receives high-levels of recreation use; users are typically present every day. 

Recreation use types include stock use special events (i.e. horse group trail rides), hiking, mountain 

biking, and dispersed camping. Recreational stock use of the meadow probably occurs most 

weekdays and all weekends.

Upper Bell Meadow

Upper Bell Meadow receives high-levels of recreation use; users are typically present every day. The 

recreation use types are primarily hiking, fishing, and horseback riding. Hiking and horseback riding 

uses largely remain on a system trail on the meadow edge. Fishing activity occurs probably daily in 

willow habitat. Anglers working their way to fishing spots could potentially knock over flycatcher 

nests if nests were present.

Mule deer

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Death, injury, and disturbance

Specific to this analysis area, the presence of livestock has the potential to disturb and displace mule 

deer from preferred habitat. Based on a comprehensive study on cattle-deer interactions that was 

conducted on the Stanislaus in the 1980s (Loft et al. 1987; 1989; 1991), we know that deer on the 

Stanislaus shift habitat use by reducing use of habitats preferred by cattle and increasing use of 

habitats avoided by cattle. Cattle and deer both prefer meadow, riparian, and aspen habitats. 

Of the action alternatives, Alternative 4 would have the lowest potential of disturbing deer while 

Alternative 1 would have the highest. In particular, the Alternative 1 Allotment additions 

(McCormick, Niagara, and Cascade) could impact an additional 8,269 acres of deer habitat by 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

213

potentially displacing deer to less preferred habitat. This displacement could result in lower fawn 

recruitment and survival. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, no Allotment additions are proposed so the 

potential for deer-cattle interactions within the 8,269 acres of proposed additions would not be an 

issue. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 4 would result in the least disturbance to deer as 

livestock numbers would be lowest and the overall amount of acres subject to deer-cattle interactions 

would be lowest. (Tables 3.13-10 and 3.13-11). 

Table 3.13-10 Number of cow/calf pairs potentially displacing mule deer

Allotment Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Bell Meadow 80 80 64

Eagle Meadow 150 150 120

Herring Creek 156 156 78

Total 386 386 262

Table 3.13-11 Deer range acres subject to deer-cattle interactions

Allotment Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Bell Meadow 13,300 13,300 13,239

Eagle Meadow 25,155 20,300 20,300

Herring Creek 23,676 20,262 9,347

Total 62,131 53,862 42,886

Potential reduction in habitat quality

Specific to this analysis area, livestock use has the potential to reduce habitat quality for mule deer. A 

comprehensive study on cattle-deer interactions was conducted on the Stanislaus in the 1980s (Kie et 

al. 1991; Loft et al. 1987, 1991, 1993; Loomis et al. 1991). The results of this research indicated that 

“moderate” grazing, defined in the study as similar to existing levels, decreased hiding cover for deer, 

reduced use of preferred habitat by deer, increased home range size of deer, and increased energetic 

demands for deer (ibid). Loomis et al. (1991) concluded that based on study results, continuous 

moderate grazing provides an estimated 82 % of the potential deer carrying capacity for an area. The 

amount of preferred deer habitat potentially affected by a reduction in habitat quality varies by 

alternative. 

Table 3.13-12 Acres preferred deer habitat (meadow, riparian and aspen) quality potentially reduced 

Allotment Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 3

(Current Management)

Alternative 4

(Resource Protection)

Bell Meadow 5,337 5,340 5,291

Eagle Meadow 9,854 7,703 7,646

Herring Creek 9,310 7,874 4,829

Total 24,501 20,917 17,766

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

For the site-specific analysis of cumulative effects for this species, the spatial scale of potential 

suitable habitat that overlaps the action area was used. Past action considerations relied on current 

environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions because the existing condition 

reflects the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the 

environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. There are some private inholdings in the 

Eagle Meadow Allotment boundaries; most of these parcels have summer cabins. Livestock are not 
Chapter 3.13 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

214

permitted to use private inholdings. No State lands occur in the action area. State activities include 

authorization of hunting and fishing and maintenance of a livestock exclosure on a 30 acre parcel in 

the Long Valley Subunit for deer habitat improvement. Other activities that are presently occurring 

and that are reasonably foreseeable to continue in the action area are recreational trail use, camping, 

and hunting. Hunting of deer is highly regulated and managed by CDFW. For example, CDFW 

recently reduced the number of deer tags available in the allotments area by nearly 30 percent largely 

in response to the immediate impact of the 2013 Rim Fire. Deer herd recovery is expected to improve 

as vegetation regrowth progresses in the burned area.

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

Sierra Nevada red fox

Under Alternative 4, the least amount of suitable SNRF habitat is potentially affected (13,938 acres) 

while Alternative 1 has the most (20,337 acres) and Alternative 3 totals 17,911 acres. The potential 

for SNRF prey habitat changes would be greatest under Alternative 1 and least under Alternative 4 

(Tables 3.13-4 and 3.13-5) but there is a great deal of uncertainty as to how any changes may impact 

Sierra Nevada red fox.

Great Gray Owl

Alternative 4 potentially affects the least meadow acres and potential reproductive territories. There is 

high potential for a reproductive Great Gray Owl site in the Cascade addition to be affected under 

Alternative 1. The reduction of livestock numbers in Alternative 4 and concomitant increase in the 

amount of meadow vegetation would likely improve habitat conditions for voles, increase vole 

abundance, and reduce vole population cycling time. 

Willow Flycatcher

Habitat objectives are being met for this species (Weixelman 2006) as the SNFPA (USDA 2004) puts 

protective measures in place for the Willow Flycatcher. The proposed action complies with those 

standards and those of the Conservation Assessment, therefore Willow Flycatcher habitat should 

remain suitable. 

Mule deer

Under Alternative 4, the least amount of suitable deer habitat is potentially affected (24,562 acres) 

while Alternative 1 has the most (29,715 acres) and Alternative 3 totals 29,376 acres. The potential 

for disturbance would be greatest under Alternative 1 and least under Alternative 4 (Tables 3.13-10 

and 3.13-11) 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

Sierra Nevada red fox

Standards and Guidelines are limited to #32 (USDA 2004) which calls for an analysis of activities 

within 5 miles of a verified Sierra Nevada red fox detection and an evaluation of activities for a 2-

year period. While suitable habitat for Sierra Nevada red fox is contiguous with occupied habitat, no 

verified detections have occurred to date within 5 miles of the action area.

Great Gray Owl

Great Gray Owl surveys will continue as funding and staffing allow. 

The action alternatives call for maintaining herbaceous vegetation height commensurate with the 

needs of Great Gray Owl prey as informed by a special management study. Alternative 4 provides the 

most assurance that this standard will be met. 

Standards apply mainly to habitat condition and objectives in meadows and are addressed by the 

action alternatives (Watershed Report). Great Gray Owl will benefit by application of these standards. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

215

The ecological importance for the management, restoration, and monitoring of meadow and riparian 

habitats in the Sierra Nevada is well established (Ratliff 1985; USDA 2001, 2004; Potter 2005). 

Willow Flycatcher

The action alternatives maintain habitat suitability for Willow Flycatcher. 

Standards apply mainly to habitat condition and objectives in meadows and are addressed by the 

action alternatives (Watershed Report, project record). Willow Flycatcher will benefit by application 

of these standards. The ecological importance for the management, restoration, and monitoring of 

meadow and riparian habitats in the Sierra Nevada is well established (Ratliff 1985; USDA 2001, 

2004; Potter 2005).

Mule deer

Mule deer – Protect habitat needs on identified critical summer and winter range, especially where 

fawning areas are located. While deer carrying capacity may be reduced, the action alternatives, 

largely through application of utilization standards, largely maintain deer habitat capable of 

supporting a viable population of deer in the action area. 
Chapter 3.13 Stanislaus

Wildlife National Forest

216
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

217

3.14 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and 

the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by the 

Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical 

assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain 

conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, 

economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 

101). Alternatives 2, 4, 1, then 3 respectively from most to least could potentially improve the longterm productivity by reducing the impacts of grazing on the landscape. Where not already impaired 

due to legacy impacts, resource conditions would be maintained or would show improvement towards 

desired conditions.

3.15 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

Implementation of any of the alternatives would result in some unavoidable adverse environmental 

effects. Although formation of the alternatives included avoidance of some effects, other adverse 

effects could occur that cannot be completely mitigated. The environmental consequences section for 

each resource area discusses these effects.

3.16 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a 

species or the removal of a mined ore. No irreversible commitments of resources would result from 

implementation of any of the alternatives because no permanent, irreversible resource loss would 

occur. 

Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary poor 

condition of vegetation in an individual management unit. Irretrievable losses can be regained over 

time. No irretrievable commitments of resources would result from implementation of the No Action 

Alternative because no grazing would occur and, therefore, no significant resource losses of any kind 

would result. The annual use of forage by livestock would be an ongoing irretrievable loss while 

grazing is authorized on these Allotments. Short-term rangeland vegetation loss (foraging, browsing, 

and trampling of vegetation) would occur in grazed areas under all action alternatives. These losses 

would be temporary because the vegetation would recover to its potential productivity if grazing 

ceased to occur. Implementation of all action alternatives would irretrievably commit an 

indeterminate amount of fossil fuels in order to execute and manage grazing activities over time. 

3.17 OTHER REQUIRED DISCLOSURES

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest 

extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and 

integrated with ...other environmental review laws and executive orders.” This EIS was prepared in 

accordance with the following regulations:

National Historic Preservation Act: The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 is the 

principle, guiding statute for the management of cultural resources on NFS lands. Section 106 of 

NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the potential effects of a Preferred Alternative on 

historic, architectural, or archaeological resources that are eligible for inclusion on the National 
Chapter 3.17 Stanislaus

Other Required Disclosures National Forest

218 

Register of Historic Places and to afford the President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an 

opportunity to comment. The criteria for National Register eligibility and procedures for 

implementing Section 106 of NHPA are outlined in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 

Parts 60 and 800, respectively). Section 110 requires federal agencies to identify, evaluate, inventory, 

and protect National Register of Historic Places resources on properties they control. 

Potential impacts to archaeological and historic resources were evaluated in compliance with Section 

106. The Forest Service and the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) have agreed 

that the rangeland management program will be performed in accordance with the terms and 

conditions of a Programmatic Agreement (PA, FS No. 06-MU- 11040218-059, project record) to 

satisfy the Stanislaus NF’s NHPA Section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings of the 

program. The PA outlines procedures for the identification, evaluation, and resolution of adverse 

effects to historic properties in Allotment areas. The criteria for determining adverse effects are 

outlined in the PA. The resolution of adverse effects, if adverse effects area identified, is also 

established in the PA.

Public law protects the confidentiality of cultural resources information. The Archeological 

Resources Protection Act, as referenced in the Freedom of Information Act, protects from public 

disclosure the nature and location of archeological sites. For this reason, site locations in the project 

area are not displayed in the EIS, nor are the contents of these sites discussed in detail.

Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice: EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (issued February 11, 

1994), requires that each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its 

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high or adverse human 

health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and 

low-income populations. None of the alternatives disproportionately affect minority and low-income 

populations. Social and economic effects of all alternatives were analyzed (Chapter 3.08, Society, 

Culture and Economy).

Clean Water Act: regulates the dredging and filling of freshwater and coastal wetlands. Section 404 

(33 USC 1344) prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters (including wetlands) of 

the United States without first obtaining a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands 

are regulated in accordance with federal Non-Tidal Wetlands Regulations (Sections 401 and 404). No 

dredging or filling is part of this proposed action and no permits are required. 

Clean Air Act of 1970: provides for the protection and enhancement of the nation’s air resources. No 

exceeding of the federal and state ambient air quality standards is expected to result from any of the 

alternatives. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973: requires that any action authorized by a federal agency not 

be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. Section 

7 of the ESA (16 USC 1531 et seq.), as amended, requires the responsible federal agency to consult 

the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning endangered and threatened species 

under their jurisdiction.

The USFWS was consulted during analysis, and project activities (permitted grazing) were assessed 

to determine their effects on threatened, endangered, and candidate plant and animal species. Two 

amphibian species (Yosemite toad and Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, were listed in 2014 as 

threatened and endangered respectively), two Forest Service sensitive terrestrial wildlife species 

(Willow Flycatcher and Great Grey Owl) and one candidate terrestrial wildlife species (Sierra 

Nevada Red Fox) are found within the project analysis area in Tuolumne County, California (USFWS 

2012). The Wildlife BE prepared for this project indicates that continued grazing “May Affect 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Affected Environment

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Consequences

219

individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability” for 

the Willow Flycatcher, Great Grey Owl and Sierra Nevada Red Fox (EIS Chapter 3.13 and Wildlife 

BE, project record) The Biological Assessment-Aquatics prepared for this project indicates that 

continued grazing “May Affect and is Likely to Adversely Affect” Yosemite toad and Sierra 

Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog. (EIS Chapter 3.02 and Aquatics BA, project record). There are no 

Federally Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate Plants in the project area.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976: amends the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 

Resources Planning Act of 1974 and sets forth the requirements for Land and Resource Management 

Plans (Forest Plans) for the National Forest System. The proposed action is consistent with the 

NFMA and the Forest Plan.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Section 402(G): This project would be in 

compliance with FLPMA, Section 402(G) because two year advance notice of term grazing permit 

cancellation would be given to the permittees for the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring 

Creek Allotments, as required, if Alternative 2 (No Action Alternative) is selected by the responsible 

official or if permit cancellation is deemed appropriate through the regular permit administration 

process. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management: Floodplains are found along stream channels 

throughout the Allotments. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would maintain or 

improve the existing condition of these floodplains by maintaining or improving meadow conditions. 

The No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) would also improve the condition of floodplains. The 

intent of Executive Order 11988 would be met since this project would not affect floodplains in the 

BEH Range Allotments analysis area and thereby would not increase flood hazard. 

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands: Wetlands within the project area include 

meadows, stream channels, springs, fens, and shorelines. This project is consistent with Executive 

Order 11990 since this project would maintain or improve the condition of wetlands in the BEH 

Range Allotments (Chapter 3.02 Aquatic Species and Watershed Report, project record).

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land (USDA Regulation 9500-3): There are no prime 

farmlands, rangelands, or forest lands located on the Stanislaus National Forest (Forest Plan EIS, p. 3-

979). Therefore no effects to prime farmland, rangeland, or forest lands would occur with 

implementation of any of the alternatives.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act decreed that all migratory birds and 

their parts (including eggs, nests, and feathers) were fully protected. Under the Act, taking, killing or 

possessing migratory birds is unlawful. The original intent was to put an end to the commercial trade 

in birds and their feathers that had wreaked havoc on the populations of many native bird species. On 

January 17, 2001, President Clinton signed an executive order directing executive departments and 

agencies to take certain actions to further implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FR Vol. 66, 

No.11, January 17, 2001). 

The Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have entered into a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) to promote the conservation of migratory birds as a direct response to the 

executive order (USDA Forest Service and USFWS 2008). One of the steps outlined for the Forest 

Service is applicable to this analysis: “Within the NEPA process, evaluate the effects of agency 

actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern along with their priority 

habitats and key risk factors.” The Forest Service additionally agreed, to the extent practicable, to 

evaluate and balance benefits against adverse effects, to pursue opportunities to restore or enhance 

migratory bird habitat, and to consider approaches for minimizing take that is incidental to otherwise 

lawful activities.
Chapter 3.17 Stanislaus

Other Required Disclosures National Forest

220

The selected alternative would comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act but may result in an 

“unintentional take” of individuals during proposed activities. However the project complies with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director’s Order #131 related to the applicability of the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act to Federal agencies and requirements for permits for “take”. In addition, this project 

complies with Executive Order 13186 because the analysis meets agency obligations as defined under 

the January 16,2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service designed to complement Executive Order 13186. If new requirements or direction 

result from subsequent interagency memorandums of understanding pursuant to Executive Order 

13186, this project would be reevaluated to ensure that it is consistent. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Consultation

Environmental Impact Statement and Coordination

221

4. Consultation and Coordination

The first section of this chapter shows the preparers and contributors followed by a second section 

outlining the distribution of the EIS. 

4.01 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

The Forest Service worked with the following individuals; federal, state and local agencies; and, 

tribes during the development of this EIS. 

Interdisciplinary Team

ADAM BARNETT

Education: M.S. Wilderness Management, University of Idaho, 2004; B.A. Political Science, Vassar 

College, 1992 

Experience: Wilderness Manager, Forest Service, 6 years; Social Science Analyst, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, 3 years; Wilderness Ranger, Olympic National Park, 8 years

Team Responsibility: District Wilderness Specialist

DAWN COULTRAP

Education: B.S. Rangeland Resource Science (Botany minor), CSU Humboldt, 2005; M.S. Natural 

Resources Sciences (Rangeland Resources and Wildland Soils emphasis), CSU Humboldt, 

2007 

Experience: Rangeland Management Specialist, Stanislaus National Forest 5 years; Staff Biologist, 

Integrated Environmental Services 1 year; Junior Specialist, UC Davis Plant Sciences 5 

years; Biological Technician, Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team 3 years

Team Responsibility: Writer/Editor

LISA DEHART

Education: B.A. Anthropology with a concentration in prehistoric archaeology, CSU, Stanislaus 

1984; 

Experience: District Archaeologist, Summit Ranger District, Stanislaus National Forest 24 years; 

Archaeological Technician/Archaeologist Supervisor’s Office, Stanislaus National Forest 1 1⁄2 

years; Commissioner, Tuolumne County Historic Preservation Review Commission 1993-

present, Archaeologist on various survey and excavation crews in California, Nevada, 

Montana and Australia 1981-1989. 

Team Responsibility: Archaeologist

SUSAN FORBES

Education: B.S. Physical Geography, California State University Chico, 1992; M.A. Agriculture 

(Rangeland Science emphasis), California State University, Chico, 1998 

Experience: Rangeland Management Specialist, Lassen National Forest 11 years; Rangeland 

Management Specialist, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 4 years; Rangeland Management 

Specialist, Stanislaus National Forest 10 years; Society for Range Management, Certified 

Professional in Range Management, 14 years. 

Team Responsibility: Forest Range Specialist
Chapter 4.01 Stanislaus

Preparers and Contributors National Forest

222

STEVE HOLDEMAN

Education: B.S. Wildlife and Fisheries, University of Tennessee, 1988, M.S. Wildlife and Fisheries, 

University of Tennessee, 1993

Experience: Forest Aquatic Biologist, Stanislaus National Forest 11 years; Private consultant, Aquatic 

Biology 17 years 

Team Responsibility: Forest Aquatic Biologist

CRISPIN HOLLAND

Education: B.S. Rangeland Resource Science, CSU Humboldt, 1994 

Experience: Forest Wildlife, Range and Botany Coordinator, Stanislaus National Forest 7 years; 

Range Program Manager, Pacific Southwest Region 2 years; Forest Range Program Manager, 

Plumas National Forest 3 years; Range Conservationist, Stanislaus National Forest 8 years

Team Responsibility: Team Leader; Socio-Economics Analysis; Forest Wildlife Biologist

ALEX JANICKI

Education: B.S. Geology, University of Florida, 1970; M.S. Soil Science, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, 

1980 

Experience: Soil Scientist, Stanislaus National Forest 34 years; Terrain Analyst, U.S. Army 

Engineering Terrain Detachment 2 years

Team Responsibility: Forest Soil Scientist

JULIE MARTIN

Education: B.S. Forestry (recreation emphasis), University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point 1983, M.S. 

Recreation Resource Management and Administration, Colorado State University 1991. 

Experience: Public Service Program Area Leader, Stanislaus National Forest 11 years, Recreation 

Planner, Uncompahgre National Forest 4 years.

Team Responsibility: District Recreation Specialist

JOHN MASCHI

Education: B.S. Landscape Architecture, Rutgers University, 1976; Master of Landscape 

Architecture, University of Illinois, 1978

Experience: Forest Planner, Stanislaus National Forest 17 years; Assistant Recreation Officer 6 years; 

Landscape Architect 11 years

Team Responsibility: Land Management Planning

ADAM RICH

Education: B.S. Biology, Rutgers University, 1988; M.S. Biology, Rutgers University, 1993. 

Experience: Wildlife Biologist, Stanislaus National Forest, 18 years; Deschutes National Forest, 1 

year; Research Biologist, US Fish & Wildlife Service, 3 years

Team Responsibility: District Wildlife Biologist

MARK SCHUG

Education: GIS Certificate, Columbia College, 2006; B.S. Forestry, Northern Arizona University, 

1990; Associate in Applied Science, Forestry, College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry, Wanakena Ranger School, 1985 

Experience: GIS Specialist, Stanislaus National Forest 12 years; Forestry Technician 10 years

Team Responsibility: GIS Specialist
BEH Rangeland Allotments Consultation

Environmental Impact Statement and Coordination

223

TRACY WEDDLE

Education: B.S. Environmental Studies, University of California Santa Barbara, 2000; M.S. 

Watershed Science, Colorado State University, 2003 

Experience: Hydrologist, Stanislaus National Forest 8 years; Hydrologist, White Mountain National 

Forest 3 years

Team Responsibility: District Hydrologist

MARGARET WILLITS

Education: B.A Environmental Studies, Swarthmore College, 1977; M.A. Biology (plant ecology 

emphasis), Humboldt State University, 1995 

Experience: Zone Botanist, Mi-Wok Ranger District, Stanislaus National Forest 15 years; Botanist, 

Tonasket Ranger District, Okanogan National Forest 1 year; Botanist Stanislaus National 

Forest (ecology and hydrology programs) 1 year; Botanist and Biological Technician, 

Yosemite, Redwood National Parks, Malheur National Forest 1 year

Team Responsibility: Botanist and District Noxious Weed Coordinator
Chapter 4.01 Stanislaus

Preparers and Contributors National Forest

224
BEH Rangeland Allotments Consultation

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Coordination

225

4.02 DISTRIBUTION OF THE EIS

The Forest Service is circulating either the EIS or a notice of the availability of the EIS to the 

following agencies, elected officials, tribes, organizations and individuals. 

Federal, State and Local Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Tuolumne County Administrator’s Office

Calaveras County Board of Supervisors

Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors

California Department of Fish & Game

California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region, Sacramento

California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region, Redding

Tribes

Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians

Chicken Ranch Tribal Council

Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California

California Valley Miwok Tribe

American Indian Council of Mariposa County

Calaveras Band of Miwuk Indians

Organizations

California Farm Bureau Federation

California Cattlemen’s Association

Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources and Environment

Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center

Sierra Forest Legacy

Western Watershed Project

High Sierra Hiker’s Association

Dodge Ridge Corporation

Pacific Crest Trail Association

Elected Officials

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein

U.S. Representative Tom McClintock

State Senator Leland Yee

State Assemblyman Frank Bigelow

Others

Stanislaus Grazing Association

Kennedy Meadow Pack Station

Aspen Meadow Pack Station
Chapter 4.02 Stanislaus

Distribution of the EIS National Forest

226

Individuals

Steve Brougher

Marshall Lockman

Alfred C. Harrison

Raymond Gada III

Irving Terzich

David Fisher

Leita Hobby

Karen Martin

Richard Price

John Frailing

Marilyn Scheller

Carroll M. Sinclair

Wesley W. Wittman

Richard T. Norquist

Bridget Bos

James E. Murray

Linda Ramsdern

Ross Carkeet Jr.

Ronald J. Fink

Gerald Geissler

Lela Marshall

Brenda B. Senturia

Clark J. Keefe

Arnold G. Boatman Sr.

Bruce J. Greenlaw

Daniel H. Ward

Paula Schnarr

David Williams

Frederick J. Bozzo Jr

Peppermint Enterprise Inc.

Department of Interior, BLM

John Goetter

Rodger Tidball

John R. Durnall

Joseph W. Marin Jr.

Michael Moffat

Clifford Schroeder

John T. Watts

Stephen Schroeder

James D. Mullin

Robert M. Belt

Jane D. Baird

John C. Lichliter

Alvin Fadely

Leonard E. Doten

Gerald Tufts

Virginia Sullivan

Glen Vincent

William M. Littell

Robert C. Garaventa

Blaine Rogers

Carroll E. Gamble

Rodney A. McNally

Jerry Keith

Charles R. Duston

James T. Wilson

Diana Fairbanks

Robert Marsden

Danny Ahles

Ed Fields

James Tune
BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement Index

227

Index

Additions

Cascade, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 54, 73, 74, 80, 81, 

92, 95, 113, 121, 123, 134, 138, 139, 141, 

148, 149, 150, 166, 167, 169, 172, 173, 174, 

181, 182, 183, 184, 201, 202, 203, 206, 208, 

211, 213

McCormick, 8, 15, 16, 17, 28, 73, 91, 112, 139, 

148, 149, 150, 162, 163, 172, 173, 174, 182, 

183, 201, 203, 206, 208, 211

Niagara, 5, 8, 15, 16, 17, 20, 24, 52, 57, 73, 80, 

91, 106, 107, 112, 121, 123, 124, 139, 148, 

149, 150, 158, 162, 163, 172, 173, 174, 182, 

183, 201, 203, 206, 208, 211

Affected Environment, 1, 39, 40, 41, 47, 73, 89, 

95, 104, 120, 128, 135, 145, 157, 189, 200

Air Quality, 42

Allotment Management Plans, 3, 8, 9, 14, 18, 21, 

28, 32, 98

Allotments 

Bell Meadow, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 36, 41, 47, 

49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 62, 73, 74, 78, 80, 81, 

83, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 105, 106, 

107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 116, 117, 

121, 122, 124, 130, 131, 132, 136, 139, 141, 

145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 156, 157, 158, 159, 

160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 171, 172, 

173, 174, 177, 178, 180, 182, 183, 185, 189, 

191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 200, 201, 203, 204, 

206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 218

Eagle Meadow, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 

17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 36, 

41, 47, 49, 52, 55, 57, 65, 68, 70, 73, 76, 78, 

80, 81, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 106, 107, 

108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 121, 

122, 123, 124, 130, 131, 132, 136, 139, 141, 

146, 149, 157, 158, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 

172, 173, 174, 177, 178, 180, 182, 183, 185, 

189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 200, 201, 202, 203, 

204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 218

Herring Creek, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 36, 41, 47, 

48, 49, 52, 55, 57, 62, 66, 69, 73, 74, 78, 80, 

81, 83, 84, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 106, 107, 108, 

109, 110, 113, 114, 117, 121, 123, 124, 130, 

131, 132, 135, 136, 139, 140,141, 146, 149, 

155, 156, 157, 158, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 

170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 177, 178, 180, 182, 

183, 185, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 200, 

201, 203, 206, 208, 209, 210, 212, 218

Alternatives

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), 8, 14, 16, 18, 

21, 25, 32, 33, 57, 66, 67, 79, 85, 92, 111, 

118, 122, 130, 139, 148, 151, 172, 191, 195, 

206

Alternative 2 (No Action), 18, 30, 31, 32, 33, 66, 

67, 82, 85, 93, 114, 118, 124, 131, 140, 149, 

151, 177, 186, 192, 195

Alternative 3 (Current Management), 18, 19, 20, 

32, 33, 67, 83, 85, 93, 115, 118, 125, 132, 

139, 140, 149, 151, 179, 193, 194, 195, 206

Alternative 4 (Resource Protection), 21, 23, 24, 

25, 30, 31, 67, 84, 85, 93, 117, 125, 132, 141, 

150, 182, 194, 195

Aquatic Habitat

Aquatic habitat, 173, 177, 179, 183

Aquatic Species Sensitive

Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog, 66

Aspen, 5, 7, 20, 42, 90, 94, 95, 96, 110, 112, 189

Authorization Parameters

AUMs, 100, 130, 133, 139, 141

infrastructure, 9, 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 34, 88, 92, 

133

permitted grazing area, 15, 19, 21, 22, 31, 117

utilization standards, 16, 23, 107

Counties

Tuolumne County, 2, 11, 41, 78, 128, 129, 130, 

133, 217

Economy

economic, 40, 128, 129, 131, 132

employment, 128, 129

income, 128, 129, 131, 133, 217

Environmental Consequences, 1, 39, 40, 57, 79, 

92, 96, 111, 121, 130, 137, 142, 148, 172, 189, 

205

cumulative effects, 39, 71, 83, 113, 125, 132, 

133, 141, 176, 181, 182, 184

summary of effects, 85, 118

Forage Utilization, 16, 19, 23, 32, 69, 101, 107, 

115, 116, 172

Forest Plan

Forest Plan Direction, 4, 8, 14, 44, 46, 69, 71, 

94, 98, 104, 107, 108, 112, 113, 116, 117, 

118, 120, 126, 133, 134, 142, 144, 147, 148, 

150, 152, 154, 177, 180, 182, 184, 186, 188, 

196, 207, 210

SNFPA, 6, 37, 203, 209, 210, 213

Standards and Guidelines, 6, 11, 18, 19, 20, 24, 

25, 32, 36, 44, 45, 79, 100, 106, 107, 111, 

139, 140, 141, 148, 149, 150, 152, 172, 179, 

182, 185, 186, 213

Indicators, 47, 72, 89, 94, 103, 120, 128, 134, 144, 

153, 154, 188, 199

Infrastructure

cattleguards, 15, 22

corrals, 5, 6, 15, 21, 22, 23, 54, 66, 90, 106, 108, 

109, 138, 167, 168, 169, 183

fences, 15, 16, 22, 32, 130, 131, 132, 180

troughs, 16, 20, 22
Stanislaus

Index National Forest

228

Invasive Species

noxious and invasive weeds, 7, 26, 72, 94, 95, 

96, 97, 102, 103, 105

Issues

significant issues, 11

Meadow Condition

Ecological Status, 6, 103

Meadow Hydrologic Function, 5, 27, 36, 111, 

134, 139, 141, 154, 158, 159, 163, 167, 168, 

172, 175, 176, 177, 179, 181, 182, 184

Mitigation

Adaptive Management Strategy, 18, 20, 24, 25, 

28, 29, 32, 176

Resource Conservation Measures, 11, 18, 20, 

24, 25, 27, 32, 139, 141, 148, 150, 152, 176, 

182

Standards and Guidelines, 6, 11, 18, 19, 20, 24, 

25, 32, 36, 44, 45, 79, 100, 106, 107, 111, 

139, 140, 141, 148, 149, 150, 152, 172, 179, 

182, 185, 186, 213

Mitigation and Other Requirements, 15, 18, 20, 

21, 24, 25, 97, 148

Monitoring, 28, 29, 32, 46, 55, 97, 103, 104, 106, 

107, 108, 110, 111, 117, 118, 120, 139, 141, 148

Recreation 

developed campgrounds, 34, 121

dispersed camping, 7, 121, 123, 124, 211

hiking, 42, 114, 120, 121, 146, 155, 191, 193, 

209, 211

horseback, 42, 62, 120, 121, 122, 189, 209, 211

Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS), 120, 

121, 122, 123, 125, 126

recreation use, 114, 120, 125, 146, 170, 189, 

207, 210, 211

trailhead, 42, 121, 122, 161, 189

Regulations

Clean Air Act, 9, 217

Clean Water Act, 7, 9, 98, 152, 154, 217

Endangered Species Act, 9, 98, 198, 200, 217

Environmental Justice, 128, 129, 133, 217

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act, 4, 9, 98, 218

National Historic Preservation Act, 9, 216

NEPA, 1, 3, 9, 12, 14, 18, 28, 29, 30, 40, 41, 43, 

44, 98, 120, 196, 216, 218

NFMA, 218

Research Natural Areas

Bell Meadow RNA, 146, 148

Resource Conditions

PFC, 25, 27, 28, 29, 36, 51, 53, 54, 57, 111, 117, 

137, 138, 140, 154, 158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 

167, 168, 169, 172, 173, 174, 177, 178, 179, 

180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186

Riparian

Critical Aquatic Refuge, 41

Riparian Conservation Area, 41, 154

Riparian Conservation Objectives, 152, 186

Riparian Vegetation, 109

Sensitive Plants

Mingan moonwort, 75, 77

Society and Culture

social, 40, 128, 131, 132, 217

Soil, 35, 40, 51, 66, 69, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 

140, 142, 146

Special Aquatic Features

fens, 33, 39, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 111

seeps, 33, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85

shorelines, 160, 169, 173

springs, 6, 154, 176, 182, 184

streambanks, 33, 139, 152, 179, 186

wetlands, 217, 218

Special Areas

Research Natural Areas, 144, 146

Roadless Areas, 144, 145, 148

Special Interest Areas, 144, 147

Wild and Scenic Rivers, 41, 144, 147, 149, 157

Wilderness, 4, 7, 37, 40, 41, 42, 48, 54, 57, 70, 

78, 97, 98, 144, 145, 146, 188, 189, 190, 191, 

192, 193, 194, 195, 196

Special Interest Areas

Bull Run SIA, 144, 145, 147, 148, 151 

Terrestrial Wildlife

deer, 20, 204, 205, 212, 213

PACs, 6, 26, 110, 202, 207, 208

Terrestrial Wildlife Sensitive

Great Gray Owl, 6, 22, 37, 110, 113, 116, 198, 

200, 201, 202, 203, 207, 208, 209, 210, 213

Northern Goshawk, 200

Sierra Nevada Red Fox, 37, 200, 201, 206, 217

Willow Flycatcher, 37, 110, 200, 203, 204, 210, 

213, 214, 217

Vegetation, 41, 105, 145, 146, 157, 163, 167, 207

meadow vegetation, 6

riparian vegetation, 104, 153, 186

Water Quality, 7, 37, 153, 154, 155, 177, 185

Watershed, 22, 36, 37, 40, 51, 69, 71, 99, 152, 

153, 154, 158, 161, 162, 165, 166, 170, 171, 

172, 176, 177, 182, 196, 213, 214, 218

Cumulative watershed effects, 176

Meadow Hydrologic Function, 111, 153, 154, 

186

water quality, 7, 37, 153, 154, 155, 177, 185

Wilderness, 4, 7, 37, 40, 41, 42, 48, 54, 57, 70, 78, 

97, 98, 144, 145, 146, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 

193, 194, 195, 196

Wildlife

PACs, 6, 26, 110, 202, 207, 208

Wildlife Sensitive

Great Gray Owl, 6, 22, 37, 110, 113, 116, 198, 

200, 201, 202, 203, 207, 208, 209, 210, 213

Northern Goshawk, 200

Sierra Nevada Red Fox, 37, 200, 201, 206, 217

Willow Flycatcher, 37, 110, 200, 203, 204, 210, 

213, 214, 217
BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement References

229

References

Allen-Diaz, B., Barrett, R., Frost, W., Huntsinger, L., Tate, K. 1999. Sierra Nevada Ecosystems in the 

Presence of Livestock.

Allen-Diaz, B., S. McIlroy, K. Tate, L. Roche, and A. Lind. 2010. Determining the effects of 

livestock grazing on Yosemite toads (Bufo canorus) and their habitat: an adaptive 

management study. Final Report submitted to U. S. Forest Service Region 5 as fulfillment of 

Agreement Number 05-JV-052050-009 between USFS and UC Regents. 68p. 

Aquasurv. 2011. Stanislaus National Forest Aquatic Survey Database. Stanislaus National Forest, 

Sonora, CA. 

Atwill, E.R., R. Phillips and F. Rulofson. 2002. Environmental Loading Rates of the Waterborne 

Pathogenic Protozoa Cryptosporidium parvum in Certain Domestic and Wildlife Species in 

California. Proceedings of the 20th Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, 

Davis. Pp. 241-243. 

Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 

2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of 

California Press, Berkeley.

BEA (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2012a. Total full-time and part-time employment by 

NAICS industry table TC25, Tuolumne County, CA. www.bea.gov. (accessed June, 2012). 

BEA (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2012b. Regional economic profiles table TC30, Tuolumne 

County, CA. www.bea.gov. (accessed June, 2012). 

Beatty, Brenda L. , William F. Jennings, and Rebecca C. Rawlinson. 2003. Botrychium ascendens 

W.H. Wagner (trianglelobe moonwort), Botrychium crenulatum W.H. Wagner (scalloped 

moonwort) 

Beck, T.W. 1985. Interim direction for management of Great Gray Owl, Stanislaus National Forest, 

October, 1985. Sonora, CA. 

Beck, T.W. and J. Winter. 2000. Survey protocol for Great Gray Owl in the Sierra Nevada of 

California. Prepared for US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.

Belsky, A.J.; Blumenthal, D.M. 1997. Effects of livestock grazing on stand dynamics and soils in 

upland forests of the Interior West. Conservation Biology. 11: 315-327. 

Belsky, A.J.; Matzke, A.; Uselman, S. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian 

ecosystems in the Western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 54: 419-

431. 

Berger, L., G. Marantelli, L. F. Skerratt, and R. Speare. 2005. Virulence of the amphibian chytrid 

fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis varies with the strain. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 

68:47-50. 

Berger, L., R. Speare, P. Daszak, D. E. Green, A. Cunningham, C. L. Goggin, R. Slocombe, M. A. 

Ragan, A. D. Hyatt, K. R. McDonald, H. B. Hines, K. R. Lips, G. Marantelli, and H. Parkes. 

1998. Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality associated with population declines in 

the rain forests of Australia and Central America. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences of the United States of America 95:9031-9036. 
Stanislaus

References National Forest

230

Biek, R., W. C. Funk, B. A. Maxwell, and L. S. Mills. 2002. What is missing in amphibian decline 

research: insights from ecological sensitivity analysis. Conservation Biology 16(3):728-734. 

Botti, Stephen J. 2001. An illustrated flora of Yosemite National Park. Yosemite Association. El 

Portal, CA 

Bradford, D. L. 1991. Mass mortality and extinction in a high elevation population of Rana muscosa. 

Journal of Herpetology 25:174-177. 

Brown, Cathy, Katie Kiehl, and Lucas Wilkinson. 2012. Advantages of long-term, multi-scale 

monitoring: assessing the current status of the Yosemite toad (Anaxyrus [Bufo] canorus) in 

the Sierra Nevada, California, USA." Herpetological Conservation and Biology 7.2: 115-131. 

Brunson, Mark W. and L. Gilbert. 2003. Recreationist responses to livestock grazing in a new 

national monument. Journal of Range Management 56:570-576. 

Bulger, J. B., N. J. Scott, Jr., and R. B. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult 

California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) in coastal forests and grasslands. 

Conservation Biology 110:85-95. 

Bull, E.L. and M.G. Henjum. 1990. Ecology of the great gray owl. General Technical Report PNWGTR-265, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. La Grande, Oregon. 

California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Database. January 2008. Special Vascular 

Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Quarterly publication. 69 pp. 

California EPA. 2011. The water quality control plan (basin plan) for the California Regional Water 

Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region: The Sacramento River Basin and the San 

Joaquin River Basin. 4th ed., rev. Sacramento, CA. 148 p. 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/ (6 March 2012) 

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2012. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online 

edition, v7-08b). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed on December 

10, 2012 from http://www.cnps.org/inventory 

California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 2011.

California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 2012.

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). 2011. Petition to list the Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes 

necator) as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Tucson, Arizona. 

Christy, J. A. 1980. Additions to the moss flora of Oregon. The Bryologist 83(3) 355-358. 

Clary, W. P., Leininger, W.C.,. 2000. Stubble Height as a tool for management of riparian areas. 

Journal of Range Management 53, no.6 (November: 562-73. 

CNDDB 2011 & 2012. California Natural Diversity Database. Monthly GIS layer available by 

subscription from http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/ California Department of Fish 

and Game, Sacramento, California. 

Cooper, David J., Rodney A. Chimner, and Evan C. Wolf. (Colorado State University) Livestock use 

and the sustainability of southern Sierra Nevada fens. Report prepared for Inyo National 

Forest, May 2005 

Cosyns, Eric, Sofie Claerbout, Indra Lamoot and Maurice Hoffmann 2005 Endozoochorous seed 

dispersal by cattle and horse in a spatially heterogeneous landscape. Plant Ecology 178:149–

162 
BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement References

231

County of Tuolumne. 2010. 2010 Crop and Livestock Report. 

http://ucanr.org/sites/Farm_Management/files/132328.pdf 

Davidson, C. and G. M. Fellers. 2005. Yosemite toad, Bufo canorus. Pp. 400-401 in Michael Lannoo 

(Ed.), Amphibian Declines: The conservation status of United States Species. University of 

California Press, Berkeley, California. Xxi + 1094 pp. 

Davidson, C., H. B. Shaffer, and M. R. Jennings. 2002. Spatial tests of the pesticide drift, habitat 

destruction, UV-B, and climate-change hypotheses for California amphibian declines. 

Conservation Biology 16(6):1588-1601. 

Derlet, R.W. and J.R. Carlson, and M.N. Noponen. 2004. Coliform and Pathogenic Bacteria in Sierra 

Nevada National Forest Wilderness Area Lakes and Streams. Wilderness and Environmental 

Medicine. Vol. 15, 245-249. 

Derlet, R.W., J.R. Carlson. 2006. Coliform Bacteria in Sierra Nevada Wilderness Lakes and Streams: 

What is the impact of Backpackers, Pack Animals and Cattle? Wilderness and Environmental 

Medicine. Vol. 17, 15-20. 

Derlet, R.W., J.R. Carlson. 2008. Risk Factors for Coliform Bacteria in Backcountry Lakes and 

Streams in the Sierra Nevada Mountains: A 5-Year Study. Wilderness and Environmental 

Medicine. Vol. 19, 82-90. 

Dillingham, C. 2005 Conservation Assessment for Meesia triquetra (L.) Aongstr. (three-ranked 

hump-moss) and Meesia uliginosa Hedwig (broad-nerved hump-moss) in California with a 

focus on the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. V. 1.2 

Drost, Charles A., and Gary M. Fellers. "Collapse of a regional frog fauna in the Yosemite area of the 

California Sierra Nevada, USA." Conservation biology 10.2 (1996): 414-425. 

Federal Register. 2002. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding for a 

petition to list the Yosemite toad. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Volume 67, Number 237. 

Pages 75834-75843. 

Federal Register. 2003. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding for a 

petition to list the Sierra Nevada distinct population segment of the mountain yellow-legged 

frog (Rana muscosa). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Volume 68, Number 11. Pages 2283-

2303. 

Federal Register. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog, and Special Rule Exemption Associated with 

Final Listing for Routine Ranching Activities; Final Rule. Volume 71, Number 71. 

Federal Register. 2012. 90-Day finding on a petition to list Sierra Nevada red fox as Endangered or 

Threatened. Vol. 77, No. 1:45-52. 

Federal Register. 2014. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; endangered species staus for 

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and Northern Distinct Population Segment of the mountain 

yellow-legged frog, and threatened species status for Yosemite toad; final rule. April 29, 

2014, Volume 79, Number 82:24256-24310. 

Federal Register. October 8, 2015. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Sierra Nevada Red Fox as 

an Endangered or ThreatenedSpecies; Proposed Rule. Vol. 80, No. 195:60990-61028. 

Fellers, G. M., L. L. McConnell, D. Pratt, and S. Datta. 2004. Pesticides in mountain yellow-legged 

frogs (Rana muscosa) from the Sierra Nevada mountains of California, USA. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 23(9):2170-2177. 
Stanislaus

References National Forest

232

Fites, J.T, 1993. Ecological Guide to Mixed Conifer Plant Associations. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region Publication. 

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in Western North America. Conservation 

Biology. 8: 629-644. 

Flowers, S. 1973. Mosses: Utah and the West. Brigham University Press, Provo, Utah. 567pp. 

Freitas, M., L.M. Roche, D.W. Weixelman, K.W. Tate. 2014. Montane meadow plant community 

response to grazing. Environmental Management 54: 301-308. 

Gerlanc, N. and G. Kaufman. 2005. Habitat of origin and changes in water chemistry influence 

development of western chorus frogs. Journal of Herpetology 39(2):254-265. 

Green, D. E. and C. Kagarise Sherman. 2001. Diagnostic histological findings in Yosemite toads 

(Bufo canorus) from a die-off in the 1970’s. Journal of Herpetology 35(1):92-103. 

Green, G.A., Bombay, H.L., and M.L. Morrison. 2003. Conservation Assessment of the Willow 

Flycatcher in the Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service administrative contract, Pacific 

Southwest Region. 

Greene, C. 1995. Habitat requirements of Great Gray Owls in the central Sierra Nevada. M.S. Thesis, 

School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan. 

Hammersmark, C., Rains, M., and Mount, J. 2008. Quantifying the hydrological effects of stream 

restoration in a montane meadow, northern California, USA. River Research and 

Applications. 24(6): 735-753. 

Heady and Child 1994. Rangeland Ecology and Management. Boulder: Westview Press.

Hull, J.M., Keane, J.J., Savage, W.K., Godwin, S.A., Shafer, J, Jepsen, E.P., Gerhardt, R., Stermer, 

C., and H.B. Ernest. 2010. Range-wide genetic differentiation among North American great 

gray owls (Strix nebulosa) reveals a distinct lineage restricted to the Sierra Nevada, 

California. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 56 (2010): 212-221. 

Jennings, M. R. 1996. Status of amphibians. Pages 921-944. In Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: 

Final report to Congress, vol. II: Assessments and scientific basis for management options. 

Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37 ISBN 1-1887673-01-6. 

Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in 

California. Final report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game, Contract 

Number 8023. 240 pages. 

Johnson, L.C., G.N. Wallace, and J.E. Mitchell. 1997. Visitor perceptions of livestock grazing in five 

U.S. wilderness areas. Journal of Wilderness 3:14-20. 

Johnson-Groh, C. L., and D. R. Farrar. 1996. Effects of leaf loss on moonwort ferns (Botrychium 

subgenus Botrychium). American Journal of Botany 83: 127 

Jones, Bobette E., David F. Lile, and Kenneth W. Tate. "Cattle selection for aspen and meadow 

vegetation: implications for restoration." Rangeland Ecology & Management 64.6 (2011): 

625-632. 

Kagarise Sherman, C. 1980. A comparison of the natural history and mating system of two anurans: 

Yosemite toads (Bufo canorus) and black toads (Bufo exsul). Ph.D. dissertation. University 

of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Kagarise Sherman, C. and M. L. Morton. 1984. The toad that stays on its toes. Natural History 93:72-

78. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement References

233

Kagarise Sherman, C. and M. L. Morton. 1993. Population declines of Yosemite toads in the Eastern 

Sierra Nevada of California. Journal of Herpetology 27(2):186-198. 

Kalinowski, R. 2012. Habitat Relationships of Great Gray Owl Prey in Meadows of the Sierra 

Nevada Mountains. MS thesis, Humboldt State University

Kalinowski, R.S., M.D. Johnson, and A.C. Rich. 2014. Habitat relationships of great gray owl prey in 

meadows of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Wildlife Society Bulletin 38:547-556. 

Kie, J.G., Evans, C.J., Loft, E.R., and J.W. Menke. 1991. Foraging behavior by mule deer: the 

influence of cattle grazing. Journal of Wildlife Management 55: 665-674. 

Kupferberg, Sarah J., et al. "Water velocity tolerance in tadpoles of the foothill yellow-legged frog 

(Rana boylii): swimming performance, growth, and survival." Copeia 2011.1 (2011): 141-

152. 

Landres, Peter; Boutcher, Steve; Dean, Liese; Hall, Troy; Blett, Tamara; Carlson, Terry; Mebane, 

Ann; Hardy, Carol; Rinehart, Susan; Merigliano, Linda; Cole, David; Leach, Andy; Wright, 

Pam, and Bumpus, Deb. 2009. Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related 

to Wilderness Character. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-GTR-80. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service.

Landres, Peter; Boutcher, Steve; Merigliano, Linda; Barns, Chris; Davis, Denis; Hall, Troy; Henry, 

Steve; Hunter, Brad; Janiga, Patrice; Laker, Mark; McPherson, Al; Powell, Douglas S.; 

Rowan, Mike; Sater, Susan. 2005. Monitoring selected conditions related to wilderness 

character: a national framework. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Lannoo, Michael. 2005. Amphibian declines: The conservation status of United States species. 

1094pp. 

Lemly, A. D. 1998. Using bacterial growth on insects to assess nutrient impacts in streams. 

Environmental Assessment and Monitoring 63(3):431-446. 

Liang, C. T.-P. 2010. Habitat modeling and movements of the Yosemite toad (Anaxyrus (=Bufo) 

canorus) in the Sierra Nevada, California. Doctor of Philosophy, Dissertation. University of 

California, Davis. 117p. 

Lile, D., K.W. Tate, D. Lancaster, and R. Delmas. 1995. Monitoring Stream Temperature. California 

Rangelands Research and Information Center. Monitoring Series No. 8. UC Davis Agronomy 

and Range Science. 4pp. 

Lind, A., R. Grasso, J. Nelson, K. Vincent, C. Liang, K. Tate, L. Roche, B. Allen-Diaz, and S. 

McIlroy. 2011. Determining the effects of livestock grazing on Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus) 

and their habitat: an adaptive management study, study addendum. Submitted to the U. S. 

Forest Service as fulfillment of Agreement Number 05-JV-052050-009 between USFS and 

UC Regents. 25p. 

Lips, K. R. 1998. Decline of a tropical montane amphibian fauna. Conservation Biology 12(1):106-

117. 

Lips, K. R. 1999. Mass mortality and population declines of anurans at an upland site in western 

Panama. Conservation Biology 13(1):117-125. 

Loft, E.R., Menke, J.W., Kie, J.G., and R.C. Bertram. 1987. Influence of cattle stocking rate on the 

structural profile of deer hiding cover. Journal of Wildlife Management 51: 655-664. 

Loft, E.R., Menke, J.W., and J.B. Kie. 1991. Habitat shifts by mule deer: the influence of cattle 

grazing. Journal of Wildlife Management 55: 16-26. 
Stanislaus

References National Forest

234

Loft, E.R., Kie, J.G, and J.W. Menke. 1993. Grazing in the Sierra Nevada: home range and space use 

patterns of mule deer as influenced by cattle. California Fish and Game 79: 145-166. 

Longcore, J., A. Pessier, and D. Nichols. 1999. Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis gen. et sp. nov., a 

chytrid pathogenic to amphibians. Mycologia 91(2):219-227. 

Loomis, J.B., Loft, E.R., Updike, D.R., and J.G. Kie. 1991. Cattle-deer interactions in the Sierra 

Nevada: a bioeconomic approach. Journal of Range Management 44: 395-399. 

Malo, J.E. & Suarez, F. 1995. Establishment of pasture species on cattle dung: the role of 

endozoochorous seeds Journal of Vegetation Science 6: 169-174 

Marlow, C.B., and T.M. Pogacnik. 1985. Time of grazing and cattle-induced damage to streambanks. 

pp. 279-284. In: Johnson, R.R. Riparian Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling 

Conflicting Uses. First North American Riparian Conf. USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. 

Rpt. RM-120. 523 pp. Rocky Mtn. Forest & Range Experiment Sta., Fort Collins, CO. 

Martin, D. L. 1991. Population status of the Yosemite toad Bufo canorus. A progress report to the 

Yosemite Association. 4 pages.

Martin, D. L. 2008. Decline, movement and habitat utilization of the Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus): 

An endangered anuran endemic to the Sierra Nevada of California. Doctor of Philosophy 

dissertation. University of California, Santa Barbara. 393p.

Matthews, K. R. and H. K. Preisler. 2010. Site fidelity of the declining amphibian Rana sierrae (Sierra 

Nevada yellow-legged frog). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67:243-

255. 

McIlroy, S. K. 2008. Identifying ecological patterns and processes in montane meadows of the Sierra 

Nevada range. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. 127p. 

McIlroy, S. K. and B. H. Allen-Diaz. 2012. Plant community distribution along water table and 

grazing gradients in montane meadows of the Sierra Nevada range (California, USA). 

Wetlands Ecology and Management 20(4):287-296. 

McIlroy, S. K., B. H. Allen-Diaz, and A. C. Berg. 2011. Using digital photography to examine 

grazing in montane meadows. Rangeland Ecology and Management 64(2):187-195. 

McIlroy, S.K. B., Allen-Diaz B.H., 2012. Plant community distribution along water table and grazing 

gradients in montane meadows of the Sierra Nevada Range (California, USA)

Mitchell, John, G.N. Wallace, and M. D. Wells. 1986. Visitor perceptions about cattle grazing on 

National Forest land. Journal of Range Management 49:81-86. 

Moore, Peggy E., Alison E.L. Colwell and Charlotte L. Coulter. 2005. Special Status Vascular Plant 

Surveys and Habitat Modeling in Yosemite National Park. Final Report. Prepared by USGS 

Western Ecological Research Center, Yosemite Field Station for NPS Yosemite National 

Park.

Morrisson, M.L., Hall, L.S., Robinson, S.K., Rothstein, S.I., Caldwell-Hahn, D., and T.D. Rich. 

(eds.). 1999. Research and Management of the Brown-headed Cowbird in Western 

Landscapes. Studies in Avian Biology No.18., Cooper Ornithological Society, Allen Press 

Inc., Lawrence, KS.

Morton, M. L. 1981. Seasonal changes in total body lipid and liver weight in the Yosemite toad. 

Copeia 1981(1):234-238. 

Morton, M. L. and M. E. Pereyra. 2010. Habitat use by Yosemite toads: life history traits and 

implications for conservation. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 5(3):388-394. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement References

235

Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press. 502pp. 

Muths, E., P. S. Corn, A. P. Pessier, and D. E. Green. 2003. Evidence for disease-related amphibian 

decline in Colorado. Biological Conservation 110:357-365. 

Myers, L. 2009. Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Project in the Stanislaus National Forest: Quality 

Assurance Project Plan. July 28, 2009 (revised draft). 43pp 

Myers, L. 2011. Bacteria Contamination of Surface Waters Due to Livestock Grazing in the 

Stanislaus National Forest, California (Third Year of Study): Summary of 2011 Results. 

13pp. 

Myers, L. and B. Whited. 2010. Bacteria Contamination of Surface Waters Due to Livestock Grazing 

in the Stanislaus National Forest, California (Second Year of Study. August 30, 2010. 47pp. 

Myers, L. and J. Kane. 2010. Bacteria Contamination of Surface Waters Due to Livestock Grazing in 

the Stanislaus National Forest, California. May 20, 2010. 42pp. 

Nader, G., K. Tate, R. Atwill, and J. Bushnell. 1998. Water quality effect of rangeland beef cattle 

excreta. Rangelands 20:19-25. 

Norton, J. B., L. J. Jungst , U. Norton, H. R. Olsen, K. W. Tate, and W. R. Horwath. 2011. Soil 

Carbon and Nitrogen Storage in Upper Montane Riparian Meadows. Ecosystems (2011) 14: 

1217-1231. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 2002. Application for New License. Exhibit E – Water Use and 

Quality. Spring Gap-Stanislaus Project. FERC Project No. 2130. Volume II. Final, December 

2002. 

Perrine, J.D., Campbell, L.A., and G.A. Green. 2010. Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator): 

A Conservation Assessment. US Department of Agriculture R5-FR-010. 

Platts, W. S. 1991. Livestock grazing. American Fisheries Society Publication 19:389-423. 

Potter, D.A. 2005. Riparian Plant Community Classification – West Slope, Central, and Southern 

Sierra Nevada, California. R5-TP-022. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 

Vallejo, CA.

Powers, B., Johnson, M.D., LaManna, J.A. and A. Rich. 2011. The influence of cattle grazing on 

pocket gophers in the central Sierra Nevada Mountains, California: potential implications for 

Great Gray Owls. Northwestern Naturalist 92:13-18. 

Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). 88th Congress, Second Session. September 3, 1964. 

Rachowicz, L., R. Knapp, J. Morgan, M. Stice, V. Vredenburg, J. Parker, and C. Briggs. 2006. 

Emerging infectious disease as proximal cause of amphibian mass mortality. Ecology 

87(7):1671-1683. 

Ratliff, R. D. 1985. Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of California: a state of knowledge. General 

Technical Report PSW-84, U. S. D. A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Forest and 

Range Research Station, Berkeley, CA. 52p. 

Ratliff, R.D. 1985. Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of California: state of knowledge. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PSW-84. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, 

Berkeley, CA.

Ratliff, Raymond DD. 1985. Meadow in the Sierra Nevada of California: State of Knowledge. 

General Technical Report, PSW-84 Berkeley, Ca. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 52 p. 
Stanislaus

References National Forest

236

Recreational Equipment Incorporated. 2007. Understanding Water Treatment. REI.com. 

Rich, Adam C., Lisius, Sherri K., Statham, Mark J., and Ben N. Sacks. 2011. Discovery of a remnant 

population of Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) in the southern Sierra Nevada. 

The Wildlife Society Western Section Annual meeting. Riverside, CA.

Roche, L. M., A. M. Latimer, D. J. Eastburn, and K. W. Tate. 2012a. Cattle grazing and conservation 

of a meadow-dependent amphibian species in the Sierra Nevada. Public Library of Science 

ONE (PLoS ONE) 7(4):1-11. 

Roche, L. M., B. Allen-Diaz, D. J. Eastburn, and K. W. Tate. 2012b. Cattle grazing and Yosemite 

toad (Bufo canorus Camp) breeding habitat in Sierra Nevada meadows. Rangeland Ecology 

and Management 65(1):56-65. 

Roche, L.M., L. Kroemschroder, E. R. Atwill, R.A. Dahlgren, and K.W. Tate. 2013. Water quality 

conditions associated with cattle grazing and recreation on national forest lands. PLOS ONE. 

8(6): e68127. 

Rodríguez-Prieto, Iñaki, and Esteban Fernández-Juricic. "Effects of direct human disturbance on the 

endemic Iberian frog< i> Rana iberica</i> at individual and population levels." Biological 

Conservation 123.1 (2005): 1-9. 

Rognan, C.B. 2007. Bioacoustic techniques to monitor Great Gray Owls (Strix nebulosa) in the Sierra 

Nevada. M.S. Thesis., Humboldt State University. Arcata, CA. 

Sacks, B.N., Stermer, C. Akins, J., Alden, P., Brown, C., Rich, A., Lisius, S., and E. Burkett. 2012. 

What we know so far about the “second” Sierra Nevada red fox population. The Wildlife 

Society Western Section Annual meeting. Sacramento, CA. 

Sarr D.A. 2002. Riparian Livestock Exclosure Research in the Western UnitedStates: A Critique and 

Some Recommendations. Environmental Management Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 516–526

Sears, C.L. 2006. Assessing distribution, habitat suitability, and site occupancy of Great Gray Owls 

(Strix nebulosa) in California. M.S. Thesis. UC Davis, Davis, CA.

Semlitsch, R. D., D. E. Scott, and J. H. K. Pechmann. 1988. Time and size at metamorphosis related 

to adult fitness in Ambystoma talpoideum. Ecology 69(1):184-192. 

Shaffer, B. M., G. M. Fellers, A. Magee, and S. R. Voss. 2000. The genetics of amphibian declines: 

population substructure and genetic differentiation in the Yosemite toad, Bufo canorus 

(Anura, Bufonidae), based on single strand conformation polymorphism analysis (SSCP) and 

mitochondrial DNA sequence data. Molecular Ecology 9:245-257. 

Shaw, N.L. 1991. Recruitment and growth of Pacific willow and Sandbar willow seedlings in 

response to season and intensity of cattle grazing.

Shepperd, W. D., 2004. Techniques to restore Aspen forests in the western U.S. transactions of the 

Western Section of the Wildlife Society. 40: 52-60. 

Shepperd, W. D., Rogers, P.C., Burton, D., Bartos, D.L., 2006. Ecology, biodiversity, management, 

and restoration of aspen in the Sierra Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-178.Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

122p. 

Sickman, J. O., J. M. Melack, and D. W. Clow. 2003. Evidence for nutrient enrichment of highelevation lakes in the Sierra Nevada, California. Limnology and Oceanography 48(5):1885-

1892. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement References

237

Siegal, R.B., Wilkerson, R.L., and D. F. DeSante. 2008. Extirpation of the Willow Flycatcher from 

Yosemite National Park. Western Birds 39:8-21. 

Siekert, R.E., Q.D. Skinner, M.A. Smith, J.L. Doad, and J.D. Rodgers. 1985. Channel response of an 

ephemeral stream in Wyoming to selected grazing treatments. pp. 276-278. In: Johnson, R.R. 

Riparian Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. First North 

American Riparian Conf. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rpt. RM-120. 523 pp. Rocky 

Mtn. Forest & Range Exp. Sta., Fort Collins, CO. 

Skovlin, J.M. 1984,. Impacts of grazing on wetlands and riparian habitat: A review of our knowledge. 

N: Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management. 1001-103. Boulder, CO: National 

Research Council/National Academy of Sciences. Westview Press

Smith, D. C. 1987. Adult recruitment in chorus frogs: effects of size and date at metamorphosis. 

Ecology 68(2):344-350. 

Smith, V. H., G. D. Tilman, and J. C. Nekola. 1999. Eutrophication: impacts of excess nutrient inputs 

on freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Environmental Pollution 100:179-196. 

St. John, Harold. 1929. Notes on northwestern ferns. American Fern Journal 19(1) 11-16. 

Statham, M.J., Rich, A.C., Lisius, S.K., and B.N. Sacks. Discovery of a remnant population of Sierra 

Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator). Northwest Science, In Press. 

Stuart, S. N., J. Chanson, N. Cox, B. Young, A. Rodrigues, D. Fischman, and R. Waller. 2004. Status 

and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306(5702):1783-1786. 

Suk, T.J. 1983. Investigation of animal hosts for Giardia spp. in California's Sierra Nevada 

Mountains. USDI National Park Serv., Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, 

Univ. CA at Davis. Tech. Rpt. No. 11. 

Suk, T.J., J.L. Riggs, and B.C. Nelson. 1986. Water contamination with Giardia in backcountry areas. 

In: Proc. of the National Wilderness Research Conf. Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-212. USDA Forest 

Service Intermountain Research Sta., Ogden, UT. 

Tague et al. 2008 Tague, Christina, Valentine, Scott, and Kotchen, Matthew. 2008. Effect of 

geomorphic channel restoration on streamflow and groundwater in a snowmelt-dominated 

watershed. Water Resources Research. 44, W10415, 10 pp. 

Tate, K.W., E.A. Atwill, J.W. Bartolome, and G. Nader. 2006. Significant Escherichia coli 

Attenuation by Vegetative Buffers on Annual Grasslands. J. Environ. Qual. 35:795-805 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012 State and county quickfacts. Tuolumne County, CA. 

http://quickfacts.census.gov. (Accessed June 2012)

USDA 1961. Memorandum regarding Management of the Bell Meadow C&H Allotment from 

October 16, 1961. 2210 Records. Stanislaus National Forest. Sonora, CA. 

USDA 1990. Forest Service Manual (FSM). Chapter 2670, threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

plants and animals. USDA, Forest Service. Various pages.

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

Region, Sonora, CA. 

USDA 1998. Ecological Status, Draft R5 Rangeland Plant List, J., Lorenzana, editor, Sierra National 

Forest. 

USDA 2000. Excel Spreadsheet. 2210_range_plant_list_enclosure1_2000_0907.xls USDA 2004. 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 
Stanislaus

References National Forest

238

(FSEIS) and Record of Decision, Biological Opinion, Assessment, and Evaluation. Pacific 

Southwest Region, Forest Service. 

USDA 2000. Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl in the Sierra Nevada of California. US Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

USDA 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD), Biological Opinion, Biological 

Assessment, and Biological Evaluation. Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Service.

USDA 2003. Developed Campgrounds, Stanislaus National Forest. Recreation Opportunity Guide 

16-01. Stanislaus National Forest. Sonora, CA. 

USDA 2003. A Willow Flycatcher Survey Protocol for California. US Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region. 

USDA 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision. PSW Region, Vallejo, CA. 

71 pp. 

USDA 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (FSEIS) and Record of Decision, Biological Opinion, Assessment, and Evaluation. 

Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Service. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Stanislaus Traveler. A Visitor’s Guide to the Stanislaus National Forest. 

Summer 2006. Stanislaus National Forest. Sonora, CA. 

USDA 2007. R-5 Forest Service Handbook (FSH). Chapter 2609.26, threatened, endangered sensitive 

plants program handbook. USDA, Forest Service. Various pages. 

http://sacramento.fws.gove/es/spp_lists/NFActionPage.cfm

USDA 2007. Forest Service Manual 2300 Recreation, Wilderness and Related Resource 

Management, Chapter 2320 Wilderness Management, Amendment 2300-2007-1 effective 

January 22, 2007. 

USDA 2008. Stanislaus National Forest. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results.

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

CA

USDA 2011a. R5 Long Term Meadow Condition and Trend Monitoring Database 2011. Pacific 

Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA. 

USDA 2011b. R5 FSH 2509.22 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. Chapter 10 – Water Quality 

Management Handbook. Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA. 

USDA 2012a. National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007 Census of agriculture, Table 1. 

Tuolumne County, CA. www.nass.usda.gov. (Accessed June, 2012). 

USDA 2012b. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National 

Forest Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. April 2012. 

USDA 2012c. US Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest. Wildlife Exhibits, Atlases, Sightings, 

Survey Records, Geographic Information System (GIS), and data analysis. Sonora, CA. 

USDA 2015. Yosemite toad Conservation Assessment. Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Region. 

Vallejo, CA.

USDI 1996a. Sampling vegetation attributes. Interagency Technical Reference 1734-4. BLM/RS/ST96/002+1730. Denver, CO. 163 pp. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement References

239

USDI 1996b. Utilization studies and residual measurements. Interagency Technical Reference 1734-

3. BLM/RS/ST-96/004+1730. Denver, CO. 165 pp. 

USDI 1998. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Sciences 

for Lotic Areas. Technical Reference 1737-15. Denver, CO. 

USDI 2003. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Sciences 

for Lentic Areas. Technical Reference 1737-16. Denver, CO. 

USDI 2011. Riparian Area Management: Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) of Stream Channels 

and streamside vegetation. Technical Reference 1737-23. BLM/OC/ST-10/003+1737. Bureau 

of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO. 155 pp. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2012a. Water: Monitoring and Assessment. 5.11 Fecal 

Bacteria. http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms511.cfm. Accessed March 16, 2012. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2012b. Recreational Water Quality Criteria. Office of Water. 

820-F-12-058. 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/health/recreation/upload/RWQC20

12.pdf Accessed December 11, 2012. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Lahontan cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi, 

recovery plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 147pp. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta native fishes recovery plan. U. 

S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora 

draytonii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. viii + 173 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Programmatic Biological Opinion on Nine Forest Programs on 

Nine National Forests in the Sierra Nevada of California for the Endangered Sierra Nevada 

Yellow-legged Frog, Endangered Northern Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain 

Yellow-legged Frog, and Threatened Yosemite toad. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, 

CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Species Report Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes necator). 

August 14, 2015. Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, CA. 

U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, 

2009, Federal guidelines, requirements, and procedures for the national Watershed Boundary 

Dataset: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 11-A3, 65p. ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NCGC/products/watershed/hu-standards.pdf (20 March 2012)

University of California. 2000. Cryptosporidium Fact Sheet. Agriculture and Natural Resources. 

Cooperative Extension. Berkeley, CA. 

Vanderhorst, J. 1997. Conservation Assessment of Sensitive Moonworts (Ophioglossaceae; 

Botrychium Subgenus Botrychium) on the Kootenai National Forest. Montana Natural 

Heritage Program, Helena, Montana for Kootenai National Forest.

Verner, J. and L.V. Ritter. 1983. Current status of the Brown-headed Cowbird in the Sierra National 

Forest. Auk 100:355-368. 

Vignolio, O.R. and O. N. Fernandez 2010 Cattle dung as vector of spreading seeds of exotic species 

in the Flooding Pampa grasslands (Buenos Aires, Argentina). Ann. Bot Fennicci 47: 14-22 

Vredenburg, V. T., Bingham, R., Knapp, R., Morgan, J. A. T., Moritz, C., & Wake, D. (2007). 

Concordant molecular and phenotypic data delineate new taxonomy and conservation 
Stanislaus

References National Forest

240

priorities for the endangered mountain yellow-legged frog. Journal of Zoology, 271(4), 361-

374. 

Wagner, J., K. Roney Faulkner, S. Chaney, and M. Martin. 2004. Assessing riparian system recovery 

at Santa Rosa Island, Channel Islands National Park. 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/YearInReview/yir2004/06 

Wagner, W.H., Jr. and F. S. Wagner. 1981. New species of moonworts, Botrychium Subg. 

Botrychium (Ophioglossaceae) from North America. American Fern Journal. 71(1)20-30. 

Wagner, W.H., Jr. and F. S. Wagner. 1986. Three new species of moonworts (Botrychium Subg. 

Botrychium) endemic in western North America. American Fern Journal. 76(2)33- 

Weixelman D.A., B. Hill, D.J. Copper, E.L. Berlow, J. H. Viers, S. E. Purdy, A.G. Merill, and S. E. 

Gross. 2011. A Field Key to Meadow Hydrogeomorphic types for the Sierra Nevada and 

Southern Cascade Ranges in California. Gen. Tech. Rep. R5-TP-034. Vallejo, CA. U.S.D.A., 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 34 pp. 

Weixelman, D 2006. Range condition for occupied willow flycatcher meadows by forest. Report to 

Regional Range Program Manager. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region

Weixelman, D.A., and Zamudio, D. C., 2001. Determining Ecological Status of Sierra Nevada 

Mountain Meadows Using Plant Frequency and Soil Characteristics. In: Faber P.M. (edition) 

2003. California Riparian Systems: Processes and Floodplains Management, Ecology, and 

Restoration. 2001 Riparian Habitat and Floodplains Conference Proceeding, Riparian Habitat 

Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA pp. 463-471. 

Weixelman, Dave A, and Cooper, David J. 2009. Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Fen 

Areas in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Ranges in California, A User Guide. Gen 

Tech. Rep. R5-TP-028. Vallejo, CA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, 42 p. 

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White, ed. 1988. California’s wildlife. 

Volume I. Amphibians and reptiles. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships 

System. Department of Fish and Game. The Resources Agency, Sacramento, Ca. 272pp. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix A

Environmental Impact Statement Abbreviations and Acronyms

241

A. Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

AMP Allotment Management Plan

AMS Aquatic Management Strategy 

AOI Annual Operating Instructions

APE Area of Potential Effects

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act

ARU Automated Recording Unit

AUM Animal Unit Month

BA Biological Assessment

BE Biological Evaluation

BEH Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek (Allotments)

BMP Best Management Practice(s)

CAR Critical Aquatic Refuge

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CFU Colony Forming Unit

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database

CNPS California Native Plant Society

CRMR Cultural Resources Management Report

CWE Cumulative Watershed Effects

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EPA (US) Environmental Protection Agency

ERA Equivalent Roaded Acres

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

FAR Functional At-Risk

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FSEIS Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

GGO Great Gray Owl

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Global Positioning Systems

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

IDT Interdisciplinary Team

IRA Inventoried Roadless Area

LRMP Land and Resources Management Plan

LTCTM Long Term Condition and Trend Monitoring

MHF Meadow Hydrologic Function

MHFRA Meadow Hydrologic Function Rapid Assessment

MIM Multiple Indicator Monitoring

MIS Management Indicator Species

MOU Memorandum Of Understandig

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFS National Forest System
Appendix A Stanislaus

Abbreviations and Acronyms National Forest

242

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRIS Natural Resource Information System

NVUM National Visitor Use Monitoring

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle

OR Outstandingly Remarkable

ORV Off Road Vehicle

PA Programmatic Agreement

PAC Protected Activity Center

PFC Proper Functioning Condition

PSW Pacific Southwest (Research Station)

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

RCA Riparian Conservation Area

RCO Riparian Conservation Objective

RIVPACS River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System

RNA Research Natural Area

ROD Record of Decision

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

RPD Relative Percent Difference

RWQC Recreational Water Quality Criteria

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIA Special Interest Area

S&G Standard and Guideline(s)

SNFPA Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

SNRF Sierra Nevada Red Fox

SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions

SPD Salmon Poisoning Disease

SRPM Standard resource Protection Measure

SSI StreamScape Inventory

SCI Stream Condition Inventory

STV Statistical Threshold Value

TE Threatened and Endangered

TES Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive

TEPS Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive

TN Total Nitrogen

TOC Threshold of Concern

T/O Taste and Odor 

TP Total Phosphorus

TR Technical Reference

TUD Tuolumne Utilities District

UCD University of California, Davis

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of Interior

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

VQO Visual Quality Objective

WFL Willow Flycatcher 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix B

Environmental Impact Statement Cumulative Effects Analysis

243

B. Cumulative Effects Analysis

According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, “cumulative impact” 

is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or 

non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). The District queried its databases, 

including the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) to determine past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions as well as present and reasonably foreseeable future actions on private land. 

This appendix lists the specific findings and information used for the cumulative effects analysis 

presented for each resource in Chapter 3. This list is not all inclusive since budgets and changing 

landscape conditions may warrant changes in management priorities or direction. 

PAST ACTIONS

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action 

and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of 

past actions. Existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural 

events that affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. This cumulative 

effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior 

actions on an action-by-action basis for three reasons:

5. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly 

to obtain. Innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond) impacted current conditions and 

trying to isolate the individual actions with residual impacts would be nearly impossible.

6. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict 

the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual 

actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because information on the 

environmental impacts of individual past actions is limited, and one cannot reasonably identify 

each and every action over the last century that contributed to current conditions. Additionally, 

focusing on the impacts of past human actions ignores the important residual effects of past 

natural events which may contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By 

looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions 

and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects.

7. Finally, the CEQ issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past 

actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing 

on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of 

individual past actions” (CEQ 2005). 
Appendix B Stanislaus

Cumulative Effects Analysis National Forest

244

The cumulative effects analysis in this EA is also consistent with Forest Service National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (73 Federal Register 143, July 24, 2008; p. 43084-

43099), which state, in part:

“CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions 

to determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present 

effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the 

effects of the proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate 

those effects. The final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of 

the actions considered (including past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions) on 

the affected environment. With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and 

subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what information regarding 

past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging 

past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect effects of their design and 

implementation could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the 

proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively 

list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about past actions 

may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and 

necessary to inform decision making. (40 CFR 1508.7)”

For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental 

conditions described in Chapters 1 and 2. If warranted, specialist reports (including BAs and BEs) 

provide rationale for addressing specific past projects.

PRESENT ACTIONS

For the purposes of cumulative effects analysis, present actions are land disturbance actions with 

completed NEPA decisions that are not yet fully implemented on the ground. Following is a list of the 

present land disturbance actions, including brief descriptions of each. 

 Dodge Ridge Upper Road and Base Improvements: involves improvements to existing ski lift 

infrastructure, grading of existing trail and installation of an emergency helicopter landing zone 

and approval of existing equipment storage sheds.

 Gooseberry Ecological Restoration: retains and/or re-establishes the ecological resilience of the 

landscape to achieve long-term sustainability and to provide a broad range of ecological services. 

Project activities include forest thinning, re-introduction of fire, aspen restoration, meadow 

restoration, reducing resource impacts caused by roads, trails, and recreation sites, and noxious 

weed eradication.

 Juniper Uranium Mine Remediation Project: involves remediation (clean up) of the 

abandoned Uranium mine located within the Eagle Meadow Allotment, near Red Rock Meadow. 

 Leland Helicopter 2: project involves hand thinning with helicopter removal of merchantable 

logs and hand felling and jackpot burning of non-merchantable material and existing natural fuels 

on 101 acres adjacent to Leland Meadows. 

 Niagara Aspen Stimulus: stimulate aspen regeneration by removing encroaching conifers in and 

around aspen stands.

 Strawberry Fuel Reduction and Forest Health: project involves fuel reduction and forest 

health treatments including thinning, biomass removal, shredding, hand treatments, under 

burning, and riparian treatments near the communities of Strawberry and Cold Springs. 

 Summit Facilities Hazard Tree Removal: removal of hazard trees that threaten facilities.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix B

Environmental Impact Statement Cumulative Effects Analysis

245

 Long Valley OHV Restoration: install rock barriers, wood post barriers, and till devegetated 

compacted areas on 1 acre of polygon features and 1.5 miles of linear features along Road

5N01A, in areas hydrologically connected to Long Valley Creek. 

 Coyote Meadow Restoration: Stabilize three headcuts in meadow and re-route trail away from 

stream and wet portion of meadow. 

 Shell Meadow Restoration: Stabilize headcuts and remove encroaching conifers within Shell 

Meadow.

ONGOING ACTIVITIES

 Recreation: Recreation is abundant in the area and consists of activities including, but not limited 

to, Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use, sight-seeing, wood cutting, camping, hiking, cycling, 

fishing, backpacking, horseback riding, and winter sports. 

 Livestock Grazing: There are three active grazing Allotments adjacent to the project area and 

partially within the cumulative analysis area. These three Allotments, combined with the 

Allotments being analyzed, run up to a total of 992 cow/calf pairs (4014 Animal Unit Months). 

Livestock grazing is subject to forage utilization and other standards to protect forest resources. 

 Roadside Hazard Tree Removal: removal of hazard trees along paved roads to prevent potential 

tree failure that may result in property damage or personal injury. 

REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS

For the purposes of cumulative effects analysis, reasonably foreseeable future actions are land 

disturbance projects with proposed actions published in the Stanislaus National Forest SOPA and 

without completed NEPA decisions. Reasonably foreseeable future Forest Service land disturbance 

actions are listed below, followed by a brief general description of the project purpose types.

 Over Snow Vehicle Designation EIS: Evaluates existing management of oversnow vehicle 

(OSV) use. The goal of this project is to designate system roads, trails and areas where OSV use 

will be allowed or prohibited. 
Appendix B Stanislaus

Cumulative Effects Analysis National Forest

246

\
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix C

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Direction

247

C. Forest Plan Direction

The Stanislaus National Forest, Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010) identifies the Management Goals 

and Strategies, Desired Conditions, and Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) that apply to livestock 

grazing in the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow and Herring Creek Allotments. This direction is 

summarized in Table C.01-1 (Forestwide S&Gs), Table C.01-2 (Management Areas), and Table 

C.01-3 (Land Allocations).

Table C.01-1 Forestwide S&Gs applicable to the BEH Rangeland Allotments project

Resource Forestwide S&G Project Compliance Citation

Fish and 

Wildlife

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Administration (5-A): 

Management practices will allow for medium to high 

quality habitat for management indicator species 

(MIS), where potential allows, according to current 

habitat capability models for these species.

Ensure that habitat needs of sensitive species are 

considered and that habitat needs of Federally 

listed Threatened and Endangered species are met.

Livestock impacts to habitat 

for sensitive, Threatened and 

Endangered Species were 

considered and disclosed.

MIS Report

Wildlife BE

Aquatics BE

Willow Flycatcher (5-A): Historically Occupied 

Willow Flycatcher Sites For historically occupied 

willow flycatcher sites, assess willow flycatcher 

habitat suitability within the meadow. If habitat is 

degraded, develop restoration objectives and take 

appropriate actions (such as physical restoration of 

hydrological components, limiting or re-directing 

grazing activity, and so forth) to move the meadow 

toward desired conditions. Evaluate site condition of 

historically occupied willow flycatcher sites. Those 

sites that no longer contain standing water on June 

1 and a deciduous shrub component and cannot be 

reasonably restored may be removed from the 

willow flycatcher site database.

Historically occupied Willow 

Flycatcher habitat in analysis 

area. Project effects to Willow 

Flycatcher habitat suitability 

were analyzed and disclosed.

Wildlife BE

Yosemite toad (5-A): Exclude livestock from 

standing water and saturated soils in wet meadows 

and associated streams and springs occupied by 

Yosemite toads or identified as “essential habitat” in 

the conservation assessment for the Yosemite toad 

during the breeding and rearing season (through 

metamorphosis). Wet meadow habitat for Yosemite 

toads is defined as relatively open meadows with 

low to moderate amounts of woody vegetation that 

have standing water on June 1 or for more than 2 

weeks following snow melt. Specific breeding and 

rearing season dates will be determined locally. If 

physical exclusion of livestock is impractical, then 

exclude grazing from the entire meadow. This 

standard does not apply to pack and saddle stock.

Exclusions in this standard and guideline may be 

waived if an interdisciplinary team has developed a 

site-specific management plan to minimize impacts 

to the Yosemite toad and its habitat by managing 

the movement of stock around wet areas. Such 

plans are to include a requirement for 

systematically monitoring a sample of occupied 

Yosemite toad sites within the meadow to: (1) 

Livestock impacts to 

Yosemite toad were analyzed 

and are disclosed

Surveys for presence of 

Yosemite toad in suitable 

habitat are complete.

Livestock are excluded from 

Yosemite toad habitat by 

managing the movement of 

stock around wet areas 

during breeding and rearing 

season.

Aquatics BE

Allotment 

Management 

Plans for 

Herring Creek 

and Eagle 

Meadow 

Allotments
Appendix C Stanislaus

Forest Plan Direction National Forest

248

Resource Forestwide S&G Project Compliance Citation

assess habitat conditions and (2) assess Yosemite 

toad occupancy and population dynamics. Every 3 

years from the date of the plan, evaluate monitoring 

data. Modify or suspend grazing if Yosemite toad 

conservation is not being accomplished. Plans must 

be approved by the authorized officer and 

incorporated into all Allotment plans and/or special 

use permits governing use within the occupied 

habitat. Complete one survey cycle in suitable 

habitat for the Yosemite toad within this species’ 

historic range to determine presence of Yosemite 

toads.

Fish and 

Wildlife

Management Indicator Species (5-A): Prepare 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) report per 

Sierra Nevada Forests MIS Amendment

MIS report discloses potential 

impacts on MIS

MIS Report

Recovery Species Management (5-L): Maintain 

information on the status and known locations of all 

species which are candidates or proposed for 

Federal listing as Threatened or Endangered.

Conduct a Biological Evaluation for any project 

which may affect a species proposed for Federal 

listing. Modify or mitigate projects where necessary 

to avoid adverse impacts to habitats for species 

which are candidates or proposed for Federal 

listing.

Information available on 

status and locations of 

species that are candidates 

or proposed for federal listing. 

Project-specific consultation 

with USFWS.

Wildlife BE

Aquatics BE

Lands Property Boundary Location and Marking (8- F): 

Complete land-line surveys prior to conducting 

resource activities adjacent to private property. 

Recognize the sensitivity of private land-use 

concerns and the need for site-specific 

consideration of these concerns during the analysis 

of proposed projects adjacent to inholdings. 

Specific concerns should be analyzed when 

proposed activities may occur adjacent to 

developed subdivisions or areas developed for 

public recreation.

Private land owners scoped 

to determine concerns. 

Comments and concerns 

were considered. Forest 

Service Manual 2230.6 states 

that “The United States is not 

responsible for intrusion of 

permitted livestock upon 

private lands nor for the 

settlement of controversies 

between the owner of the 

livestock and the owner of the 

land.” (Federal Case Law)

Summary of 

Scoping 

Comments, 

project record

Range Allotment Management (9-A): Improve ecological 

condition of rangelands, where currently 

unsatisfactory, through improved management, and 

structural and nonstructural improvements.

Purpose and Need is to 

ensure conditions are moving 

toward desired conditions 

Chapter 1

Allotment 

Management 

Plans

Allotment Management (9-A): Develop range 

resources to their reasonably attainable potential 

and manage them on a sustained yield basis. 

Manage grazed lands to achieve a stable or upward 

vegetative trend, except in specified areas of 

transitory range. Use management strategies that 

protect the soil and vegetative resources and other 

resources in a cost effective manner. Consider all 

vegetation dependent uses when developing 

Allotment management plans.

Purpose and Need is to 

ensure resource conditions 

are moving toward desired 

conditions

Forest-wide direction and 

project-specific Mitigation and 

Other requirements are 

designed to improve resource 

conditions

Chapter 1

Specialist 

Reports
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix C

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Direction

249

Resource Forestwide S&G Project Compliance Citation

Range Allotment Management (9-A): Revise range 

Allotment management plans to be consistent with 

law, regulations, Executive Orders, Forest Service 

direction and Forest Standards and Guidelines, by 

1997. Revise and develop Allotment management 

plans in consultation with all involved parties, 

including permittees, State or other agencies, and 

any other involved entities.

Allotment Management Plans 

have been developed and are 

available for public review 

and comment.

Allotment 

Management 

Plans

Allotment Management (9-A): 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 FSH 2209.21. 

Priority will be given to range improvement on 

Allotments with a high percentage of primary range 

land in unsatisfactory condition, or high conflicts 

between livestock grazing and other resources and 

uses.

Allowable use standards 

established based on regional 

standards and set in 

Allotment Management Plans

Allotment 

Management 

Plans

Allotment Management (9-A): On Allotments 

where discontinuous grazing systems are not in 

effect, adjust permitted Animal Unit Months to 

achieve allowable use on the primary range. 

Transportation systems in established range 

Allotments will include fences and cattle guards 

where new roads open up natural livestock barriers. 

Reduce or eliminate livestock grazing from ranges 

in unsatisfactory range condition which cannot be 

improved through better management or treatment 

at the current level of grazing.

Permitted Animal Unit Months 

adjusted over time and are 

compatible with allowable use 

standards

Fences and cattle guards will 

be installed in addition areas

Improvement of range 

condition is expected

Range Report

Allotment Management (9-A): Perennial Range 

Includes meadows, perennial grassland, 

sagebrush, broadleaf and riparian vegetative types. 

When grazing management is based on perennial 

range the following apply:

1. On Allotments or pastures under intensive 

management provide rest or deferment during the 

growing season at least every third year.

2. On Allotments under intensive management, as 

part of an approved discontinuous grazing system, 

allow grazing use to exceed normal allowable use 

(as defined in R5 FSH 2209.21) up to one year out 

of two.

3. 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.

4. 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 

Standards and guidelines 

applied to grazing 

management on BEH 

Allotments through Allotment 

Management Plans and 

Terms and Conditions of 

Term Grazing Permits.

Implementation of 

alternatives would be 

consistent with direction 

found in FSH 2209.21

Allotment 

Management 

Plans

Range Report
Appendix C Stanislaus

Forest Plan Direction National Forest

250

Resource Forestwide S&G Project Compliance Citation

can withstand.

5. 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).

Range Grazing (9-A): To protect hardwood regeneration in 

grazing Allotments, allow livestock browse on no 

more than 20 percent of annual growth of hardwood 

seedlings and advanced regeneration. Modify 

grazing plans if hardwood regeneration and 

recruitment needs are not being met.

Hardwood browse standards 

applied through Terms and 

Conditions of grazing permit, 

Allotment Management 

Plans, and Annual Operating 

Instructions. Hardwood 

browse monitoring occurs.

Chapter 2, 

Resource 

Conservation 

Measures: 

Aspen

Monitoring Plan

Range Improvements - Nonstructural (9-B): Plan 

non-structural range improvements using 

interdisciplinary input.

No nonstructural range 

improvements proposed

Not Applicable

Range Improvements - Structural (9-C): 

Construct all structural improvement to Regional 

standards. FSH 2209.22 R5 and the 1988 USDA 

publication "Fences" for the standards.

All proposed fencing will be 

constructed according to 

regional standards.

Allotment 

Management 

Plans

Grazing Permit Administration (9-D): Monitor at 

least 85 percent of Allotments yearly to determine 

grazing use levels and condition of range facilities.

Monitoring of Allotments

occurs annually. Projectspecific implementation 

monitoring specified in 

Monitoring Plan

Monitoring Plan

Grazing Permit Administration (9-D): Table 7 

(Forest Plan Direction, p. 51) sets forth maximum 

allowable forage utilization levels for some common 

range vegetation types of the Stanislaus National 

Forest. Allowable uses limit the extent to which one 

or a group of key species may be grazed in key 

areas. The allowable use level must provide for 

sufficient herbage residue to ensure favorable plant 

vigor and soil protection on good and excellent 

condition range, or to contribute to improvement in 

lower condition range.

Allowable use levels for specific areas will be set at 

or below these maximums to conform to local range 

condition, soil stability, or special circumstances. 

Allowable use levels will be detailed in the Allotment 

Management Plan for each Allotment. Pastures 

receiving periodic full growing season rest can have 

higher allowable use levels, as shown. If condition 

classes of vegetation and soil vary, use the lower 

class to establish the allowable level.

Allowable use levels are 

based on site-specific 

conditions and are consistent 

with maximum allowable 

forage utilization levels set 

forth in Table 7(Forest Plan 

Direction, p. 51)

Allowable use levels are 

detailed in Allotment 

Management Plans, Grazing 

Permits, and Annual 

Operating Instructions for 

each Allotment

Range Report

Allotment 

Management 

Plans

Monitoring Plan

Range Studies (9-E): Monitor ecological condition 

and trend using Regionally established methods 

and standards (R5 FSH 2209.21) on a ten year 

schedule.

Ecological condition and 

trend of key areas monitored 

using regional methods

Range Report

Monitoring Plan

Range Noxious Weed Management (9-E): As part of 

project planning, conduct a noxious weed risk 

assessment to determine risks for weed spread 

(high, moderate, or low) associated with different 

types of proposed management activities. Refer to 

weed prevention practices in the Regional Noxious 

Weed Management Strategy to develop mitigation 

measures for high and moderate risk activities.

Project-specific noxious weed 

risk assessment conducted 

as part of project planning

Botany Report 

Weed Risk 

Assessment

Noxious Weed Management (9-E): When Project-specific noxious weed Botany Report 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix C

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Direction

251

Resource Forestwide S&G Project Compliance Citation

recommended in project-level noxious weed risk 

assessments, consider requiring off-road equipment 

and vehicles (both Forest Service and contracted) 

used for project implementation to be weed free. 

Refer to weed prevention practices in the Regional 

Noxious Weed Management Strategy.

Minimize weed spread by incorporating weed 

prevention and control measures into ongoing 

management or maintenance activities that involve 

ground disturbance or the possibility of spreading 

weeds. Refer to weed prevention practices in the 

Regional Noxious Weed Management Strategy. 

Conduct follow-up inspections of ground disturbing 

activities to ensure adherence to the Regional 

Noxious Weed Management Strategy.

risk assessment recommends 

weed prevention practices 

applicable to livestock grazing 

on the BEH rangeland 

Allotments

Weed Risk 

Assessment

Noxious Weed Management (9-E): Encourage 

use of certified weed free hay and straw. Cooperate 

with other agencies and the public in developing a 

certification program for weed free hay and straw. 

Phase in the program as certified weed free hay 

and straw becomes available. This standard and 

guideline applies to pack and saddle stock used by 

the public, livestock permittees, outfitter guide 

permittees, and local, State, and Federal agencies. 

Include weed prevention measures, as necessary, 

when amending or re-issuing permits (including, but 

not limited to, livestock grazing, special uses, and 

pack stock operator permits).

Permittees are encouraged to 

use certified weed free hay 

and straw. This practice is 

recommended in each Term 

Grazing Permit, Allotment 

Management Plan, and 

Annual Operating Instructions

Botany Report 

Weed Risk 

Assessment

Allotment 

Management 

Plans

Sensitive 

Plants

Sensitive Plants Interim and Recovery 

Management (12-A): Protect sensitive plants from 

activities which might cause them to become 

Federally listed as Threatened or Endangered. 

Identify populations of sensitive plants which occur 

in areas planned for timber sales or other projects. 

Modify planned projects to avoid or minimize 

adverse impacts to sensitive plants. Where projects 

may jeopardize a sensitive plant species perform a 

Biological Evaluation, botanical investigation and 

develop management guidelines, as necessary, for 

the species involved. Prepare species management 

guidelines for all sensitive species in order of the 

degree of risk posed by management activities. 

Conduct surveys and monitoring necessary to 

detect potentially damaging disturbances, changes 

in known populations and locations of new 

populations.

Surveys conducted in project 

area. One sensitive plant 

species – Yuba Pass 

Willowherb (Epilobium 

howellii) - is known to occur in 

the project area. BE prepared 

by botany specialist. 

Continued grazing is not likely 

to cause sensitive plant to 

become Federally listed.

Sensitive Plants 

BE 

Sensitive 

Plants

Sensitive Plant Surveys (12-A): Conduct field 

surveys for TEPS plant species early enough in the 

project planning process that the project can be 

designed to conserve or enhance TEPS plants and 

their habitat. Conduct surveys according to 

procedures outlined in the Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH 2609.25.11). If additional field 

surveys are to be conducted as part of project 

implementation, survey results must be 

documented in the project file.

Field surveys for TEPS plant 

species were conducted 

during project planning.

Sensitive Plants 

BE 

Soils Soil Support Services (13-A): Soil properties or 

conditions should not be altered to the degree that 

would result in a 15 percent or more reduction in 

the inherent productivity potential of the soil.

Livestock impacts to soil 

properties and conditions are 

not likely to exceed Forest 

Plan standards and 

Soil Report
Appendix C Stanislaus

Forest Plan Direction National Forest

252

Resource Forestwide S&G Project Compliance Citation

Soil Cover: Manage soil cover to avoid a High 

Erosion Hazard condition, as defined by the R-5 

Erosion Hazard Rating method. Soil cover should 

be in place prior to seasonal precipitation.

Soil Porosity: Maintain soil porosity above 90 

percent of its natural condition on at least 85 

percent of a treatment unit or activity area (90 

percent where aerial logging systems are used). 

Plantable landings and skid trails will be tilled, if 

compacted. Standard does not apply to system 

roads, administrative sites, or livestock driveways 

and bedding grounds.

Soil Organic Matter: Maintain topsoil organic matter 

to at least 85 percent of its original total in the top 

12 inches. Applies to areas dedicated to growing 

vegetation, i.e., timber and forage production, 

vegetation that contributes to the quality of the 

recreational experience, and for watershed 

protection. Stockpile topsoil to rehabilitate disturbed 

areas such as borrow pits, mined areas, material 

storage sites, etc.

Best Management Practices (BMPs): Implement 

BMPs to mitigate the environmental impacts of 

erosion, compaction, and soil displacement. 

Require special soil mitigation to use ground 

skidding equipment on slopes steeper than 35%. 

Require special soil mitigation to use ground 

skidding equipment on soils that erode, displace, or 

compact easily. Where actual or potential slope 

instability is identified, specific mitigating measures 

will be developed by an interdisciplinary team 

including a geologist.

guidelines

Soil Resource Improvement (Planning, Treatment 

and Maintenance) (13-B): Identify and evaluate the 

need for soil fertilization and other soil improvement 

techniques in areas where the soil is likely to 

respond to treatment. (36 CFR 219.27(b)(2). Treat 

areas that are found to be cost effective and that 

will respond favorably. Productivity lost as a result 

of soil erosion, soil compaction, loss of organic 

matter, or soil displacement, will be restored as 

practical to meet Soil Quality Standards. Include 

these areas in the Forest WINS inventory 

(Watershed Improvement Needs Survey), and in 

project K-V plans for restoration and improvement.

The need for soil resource 

improvement was evaluated 

during project analysis. Soil 

resource improvement and/or 

restoration would be 

implemented in future 

projects, as capability allows.

Soil Report
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix C

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Direction

253

Resource Forestwide S&G Project Compliance Citation

Soils Soil Hydrologic Functions Soil Environmental 

Health (13-C): Soil Moisture Regime is unchanged 

where productivity or potential natural plant 

community are dependent upon specific soil 

drainage classes.

Soil Hydrologic Function: Infiltration and 

permeability are not reduced to ratings of 6 or 8 as 

defined in Region 5 Erosion Hazard Rating System 

(Chapter 50, R-5 FSH 2509.22). Use Region 5 

Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis (Chapter 

20, R-5 FSH 2509.22) to determine the extent of 

area needed to meet the soil hydrologic function 

threshold defined above.

Soil Environmental Health: Soil reaction class, 

buffering or exchange capacities, or biological 

populations are not altered to the degree that 

significantly affects soil productivity, soil 

hydrological function, or the health of humans and 

animals.

Livestock impacts to Soils 

and Hydrologic Function were 

analyzed by soil and 

hydrology specialists.

Continued grazing within 

standards is not likely to 

result in noticeable changes 

to soil hydrologic function or 

soil environmental health.

Project-specific Cumulative 

Watershed Effects analysis 

was conducted by qualified 

hydrology specialist.

Soil Report

Watershed 

Report

Water Water Quality Management (18-A): Implement 

water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

as needed for all Forest management activities. 

BMPs are a system of nearly 100 practices 

designed to minimize or prevent water pollution 

from Forest management activities. They cover 

such activities as timber harvest, road construction, 

mining, recreation, fire management and grazing. 

Monitor the implementation and effectiveness of 

BMPs in selected areas to determine if they are 

being carried out and if they are accomplishing their 

objectives. Analyze cumulative watershed effects 

(CWE) on all applicable proposed Forest 

management activities to determine off-site effects 

on the beneficial uses of water.

Water quality BMPs 

applicable to livestock grazing 

will be implemented

Annual BMP implementation 

and effectiveness monitoring 

will continue according to 

regional protocol

Project-specific Cumulative 

Watershed Effects analysis 

conducted by hydrologist.

Watershed 

Report

Chapter 2, 

Mitigation and 

Other 

requirements

Allotment 

Management 

Plans

Monitoring Plan

Water Quantity Management (18-B): Support all 

valid uses of water from the National Forest. Insure 

that such uses are carried out commensurate with 

Federal and State laws and regulations. Follow all 

Federal and State regulatory practices required in 

responding to proposals to develop the water 

resource. Keep current all water rights management 

for beneficial uses of water on the Forest.

Proposed water development 

will be carried out 

commensurate with 

applicable regulations, 

including water rights for 

beneficial uses of water

Watershed 

Report

Watershed Maintenance and Improvement (18-

D): Maintain or improve watershed condition to 

provide stewardship of water and soil resources. 

Survey Forest watersheds and restore degraded 

areas to improve watershed condition. Conduct 

periodic watershed surveys to determine the current 

condition of the water resource, identify potential 

WIN projects and assess the potential for 

cumulative watershed effects.

Watersheds surveyed and 

condition described, 

Cumulative Watershed 

Effects analysis conducted

Watershed 

Report
Appendix C Stanislaus

Forest Plan Direction National Forest

254

Table C.01-2 Management Area Direction applicable to the BEH Rangeland Allotments project

Area Management Area Direction Project Compliance Citation

Wilderness 

and 

Proposed 

Wilderness

Range

Allotment Management - Extensive or 

Maintenance (9-A-2 and 9-A-3): Manage livestock 

grazing to preserve the characteristics and values 

of Wilderness. Improve ecological condition of 

rangelands, where currently unsatisfactory, through 

improved management and structural and nonstructural improvements. Construct new range 

improvements only as necessary to manage 

grazing and protect resource values. Construct 

improvements using non-motorized tools and 

access.

Livestock grazing compatible 

with wilderness values. No 

new range improvements 

planned in wilderness. If 

improvements are necessary 

in wilderness in future, fence 

construction will be 

compatible with wilderness 

values.

Wilderness 

Report

Recreation

ROS Primitive (10-B-1): Provide for very low 

interaction between visitors with a range of primitive 

recreation experiences. Evidence of other users is 

minimal. Manage to a ROS Class of Primitive. This 

is the adopted ROS level for management of all 

Wilderness as shown on the ROS Map The ROS 

Class of Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized is an 

acceptable interim level for certain areas within 

Wilderness.

Range of recreation 

experiences available in and 

around the project area. 

Impacts to recreation 

opportunity spectrum are 

disclosed.

Wilderness 

Report

Recreation 

Report

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Proposed Wild and Scenic River Management

(19-C): Protect and enhance the Wild and Scenic 

River characteristics. Manage the same as 

designated Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Livestock management in 

Proposed WSRs is 

compatible with WSR 

characteristics

Watershed 

Report

Wild and 

Scenic 

Rivers and 

Proposed 

Wild and 

Scenic 

Rivers

Range

Allotment Management - Extensive or 

Maintenance (9-A-2 and 3): Grazing management 

will be specified in the management plan for the 

particular river and in the Allotment plan for the 

Allotment(s) involved. Manage grazing to protect 

Wild and Scenic River values.

Allotment Management Plans 

specify grazing management 

in Wild and Scenic Rivers 

(WSRs) to protect WSR 

values

Allotment 

Management 

Plans

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Proposed Wild and Scenic River Management

(19-C): Protect and enhance the Wild and Scenic 

River characteristics. Manage the same as 

designated Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Livestock management in 

Proposed WSRs is 

compatible with WSR 

characteristics

Watershed 

Report

Wilderness

Wilderness Management (20-B): Manage Wild 

Rivers within Wilderness under dual designation.

Be consistent with application of guidelines for 

Wilderness and Proposed Wilderness.

WSRs within wilderness are 

managed under dual 

designation, consistent with 

wilderness guidelines

Wilderness 

Report

Near 

Natural

Description: Bell Meadow Area

This area was part of the Bell Meadow inventoried 

roadless area, located in the central part of the 

Forest. It is characterized by limited timber 

interspersed with meadow and granitic rock. The 

area is important wildlife habitat and contains 

several key deer fawning areas. It contains several 

trails and is a popular entry point to the Emigrant 

Wilderness which borders that area on the east. It is 

heavily hunted for deer in the fall. Grazing occurs 

throughout.

Suitability of grazing in the 

Bell Meadow Near Natural 

Area was considered during 

project analysis. Livestock 

grazing is allowed in the Bell 

Meadow (Near Natural) Area

Chapter 3.10 

Special Areas

Wildlife Fish and Wildlife

Structural Habitat Improvement and 

Wildlife objectives were 

considered. Activities are 

Wildlife BE
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix C

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Direction

255

Area Management Area Direction Project Compliance Citation

Maintenance (5-K): Conduct activities as needed to 

meet wildlife objectives. All such activities and 

objectives will be consistent with the overall 

objectives of the management area.

consistent with objectives of 

management areas.

Range

Allotment Management (9-A): Recognize the 

special value of meadows and riparian areas to 

fisher, pine marten and other late seral stage 

wildlife in applying range management systems. 

Environmental analysis for range activities within 

these management areas need to consider possible 

impacts of livestock operations on marten and 

fisher. Improve ecological condition of rangelands 

where currently unsatisfactory, through improved 

management, and structural and non-structural 

improvements.

Potential impacts of livestock 

operations on marten and 

fisher were considered.

Ecological condition of 

rangelands is expected to 

improve during project 

implementation

Wildlife BE

Range Report

Special 

Interest 

Areas 

Management Emphasis

Management emphasis for these areas is to protect 

and manage unique geological, scenic, historical, 

archaeological, botanical and memorial features, to 

make educational opportunities available and 

preserve the integrity of the special interest feature 

for which the areas were established. No timber 

harvests are scheduled; however, a wide range of 

resource activities is permitted, provided the unique 

features of each area are protected.

Bull Run Scenic and Geologic 

Special Interest Area is 

located within the Herring 

Creek Allotment. The 

management emphasis and 

special characteristics of this 

Special Interest Area were 

considered and are 

compatible with continued 

livestock grazing on this 

Allotment.

Appendix F 

Rangeland 

Capability and 

Suitability

Range

Allotment Management – Extensive or 

Maintenance (9-A-2 and 9-A-3): Grazing 

management will be specified in management plans 

for the area and the surrounding Allotment. 

Management is designed to protect the area’s 

special characteristics

Grazing management 

specified in Allotment 

Management Plan and is 

compatible with the area’s 

special characteristics.

Appendix J, 

Herring Creek 

Allotment 

Management 

Plan 

Research 

Natural 

Areas 

Management Emphasis: Research Natural Areas 

(RNAs) are managed to maintain select vegetative, 

aquatic, and/or geologic elements in natural 

conditions. Protection is provided against any 

activities that directly or indirectly modify ecological 

processes. (FSM 4063.3)

Bell Meadow Research 

Natural Area is located within 

the Bell Meadow Allotment. 

The purpose of this RNA is 

aspen research. Suitability 

was considered.

Appendix J, 

Herring Creek 

Allotment 

Management 

Plan 

Range

Allotment Management - Extensive or 

Maintenance (9-A-2 and 9-A-3): Grazing is not 

permitted in the upper part of the Bell Meadow RNA 

the Clark Fork Candidate RNA or the Bourland 

Meadow RNA. If grazing occurs in other RNAs, its 

management will be specified in management plans 

for the areas and the surrounding Allotments. 

Management is designed to protect the areas 

special characteristics.

Livestock are excluded from 

the Bell Meadow RNA 

(located in the Bell Meadow 

Allotment) and Bourland 

Meadow RNA (adjacent to 

the Bell Meadow Allotment)

Appendix H, Bell 

Meadow 

Allotment 

Management 

Plan 

Developed 

Recreation 

Sites 

Range

Allotment Management (9-A-2): Cattle grazing is 

excluded within all developed recreation sites.

Potential for conflict in 

developed recreation sites is 

minimized by herding away 

from these areas. Adaptive 

management actions 

(fencing) could be used if 

needed to exclude livestock 

from developed sites.

Recreation 

Report
Appendix C Stanislaus

Forest Plan Direction National Forest

256

Area Management Area Direction Project Compliance Citation

Winter 

Sports 

Sites 

Range

Allotment Management - Extensive or 

Maintenance (9-A-2 and 3): In winter sports sites 

where Allotment management plans permit grazing, 

the use will be managed according to the range 

Standards and Guidelines of the surrounding 

Management Area. Set allowable use levels based 

on the heaviest grazed or most sensitive vegetation 

type included in the area, such as a riparian area or 

ski run. Fence lodges, parking lots and other 

facilities as needed to minimize livestock/recreation 

conflicts.

Livestock grazing near the 

winter sports site is 

compatible with standards 

and guidelines of the 

surrounding management 

area(s). Adaptive 

management actions 

(fencing) could be used to 

exclude livestock from 

developed sites, if needed.

Appendix H, Bell 

Meadow 

Allotment 

Management 

Plan 

Recreation 

Report
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix C

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Direction

257

Table C.01-3 Land Allocation Direction applicable to the BEH Rangeland Allotments project

Allocation Direction Project Compliance Citation

Wilderness 

and Wild and 

Scenic Rivers

Desired Condition

Wilderness - The area generally appears to have 

been affected primarily by the forces of nature, 

with the imprint of humanity’s work substantially 

unnoticeable. It offers outstanding opportunities for 

solitude, or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation. Human influence does not impede or 

interfere with natural succession in the 

ecosystems.

Wild and Scenic Rivers - The outstandingly 

remarkable values for which wild and scenic rivers 

have been established, are candidates for 

designation, or are under study, are protected and 

preserved for the benefit and enjoyment of present 

and future generations. Free-flowing conditions of 

wild and scenic rivers, candidate or study rivers, 

are preserved. Human influence may be evident, 

but does not interfere with, or impede the natural 

succession of river ecosystems.

Grazing is compatible with 

wilderness character and 

does not affect the freeflowing conditions of wild 

and scenic rivers.

Wilderness 

Report

Watershed 

Report

Great Gray 

Owl Protected 

Activity 

Centers 

(PACs) 

Desired Condition: Meadow vegetation in great 

gray owl PACs supports a sufficiently large 

meadow vole population to provide a food source 

for great gray owls through the reproductive 

period.

Standards and Guidelines: In meadow areas of 

great gray owl PACs, maintain herbaceous 

vegetation at a height commensurate with site 

capability and habitat needs of prey species. 

Follow regional guidance to determine potential 

prey species and associated habitat requirements 

at the project level.

Vegetative cover height 

standards have been 

established in great gray 

owl (GGO) habitat at Lower 

Eagle Meadow. Replacing 

temporary exclosure with 

permanent fencing will aide 

in ensuring that habitat 

needs for GGO are met.

Wildlife BE

Riparian 

Conservation 

Areas 

Desired Condition

Water quality meets the goals of the Clean Water 

Act and Safe Drinking Water Act; it is fishable, 

swimmable, and suitable for drinking after normal 

treatment.

Habitat supports viable populations of native and 

desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and 

vertebrate riparian and aquatic-dependent 

species. New introductions of invasive species are 

prevented. Where invasive species are adversely 

affecting the viability of native species, the 

appropriate State and Federal wildlife agencies 

have reduced impacts to native populations.

Species composition and structural diversity of 

plant and animal communities in riparian areas, 

wetlands, and meadows provide desired habitat 

conditions and ecological functions.

The distribution and health of biotic communities in 

special aquatic habitats (such as springs, seeps, 

vernal pools, fens, bogs, and marshes) 

perpetuates their unique functions and biological 

diversity.

Spatial and temporal connectivity for riparian and 

aquatic-dependent species within and between 

watersheds provides physically, chemically and 

biologically unobstructed movement for their 

Water quality BMPs 

applicable to livestock 

grazing will be 

implemented to protect 

water quality.

Standards and guidelines 

will be implemented to 

protect native and desired 

non-native species and to 

prevent introduction of 

weeds. Coordination with 

appropriate State and 

Federal Wildlife agencies 

will occur as needed to 

reduce impacts to native 

populations.

Continued livestock grazing 

is compatible improve 

characteristics of riparian 

areas, wetlands, meadows, 

and special aquatic 

habitats.

Where already impaired, 

Watershed 

Report

Wildlife BE

Botany Report

Sensitive Plants 

BE 

Aquatic BE
Appendix C Stanislaus

Forest Plan Direction National Forest

258

Allocation Direction Project Compliance Citation

survival, migration and reproduction.

The connections of floodplains, channels, and 

water tables distribute flood flows and sustain 

diverse habitats.

Soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and 

diverse vegetative cover absorb and filter 

precipitation and sustain favorable conditions of 

stream flows.

In-stream flows are sufficient to sustain desired 

conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and 

meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as 

close as possible to those with which aquatic and 

riparian biota evolved.

The physical structure and condition of stream 

banks and shorelines minimizes erosion and 

sustains desired habitat diversity.

The ecological status of meadow vegetation is late 

seral (50 percent or more of the relative cover of 

the herbaceous layer is late seral with high 

similarity to the potential natural community). A 

diversity of age classes of hardwood shrubs is 

present and regeneration is occurring.

Meadows are hydrologically functional. Sites of 

accelerated erosion, such as gullies and headcuts 

are stabilized or recovering. Vegetation roots 

occur throughout the available soil profile. 

Meadows with perennial and intermittent streams 

have the following characteristics: (1) stream 

energy from high flows is dissipated, reducing 

erosion and improving water quality, (2) streams 

filter sediment and capture bedload, aiding 

floodplain development, (3) meadow conditions 

enhance floodwater retention and groundwater 

recharge, and (4) root masses stabilize stream 

banks against cutting action.

floodplain connectivity, 

water tables, and soil 

infiltration characteristics 

are not likely to show 

significant improvement by 

changing livestock 

management alone.

Grazing effects on instream flows and sediment 

regimes in the project area 

are disclosed.

Forage utilization and 

aspen browse standards 

are compatible with RCO 

desired conditions for 

meadow vegetation and 

hardwood regeneration.

Meadow hydrologic 

function, where impaired, 

generally is due to lowered 

water tables that result 

from historic activities and 

is not likely to show 

significant improvement by 

changing livestock 

management alone.

Riparian 

Conservation 

Areas 

Riparian Conservation Objective (RCO) 1: 

Ensure that identified beneficial uses for the water 

body are adequately protected. Identify the 

specific beneficial uses for the project area, water 

quality goals from the Regional Basin Plan, and 

the manner in which the standards and guidelines 

will protect the beneficial uses.

Beneficial uses in the 

project area were identified. 

Water quality BMPs, 

standards and guidelines, 

and adaptive management 

will be implemented to 

protect the beneficial uses 

identified.

Watershed 

Report

Ensure that management activities do not 

adversely affect water temperatures necessary for 

local aquatic- and riparian-dependent species 

assemblages.

Grazing does not adversely 

affect water temperatures 

in the project area.

Watershed 

Report

RCO 2: Maintain or restore: (1) the geomorphic 

and biological characteristics of special aquatic 

features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, 

wetlands, vernal pools, springs; (2) streams, 

including in stream flows; and (3) hydrologic 

connectivity both within and between watersheds 

to provide for the habitat needs of aquaticdependent species.

Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines, project-specific 

resource conservation 

measures, and monitoring 

plan developed to ensure 

these riparian conservation 

objectives are met.

Watershed 

Report

Sensitive Plants 

BE 

Aquatics BE
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix C

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Direction

259

Allocation Direction Project Compliance Citation

Riparian 

Conservation 

Areas 

RCO 2: Maintain and restore the hydrologic 

connectivity of streams, meadows, wetlands, and 

other special aquatic features by identifying roads 

and trails that intercept, divert, or disrupt natural 

surface and subsurface water flow paths. 

Implement corrective actions where necessary to 

restore connectivity.

Threats to hydrologic 

connectivity of special 

aquatic features identified 

during PFC analysis. 

Corrective actions would be 

used where necessary, but 

are outside scope of 

project.

Watershed 

Report

RCO 2: Prior to activities that could adversely 

affect streams, determine if relevant stream 

characteristics are within the range of natural 

variability. If characteristics are outside the range 

of natural variability, implement mitigation 

measures and short-term restoration actions 

needed to prevent further declines or cause an 

upward trend in conditions. Evaluate required 

long-term restoration actions and implement them 

according to their status among other restoration 

needs.

Stream characteristics 

were surveyed and are 

generally within the range 

of natural variability. Shortterm restoration actions 

could be implemented, if 

needed, through the 

adaptive management 

process.

Watershed 

Report

RCO 2: Prevent disturbance to streambanks and 

natural lake and pond shorelines caused by 

resource activities (for example, livestock, offhighway vehicles, and dispersed recreation) from 

exceeding 20 percent of stream reach or 20 

percent of natural lake and pond shorelines. 

Disturbance includes bank sloughing, chiseling, 

trampling, and other means of exposing bare soil 

or cutting plant roots. This standard does not apply 

to developed recreation sites, sites authorized 

under Special Use Permits and designated offhighway vehicle routes.

Streambank disturbance 

standards are incorporated 

in Terms and Conditions of 

grazing permits, Allotment 

Management Plans, Annual 

Operating Instructions, and 

Monitoring Plan.

Range Report

Allotment 

Management 

Plans

Monitoring Plan

RCO 2: Cooperate with State and Federal 

agencies to develop streambank disturbance 

standards for threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species. Use the regional streambank 

assessment protocol. Implement corrective action 

where disturbance limits have been exceeded.

Project-specific USFWS 

consultation. Streambank 

disturbance monitoring 

would occur in sensitive 

reaches and adaptive 

management actions would 

be used if standards not 

met.

Aquatics BE

Monitoring Plan

RCO 2: At either the landscape or project-scale, 

determine if the age class, structural diversity, 

composition, and cover of riparian vegetation are 

within the range of natural variability for the 

vegetative community. If conditions are outside the 

range of natural variability, consider implementing 

mitigation and/or restoration actions that will result 

in an upward trend. Actions could include 

restoration of aspen or other riparian vegetation 

where conifer encroachment is identified as a 

problem.

Riparian vegetation was 

surveyed during project 

analysis. Riparian 

restoration planned as part 

of the Gooseberry project. 

Additional riparian 

restoration projects may 

occur as capability and 

funding allows.

Watershed 

Report

Gooseberry 

Ecological 

Restoration 

Decision Notice

RCO 4: Ensure that management activities, 

including fuels reduction actions, within RCAs and 

CARs enhance or maintain physical and biological 

characteristics associated with aquatic- and 

riparian dependent species.

Impacts to physical and 

biological characteristics 

associated with aquaticand riparian-dependent 

species are disclosed.

Aquatics BE
Appendix C Stanislaus

Forest Plan Direction National Forest

260

Allocation Direction Project Compliance Citation

Riparian 

Conservation 

Areas 

RCO 4: Identify roads, trails, OHV trails and 

staging areas, developed recreation sites, 

dispersed campgrounds, special use permits, 

grazing permits, and day use sites during 

landscape analysis. Identify conditions that 

degrade water quality or habitat for aquatic and 

riparian-dependent species. At the project level, 

evaluate and consider actions to ensure 

consistency with standards and guidelines or 

desired conditions.

Reauthorization of livestock 

grazing would be 

consistent with applicable 

standards and guidelines 

and/or desired conditions 

that protect water quality 

and habitat for aquatic and 

riparian-dependent 

species.

Watershed 

Report 

Aquatics BE

RCO 5: Preserve, restore, or enhance special 

aquatic features, such as meadows, lakes, ponds, 

bogs, fens, and wetlands, to provide the ecological 

conditions and processes needed to recover or 

enhance the viability of species that rely on these 

areas.

Project-specific resource 

conservation measures 

developed to protect 

ecological conditions and 

processes in special 

aquatic features.

Chapter 2.03 

Mitigation and 

other 

requirements: 

Resource 

Conservation 

Measures

RCO 5: Assess the hydrologic function of meadow 

habitats and other special aquatic features during 

range management analysis. Ensure that 

characteristics of special features are, at a 

minimum, at Proper Functioning Condition, as 

defined in the appropriate Technical Reports (or 

their successor publications): (1) "Process for 

Assessing PFC" TR 1737-9 (1993), "PFC for Lotic 

Areas" USDI TR 1737-15 (1998) or (2) "PFC for 

Lentic Riparian-Wetland Areas" USDI TR1737-

11(1994)

Appropriate Technical 

Reports and protocols were 

used to assess the 

hydrologic function of 

meadows and special 

aquatic features.

Watershed 

Report

Special Aquatic 

Features field 

notes and 

Proper 

Functioning 

Condition data

RCO 5: Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing 

activities that adversely affect hydrologic 

processes that maintain water flow, water quality, 

or water temperature critical to sustaining bog and 

fen ecosystems and plant species that depend on 

these ecosystems. During project analysis, survey, 

map, and develop measures to protect bogs and 

fens from such activities as trampling by livestock, 

pack stock, humans, and wheeled vehicles. 

Criteria for defining bogs and fens include, but are 

not limited to, presence of: (1) sphagnum moss 

(Spagnum spp.), (2) mosses belonging to the 

genus Meessia, and (3) sundew (Drosera spp.) 

Complete initial plant inventories of bogs and fens 

within active grazing Allotments prior to re-issuing 

permits.

Fen ecosystems were 

surveyed and mapped 

during project analysis. 

Project-specific resource 

conservation measures 

were developed to protect 

fens from impacts of 

livestock grazing. Initial 

plant inventories of fens in 

project area are complete. 

Impacts to plant species 

that occur in fens is 

disclosed in EIS.

Chapter 2.03 

Mitigation and 

Other 

requirements: 

Resource 

Conservation 

Measures

Special Aquatic 

Features field 

notes and 

Proper 

Functioning 

Condition data

Botany Report

RCO 5: Locate new facilities for gathering 

livestock and pack stock outside of meadows and 

riparian conservation areas. During project-level 

planning, evaluate and consider relocating existing 

livestock facilities outside of meadows and riparian 

areas. Prior to re-issuing grazing permits, assess 

the compatibility of livestock management facilities 

located in riparian conservation areas with riparian 

conservation objectives.

Relocation of the corrals in 

RCOs was considered, but 

is generally not feasible. 

The corral at Martin’s Cow 

Camp is an historic high 

sierra cow camp; relocating 

the corral would adversely 

affect its eligibility for listing 

in the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 

propose new facilities 

(corrals) outside of RCAs.

Heritage Report
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix C

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Direction

261

Allocation Direction Project Compliance Citation

Riparian 

Conservation 

Areas 

RCO 5: Under season-long grazing:

For meadows in early seral status: limit livestock 

utilization of grass and grass-like plants to 30 

percent (or minimum 6-inch stubble height).

For meadows in late seral status: limit livestock 

utilization of grass and grass-like plants to a 

maximum of 40 percent (or minimum 4-inch 

stubble height).

RCA utilization standards 

are applicable to meadows 

in the project area and are 

set forth in Allotment 

Management Plans for 

each Allotment

Range Report

Allotment 

Management 

Plans

RCO 5: Determine ecological status on all key 

areas monitored for grazing utilization prior to 

establishing utilization levels. Use Regional 

ecological scorecards and range plant list in 

regional range handbooks to determine ecological 

status. Analyze meadow ecological status every 3 

to 5 years. If meadow ecological status is 

determined to be moving in a downward trend,

modify or suspend grazing. Include ecological 

status data in a spatially explicit Geographical 

Information System database.

Regional scorecards, range 

plant lists, and range 

handbooks were used to 

determine ecological status 

of key areas on a 5 year 

schedule. Grazing would 

be modified in meadows 

where ecological status is 

moving in a downward 

trend as a result of current 

grazing.

Range Report

R5 Meadow 

Ecological 

Status

RCO 5: Under intensive grazing systems (such as 

rest-rotation and deferred rotation) where 

meadows are receiving a period of rest, utilization 

levels can be higher than the levels described 

above if the meadow is maintained in late seral 

status and meadow-associated species are not 

being impacted. Degraded meadows (such as 

those in early seral status with greater than 10 

percent of the meadow area in bare soil and active 

erosion) require total rest from grazing until they 

have recovered and have moved to mid- or late 

seral status.

Eagle Meadow Allotment 

uses an intensive grazing 

system - utilization levels 

can be higher if pastures 

rested. Meadows that are 

degraded as a result of 

current grazing will be 

rested, meadows that are 

degraded as a result of 

legacy activities are not 

likely to improve with 

exclusion of livestock.

Appendix I, 

Eagle Meadow 

Allotment 

Management 

Plan 

RCO 5: Limit browsing to no more than 20 percent 

of the annual leader growth of mature riparian 

shrubs and no more than 20 percent of individual 

seedlings. Remove livestock from any area of an 

Allotment when browsing indicates a change in 

livestock preference from grazing herbaceous 

vegetation to browsing woody riparian vegetation.

Riparian browse standard 

is applicable in the project 

area and are set forth in 

Term Grazing Permits, 

Allotment Management 

Plans, and Annual 

Operating Instructions

Allotment 

Management 

Plans

RCO 6: Identify and implement restoration actions 

to maintain, restore or enhance water quality and 

maintain, restore, or enhance habitat for riparian 

and aquatic species.

Restoration of advancing 

headcuts would occur, if 

needed, as part of Adaptive 

Management process or in 

a separate project.

Monitoring Plan

Watershed 

Report

RCO 6: Recommend restoration practices in: (1) 

areas with compaction in excess of soil quality 

standards, (2) areas with lowered water tables, or 

(3) areas that are either actively down cutting or 

that have historic gullies. Identify other 

management practices, for example, road building, 

recreational use, grazing, and timber harvests that 

may be contributing to the observed degradation.

Restoration practices could 

be implemented, if needed, 

as part of Adaptive 

Management process or in 

a separate restoration 

project if current grazing is 

causing excessive 

compaction, lowered water 

tables, or active down 

cutting.

Watershed 

Report

Soil Report

Chapter 2.03 

Mitigation and 

Other 

requirements: 

Adaptive 

Management 
Appendix C Stanislaus

Forest Plan Direction National Forest

262
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix D

Environmental Impact Statement Glossary

263

D. Glossary

Adaptive Management A system of management practices based on clearly identified intended outcomes and 

monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting those outcomes; and, if 

not, to facilitate management changes that will best ensure that those outcomes are 

met or re-evaluated. Adaptive management stems from the recognition that knowledge 

about natural resource systems is sometimes uncertain (36 CFR 220.3).

Administrative Unit A National Forest, a National Grassland, a purchase unit, a land utilization project, or 

other comparable unit of the National Forest System.

A Horizon The uppermost layer of a soil profile, often rich in organic matter.

Aggradation The increase in land elevation due to the deposition of sediment.

Alluvial Pertaining to processes or materials associated with transportation or deposition by 

running water.

Animal Unit One mature (1,000 Ib.) cow or the equivalent based upon average daily forage 

allowance of 26 Ibs. dry matter per day under range conditions.

Animal Unit Month 

(AUM)

The amount of forage required by one animal unit for one month. 

Aquatic Growing or living in or frequenting water; taking place in or on water.

Aquatic Ecosystem A stream channel, lake or estuary bed, the water itself, and the biotic (living) 

communities that occur therein.

Arborglyphs Tree carvings made in the bark of aspen trees by shepherds, many of them Basque and 

Irish American, throughout the Western United States

ARC/INFO The name of a Geographic Information System software program.

Area A discrete, specifically delineated space that is smaller, and in most cases much 

smaller, than a Ranger District.

Area of Potential Effects 

(APE) 

This is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or 

indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such 

properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an 

undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the 

undertaking.

Aspect The direction a slope faces. For example, a hillside facing east has an eastern aspect.

Biological Diversity 

(Biodiversity)

The number and abundance of species found within a common environment. This 

includes the variety of genes, species, ecosystems, and the ecological processes that 

connect everything in a common environment.

Biota The plant and animal life of a particular region.

Biotic Potential Factors that influence the ability of an animal to utilize its environment, including: 

reproductive rates, dispersal ability, habitat and life requisite specificity, and 

adaptability. Combine, these factors assign biotic potential of the animal.

Buffer Used in the context of GIS; a buffer is a zone of a specified distance around a feature in 

a coverage.

California Wildlife 

Habitat Relationships 

(CWHR)

A system of classifying vegetation in relation to its function as wildlife habitat. Treedominated habitat is classified according to tree size and canopy closure.

Capability The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and 

allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given 

level of management intensity. Capability depends on current conditions and site 

conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils and geology, as well as the 

application of management practices, such as silviculture or protection from fire, 

insects, and disease.

Chief The Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture (36 CFR 212).

Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR)

A codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by 

the Executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
Appendix D Stanislaus

Glossary National Forest

264

Collaboration Managers, scientists and citizens working together to plan, implement and monitor 

National Forest management. The intention is to engage people who have information, 

knowledge, expertise and an interest in the health of National Forest ecosystems and 

nearby communities.

Connected Actions Actions that: (i) automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental 

impact statements; (ii) cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken 

previously or simultaneously; or, (iii) are interdependent parts of a larger action and 

depend on the larger action for their justification (40 CFR 1508.25).

Connectivity (of 

Habitats)

The linkage of similar but separated vegetation stands by patches, corridors, or 

“stepping stones” of like vegetation. This term can also refer to the degree to which 

similar habitats are linked.

Cow/Calf Pair One mature (1000 lb.) cow and unweaned calf less than 6 months of age. A cow/calf 

pair is considered by the Forest Service to be equivalent to 1.32 Animal Units.

Coverage A digital map or layer of data in the ARC/INFO software program.

Council on 

Environmental Quality 

(CEQ)

The Council on Environmental Quality established by Title II of NEPA (40 CFR 1508.6).

Critical Aquatic Refuge 

(CAR)

A relatively small watershed, ranging in size from about 3,000 to 85,000 acres, that is 

sometimes nested within an emphasis watershed and has localized populations of rare 

and/or at-risk populations of native fish and/or amphibians.

Critical Habitat Areas designated for the survival and recovery of federally listed threatened or 

endangered species.

Critical Refuge A relatively small watershed, ranging in size from about 3,000 to 85,000 acres, that is 

sometimes nested within an emphasis watershed and has localized populations of rare 

and/or at-risk populations of native fish and/or amphibians.

Cumulative Impact The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other 

actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant 

actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7).

Deferred Rotation Scheduled movement of grazing animals between pastures to provide a period of 

nongrazing during part of the growing season. In high-elevation range conditions, 

grazing is deferred at higher elevations until maturity of key forage species.

Degradation Reduction in quality. The process whereby the water quality and chemical, physical or 

biological integrity of a water body is decreased. Habitat quality can be changed by 

certain management activities. If the quality is reduced then habitat degradation has 

occurred.

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement 

(DEIS)

A detailed written statement as required by section 102(2) (C) of the NEPA (40 CFR 

1508.11) that is released to governmental agencies and the general public for review 

and comment.

Desired Future 

Conditions

Land or resource conditions that are expected to result based on goals and objectives. 

Also referred to as Desired Condition.

Ecological Status The present state of vegetation and soil protection of an ecological site in relation to the 

potential natural community for the site. Vegetation status is the expression for the 

relative degree to which the kinds, proportion and amounts of plants in a community 

resemble that of the potential natural community. Soil status is a measure of the present 

vegetation and litter cover relative to the amount of cover needed on the site to prevent 

accelerated erosion.

Ecology The interrelationships of living things to one another and to their environment, or the 

study of these interrelationships.

Ecosystem An arrangement of living and non-living things and the forces that move them. Living 

things include plants and animals. Non-living parts of ecosystems may be rocks and 

minerals. Weather and wildfire are two of the forces that act within ecosystems.

Endangered Species Those plant or animal species that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. Endangered species are identified by the Secretary of 

the Interior in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix D

Environmental Impact Statement Glossary

265

Environmental Justice The state (or condition) which 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 human health or the environment.

Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS)

A detailed written statement as required by section 102(2) (C) of NEPA (CFR 1508.11).

Ephemeral Stream Streams that flow only as the direct result of rainfall or snowmelt. They have no 

permanent flow.

Equivalent Roaded 

Acres 

A standardized unit of measure for land disturbance. A road prism is considered the 

reference to which other types of land disturbing activities are measured. A road is 

given an ERA coefficient of 1.0 (1 acre of road is equal to 1.0 ERA). Other disturbances 

such as logging, site preparation and wildfires are equated to a road surface by ERA 

coefficients that reflect their relative level of contribution to changes in runoff and 

sediment regimes in the watershed.

Fauna The animal life of an area.

Fen An ecosystem with hydric (wet) soil, an aquic (saturated) soil moisture regime, and 

accumulation of peat (organic soil) in the histic epipedon. 

Floodplain Level or very gently sloping surface bordering a river that has been formed by river 

erosion and deposition; it is usually subject to flooding and is underlain by fluvial 

sediments; similar to alluvial plain.

Flora The plant life of an area.

Focal Species A species of concern.

Forage Browse and herbage which is available to and may provide food for grazing animals or 

be harvested for feeding.

Forb An herbaceous plant, usually with broad net-veined leaves. In general, any plant not in 

the grass, sedge or brush families.

Fuels Plants and woody vegetation, living and dead that are capable of burning.

Functional At-Risk A term used to describe riparian wetland areas that are in functional condition, but that 

have existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute that makes them susceptible to 

degradation.

Geographic Information 

Systems (GIS)

A computer system capable of storing, manipulating, analyzing, and displaying 

geographic information.

Grazing System A defined, integrated combination of animal, plant, soil, and other environmental 

components and the grazing method(s) by which the system is managed to achieve 

specific results or goals.

Habitat The area where a plant or animal lives and grows under natural conditions.

Herbaceous A plant having little or no woody tissue.

Heritage Program The comprehensive Forest Service program of responsibilities with regard to historic 

preservation. A pro-active program to manage prehistoric and historic cultural resources 

and cultural traditions for the benefit of the public through preservation, public use, and 

research. 

Hydrogeomorphic The interaction and linkage of hydrologic processes with landforms and the interaction 

of geomorphic processes with surface and subsurface water in temporal and spatial 

dimensions.

Image A graphic representation of a person or thing, typically produced by an electronic 

device. Common examples include remotely sensed data and photographs.

Indigenous Any species of plant or animals native to a given land or water area by natural 

occurrence.

Interdisciplinary Team A diverse group of professional resource specialists who analyze the effects of 

Alternatives on natural and other resources. Through interaction, participants bring 

different points of view and a broader range of expertise.

Intermittent Stream A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water from 

streams or from some surface, such as melting snow.
Appendix D Stanislaus

Glossary National Forest

266

Irretrievable A term that applies to the loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources. For 

example, some or all of the timber production from an area is lost irretrievably while an 

area is serving as a winter sports site. The production lost is irretrievable, but the action 

is not irreversible. If the use changes, it is possible to resume timber production.

Irreversible A term that describes the loss of future options. Applies primarily to the effects of use of 

nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or to those factors, 

such as soil productivity that are renewable only over long periods of time

Key Area A relatively small portion of a range selected because of its location, use or grazing 

value as a monitoring point for grazing use. It is assumed that key areas, when properly 

selected, reflect the overall acceptability of current management over the range and 

serve as an indicative sample of range conditions, trend or degree of use.

Key Species Those species which must, because of their importance, be considered in the 

management program.

Landscape A large land area composed of interacting ecosystems that are repeated due to factors 

such as geology, soils, climate, and human impacts.

Legacy Impacts from past activities (usually a land use) that continue to affect a stream or 

watershed in the present day.

Management Action Any activity undertaken as part of the administration of the National Forest.

Meadow Areas of moist low lying and usually level grasslands. Generally, the water table is just 

below the surface of the soil and the most abundant vegetation is usually favored by 

wet but not constantly flooded soil.

Meadow Hydrologic 

Function

Term describing the functioning of plant-soil-water relationships and processes which 

affect overall meadow condition.

Mesic Moderately moist climates or environments.

Vegetation: generally refers to vegetation found in moist environments.

Soils: refers specifically to soils with mean annual temperatures of 8 to 15 degrees 

centigrade.

Mitigation Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.

Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation.

Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.

Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance 

operations during the life of the action.

Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments.

Monitoring The orderly collection, analysis, and interpretation of resource data to evaluate progress 

toward meeting management objectives.

Mosaic Areas with a variety of plant communities over a landscape. For example, areas with 

trees and areas without trees occurring over a landscape.

Multiple Use The management of all the various renewable surface resources of the National Forests 

so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American 

people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or 

related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic 

adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; that some land will be 

used for less than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated management 

of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of 

the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, 

and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or 

the greatest unit output. (Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act; Public Law 86–517)

National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA)

Codifies the national policy of encouraging harmony between humans and the 

environment by promoting efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment, 

thereby enriching our understanding of ecological systems and natural resources. It 

declares the federal government to be responsible for: (a) coordinating programs and 

plans regarding environmental protection; (b) using an interdisciplinary approach to 

decision-making; (c) developing methods to ensure that non-quantifiable amenity values 

are included economic analyses; and (d) including in every recommendation, report on 

proposals for legislation, or other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality 

of the environment a detailed environmental impact statement (EIS).
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix D

Environmental Impact Statement Glossary

267

National Forest System As defined in the Forest Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, the "National 

Forest System" includes all National Forest lands reserved or withdrawn from the public 

domain of the United States, all National Forest lands acquired through purchase, 

exchange, donation, or other means, the National Grasslands, and land utilization 

projects administered under title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tennant Act (50 Stat. 

525, 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012), and other lands, waters or interests therein which are 

administered by the Forest Service or are designated for administration through the 

Forest Service as a part of the system (36 CFR 212).

Natural Resource A feature of the natural environment that is of value in serving human needs.

Natural Succession The natural replacement, in time, of one plant community with another. Conditions of 

the prior plant community (or successional stage) create conditions that are favorable 

for the establishment of the next stage.

Noxious Weeds Aggressive, non-native plant species that have been introduced. They can be difficult to 

manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, or carrier of insects or disease. Examples of 

noxious weeds would be scotch broom, yellow star thistle, and cheatgrass.

Old Forest (Old Growth) Areas that contain large, old trees relative to the species-specific, environmentallyconstrained growth capacity of the site.

Palatability The degree of acceptability of a feed or feedstuff to the taste or the degree of its 

acceptability to be eaten by an animal.

Parent Material The unconsolidated and more or less chemically weathered mineral or organic matter 

from which a soil is developed by soil-forming processes.

Peat A term that sometimes is applied to organic soils. A soil that contains a minimum of 12 

percent organic carbon when no clay is present or a minimum of 18 percent organic 

carbon when clay content is 60 percent or greater.

Peatland A type of ecosystem, also referred to as a mire, in which organic matter is produced 

faster than it is decomposed, resulting in the accumulation of partially decomposed 

vegetative material termed peat. 

Perennial Stream A stream that typically has running water on a year-round basis.

Permittee Any entity that has been issued a grazing permit.

Plant Community A collection of plant species within a designated geographical unit, which forms a 

relatively uniform patch, distinguishable from neighboring patches of different vegetation 

types. The components of each plant community are influenced by soil type, 

topography, climate and human disturbance.

Preferred Alternative The alternative(s) which the Agency believes would best fulfill the purpose and need for 

the proposal, consistent with the Agency’s statutory mission and responsibilities, giving 

consideration to environmental, social, economic, and other factors and disclosed in an 

EIS.

Primary Range Those areas which livestock naturally prefer to use first. These are characteristically 

good forage-producing types on flat to gentle topography with available water nearby. 

They are grazed to allowable use or over-used before secondary range is used to any 

great extent.

Proper Functioning 

Condition (PFC)

A term describing riparian-wetland areas that have adequate vegetation, landform, and 

debris to provide ecological benefits applicable to a particular area. Also, a method of 

assessment developed for riparian-wetland areas.

Proposed Action A proposal made by the Forest Service to authorize, recommend, or implement an 

action to meet a specific purpose and need.

Protected Activity 

Centers (PACs)

Designated areas that are afforded protection to specific species by restricting certain 

management activities. For example, California spotted owl PACs protect owl habitat 

and breeding areas by restricting timber harvest.

Public Involvement The use of appropriate procedures to: inform the public, obtain early and continuing 

public participation, and consider the views of interested parties in planning and 

decision-making.

Public Land Land for which title and control rests with a government – Federal, state, regional, 

county, or municipal.

Range Land supporting indigenous vegetation that is grazed or that has the potential to be 

grazed, and is managed as a natural ecosystem.
Appendix D Stanislaus

Glossary National Forest

268

Range Readiness The defined stage of plant growth at which grazing may begin under a specific 

management plan without permanent damage to vegetation or soil.

Rapid Assessment Monitoring protocol that is used to provide information on the condition of a resource 

with a relatively small investment of time and effort.

Reasonably 

Foreseeable Future 

Actions

Those Federal or non-Federal activities not yet undertaken, for which there are existing 

decisions, funding, or identified proposals. Identified proposals for Forest Service 

actions are described in 220.4(a) (1) (36 CFR 220.3).

Record of Decision 

(ROD)

A concise public record of the responsible official’s decision to implement an action 

when an environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared.

Recruitment Additions to a population, either through birth or immigration.

Resilience The ability of an ecosystem to maintain diversity, integrity, and ecological processes 

following a disturbance.

Responsible Official The Agency employee who has the authority to make and implement a decision on a 

proposed action (36 CFR 220.3).

Rest Nonuse of range for a full year.

Rest-Rotation A grazing management system in which rest periods for individual paddocks or grazing 

units, generally for a full year, are incorporated into a grazing rotation.

Riparian Referring to or relating to areas adjacent to water or influenced by free water associated 

with streams or rivers on geologic surfaces occupying the lowest position on a 

watershed.

Riparian Conservation 

Area (RCA)

Identified areas within a certain distance from streams, special aquatic features or 

riparian vegetation. RCA width and protection measures are determined through project 

level analysis.

Riparian Ecosystem The ecosystem around or next to water areas that support unique vegetation and 

animal communities as a result of the influence of water. 

Road A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail (36 

CFR 212).

Roadless Areas For the purposes of this EIS, a generic term that includes inventoried roadless areas.

Schedule of Proposed 

Actions (SOPA)

A Forest Service document that informs the public about those proposed and ongoing 

Forest Service actions for which a record of decision, decision notice or decision memo 

would be or has been prepared. The SOPA also identifies a contact for additional 

information on any proposed actions (36 CFR 220.3).

Scope The range of actions, alternatives and impacts to be considered in an environmental 

impact statement (40 CFR 1508.25).

Scoping An early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for 

identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action (40 CFR 1501.7).

Secondary Range Those areas suitable for livestock use but which are generally used later and to a lighter 

degree than primary range. Generally they are on steeper slopes, further from water 

and have poorer forage-producing capabilities than primary range. 

Sensitive Species Plant or animal species which are susceptible to habitat changes or impacts from 

activities. The official designation is made by the USDA Forest Service at the regional 

level and is not part of the designation of threatened or endangered species made by 

the U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service.

Seral Stage The stage of succession of a plant or animal community that is transitional. If left alone, 

the seral stage will give way to another plant or animal community that represents a 

further stage of succession.

Spatial Data A GIS contains spatial data. The spatial data represents geographic features associated 

with real-world locations. 

Species A class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; a 

category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus; 

comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding.

Special Aquatic Feature A meadow, lake, pond, bog, spring, seep, fen, or other wetland.

Stand A group of trees that occupies a specific area and is similar in species, age and 

condition.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix D

Environmental Impact Statement Glossary

269

Standards and 

Guidelines (S&Gs)

The primary instructions for land managers. Standards address mandatory actions, 

while guidelines are recommended actions necessary to a land management decision.

Stewardship Caring for the land and its resources in order to pass healthy ecosystems on to future 

generations.

Stocking Rate The relationship between the number of animals and the grazing management unit 

utilized over a specified time period. May be expressed as animal units per unit of land 

area for a specified period of time.

Streambank Alteration Streambank disturbance caused by animals walking along the streambanks or the 

margins of the stream. 

Stubble Height The height of herbaceous plants remaining after the top portion has been harvested 

either by grazing animals or mechanical harvesting.

Succession The observed process of change in the species structure of an ecological community 

over time. The community begins with relatively few pioneering plants and animals and 

develops through increasing complexity until it becomes stable or self-perpetuating as a 

climax community. 

Suitability The appropriateness of certain resource management to an area of land. Suitability can 

be determined by environmental and economic analysis of management practices. 

Sustainability The ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes and functions, biological 

diversity, and productivity over time. 

Sustainable The yield of a natural resource that can be produced continually at a given intensity of 

management is said to be sustainable. Recreation activities are sustainable if the 

human activity does not reduce ecologic sustainability.

Taxa The name applied to any one group or entity in the scientific classification system.

Terminal Leader 

(aspen)

The current year’s growth at the tip of a primary stem. Trees typically have a single 

terminal leader, whereas shrubs typically have many.

Threatened Species Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered throughout all or a specific 

portion of their range within the foreseeable future as designated by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Trajectory The way in which a process or event develops over a period of time.

Trampling Animal-caused depressions in the soil surface or soil compaction.

Understory The trees and woody shrubs growing beneath branches and foliage formed collectively 

by the upper portions of adjacent trees. 

Utilization The proportion of current year’s forage production consumed by grazing animals.

Visual Quality The forest visual resources; terrain, geological features, or vegetation.

Water Table The upper surface of saturated zone below the soil surface where the water is at 

atmospheric pressure.

Watershed The entire region drained by a waterway, lake, or reservoir. More specifically, a 

watershed is an area of land above a given point on a stream that contributes water to 

the streamflows at that point.

Wetlands Areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to 

support (and that under normal circumstances do or would support) a prevalence of 

vegetation or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions 

for growth and reproduction.
Appendix D Stanislaus

Glossary National Forest

270
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix E

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments

271

E. Response to Comments

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the DEIS 

in the Federal Register on January 31, 2014. The 45-day comment period ended on March 17, 2014. 

In response to the Forest’s request for comments, interested parties submitted 18 unique individual 

letters. For tracking purposes, the interdisciplinary team assigned a respondent number to each letter 

as it was received (1-18). Each individual comment within each letter was also given a unique 

comment number. Forest Service direction requires that a final EIS respond to substantive comments 

on the draft EIS (FSH 1909.15, 25.1). Specific comments are within the scope of the proposed action, 

have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and must include supporting reasons for the 

responsible official to consider (36 CFR 218.2). 

This Appendix contains the summary comment statements, organized by the 9 general topics shown 

below. Similar comments are grouped and followed by the comment numbers and a response. Table 

E.01-1 lists and identifies the 18 respondents. The content analysis spreadsheet 

(Comment_Analysis.xlsx, project record) contains all specific individual comments. 

1. Adaptive Management and Monitoring

2. Allotment Management

3. Aquatics 

4. Invasive Species

5. NEPA

6. Riparian and Meadows

7. Sensitive Plants

8. Water Quality

9. Wildlife

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING

1. Comment: Simply proposing that the Forest will use future “adaptive management” to address existing 

resource conflicts is inadequate disclosure under NEPA. Western Watersheds Project and Randall 

Hermann v. United States Forest Service CV-05-189-E-BLW.The Forest Service must list specific 

management actions that will be used to accomplish specific management goals and any remediation, 

and should clearly identify the specific triggers that will require implementation of those actions.

13.011 13.018

Response: The EIS provides general information about the adaptive management strategy (p. 28-

29). Standards and guidelines and resource conservation measures are a primary component of 

the Adaptive Management Strategy (p. 26-28). The EIS also provides a Monitoring Plan 

(Appendix G), which details specific triggers and management actions that would be 

implemented in order to meet management objectives.

2. Comment: The Forest cannot simply claim that a specified action will result in a “move towards 

desired condition” but must provide scientific justification for the claims.

13.013

Response: The EIS Chapter 3 addresses direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each 

alternative to wildlife, watershed, soils, sensitive plants, and aquatic species, among other 

resources. The EIS lists mitigation and other requirements (Chapter 2.03) that would minimize 

adverse effects to these resources, along with appropriate references to the scientific literature (p. 

229-240). Numerous scientific publications are cited and utilized in the assessment of effects, 

both positive and negative. Alternatives 1 and 4 include an Adaptive Management Strategy (p. 

28-29) that would respond to a need for change in management and would address ongoing 

uncertainties and knowledge gaps in the scientific literature. Desired conditions are being met 

throughout much of the project area; however, specific locations that are not meeting desired 

conditions were identified by the Interdisciplinary Team (Table 1.03-1). Adjustments to grazing 

authorization parameters (Chapter 2.02) and resource conservation measures (p. 26-28) were 
Appendix E Stanislaus

Response to Comments National Forest

272

developed to move these sites towards desired conditions. Resource specialists determined that 

the effects of the project would generally maintain or improve conditions (Chapters 3.06, 3.09, 

3.10, and 3.11).

3. Comment: Aspen stands are not adequately protected by Alternative 1. Despite the resource impact 

being acknowledged, the DEIS fails to provide a feasible, reasonable mitigation measure to reduce the 

significance of the impact. The only mitigation is the standard monitoring program that may or may not 

end up triggering any action.

16.318 16.325

Response: The EIS provides information about mitigation measures developed to reduce impacts 

to aspen stands (p. 27). The Monitoring Plan provides more specific information about 

monitoring of hardwood browse and regeneration (Appendix G). Alternatives 1 and 4 implement 

resource conservation measures for hardwood regeneration (p. 27) that would construct fences 

around aspen stands if livestock browse is suppressing aspen recruitment. Monitoring and 

adaptive management is considered to be a feasible and reasonable mitigation measure for the 

protection of aspen stands, and is consistent with management direction. 

4. Comment: Since the Framework Standard and Guideline for streambank stability was adopted, the 

agency has not only failed to monitor consistently and effectively for compliance with that Standard 

and Guideline, but agency officials have not even agreed upon the utilization of a scientifically valid 

method to use for streambank monitoring within the Forest. The Forest doesn’t monitor for or compile 

records about streambank stability.

16.209

Response: The Stanislaus National Forest monitors streambank stability using a scientifically 

valid and regionally accepted method (USDI 2011). The Monitoring Plan provides information 

about streambank stability (EIS, p. 293-301). Streambank stability would be monitored during 

project implementation. 

5. Comment: Several examples of monitoring for BMP effectiveness are provided; however monitoring 

frequency and methods are not specified.

6.005

Response: The Monitoring Plan specifies BMPEP monitoring methods (EIS, p. 298).The Forest 

conducts Region 5 Range Management BMPEP monitoring annually on key areas chosen at 

random from a Forest-wide sample pool. BMPEP monitoring may occur more frequently, as 

needed, to ensure that BMPs are implemented and effective in the project area.

6. Comment: It would be a violation of NEPA for the Forest to select Alternative 1, based on the 

assumption that the monitoring proposed in Alternative 1 will go forward, when in reality the Forest 

does not have the funding to even do the current level of funding that already required in the Forest 

Plan. The Forest cannot choose Alternative 1 with the unrealistic expectation that significant additional 

monitoring dollars will suddenly appear and be consistently available, year after year, to monitor all the 

special aquatic features, the meadows that are functional-at risk, the water quality sites of high concern, 

or the key areas for at-risk Yosemite toad or Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog. Monitoring must be 

realistic. The reliance on unrealistic monitoring to implement Alternative 1 violates NEPA.

16.206

Response: The availability of funding for monitoring is outside the scope of this project. The 

Monitoring Plan (Appendix G) provides targets and objectives for short- and long-term 

monitoring in the project area. The plan states that “While actual monitoring accomplishments are 

dependent upon staff availability and funding constraints, sufficient monitoring should occur to 

provide the minimum information needed to determine if management is moving resources 

toward desired conditions. Annual monitoring implementation will be specified every year in the 

Annual Operating Instructions, and will reflect current monitoring priorities and realistic targets.” 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix E

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments

273

(p. 293). Monitoring may be accomplished in the absence of available funding with the help of 

permittees, volunteers, or other partners. 

7. Comment: The DEIS relies on implementing BMPs to provide for conservation. The Forest cannot 

simply assume that implementation of a BMP may be an effective conservation measure but must 

conduct a site-specific analysis to demonstrate that a given BMP is likely to be effective in the context 

of this project.

13.022

Response: The EIS (Chapter 2.03) describes BMPs that would be implemented under all action 

alternatives. The purpose of range management BMPs is to protect water quality and aquatic and 

riparian resources that may be affected by rangeland management activities. The BMPs are 

applied as needed for the control of nonpoint source pollution associated with livestock grazing 

activities on NFS land. Each BMP is based on administrative directives that guide and direct the 

Forest Service planning and permitting of livestock grazing activities on NFS land. BMPs have 

been shown to be effective in protecting water quality, which would provide a means of habitat 

conservation for aquatic species. The BMP Effectiveness Program provides for site-specific 

analysis to verify that BMPs are implemented and effective in protecting water quality. The 

Monitoring Plan (Appendix G) describes how BMPEP monitoring would be used to assess both 

implementation and effectiveness of BMPs in the project area.

ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT

8. Comment: The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) should explain the timing of updates for 

the AMP's and discuss whether any additional environmental analysis is needed for their development.

15.004

Response: The EIS analysis covers AMP updates for all action alternatives, therefore additional 

analysis is not required to update the AMPs. The EIS provides AMPs for the Bell Meadow, Eagle 

Meadow, and Herring Creek allotments (Appendices H, I and J). Plans may be modified as part 

of the adaptive management strategy, as long as modifications are consistent with the decision

(Appendix H, p. 303; Appendix I, p. 319; and Appendix J, p. 337). The decision to be made will 

include approval of new AMPs for each allotment. 

9. Comment: The Forest Service has a legal responsibility to include, when judging areas to be "capable" 

for livestock grazing, criteria that removes acres that are (a) critical habitat for a species that is either 

Threatened or Endangered or highly sensitive and at-risk, (b) high elevation areas with generally 

shallow soils and a typically short growing season, and (c) areas known to be high-use recreation areas. 

16.355

Response: The EIS (Appendix F) documents capability analysis and criteria. Capability is 

defined in CFR 219.3 as “The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and 

services, and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given 

level of management intensity. Capability depends on current conditions and site conditions such 

as climate, slope, landform, soils and geology, as well as the application of management 

practices, such as silviculture or protection from fire, insects, and disease.” The SNFPA (USDA 

2004) Appendix K suggests that NFS lands meeting the following criteria are considered capable:

- Areas with less than 30% slope for cattle.

- Areas producing more than or having the potential to produce an average of 200 lbs. of forage 

per acre per year on an air dry basis over the planning period. 

- Areas accessible to livestock (without such factors as rock or physical barriers). 

The EIS (p. 271-273) states that analysis and identification of capable and suitable lands does not 

imply that livestock grazing would be restricted to lands that are both capable and suitable. 
Appendix E Stanislaus

Response to Comments National Forest

274

Incidental use occurs in areas that are not capable as cattle move through capable lands within 

each Allotment.

10. Comment: A change to 40% in the deferred rotation units will be unattainable in normal years and 

appears capricious, and punitive for grazing, particularly with the positive long term trend analysis. 

Removing the incentive for good range management is counterproductive to good resource 

stewardship. We request 50% utilization as the grazing standard in the Niagara Unit as long as 

monitoring and conditions support the use.

9.004

Response: Forest Plan Direction requires that “Pastures receiving periodic full growing season 

rest can have higher allowable use levels, as shown” (USDA 2010, p. 51-52). The Eagle Meadow 

allotment is managed using a deferred rotation and rest-rotation grazing system; however the 

Niagara unit is generally not rested from grazing for a full growing season. Therefore, the 

following utilization standards for season long grazing in Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) 

apply (USDA 2010, p. 195): 

- For meadows in early seral status: limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to 

30 percent (or minimum 6-inch stubble height). 

- For meadows in late seral status: limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to a 

maximum of 40 percent (or minimum 4-inch stubble height). 

11. Comment: Since the Herring Allotment already lists 23 major meadows within the Allotment, and 

resource objectives cannot be met, it is highly debatable that adding one large meadow in the Cascade 

unit with numerous small stringer meadows will suddenly provide such forage capacity that the other 

23 meadows will no longer be pressured.

16.094

Response: Rangeland forage is not limited to meadows. Where not suppressed by a densely 

forested canopy, the herbaceous understory provides forage for livestock. Browse species (such 

as Deerbrush) also provide forage for livestock and are found in openings and in the forest 

understory. The addition of the Cascade unit would provide additional forage capacity and would 

allow for increased livestock dispersal. The combination of increased forage capacity and 

livestock dispersal would reduce grazing pressure on meadows and riparian areas within the 

existing allotment boundary (EIS, Chapter 3.06). 

12. Comment: The Niagara Addition would add at least some suitable grazing acres to the Eagle Meadow 

Allotment, but that addition will be shown to be in conflict with various legal requirements because 

essential surveys that have not been completed.

16.070

Response: The EIS (p. 29) notes that addition areas would be surveyed prior to allowing 

livestock to use those areas. 

13. Comment: Areas closed to Grazing page 308 “Livestock are not permitted within Shell Meadow, the 

permanent exclosure at lower Eagle Meadow. The Eagle Unit is also excluded from livestock.” We 

request a correction to provide consistency in the BEH DEIS.

9.005

Response: The EIS (p. 326) shows that Shell Meadow is currently excluded from livestock 

grazing, and would continue to be excluded under all action alternatives. The Shell Meadow 

Restoration Decision Memo says that “The meadow is currently fenced to exclude cattle grazing; 

it is unknown if changes in the grazing permit could occur in the future and allow for grazing in 

this meadow. To protect the restoration project, retain the existing fence for three years or until 

vegetative recovery occurs (less than 10% bare ground and no active erosion), whichever is 

longer.” (Decision Memo, September 4, 2013). Grazing exclusion is required by the Shell 

Meadow project to protect the restoration for three years or until vegetative recovery occurs. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix E

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments

275

Continued livestock exclusion may be required following vegetative recovery of the restoration 

area to ensure consistency with Forest Plan Direction or compliance with the Biological Opinion 

for Yosemite toad (USFWS 2014). Any proposed future changes to grazing management at Shell 

Meadow would require additional site-specific analysis. The Eagle unit, shown on the Eagle 

Meadow allotment map (p. 335) is excluded from livestock, but should be distinguished from the 

Eagle Meadow unit and the Lower Eagle Units, which are both grazed by livestock.

14. Comment: A fence on the southeast corner of the Bell Meadow allotment would prevent cows from 

leaving the permit area. A fence about 200 yards long with a gate for horses and cattle and a cattleguard 

for backpackers so they don’t have to open or close a gate.

8.001

Response: The EIS now includes this infrastructure (p. 15); however, surveys may be required 

prior to fence construction. 

AQUATICS

15. Comment: The DEIS states “Desiccation of breeding habitat is a primary source of mortality, 

particularly in years with below-average precipitation or in habitats where the water table has been 

extensively modified (that is, stream downcutting)” (DEIS Pg. 48), but fails to point out that the 

principle agent of this down-cutting is grazing, which would appear to be a deliberate omission given 

that the DEIS is assessing the effects of grazing.

12.013 18.003 18.006 18.008 18.009 18.010

Response: Overgrazing can cause or contribute to streambank instability. Current management 

direction for livestock grazing is designed to prevent overgrazing and damage to streambanks

(EIS, p. 25). Implementation of riparian standards and guidelines for streambank disturbance, 

streambank stability, shrub browse, and forage utilization would prevent stream downcutting. 

16. Comment: The DEIS provide an inadequate analysis of the impacts to amphibians caused by livestock 

spread of chytrid fungus. Please provide a site-specific analysis of the risk to amphibians of cattle as a 

possible vector for spreading chytrid fungus between meadows and Yosemite toad breeding habitats.

13.026 16.038

Response: The EIS (p. 58-59) and the Aquatics BA (p. 44-45) provides a detailed analysis of the 

potential for impacts to amphibians caused by spread of chytrid fungus by livestock. 

17. Comment: I question the validity of continuing this Proposed Action until such time as the 

Conservation Strategy, and the Conservation Assessment, which has still not been released for public 

comment either have been completed and the public and scientific community has had an opportunity 

to review and comment on them.

12.011

Response: The USFWS listed the Yosemite toad as an endangered species (Federal Register 

2014). The Yosemite toad Conservation Assessment is available (USDA 2015) and was used in 

the development of a programmatic Biological Assessment. The USFWS issued a programmatic 

Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statements (USFWS 2014), which provide ESA coverage 

and management direction for several ongoing activities (including livestock grazing) with the 

potential to affect the Yosemite toad, Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog and the Sierra Nevada 

Yellow-Legged Frog. There is no legal requirement that a Conservation Assessment or 

Conservation Strategy be finalized prior to selecting an alternative and issuing a decision for this 

project.

18. Comment: There is nothing contained in the DEIS or the Biological Assessment –Aquatics that 

outlines the methodologies to be used to complete the systematic monitoring called for in the FPD 

above.

12.024
Appendix E Stanislaus

Response to Comments National Forest

276

Response: The SNFPA requires that either: 1) “livestock are excluded from standing water and 

saturated soils in wet meadows and associated streams and springs occupied by Yosemite toads or 

identified as “essential habitat” in the conservation assessment for the Yosemite toad during the 

breeding and rearing season (through metamorphosis)...”; or “Exclusions in this standard and 

guideline may be waived if an interdisciplinary team has developed a site-specific management 

plan to minimize impacts to the Yosemite toad and its habitat by managing the movement of 

stock around wet areas. Such plans are to include a requirement for systematically monitoring a 

sample of occupied Yosemite toad sites within the meadow...” (USDA 2004). Because livestock 

are excluded from wet meadows occupied by Yosemite toads through metamorphosis (USDA 

2004, S&G 53), there is no requirement to outline the methodologies to be used to complete the 

systematic monitoring called for in the second option (USDA 2004, S&G 54). A monitoring plan 

is, however, being developed by the Forest Service in cooperation with the USFWS. 

19. Comment: The DEIS insufficiently evaluates the potential impacts to endangered species such as 

California red-legged frog and Lahontan cutthroat trout. For example, the document states, "Detailed 

analysis was not completed for the following species based on the absence of suitable habitat” (page: 

47). However, the document falls short of stating why the habitat is unsuitable or if this condition is 

caused by past grazing.

15.008

Response: The Aquatics BA (p. 5) shows that California red-legged frog are not analyzed in 

detail because the project area is outside of the elevation range of the species and Lahontan 

cutthroat trout are not analyzed because the project area is outside of the local geographic range

of the species. The absence of suitable habitat in the project area is not a result of past grazing.

20. Comment: The DEIS/BE/BA ignores the emerging studies relating to removal of Batrachochytrium 

from amphibian habitat by invertebrates such as Daphnea and Rotifera (Buck et al., 2011; Hamilton et 

al., 2012; Searle et al., 2013; Schmeller et al., 2014). These micro- invertebrates are highly sensitive to 

changes in water quality and indeed because of their sensitivity have been used in routine indexes used 

to monitor water quality. Where is the analysis of water quality and disease risks to these imperiled 

amphibians?

13.027

Response: The Aquatics BA (p. 44-45) analyzes spread of chytrid fungus by livestock for the 

BEH Rangeland Allotments. It also analyzes the risk of livestock related water quality impacts to 

the Yosemite toad (p. 47-49) and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (p. 54-55) in the BEH project 

area.

INVASIVE SPECIES

21. Comment: The analysis of the potential for cattle to introduce and spread invasive and non-native 

plants is inadequate. The analysis fails to provide information about the new potential for spread of 

invasive plants into the over 8000 acres proposed as additions to the Eagle Meadow and Herring Creek 

allotments. The analysis also insufficiently addresses the role of livestock in spreading invasive plants 

in the present perimeter in the BEH allotments.

16.327 16.328 16.332 16.333

Response: EIS Chapter 3.05 describes the main vectors and sources of weeds, and states that 

most of the possible sources are generally not related to cattle (p. 97). The main vectors 

associated with cattle are described as the possible use of hay and the introduction on the vehicles 

that deliver the cattle or on the cattle themselves (p. 98). Mitigation and other requirements would 

be implemented for Alternatives 1 and 4 to reduce the risk of weed and invasive plant 

introduction and spread (p. 98). The Noxious Weed Risk Assessment (project record) provides 

information about habitat alteration expected as a result of the project, and describes this risk as 

moderate.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix E

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments

277

NEPA

Purpose and Need

22. Comment: The purpose and need statement is neither clearly stated nor does it comply with 40 C.F.R. 

§ 1502.13.

13.002

Response: FSH 1909.15, Chapter 11.21 states that the need for action discusses the relationship 

between the desired condition and the existing condition in order to answer the question. “why 

consider taking any action”. The EIS states that this action is needed because there is a need to 

move existing resource conditions toward desired conditions identified in Forest Plan Direction 

and because there is demand for continued livestock grazing (p. 4). The purpose of the project is 

to authorize livestock grazing in the project area, ensure compliance with regulations and agency 

policy, and implement an adaptive management strategy that will move resource conditions 

toward desired conditions in a manner that is timely and consistent with Forest Plan goals and 

objectives (EIS, p. 3-4). The purpose and need statement answer the question “why take any 

action” and is consistent with agency policy (FSH 1909.15 and FSH 2209.13) and federal 

regulations (40 C.F.R. § 1502.13). 

23. Comment: The Forest’s incorporation of “continue to authorize livestock grazing” and “implement an 

adaptive management strategy” as part of its purpose seems designed solely to foreclose selection of the 

“no grazing” alternative even if this alternative would better ensure that specific locations within the 

project area that are not meeting or moving toward desired conditions would do so, and thus would 

better meet Forest Plan objectives.

13.003 13.004

Response: FSH 1909.15, Chapter 11.21 states that the purpose of an action will be to respond to 

the stated need. The breadth or narrowness of the need influences the scope of the analysis. The 

EIS states that this action is needed because there is demand for continued livestock grazing (p. 4) 

and because there is a need to move existing resource conditions toward desired conditions 

identified in Forest Plan Direction. The purpose is to continue to authorize livestock grazing, 

implement an adaptive management strategy, and ensure compliance with regulations and agency 

policy. The 1995 Rescissions Act requires National Forests to complete NEPA analysis and 

update allotment management plans for rangeland allotments on NFS lands. Gaps between 

existing and desired conditions were identified, and the EIS provides an analysis to determine 

which alternative, including Alternative 2 which analyzes no grazing, would best meet Forest 

Plan objectives while ensuring compliance with agency policy and regulations. The EIS (p. 9) 

states that the Responsible Official may decide to: (1) select the proposed action; (2) select one of 

the alternatives; (3) select one of the alternatives after modifying the alternative with additional 

mitigating measures or combination of activities from other alternatives; or, (4) select the no 

action alternative, choosing not to authorize continued grazing on the BEH Rangeland 

Allotments. The incorporation of “continue to authorize livestock grazing” and “implement an 

adaptive management strategy” is consistent with agency policy (FSH 1909.15 and FSH 2209.13) 

and not designed to foreclose selection of any alternative.

Alternatives

24. Comment: During public scoping, stakeholders requested an alternative that would focus on reducing 

or eliminating water quality contamination of forest streams. The "Water Quality Emphasis Alternative 

was inappropriately eliminated from detailed consideration based on the unsubstantiated assumption 

that it was similar to Alternative 2 and Alternative 4.

16.092 16.361 16.362 16.364 16.365 16.367 16.384

Response: The water quality emphasis alternative (EIS Chapter 2.04) proposed to minimize 

livestock grazing along small tributary streams, limit the duration of livestock presence in wet 
Appendix E Stanislaus

Response to Comments National Forest

278

meadows and meadows with streams, exclude livestock from important wetland features, and 

exclude or significantly limit livestock grazing from streams where recreation occurs (p. 30-31). 

This alternative was considered but eliminated from further analysis it would be prohibitively 

difficult or impractical to implement and because other fully developed alternatives would reduce 

or eliminate livestock impacts to water quality. Alternative 4 was developed in response to these 

suggested alternatives, and incorporates additional measures for resource protection while 

meeting multiple use objectives (36 CFR 222.2(c)) and making forage available to livestock 

operators (FSM 2203.1). Alternative 4 meets the purpose and need because it is designed to 

reduce potential impacts to water quality while allowing for continued grazing and ensuring the 

practicality of implementation. Measures to exclude livestock from streams, wet meadows, 

wetlands, and recreation areas include fencing and intensive herding. Fencing or intensive 

herding to remove livestock from tributary streams, meadows with streams, wetland features, and 

streams where recreation occurs would be impractical to implement due to the amount of time 

required to either construct and maintain fences or herd livestock. Significant reductions in 

grazing area and concurrent increases in management cost would dramatically affect the 

economic viability of this allotment (Social and Economic Report). If allotment management is 

not economically viable, the allotment would go vacant similar to the no action alternative. In 

addition, removing or minimizing livestock presence from the areas identified will not ensure 

water quality protection, because livestock are not the only source of pollutants. Alternative 4 

excludes portions of allotments where there is more potential for water quality impacts, but no 

alternative (including Alternative 2) would eliminate water quality contamination of forest 

streams. Refer to response to comment 23. 

25. Comment: The DEIS firstly claims that a habitat and species protection alternative would have little 

chance of being chosen by the responsible official because other fully developed alternatives would 

eliminate livestock impacts to sensitive species habitat. While we agree that the Forest officials rarely 

adopt species protection alternatives, the only alternative considered that would afford habitat and 

species protection is no grazing. But because of the Forest’s constraining purpose and need statement, 

no grazing would not meet the purpose and need.

13.008

Response: The habitat and species protection alternative (EIS Chapter 2.04) eliminates grazing in 

all Yosemite toad habitats and eliminates all herding through Yosemite toad occurrences (p. 31). 

This alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis because other fully developed alternatives 

would eliminate livestock impacts to sensitive species habitat Refer to response to comment 24. 

Alternative 4 meets the purpose and need because it protects species and habitats while allowing 

for continued grazing, ensuring the practicality of implementation, and maintaining the economic 

viability of the allotments. Alternative 2 eliminates grazing in the project area, and Alternative 4 

excludes livestock from occupied Yosemite toad breeding areas and a majority of suitable 

Yosemite toad habitat. Alternatives 1 and 4 provide for habitat and species protection because 

they would implement standards and guidelines, resource conservation measures, and an adaptive 

management strategy to ensure that grazing impacts to habitat and species are minimized. Refer 

to response to comment 23. 

26. Comment: The Forest needs to revise the DEIS to consider a reasonable range of alternatives that 

address the revised purpose and need, that includes reasonable alternatives proposed by the public, and 

that includes adaptive management components that will ensure protection for proposed and final 

critical habitats.

13.009

Response: The EIS analyzes four alternatives in detail (Chapter 2.02) and describes three

alternatives considered, but eliminated from detailed study (Chapter 2.04). These alternatives 

include: Water Quality Emphasis, Habitat and Species Protection, and Reduced Grazing Refer to 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix E

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments

279

response to comment 24. Alternatives 1 and 4 include an adaptive management strategy that 

would allow for any adjustments needed to provide protection of proposed and final critical 

habitats, once designated. Per 36 CFR 220.5 (e), no specific number of alternatives is required or 

prescribed. 

27. Comment: We have identified additional measures to be incorporated into Alternative 1 (including 

elements of Alternative 4) in order for the preferred action to be more protective of the environment. 

We suggest the FEIS include resource protection measures such as a reduction of the number of acres 

affected by grazing, reduced stream bank disturbance, and a decrease in livestock access to areas that 

include habitat for species of concern such as the Yosemite toad and the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged 

Frog.

15.002 15.003

Response: Alternative 4 was developed in response to scoping comments which suggested 

additional protection measures. This alternative incorporates additional measures for resource 

protection, such as a reduction of the number of acres affected by grazing, reduced streambank 

trampling standard, and livestock exclusion from sensitive areas, including areas with habitat for 

species of concern (EIS, p. 21). Refer to response to comment 23. 

28. Comment: A final decision to approve livestock grazing within the BEH allotments will only be in 

compliance with NEPA if the Forest selects an alternative that significantly diminishes the amount of 

non-capable acres that are available to livestock.

16.356 

Response: Capable lands provide the majority of forage and water for livestock in these 

allotments, but non-capable lands comprise a majority of the project area. Livestock use noncapable lands as they move through the allotment seeking forage and water. These non-capable 

lands are suitable for livestock grazing but receive relatively little livestock use. Project-related 

impacts to non-capable lands are inherently diminished due to the way they are used by livestock. 

Measures to exclude livestock from non-capable lands include fencing and intensive herding. 

Fencing or intensive herding to exclude livestock from the abundance of non-capable lands in the 

project area would be impractical due to the amount of time required to either construct and 

maintain fences or herd livestock (Social and Economic Report). Significant reductions in grazing 

area and concurrent increases in management cost would dramatically affect the economic 

viability of an allotment. If allotment management is not economically viable, the allotment 

would go vacant as described in the no action alternative. In addition, non-capable lands may 

become capable if understory forage production were to increase, such as following timber 

harvest or fire.

29. Comment: If Alternative 1 was selected, this project would violate NFMA because the Forest Service 

is not insuring the viability of sensitive forest species adversely affected by grazing in the Sierra 

Nevada, including the Yosemite toad, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, Great Gray Owl and Willow 

Flycatcher.

16.049

Response: 36 CFR 219 (Planning Rule) represents the Forest Service regulations for 

implementing the Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). The rule addresses 

species in terms of requirements for sustainability (219.8) and diversity (219.9) at the Forest Plan 

level rather than viability at the project level. Except as provided in the plan consistency 

requirements in 36 CFR 219.15, none of those requirements apply to projects or activities (219.2). 

NFMA requires Land and Resource Management Plans to be developed using a systematic and 

interdisciplinary approach to resource management. Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010) was 

developed in accordance with NFMA. Appendix C (Forest Plan Direction) shows that the EIS is 

consistent with Forest Plan Direction, and therefore NFMA. The potential effects of grazing on 
Appendix E Stanislaus

Response to Comments National Forest

280

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species were carefully analyzed and disclosed in the EIS 

(Chapters 3.02, 3.03 and 3.13) and project record (Aquatics BA, Sensitive Plants BE, and 

Wildlife BE). 

Environmental Consequences

30. Comment: The DEIS fails to adequately address the negative impacts on recreational usage because it 

doesn’t quantify the number of new recreational users that would come to the area and doesn’t mention 

the extra dollars that these new visitors would spend in the local economy. Recreation conflict issues 

were not fully disclosed or carefully analyzed in the DEIS. NEPA requires that consideration of those 

impacts be part of the cumulative effects analysis, and that reasonable measures be considered and 

adopted in order to reduce the significance of impacts. Alternative 1 suggests increased education and 

visitor information about multiple use and grazing as a measure to reduce conflicts. This fails to meet 

the requirement for a hard look under NEPA.

4.003 16.163 16.170 16.173 16.178 16.184

Response: The EIS (Chapter 3.07) describes the impacts of livestock grazing on recreation with 

indicators and methodology used to evaluate the environmental consequences of each alternative. 

The number of public comments received related to conflicts between grazing and recreation is 

analyzed (p. 121). In addition to increased education and visitor information, other measures are 

considered and adopted to reduce the significance of impacts, including herding and adaptive 

management. The EIS (Chapter 3.11) describes how the alternatives reduce the significance of 

impacts to water quality. For Alternatives 1 and 3, implementation of new grazing systems and 

addition areas would result in reduced grazing pressure, which is expected to reduce sediment 

deposition and accumulation, indicator bacteria and pathogen concentrations, and nutrient 

concentrations from the current management (EIS, p 187). 

31. Comment: The DEIS failed to take a hard look (as required by NEPA) at the impacts of livestock 

grazing on lands not capable or suitable for grazing. The Forest has a legal responsibility to fully 

analyze the environmental impacts of allowing livestock use to take place on lands that are not suitable 

and capable, to consider reasonable mitigation actions to reduce the impacts of grazing on those acres, 

and to eliminate or at least significantly reduce livestock grazing in vulnerable resource areas that 

contain the highest percentage of acres that are neither suitable nor capable.

16.233 16.337 16.338 16.340 16.344 16.345 16.346

16.349 16.351

Response: The EIS (Chapter 3.06) describes the impacts of livestock grazing on both capable and 

non-capable lands in the project area proportionate to the expected degree of impacts. Capable 

rangelands, including primary and secondary range, are more accessible and more likely to be 

used by livestock due to their forage production, proximity to water, and gentle terrain. Lands that 

are not capable or suitable for grazing are either less likely to be used or are excluded from 

livestock, impacts associated with livestock use in those areas are inherently reduced. 

32. Comment: The analysis should fully evaluate the impacts of existing and proposed grazing 

management and range developments as well as impacts from past, current and future livestock use on 

all nine roadless characteristics cited in the Roadless Rule.

13.032

Response: The EIS (p. 145–151) describes the anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 

for all four alternatives on Roadless Area Characteristics. 

33. Comment: While the Forest’s recognition that the project will contribute to the need for a federal 

listing and the admitted uncertainty on the project’s effects on viability are correct in our opinion, this is 

tantamount to an admission of flagrant violations of the agency’s responsibilities under the Endangered 

Species Act (“ESA”), The National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”) and NEPA.

13.025
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix E

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments

281

Response: The USFWS was consulted during analysis, and project activities were assessed to 

determine their effects on threatened, endangered, and candidate plant and animal species. Two 

amphibian species (Yosemite toad and Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog), two Forest Service 

sensitive terrestrial wildlife species (Willow Flycatcher and Great Grey Owl) and one candidate 

terrestrial wildlife species (Sierra Nevada Red Fox) are found within the project area. The 

Wildlife BE prepared for this project indicates that continued grazing may affect individuals, but 

is not likely to result in a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability for the Willow 

Flycatcher, Great Grey Owl and Sierra Nevada Red Fox (EIS Chapter 3.13 and Wildlife BE, 

project record). The Biological Assessment-Aquatics prepared for this project indicates that 

continued grazing may affect and is likely to adversely affect the Yosemite toad and Sierra 

Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog (EIS Chapter 3.02 and Aquatics BA, project record). Management 

requirements would ensure project consistency with the ESA and compliance with applicable 

Biological Opinions issued for listed species in the project area (EIS, p. 27). 

34. Comment: The DEIS analysis of water quality incorrectly assumes that it is the responsibility of forest 

visitors to filter or boil water before drinking, washing or cooking. It is an environmental justice and 

social justice issue for the Forest to suggest that all forest visitors, including those who cannot afford a 

water filter, will come equipped with the means to prevent water-borne illness.

16.051 16.082 16.085

Response: Best available science (Roche et al. 2013) indicates that there are multiple sources of 

water-borne pathogens. The Forest would recommend that forest visitors filter or boil water, even 

in the absence of livestock grazing. 

RIPARIAN AND MEADOWS

Special Aquatic Features

35. Comment: The Region requires that measures be developed to protect bogs and fens from such 

activities as trampling by livestock. The Regional guideline does not say protect fens and bogs once 

they are non-functional. It requires protection of the special aquatic features from livestock trampling. 

Alternative 1 (and other action alternatives) directly violates the legal requirement of the Framework 

Amendment, which requires for fens to be protected from trampling by livestock.

16.108 16.109 16.111 16.112 16.378

Response: The EIS (Chapter 2.03) describes Mitigation and Other Requirements that would be 

implemented to protect special aquatic features. The Adaptive Management Strategy allows for 

livestock exclusion from any special aquatic features that are functioning at risk and determined 

to be in a downward trend as a direct result of current livestock grazing. Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy (ACS) Standards and Guidelines do not require livestock exclusion for special aquatic 

features that are functioning at risk. Forest standards prescribe that ground disturbing activities be 

prohibited or mitigated if adversely affecting hydrologic processes. Some special aquatic features 

in the project area are still recovering from past activities, and some are at risk for reasons 

unrelated to livestock grazing. The EIS (Chapter 3.11) meets ACS objectives because riparian 

areas in the project area are generally functioning well under current management and project 

implementation will continue or improve these conditions. 

36. Comment: It is problematic that the Forest has not completed surveys for special aquatic features. 

Alternative 1 does not provide for regionally required protection of not yet identified special aquatic 

features due to a lack of complete assessments. This failure to provide important information directly 

conflicts with NEPA. 

13.037 16.114

Response: The EIS (Chapters 3.06 and 3.11) assessed the hydrologic function of meadow 

habitats and special aquatic features. Special aquatic features (including fens) were systematically 

surveyed during project analysis, and resource conservation measures were developed to protect 
Appendix E Stanislaus

Response to Comments National Forest

282

these features from trampling by livestock. The EIS states that "Addition areas will be surveyed 

for special aquatic features and PFC methodology will be used to establish baseline conditions of 

special aquatic features prior to livestock being allowed in those areas" (p. 29). 

Meadows

37. Comment: These meadow ecosystems will only become more stressed and more at risk from 

disturbance as climate warming shifts the weather patterns, yet there is no discussion in the DEIS about 

the possible implications that less moisture and hotter summers will have on the project area. As Class 

2 and Class 3 meadows require an upward trend to stay at their current rating, then the added stressors 

from climate warming will require a change in livestock management for improvement to continue. As 

weather conditions for the next 20 years cannot be expected to be commensurate to the last 40 years, 

livestock management as it has been in the recent past should not be the standard for the future.

16.282

Response: EIS Chapter 3.01 addresses Climate Change, and has been updated to provide more 

information about implications for livestock grazing in the project area. The adaptive 

management strategy would allow for range managers to adjust livestock management if 

warranted by changed conditions in the future. 

38. Comment: There is clear management direction calling for resting and restoring degraded meadows. 

The Forest legally cannot continue to allow even moderate levels of livestock use in any meadow that 

is evaluated to be Functional-At-Risk, and absolutely no livestock use should be approved for any 

meadow that is at Poor or Very Poor condition under Rapid Assessment Protocol or is shown to be 

Non-Functional under PFC. To allow livestock use in meadows that do not meet desired conditions or 

which are far from desired conditions would only be justified if the agency can show why biological 

resources should not be given priority protection. A plan to ensure that grazing is not allowed in 

degraded meadows should be spelled out in the final EIS.

16.289 16.290 16.294 16.298 16.300 16.377

Response: Forest Plan Direction states that “If meadow ecological status is determined to be 

moving in a downward trend, modify or suspend grazing.” and “Degraded meadows (such as 

those in early seral status with greater than 10 percent of the meadow area in bare soil and active 

erosion) require total rest from grazing until they have recovered and have moved to mid- or late 

seral status” (USDA 2010, p. 195). EIS Table 3.06-4 (p. 109) shows that Crab Meadow is the 

only meadow in the project area with low ecological status and a downward trend. The 

Gooseberry Ecological Restoration project analyzed for exclusion of Crab Meadow, and the most 

sensitive parts of the meadow have already been fenced. EIS Appendix B (Cumulative Effects) 

analyzed the cumulative effects of the BEH project when combined with other projects, so 

meadow restoration treatments proposed under the Gooseberry project were considered. The EIS 

also shows that a number of meadows in the project area are either functioning at risk or 

nonfunctional (p. 159-170). The Watershed Report provided a thorough analysis of meadow 

hydrologic function and determined that the current condition of meadows in the project area 

result from impacts of historic overgrazing (p. 179). The Watershed Report (p. 13, 29, 46-47) 

contains information about historical meadow degradation, including references to historical 

records, past specialist accounts, and professional observations, that support the statement that 

historical use is the primary source of meadow degradation. The Watershed Report also states 

that “Where already impaired, meadow hydrologic function is not likely to show significant 

improvement by changing livestock management alone” (p. 5). Resting degraded meadows from 

grazing does not necessarily result in improvements to meadow condition, and implementation of 

standards and guidelines would prevent potential meadow degradation from continued grazing in 

the project area (Frietas et al. 2014). Alternatives 1 and 4 would implement mitigation and other 

requirements (EIS Chapter 2.03), including an adaptive management strategy and resource 

conservation measures that would prevent meadow degradation. If future assessments indicate
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix E

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments

283

that meadow ecological status is moving in a downward trend or that meadows in the project area 

are in early seral status or degraded to the extent that total rest is required, this would be 

accomplished using the adaptive management strategy described in the EIS. 

39. Comment: The statement that historical use is the main source of degradation in meadows and riparian 

areas is highly debatable based on field evidence gathered by stakeholders.

16.286 16.287

Response: Refer to response to comment 38. While current grazing does result in short term 

impacts to meadows, Forest Plan standards and guidelines are designed to prevent long term 

degradation of meadows and riparian areas. 

40. Comment: No information is provided by the USFS about major hydrological issues at Upper and 

Lower Round Meadows, or livestock damage that is contributing to their declining condition.

16.260

Response: The EIS (p. 160) lists Round and Lower Round meadows as nonfunctional. The 

Watershed Report (p. 13-19) provides additional information about the condition and hydrologic 

function of meadows in the Bell Meadow allotment, including Round and Lower Round 

meadows. 

41. Comment: The DEIS does not provide consideration for how the impact of grazing affects meadows 

as a source of late season water supply.

16.278

Response: Late season water supply is directly related to meadow hydrologic function. The 

effects of livestock grazing on meadow hydrologic function were carefully analyzed and 

disclosed (EIS, p. 159-169) and in the Watershed Report. 

SENSITIVE PLANTS

42. Comment: The EIS’s effects analysis on Bruchia bolanderi was highly cursory and surprisingly 

inaccurate: “It has limited habitat at these elevations since it is usually on stream banks and many 

meadows do not have streams going through them” (DEIS p.79). In contrast to that inaccurate 

statement, a map of the meadows in these allotments clearly shows that the majority of meadows have 

streams in them. This is even acknowledged: “Many of the meadows have streams through them and 

are connected by streams.” (DEIS p.80). Obviously, for the DEIS to suggest that Bruchia bolanderi is 

unlikely to be present due to the lack of meadows with streams runs counter to the evidence. 

16.313

Response: The EIS (Chapter 3.03, p. 79) states that “Bruchia bolanderi has predominantly been 

found on steep, moist vertical banks of streams on this forest. These are areas that can be 

impacted if cattle go down the slope to water or walk up and down the stream. Those types of 

impacts were not seen when the collections were made. Cattle generally avoid steep stream banks 

in favor of those that are more laid back that allow easier access to the stream. They tend to 

continue to the same access points. There are forest standards that limit impacts to no more than

20% of the bank. It is unlikely there would be additional access points created through steep 

banks that are suitable habitat for B. bolanderi. Therefore there would be no direct effects in this 

alternative.” While many meadows do have streams through them, Bruchia bolanderi tends to 

grow on steep vertical banks of perennial streams, and this type of habitat is both limited in the 

project area and less likely to be impacted by cattle trailing. Additionally, streambank standards 

and guidelines would mitigate potential impacts to the species by limiting the amount of 

streambank disturbance that occurs. These standards may be adjusted through the adaptive 

management process if monitoring determines that the current standard provide inadequate 

protection for sensitive plants.
Appendix E Stanislaus

Response to Comments National Forest

284

WATER QUALITY

43. Comment: Although the DEIS indicates "low risk of exceeding bacterial and pathogenic water quality 

standards" across allotments currently, we have received evidence from the Central Sierra 

Environmental Resource Center that grazing activities in the BEH Rangeland Allotments are not 

meeting Basin Plan water quality objectives for fecal coliform and may be in violation of other 

standards (e.g. total suspended sediment and turbidity) during certain times of the year.

6.003

Response: The EIS (Chapter 3.11) assesses and analyzes the potential impacts on water quality 

that would result from continued grazing and associated project activities. While data presented 

by CSERC may indicate site specific exceedance of Basin Plan standards, several other factors 

(recreation, wildlife, forest management activities) can contribute to water quality impacts, and 

other data collected in the project area indicate that grazing is generally meeting EPA standards 

and presents a low risk to forest visitors (Roche et al. 2013). Management actions proposed in the 

EIS are in compliance with all applicable water quality laws and regulations. While the potential 

for site specific exceedance exists, the project is designed to minimize potential impacts to water 

quality associated with livestock grazing by implementing mitigation and other requirements and 

utilizing an adaptive management process that would allow the forest to address site specific 

exceedance of applicable water quality standards as they are identified. Mitigations designed to 

minimize impacts to water quality include standards and guidelines such as limits to streambank 

disturbance, Best Management Practices, Resource Conservation Measures (especially for special 

aquatic features and meadow hydrologic function), and adaptive management, which allows 

adaptive actions like adjusting stocking rates, livestock movement and distribution, fence 

construction, or installation of livestock water developments (EIS, p. 24-29). The Forest is 

working with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control board to ensure compliance 

with all applicable water quality laws.

44. Comment: The DEIS misinterprets the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's Basin 

Plan because improperly applies beneficial uses based on assumptions about Rec 1 and Rec 2. In 

addition, the DEIS fails to assess risk as required by the Basin Plan.

6.004 16.151 16.152 16.153 16.155 16.156 16.157

Response: The EIS (Chapter 3.11) provides an interpretation of the Basin Plan in order to assess 

and analyze the potential impacts on water quality that would result from continued grazing and 

associated project activities. This interpretation is not intended to provide an official designation 

of the beneficial uses in the project area. Rather, beneficial uses were interpreted using local 

knowledge in order to provide a thorough analysis of the potential effects of livestock grazing on 

water quality and the potential risk to human health and safety in the project area.

45. Comment: The DEIS' analysis of water quality impacts relies heavily on a study that was not done in 

compliance with state standards for sampling and monitoring, because the protocol requires taking a 

minimum of five samples within a 30-day period. The study failed to compare sample results with the 

State threshold limit for recreational waters and fecal coliform, and instead compared study results to a 

federal standard that is not as strict as the State limit. As a result, the study does not represent the best 

available science according to the Basin Plan.

16.131 15.154 16.067

Response: The UC Davis study examined grazing impacts on water quality on NFS lands by 

comparing the levels of potential contaminants associated with grazing to existing regulatory 

benchmarks and recommended maximum nutrient concentrations (Roche et al. 2013). Although 

standards for water quality frequently use fecal coliform as the indicator, the UC Davis study 

compared bacteria levels to the EPA recommended standard, which uses E.coli as the indicator. 

Research has shown that E. coli has a stronger correlation to pathogens than fecal coliform; 

therefore, E. coli is a more accurate indicator of the potential risk to human health and safety. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix E

Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments

285

Although other studies were referenced in the EIS, the UC Davis water quality study is the most 

comprehensive study of grazing impacts to water quality on NFS lands in the region, and 

represents the most current best available science.

46. Comment: Grazing activities in the BEH rangeland allotments do not comply with the Clean Water 

Act or the Porter Cologne Act because grazing does not meet water quality standards but the Forest 

does not have a waiver or permit for nonpoint source pollution from the regional water quality control 

board.

6.003 16.005 16.078 16.079 16.080 16.087 16.088

16.089 16.090 16.103 16.121 16.126 16.136 16.137

16.139 16.142 16.143 16.144 16.145 16.146 16.147

16.148 16.149 16.150 16.413

Response: The Forest will continue working with the regional water quality control board to 

obtain a permit or waiver for nonpoint source pollution in order to ensure compliance with all 

applicable water quality regulations.

WILDLIFE

Deer

47. Comment: The impact of this action to hunted species is not fully analyzed and mitigated. Per the 

DEIS, Alternative 1 will have the highest impact to deer populations; however, the DEIR does not 

include mitigation measures to offset the impact of grazing to the deer population. Per the DEIS, 

Alternative 1 could result in lower fawn recruitment and survival. The Department has reduced the 

number of deer tags available in the allotments area by nearly 30 percent in response to the declining 

deer population. The impact of declining game populations from this action could combine with the 

impacts to wildlife populations resulting from other actions, such as the Forest Service Travel 

Management Plan, and catastrophic events, such as the Rim Fire, to create a significant adverse 

cumulative effect to game species and hunting opportunities.

17.007

Response: EIS Chapter 3.13 and the Wildlife Report describe potential direct, indirect and 

cumulative impacts to deer populations, including the potential for the project to cause death, 

injury, and disturbance as well as the potential reduction in deer habitat quality.

Great Gray Owl

48. Comment: The reasoning behind the 3-acre exclusion is unclear related to the viability of sustaining a 

healthy vole population in Lower Eagle Meadow. ... If Lower Eagle Meadow is capable of 10-12” or 

greater, as is recommended by virtually every study of this species, then the FS does not adequately 

explain or demonstrate the logic for choosing to instead maintain the meadow at a lower vegetation 

height. Alternative 1 appears to rely on lower quality habitat that could threaten long-term persistence 

of owls in the project area and on the Stanislaus National Forest in general.

16.013

Response: Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010, p. 187) shows “In meadow areas of great gray 

owl PACs, maintain herbaceous vegetation at a height commensurate with site capability and 

habitat needs of prey species. Follow regional guidance to determine potential prey species and 

associated habitat requirements at the project level.” The EIS (p. 209) states that “In the Lower 

Eagle PAC, vegetation height for voles would be maintained by a fenced exclusion area. Within 

the fenced exclusion area, foraging habitat quality would be maximized as a 10” preferred height 

for vole habitat would be achieved.” Alternatives 1 and 3 delineate the exclusion area based on an

assessment of the meadow portion with the highest capability closest to the owl activity center. 

Alternative 4 expands the exclusion area beyond the meadow to include the herbaceous 

vegetation within the historic nest stand itself. Livestock are excluded from Lower Eagle Meadow 

under all alternatives; therefore the vegetation height within the exclusion area would be equal to 
Appendix E Stanislaus

Response to Comments National Forest

286

the maximum vegetative height based on meadow capability. Alternative 4 potentially affects the 

least meadow acres and potential reproductive territories; however, all alternatives are consistent 

with Forest Plan Direction for Great Grey Owl.

Table E.01-1 List of Respondents

ID Type Timely Last First Organization(s)

1 Unique Yes Gheno Tony

2 Unique Yes Rosen Ted

3 Unique Yes Frailing John

4 Unique Yes Stevens Mark

5 Unique Yes Clark Valerie

6 Unique Yes McConnell Sue CVRWQCB

7 Unique Yes Pedro Craig TCAO

8 Unique Yes Harvey John

9 Unique Yes Brennan Bob and Sherri

10 Unique Yes Gaiser Richard SGA

11 Unique Yes Fischer Eloise

12 Unique Yes Martin Dave

13 Unique Yes Connor Michael WW

14 Unique Yes Royce Evan TCBOS

15 Unique Yes Munson James EPA

16 Unique Yes Buckley John CSERC, SFL, HSHA, SC, DOW

17 Unique No Single Jeffrey CDFW

18 Unique No Wilbur Kirk CCA

CCA California Cattlemen’s Association

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CSERC Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center

CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

DOW Defenders of Wildlife

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

HSHA High Sierra Hikers Association

SC Sierra Club

SFL Sierra Forest Legacy

SGA Stanislaus Grazing Association

TCAO Tuolumne County Administrator’s Office

TCBOS Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors

WW Western Watersheds
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix F

Environmental Impact Statement Rangeland Capability and Suitability Analysis

287

F. Rangeland Capability and Suitability Analysis

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 regulations found at 36 CFR 219.20 require a 

determination of rangeland capability and suitability in Forest Plans. Capability is defined in 36 CFR 

219.3 and Forest Service Manual 1905. The Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA 1991) provides a general definition of suitable range as areas which are 

accessible to livestock and can produce at least 50 pounds of forage per acre per year. The 1991 

LRMP analysis and planning process determined that Allotments in the project area were suitable for 

livestock grazing. The 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA 2001), Appendix K, 

provided additional guidance for determinations of rangeland capability and suitability. The two-step 

process and recommended criteria described in Appendix K of the 2001 SNFPA was used to 

determine project-level rangeland capability and suitability. 

DEFINITIONS

 Capability is defined in CFR 219.3 as “The potential of an area of land to produce resources, 

supply goods and services, and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management 

practices and at a given level of management intensity. Capability depends on current conditions 

and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils and geology, as well as the application 

of management practices, such as silviculture or protection from fire, insects, and disease.”

 Suitability is defined in CFR 219.3 as “The appropriateness of applying certain resource 

management practices to a particular area of land as determined by an analysis of the economic 

and environmental consequences and alternative uses foregone. A unit of land may be suitable for 

a variety of individual or combined management practices.” 

STEP 1:CAPABILITY ANALYSIS

Capability for grazing was determined through geographical information system (GIS) analysis. GIS 

layers were used to determine acreages within the Allotments that meet the general capability criteria. 

Capable acres are estimates only, due to limitations in availability and accuracy of the GIS data. 

Capability analysis is not a precise mapping exercise, and estimates are not necessarily indicative of 

the actual on-the-ground conditions. Capable lands will remain the same in all alternatives, as 

capability is determined by applying the same capability criteria at the appropriate scale. The 

following criteria were used to determine capability of lands within the project area:

 Areas with less than 30% slope

 Areas less than 1 mile from perennial water sources such as perennial streams, springs, lakes, 

ponds and troughs 

 Areas assumed to produce an average of at least 200 lbs. of forage per acre per year. 

 Areas accessible to livestock (lacking physical barriers)

Slope was determined using a Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Slopes less than 30% were selected. 

The Stanislaus National Forest base layer and rangeland constructed features layer were used to 

determine locations of perennial water sources. Perennial water sources were buffered by a distance 

of 1 mile. Forage productivity was estimated using the best information available for GIS analysis. 

The Forest vegetation layer was used as a proxy for forage production because there is limited data on 

forage productivity in the project area, because obtaining actual forage production data would be 

prohibitively costly, and because the information available is adequate for the purpose of this 

analysis. Meadows, shrublands, annual grasslands and mixed conifer types with less than 40% canopy 

cover were selected from the vegetation layer. These vegetation types generally have the potential to 

produce an average of 200 lbs. of forage per acre per year and are considered capable of supporting 
Appendix F Stanislaus

Rangeland Capability and Suitability Analysis National Forest

288

livestock grazing (Potter 1998, Fites 1993, USDA 2210 Field Write-Ups). Areas inaccessible to 

livestock (areas where livestock access is precluded by physical barriers or deep water) were removed 

from the capable areas.

STEP 2:SUITABILITY ANALYSIS

The second step identifies which of those capable lands are suitable for grazing. Not all lands in the 

National Forest System are considered suitable for grazing. Suitable lands are lands where livestock 

grazing is compatible with other land uses, resource values, and social and economic values. This 

process involves selecting which Land Management Areas are incompatible with livestock grazing. 

The Stanislaus National Forest, Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010) provides direction about the 

suitability of Management Areas and Land Allocations. The management areas in the project area 

include: 

 General Forest: These areas will be managed for wood, water, fish and wildlife, recreation, and 

range. Extensive range management will be employed. 

 Developed Recreation Sites: Provide developed recreation opportunities for the public 

including: picnic areas, campgrounds, parking areas, boat ramps, visitor information centers, 

vistas and overlooks, resorts, organization camps and recreation residences. Protect or improve 

the natural forest setting surrounding these facilities. Cattle grazing is excluded within all 

developed recreation sites.

 Developed (Non-Recreation) Sites: Commercial livestock grazing does not occur in developed 

(non-recreation) sites, except as may be needed to achieve specific goals and as approved by the 

District Ranger. Any livestock grazing that occurs on these sites will be managed according to the 

Standards and Guidelines of the surrounding Management Area. 

 Near Natural: Emphasis is placed on providing a natural appearing landscape in a non-motorized 

setting. Public motorized use is not normally allowed and no timber harvest is scheduled. Wildlife 

habitat management, watershed protection, dispersed non-motorized recreation, livestock grazing 

and mineral uses are allowed. The area is characterized by a high quality visual setting where 

changes are rarely evident. Land altering practices are limited in scope and duration.

 Pinecrest Basin: Apply management area direction for developed recreation sites and winter 

sports sites. Includes Pinecrest Lake Resort, organization camps, Dodge Ridge Ski Area and 

Aspen Meadow Pack Station, recreation residence, campsites, Experimental Forest, Spotted Owl 

PAC and administrative sites.

 Research Natural Areas: Research natural Areas (RNAs) are managed to maintain select 

vegetative, aquatic, and/or geologic elements in natural conditions. Protection is provided against 

any activities that directly or indirectly modify ecological processes. Grazing is not permitted in 

the upper part of the Bell Meadow RNA, the Clark Fork Candidate RNA or the Bourland 

Meadow RNA. If grazing occurs in other RNAs, its management will be specified in management 

plans for the areas and the surrounding Allotments. Management is designed to protect the areas 

special characteristics.

 Scenic Corridor: Emphasize the scenic and recreation values of major trail, road and highway 

corridors, developed recreation sites, major rivers and lakes, and other areas of concentrated 

recreation use.

 Special Interest Areas: Management emphasis for these areas is to protect and manage unique 

geological, scenic, historical, archaeological, botanical and memorial features, to make 

educational opportunities available and preserve the integrity of the special interest feature for 

which the areas were established. A wide range of resource activities is permitted, provided the 

unique features of each area are protected. Grazing management will be specified in management 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix F

Environmental Impact Statement Rangeland Capability and Suitability Analysis

289

plans for the area and the surrounding Allotment. Management is designed to protect the areas’ 

special characteristics.

 Wild and Scenic River (Tuolumne River): Manage selected river corridors to preserve their 

notable values or features as part of, or for eventual inclusion in, the National Wild and Scenic 

River System. Designated and proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers, along with immediate 

environments, will be managed to preserve their free flowing condition and protect their 

outstandingly remarkable values. Grazing is not permitted in the Tuolumne Wild and Scenic 

River area, except as occurs when livestock are herded through on their way to or from their 

Allotments.

 Wilderness: manage to maximize the quality and naturalness of the wilderness environment. 

Minimize impacts to the wilderness resource while allowing it to be used for primitive recreation 

and preserving scenic, scientific, educational and historic values. Mechanized use is not normally 

allowed. All National Forest Lands within Congressionally designated Wilderness and areas 

recommended for Wilderness will be managed in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964 as 

amended. 

 Wildlife: This area emphasizes late seral stage management indicator species (MIS) and all other 

wildlife which require mature and older forest habitats for part or all of their life cycle. 

Management indicator species used to prescribe management direction are spotted owl, fisher and 

marten which are all designated sensitive species. Recognize the special value of meadows and 

riparian areas to fisher, pine marten and other late seral stage wildlife in applying range 

management systems. Environmental analysis for range activities within these management areas 

need to consider possible impacts of livestock operations on marten and fisher. 

 Winter Sports Sites: In winter sports sites where Allotment management plans permit grazing, 

the use will be managed according to the range Standards and Guidelines of the surrounding 

Management Area. Set allowable use levels based on the heaviest grazed or most sensitive 

vegetation type included in the area, such as a riparian area or ski run. Fence lodges, parking lots 

and other facilities as needed to minimize livestock/recreation conflicts.

Land Management Areas and Land Allocations that are incompatible with livestock grazing were 

removed from the capable and suitable areas, as these areas are unsuitable for livestock grazing. 

CAPABLE AND SUITABLE RANGELAND IN THE PROJECT AREA

Project-level capability and suitability analysis identified rangelands in the project area that are both 

capable and suitable for livestock grazing. Analysis and identification of capable and suitable lands 

does not imply that livestock grazing would be restricted to lands that are both capable and suitable. 

Incidental use occurs in areas that are not capable as cattle move through capable lands within each 

Allotment. Tables F-1 and F-2 display the approximate acreage of capable and suitable lands in the 

project area.
Appendix F Stanislaus

Rangeland Capability and Suitability Analysis National Forest

290

Table F.01-1 Estimated capable and suitable acres by Allotment

Alternative Allotment Total Capable Suitable Capable and 

Suitable

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Action)

Bell Meadow 13,236 3,478 12,797 3,269

Eagle Meadow 25,062 3,652 23,452 3,392

Herring Creek 18,147 2,672 18,056 2,652

Alternative 3 

(Current Management)

Bell Meadow 13,219 3,463 12,797 3,265

Eagle Meadow 20,700 3,231 19,098 2,971

Herring Creek 17,263 2,621 17,155 2,599

Alternative 4 

(Resource Protection)

Bell Meadow 13,236 3,478 12,744 3,253

Eagle Meadow 20,240 3,208 18,556 2,912

Herring Creek 14,733 2,243 9,916 1,278

Table F.01-2 Estimated capable and suitable acres for additions proposed in Alternative 1

Addition Area Total Area Capable Suitable Capable and 

Suitable

Cascade 3,300 409 3,300 409

Niagara 2,400 194 2,400 194

McCormick Pocket 2,450 259 2,449 259
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix G 

Environmental Impact Statement Monitoring Plan

291

G. Monitoring Plan

INTRODUCTION

The BEH Range Allotments EIS analyzes the environmental impacts of continued grazing on the Bell 

Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek Allotments, located in the central Sierra Nevada 

Mountains in Eastern Tuolumne County, California. These Allotments are administered by the 

Summit Ranger District and the Stanislaus National Forest. The Stanislaus National Forest, Forest 

Plan Direction describes the most current management direction for these Allotments, including 

broad-scale management objectives and resource-specific standards and guidelines applicable to 

livestock grazing. This monitoring plan describes the monitoring that would occur if Alternative 1 

(the Proposed Action) is selected. Should another action alternative be selected, a similar monitoring 

plan would be prepared for the selected alternative. Should an alternative be selected that eliminates 

grazing on an Allotment or Allotments, monitoring would not occur. This monitoring plan is 

incorporated by reference in the Term Grazing Permits and Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) for 

the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek Allotments, and is a necessary component of 

project implementation. Additional analysis is not required to implement this monitoring plan. This 

plan may be modified as part of the adaptive management strategy, as long as modifications are 

consistent with the decision and with applicable management direction.

This monitoring plan provides targets and objectives for short- and long-term monitoring on the Bell 

Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek Allotments. The overall goal is to ensure that resources 

are moving toward desired conditions. While actual monitoring accomplishments are dependent upon 

staff availability and funding constraints, sufficient monitoring should occur to provide the minimum 

information needed to determine if management is moving resources toward desired conditions. 

Annual monitoring implementation will be specified every year in the Annual Operating Instructions 

and will reflect current monitoring priorities and realistic targets. 

Two types of monitoring will be conducted on the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek

Allotments. Implementation (Short-term) Monitoring will be used to monitor implementation of the 

provisions of the Term Grazing Permit, including compliance with the Term Grazing Permit, Annual 

Operating Instructions and Allotment Management Plans. Effectiveness (Long-term) Monitoring 

tracks changes in resource conditions in response to livestock use and management. Evaluation of 

monitoring data will determine if adaptive management adjustments are needed. 

MONITORING OBJECTIVES

Specific objectives for monitoring on the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow and Herring Creek 

Allotments are:

 To determine compliance with the Term Grazing Permit and Annual Operating Instructions. 

 To evaluate the implementation of management practices to insure movement from the Existing 

Conditions towards achievement of Desired Conditions, and use Adaptive Management to adjust 

livestock management strategies as necessary to meet Desired Condition.

 To evaluate the degree and rate at which prescribed management practices are meeting Allotment 

objectives. If properly implemented practices are not effective in achieving desired conditions, 

they will be changed as necessary. 

 To demonstrate to all interested parties and partners that implementation of the Allotment 

Management Plans is effective in achieving multiple use management and is sound resource 

management of Forest Service lands.
Appendix G Stanislaus

Monitoring Plan National Forest

292

IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING

Implementation monitoring will be used to determine whether the selected alternative is implemented 

as planned in this document. Implementation monitoring will be conducted annually, if needed, as 

indicated below to determine whether the Allotments are being managed in accordance with the 

Terms and Conditions of the Grazing permits, AMPs and Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs). If 

this monitoring reveals that the terms and conditions of the grazing permit are not being met, such as 

failing to maintain range improvements, administrative action is taken following the procedures 

defined in the Region Five Suspension and Cancellation Guidelines. Implementation monitoring 

includes: 

Table G.01-1 Implementation Monitoring

Monitoring Type Monitoring Timing Standard Method

Permit 

Compliance

Before livestock turnout and 

throughout grazing season

100% Compliance

Improvement maintenance; proper 

livestock numbers, season of use, 

and pasture rotation

Improvement inspections

Livestock counts

Allotment inspections

Range Readiness Prior to on-date(s) plant growth is at an appropriate 

stage of development

Measure and record 

plant development and 

soil moisture

Photographs

Meadow Forage 

Utilization

Mid-season and end of season -30% or 6” stubble height for 

meadows in early-seral status

-40% or 4” stubble height for 

meadows in late-seral status

-50% meadows in units that are 

rested every other year

Height Weight Method

Stubble Height Method

Landscape Appearance 

Method

Photographs

Riparian 

Conservation 

Standards

End of season 4” Stubble Height

20% bank disturbance

20% riparian browse

Multiple Indicator 

Monitoring (MIM)

Aspen Browse 

Standards

Prior to livestock turnout and 

end of season

20% browse Cole Browse Method

Special Aquatic 

Features

End of Season No annual standards, annual 

monitoring to document use

Measure % bare peat 

with line-point intercept 

method

Photographs

Meadow 

Hydrologic 

Function

Initial measurements to be 

taken annually, then every 3-5 

years as needed

Unstable headcut, knick point or 

gully; excessive aggradation or 

degradation

Survey bank profiles 

using permanent 

benchmark

Sensitive Plants As needed Livestock impacts to sensitive 

plants are minimal

Sensitive plant surveys 

by qualified botanist

Invasive Plants As needed Minimize weed spread Follow-up inspections of 

ground disturbing 

activities

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Habitat - GGO

End of Season Vegetative cover height meets 

need of prey species

Measure and record

vegetative cover height

Compliance Monitoring

Permit administration by the Forest Service includes compliance monitoring. Items to be monitored 

as part of implementation monitoring may include, but are not limited to the following:

 Livestock counts and brand inspections

 Actual livestock use and movements (from permittees records).

 Improvement inspections to insure that maintenance is completed to standard and on time. 

 Compliance with the Annual Operating Instructions. 

 Determination of any unauthorized use. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix G 

Environmental Impact Statement Monitoring Plan

293

 Repeated livestock presence outside Allotment boundaries or in exclosures. 

If permit non-compliance occurs, corrective action will be taken according to the Region 5 Grazing 

Permit Administration, Suspension & Cancellation Guidelines (R5 FSM 2231.62, 2002). The intent is 

to provide a consistent and fair approach for permit administration actions which provide the 

permittee an opportunity to remedy the noncompliance. Actions may include suspension or 

cancellation of the permit or civil actions, as appropriate depending on if the problem is persistent or 

willful. The permittee will be billed for any excess use at the unauthorized use rate. The permittee is 

encouraged to monitor the Allotment continuously throughout the grazing season and coordinate with 

the Forest Service to resolve any problems that arise in a timely manner. 

Range Readiness

Monitoring for range readiness is performed by the Forest Service on an annual basis to determine 

when livestock should be turned out on an Allotment. Range readiness is generally determined on key 

areas within an Allotment, but may occur in other strategically selected locations to ensure that 

livestock do not cause long-lasting damage to the soil and vegetation. The location(s) for determining 

range readiness would remain flexible in order to respond to patterns of anticipated use. Range 

readiness is based on plant phenology, soil moisture level, annual climate patterns, or other sitespecific constraints for each key area. Readiness standards are based on the phenology (stage of 

development) of selected plant species. The range will be considered ready for grazing when soil is 

dry and firm enough to prevent significant trampling damage, and when the following vegetation 

development is achieved on each Allotment:

Table G.01-2 Range Readiness Indicators

Bell Meadow Allotment:

Readiness Indicator Species: Growth stage:

Bromus marginatus, mountain brome when average height reaches 6 inches

Sitanion hystrix, squirrel tail when average height reaches 6 inches

Elymus glaucus, blue wild rye when average height reaches 6 inches

Carex integra, smooth beak sedge when flowers mostly open, stamens showing

Eagle Meadow Allotment:

Readiness Indicator Species: Growth stage:

Carex integra, smooth beak sedge when flowers mostly open, stamens showing

Veratrum californicum, corn lily when average height reaches 24 inches

Achillea millefolium, western yarrow when average height reaches 4 inches

Herring Creek Allotment:

Readiness Indicator Species: Growth stage:

Carex nebraskensis, Nebraska sedge when flowers mostly open, stamens showing

Carex integra, smooth beak sedge when flowers mostly open, stamens showing

Veratrum californicum, corn lily when average height reaches 24 inches

Achillea millefolium, western yarrow when average height reaches 4 inches

Forage Utilization

Implementation of utilization standards monitoring will focus on key areas, but may occur in other 

locations within these Allotments as need dictates. Herbaceous utilization in key areas will be 

measured using one of the following methods: the Height Weight Curve method on key species, the 

Stubble Height method, and/or Landscape Appearance method. Repeated photographs may also be 

used. 

Riparian Conservation Standards

Implementation of Riparian Conservation Standards will focus on sensitive stream reaches on these 

Allotments. Riparian Stubble Height, Streambank Alteration, and Streamside Browse Utilization will 

be determined using the Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) method on streambanks accessible to 

cattle.
Appendix G Stanislaus

Monitoring Plan National Forest

294

Aspen Browse Standards

Monitoring of aspen browse will occur in identified aspen stands on these Allotments. Effort will be 

made to monitor aspen browse prior to livestock entry on the Allotment to determine baseline browse 

levels. Hardwood browse in aspen stands will be measured using monitored at defined intervals using 

specified aspen browse protocol(s). 

Special Aquatic Features

Annual monitoring of special aquatic features may occur, if necessary, to document short-term 

(annual) impacts to special aquatic features. Photographs and/or bare peat measurements may be used 

to provide more information about livestock impacts to special aquatic features and to draw a link 

between annual impacts and long-term trend. 

Meadow Hydrologic Function

Identified headcuts, knick points and/or small gullies in hydrologically functional meadows will be 

monitored by a qualified hydrologist as needed to ensure that meadow hydrologic function is not 

compromised as a result of grazing. Monitoring may occur annually, if necessary, to detect changes in 

headcuts, knick points and/or small gullies and/or to determine if the current season’s grazing use is 

compromising meadow hydrologic function. 

Sensitive Plants

Short term monitoring for sensitive plants may occur as needed to assess impacts to sensitive plants 

caused by livestock. 

Invasive Plants

Monitor for invasive plants in the vicinity of and along the primary travel routes from the location 

where the cattle first come on the Allotment. The frequency of monitoring will depend on the risk of 

introduction and/or spread of invasive plants, as determined by baseline information. 

Monitoring Recommendations for Noxious Weeds

Monitor for weeds and invasive plants in the vicinity of and along the primary travel routes from the 

location where the cattle first come on the Allotment at least every two years. The frequency may be 

adjusted once a baseline and trends have been established. 

Do baseline surveys in the areas of new corral construction. If this is not possible they will be 

assumed to have been weed and invasive free. Any plants of concern found in in the future will be 

assumed to have been introduced by Allotment management and use activities.

EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING

The objective of effectiveness monitoring is to evaluate the degree and rate at which prescribed 

management practices are meeting Allotment objectives. If properly implemented practices are not 

effective in achieving Desired Conditions, they will be changed as necessary. Key Areas will receive 

effectiveness monitoring on the Bell Meadow Allotment. Range conditions and trend at specified key 

areas are assumed to be indicative of responses to management practices throughout the entire 

Allotment. Project specific long term (project effectiveness) monitoring is the most critical portion of 

project monitoring because it answers the question as to how well project objectives were met. For 

example, long-term monitoring can answer the question as to how well grazing management practices 

have achieved LRMP standards and guidelines, or what progress has been made in achieving those 

standards. Table G.01-3 outlines the various elements of long term monitoring for the Proposed 

Action. Included in the long term monitoring plan for the Proposed Action are: 1) the goals/objectives 

of the monitoring; 2) methods; 3) frequency of the monitoring; and 4) the expected results. 

Effectiveness monitoring includes, but is not limited to, the types of monitoring described in Table 

G.01-3. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix G 

Environmental Impact Statement Monitoring Plan

295

Table G.01-3 Effectiveness monitoring plan for BEH Rangeland Allotments

Monitoring 

Type

Monitoring 

Frequency

Standard Method

Meadow 

Ecological 

Status

Every 5 years Meadow vegetation is Late seral, Overall 

score is high or moderate with upward 

trend (depending on site potential)

R5 Range Condition and 

Trend monitoring protocol

Special Aquatic 

Features

Every 3 to 5 years to 

determine condition 

and trend

Proper functioning condition or Functioning 

At-Risk and in upward trend

Appropriate Proper 

Functioning Condition 

protocol*

Repeat Photographs

Meadow 

Hydrologic 

Function

Every 3 to 5 years or 

as needed to 

determine trend

Meadows are hydrologically functional Meadow Hydrologic 

Function Rapid 

Assessment Protocol*

Sensitive Plants As needed Determine impacts to sensitive plants Sensitive plant surveys by 

qualified botanist

Invasive plants As needed Determine the risk of introducing, 

establishing, or spreading invasive species

Invasive plant surveys by 

qualified specialist

Meadow Ecological Status

Ecological Status of meadow vegetation will be determined in key areas using the Rooted Frequency 

Vegetation Sampling method. The Rooted Frequency protocol was developed and refined as part of 

an overall Regional rangeland monitoring program. The purpose of the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Region 5 Range Monitoring Project was to establish permanent 

plots on key range sites across National Forest lands in Region 5 (California) in order to provide longterm monitoring of range condition (ecological status) of each meadow. Permanent plots were 

generally established at Allotment key areas starting in 2000 and are reread every 5 years to detect 

long-term trends in vegetation, such as fluctuations in species composition or ground cover. Table 

G.01-4 displays locations and schedules are given for monitoring long-term trend in meadow 

ecological status within the analysis area.

Table G.01-4 R5 condition and trend plots and monitoring schedule within the BEH project

Allotment Unit Meadow Year Baseline

Established

Year of

Next Reading

Bell Meadow Round Round Meadow 2000 2015

Bell Meadow Crab Crab Meadow 2000 2015

Bell Meadow Mud Mud Lake Meadow 2000 2015

Eagle Meadow Niagara Barn Meadow 2000 2015

Eagle Meadow Sardine Red Rock Meadow 2000 2015

Eagle Meadow Long Valley Long Valley Meadow 2000 2015

Herring Creek Bull Run Meadow at 4N17 2000 2015

Herring Creek Hammill Hammill Canyon 2000 2015

Herring Creek Willow Wire Corral 2000 2015

Special Aquatic Features

Special Aquatic Features (springs, seeps and fens) will be re-visited every 3-5 years. If cattle use is 

apparent, the appropriate PFC Technical report and assessment protocol will be used to assess the 

condition of the feature. “A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the 

Supporting Science for Lentic Areas” USDI TR 1737-16 (1999, revised 2003) will be used to assess 

the condition of springs, seeps and shorelines. “Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Fen 

Areas in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Ranges in California” USDA R5-TP-028 (April 

2009) will be used to assess the condition of fens in the analysis area. Monitoring will occur at known 

special aquatic features, or other features that are found during project implementation. Monitoring of 
Appendix G Stanislaus

Monitoring Plan National Forest

296

special aquatic features will focus on determining PFC and trend and will prioritize the most at-risk 

special aquatic features. Soil ground cover measurements and photographs may also be used to 

document trends in livestock impacts or recovery of special aquatic features over time. 

Meadow Hydrologic Function

 In meadows where hydrologic function is already impaired, monitoring will determine whether 

livestock impacts are causing continued degradation of the hydrologic function of the meadows. 

 Where headcuts, knick points and/or small gullies were identified during project analysis, a 

qualified hydrologist will monitor the headcuts, knick points and/or small gullies to ensure that 

meadow hydrologic function is not compromised as a result of grazing 

Best Management Practices Evaluation Program

The Best Management Practices Effectiveness Program (BMPEP) is annual monitoring that is used to 

verify that BMPs are implemented and effective in protecting water quality. Range Management 

BMPEPs are conducted on key areas chosen at random from a Forest-wide sample pool. The USFS 

Region 5 Range Management BMPEP protocol monitors herbaceous and woody utilization, 

streambank disturbance/alteration, groundcover, rilling, bank stability, floodplain erosion, and lentic 

habitats (springs, fens, natural ponds). Results of this monitoring are reported to the Forest Service 

Regional Office as well as the Water Board. 

Stream Condition Inventory

SCI is a long-term stream channel monitoring protocol designed to track changes in habitat over time. 

Stream reaches would be re-surveyed every 5 to 10 years or when significant watershed events occur. 

The SCI stream attributes and protocols are designed to measure a suite of characteristics for 

inventorying stream condition at a specific time and place.

Sensitive and Watchlist Plants

If there are two years of successive drought, monitor the Drosera rotundifolia occurrence to ensure 

that cattle can’t access it early in the season the following year if it is also dry.

Invasive Plants

Monitor for weeds and invasive plants in the vicinity of and along the primary travel routes from the 

location where the cattle first come on the allotment at least every two years. The frequency of 

monitoring may be adjusted once a baseline and trends are established. 

Permittee Monitoring

The permittees are responsible for ensuring that forage use is at or below the allowed levels and that 

standards and guidelines as listed in the Term Grazing Permit, Part 3, are met. The permittees are 

encouraged to participate in Allotment monitoring. At a minimum, the permittees will be invited to 

learn and participate in range monitoring activities performed by the Forest and District Range Staff. 

Since meeting the standards and guidelines are the permittees’ responsibility, it is highly 

recommended that the permittee enter into a formal Partnership Agreement to conduct range 

monitoring on their Allotment(s). Standard protocols and instruction on their use will be provided. It 

is recommended that the Forest Service and the permittees work together to conduct formal mid- and 

post-season monitoring for key areas as listed in the Allotment Management Plan. The permittees are 

encouraged to maintain written documentation of monitoring conducted by him/her, and to share this 

information with the Forest Service on a timely basis. Written results of any permittee performed 

monitoring and measurements should be provided to the appropriate Forest Service staff within 30 

days of the end of the grazing season.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix G 

Environmental Impact Statement Monitoring Plan

297

Table G.01-5 Monitoring locations and methods

Location Aspen 

Browse

Forage 

Utilization

Meadow 

Hydrologic 

Function

Meadow 

Ecological 

Status

Riparian 

Conservation 

Standards

Special 

Aquatic 

Features

TES 

Species

Bell Meadow Allotment

Bear Lake X X

Camp Lake X

Crab Meadow (Key Area) X X Key Key X Key

Gianelli Area X

Gooseberry Creek X

Kerrick Corral X

Lily Lake X X

Lower Bell Meadow X X X

Lower Round Meadow X X Key X Key X

Middle Bell Meadow X X X

Mud Lake (Key Area) Kay Key Key Key X

Round Meadow (Key Area) Key Key Key Key Key

Upper Bell Creek X X

Eagle Meadow Allotment

Barn Meadow Key Key X Key X

Eagle Meadow X X Key X X Key

Long Valley X Key Key X X

Lower Eagle Meadow Key Key X Key

McCormick Pocket X X X X

Meadow at T1N, R6E, Sec. 35 X X X

Niagara Addition Area X X X

Niagara Creek X X

Northwest Allotment X X

Red Rock Meadow X Key X Key

Sardine meadow X X

Shell Meadow X X X

Herring Creek Allotment

Bloomer Lake X X X X X X

Bluff Meadow X X X X X X

Bull Run Meadow X X X X X X

4N12 Meadow (Key Area) X Key

Burt Reed Meadow X X X X X

Cascade Addition Area X X X X X

Castle Meadow X Key X X X

Coyote Meadow X X X X

Fiddler's Green Key X X X

Groundhog Meadow X X X X X

Herring Creek Reservoir X X

Hammill Canyon (Key Area) X Key Key Key Key

Leland Meadow X X X X X

Punch Bowl X X X X X X

Willow Meadow X Key X X X X

Wire Corral (Key Area) X X Key X X
Appendix G Stanislaus

Monitoring Plan National Forest

298

ALLOTMENT KEY AREAS AND OTHER MONITORING LOCATIONS

A Key Area is defined as a relatively small portion of a range selected because of its location, use, or 

grazing value as a monitoring point for grazing use. It is assumed that key areas, if properly selected, 

will reflect the overall acceptability of current grazing management over the whole range 

management unit. During planning and analysis, the Interdisciplinary team compared desired 

conditions and existing conditions in the project area. The team identified a need for change in 

management where resource conditions did not meet desired conditions. Project-specific monitoring 

will place emphasis on those resources and/or areas that were identified as having a need for change. 

The potential criteria to be considered in the selection of key areas include: range sites, vegetation 

types, livestock distribution and use patterns, crucial wildlife areas, and sensitive or at-risk resources. 

Key Areas for the Allotments are listed in Table G.01-5. Key areas will remain constant for the 

duration of this AMP unless changed after consultation, coordination and cooperation with the 

permittees and other interested parties. Additional locations may be monitored, depending on 

monitoring objectives. Monitoring priorities are indicated by the label “key”and other potential 

monitoring is indicated by an “X” although additional monitoring could occur at any location as 

determined by need. 

EVALUATION

Data collected from both implementation and effectiveness monitoring will be used to evaluate 

management effectiveness and progress toward achieving desired conditions. Results of monitoring 

may indicate a need for adaptive management options such as additional drift fencing or mitigation to 

protect sensitive resources. Actions within the scope of this EIS will be implemented through the 

Annual Operating Instructions. Those mitigations that are outside the scope of the EIS will be 

analyzed under a separate NEPA document prior to implementation. The following criteria will be 

used as indicators that adaptive management adjustments are needed: 

 Forage utilization and stubble height standards are not met.

 Meadow Ecological Status is in a downward trend. 

 Livestock browse on riparian shrubs or hardwoods exceeds standards. 

 Livestock disturbance to streambanks exceeds standards. 

 Headcut advancement is occurring and is attributable to livestock use.

 Special Aquatic Features are rated is Functional-at-Risk with a downward trend or NonFunctional. 

 Livestock presence outside Allotment boundaries, in developed recreation sites or in other 

unauthorized areas becomes problematic. 

 Livestock impacts to threatened, endangered, or sensitive species are at unacceptable levels.

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Adaptive management refers to the concept of allowing decisions, which are focused on desired 

outcomes, to be made with the best information available and to be adjusted during implementation to 

achieve desired conditions. Decision-making is expected to proceed using the best information 

available. Monitoring and evaluation are used to assess the effects of those decisions and to identify 

new information that may become available. Decisions are adapted, as needed, to respond to new 

information. 

Data collected from both implementation and effectiveness monitoring will be used to evaluate 

management effectiveness and progress toward achieving desired conditions. Adaptive management 

actions will be used to achieve management objectives when monitoring indicates that adjustments 

are necessary in order to achieve defined desired conditions. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix G 

Environmental Impact Statement Monitoring Plan

299

Management actions will be applied through the Annual Operating Instructions issued for each 

Allotment. These possible management actions are designed to be used alone or in combinations in 

order to achieve management objectives.

 Adjust stocking rate to light, moderate or heavy grazing intensity 

 Implement alternative riparian grazing dates based upon specific conditions (topography, range 

rider, upland water sources, livestock use patterns)

 Use salt or supplement to draw livestock toward or away from specific areas

 Change season of use, animal numbers; do not exceed permitted AUMs 

 Rest from livestock grazing for one or more seasons

 Construct fence to exclude livestock from areas of concern (riparian, streams, springs, wetlands, 

mesic meadows, etc.)

 Reconstruct fence to ensure effective exclusion of livestock from exclusion areas.

 Control livestock distribution patterns by constructing cross fences (electric, standard, permanent 

or temporary) 

 Manage livestock trailing locations using barriers to deter cattle traffic (logs and other natural 

barriers)

 Construct livestock water development (pipeline, tanks, well, submersible pumps, solar) 

 Implement restoration practices, where appropriate, if current grazing is causing or contributing 

to observed degradation (excessive compaction, lowered water tables, or active down cutting) 

 Treat invasive plant infestations by pulling, digging, solarization (covering with a tarp), flaming, 

and other mechanical means.

Permittee and agency flexibility during adaptive management implementation will be needed. 

Flexibility is provided to adjust livestock grazing practices in response to unpredictable management 

situations caused by weather fluctuations (e.g., drought), livestock behavior, unexpected monitoring 

results or acts of nature such as wildfires. Adaptive actions would be constrained by Forest Plan 

direction, Allotment-specific NEPA decisions, regulations, policy and Term Grazing Permit terms 

and conditions. 

In keeping with the adaptive management concept, Forest Plan Direction utilization standards would 

be adjusted if monitoring and evaluation determines that the current standards do not continue to meet 

or move towards attaining Forest Plan goals and objectives. 

Continued monitoring of forage utilization in key use areas and of riparian and upland condition and 

trend as described in the Forest Plan will be used to determine if the grazing program continues to 

achieve desired future conditions and Forest Plan objectives for vegetation management. If 

monitoring shows that livestock grazing is not meeting or moving towards desired conditions, 

adaptive management would make it possible for management to review and correct the problems as 

described above. If monitoring shows that livestock grazing is meeting desired conditions, adaptive 

management could allow for greater grazing flexibility through the Annual Operating Instruction 

process (reasonable adjustment in season of use, numbers, etc.).
Appendix G Stanislaus

Monitoring Plan National Forest

300
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix H 

Environmental Impact Statement Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan

301

H. Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan

INTRODUCTION

Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 221.1 and 222.2) allow Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) to 

be included in grazing permits consistent with the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLMPA), 

as amended by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA). An AMP is defined in FLPMA as a 

document outlining a specific program of action for livestock management. Included in the AMP is 

the authorized number of livestock and season of use, selected grazing strategy and range 

improvement plan and all other management objectives identified as a result of the environmental 

analysis process.

The Bell Meadow AMP outlines the management decisions of the BEH Rangeland Allotments

EISand documented in the Record of Decision (ROD) signed by the Responsible Official, the Forest 

Supervisor, on DATE, YEAR. The decision authorizes continued livestock grazing on the Bell 

Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek Allotments. This Allotment Management Plan is 

intended to guide on-the-ground management of the Bell Meadow Allotment for the next 10 or more 

years. Additional analysis is not required to implement this management plan. This plan may be 

modified as part of the adaptive management strategy, as long as modifications are consistent with the 

decision and with applicable management direction. 

The BEH Rangeland Allotments Record of Decision prescribes implementation of specific design 

criteria, including an Adaptive Management Strategy (AMS) that would be implemented to achieve 

defined desired conditions through ongoing monitoring and adjustments to livestock management, as 

necessary to implement management direction and to continue improving resource conditions on this 

Allotment.

Allotment Location and Description

The Bell Meadow Allotment is located on the Summit Ranger District in Tuolumne County, 

California (Figure H.01-1). It is bounded on the west by Dodge Ridge; on the north by the South Fork 

of the Stanislaus River; on the east by Lake Valley and Chain Lakes; and, on the south by Bell 

Mountain. The location is generally described as Townships 3 and 4 North and Ranges 18 and 19 

East. The Allotment ranges in elevation from about 6350 to 9150 feet. Annual precipitation averages 

50-60 inches. The Bell Meadow Allotment encompasses about 13,240 acres, all of which are National 

Forest System (NFS) lands.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Goals and Objectives for the Bell Meadow Allotments are based on current Forest Plan Direction, 

which presents management direction from original Forest Plan as modified through the Forest Plan 

appeals and amendment processes (USDA 2010). Goals and objectives are also based on the 

management decisions of the BEH Rangeland Allotments EISas documented in the Record of 

Decision signed by the Responsible Official, the Forest Supervisor, on DATE, YEAR. The decision is 

intended to guide on-the-ground management of the Bell Meadow Allotment for the next 10 or more 

years. The goals and objectives of this Allotment Management Plan are:

1. To meet multiple-use objectives by allowing continued livestock grazing on forage-producing 

National Forest System lands in this Allotment.

2. To ensure consistency with all applicable management direction, including Forest Plan 

objectives, standards and guidelines. 

3. To move resource conditions toward desired conditions. Gaps between existing conditions and 

desired conditions indicate a need to change grazing management by updating AMPs.
Appendix H Stanislaus 

Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan National Forest

302

4. To implement an adaptive management strategy that will allow decisions to be made with the best 

information available and will adjust management during implementation to achieve desired 

conditions in a manner that is timely and consistent with Forest Plan Direction. 

Stanislaus National Forest Goal for Range

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

quality, wildlife, fisheries and riparian zones. 

Desired Conditions

Desired conditions are land or resource conditions expected to result if planning goals and objectives 

are fully achieved. The following desired conditions were identified during planning for the BEH 

Rangeland Allotments project and are consistent with Stanislaus National Forest Management 

Direction. 

Aspen Regeneration

A diversity of age classes of hardwood shrubs is present and regeneration is occurring.

Meadow Hydrologic Function

Meadows are hydrologically functional: streams have floodplain connectivity to dissipate high flow 

energy, stream morphology is suitable for optimizing ground water retention, and the water table 

supports desired plant species composition and structural diversity. 

Yosemite toad Populations

Provide habitat for diverse and viable populations of all native and desired non-native species.

Great Gray Owl

Meadow vegetation in great grey owl PACs supports a sufficiently large meadow vole population to 

provide a food source for GGO through the reproductive period. 

Ecological Status of Meadows

Species composition and structural diversity of plant and animal communities in riparian areas, 

wetlands, and meadows provide desired habitat conditions and ecological functions. 

Special Aquatic Features

Maintain and restore the distribution and health of biotic communities in special aquatic habitats 

(springs, seeps, vernal pools, fens, bogs, and marshes) to perpetuate their unique functions and 

biological diversity.

Water Quality

Water quality meets the goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act; it is fishable, 

swimmable, and suitable for drinking after normal treatment. 

Developed and Dispersed Recreation

Minimize conflicts between recreational users and grazing operations.

Wilderness Character

Minimize conflicts between recreational users and grazing operations.

Sensitive and Watchlist Plants

Provide for protection and habitat needs of sensitive plants and watchlist species, so that Forest 

activities will not jeopardize their continued existence.

Invasive Weeds

Manage weeds using an integrated weed management approach.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix H 

Environmental Impact Statement Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan

303

Need For Change

Following is a description of resources and locations where a wherever existing conditions do not 

meet desired conditions as specified in the Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010):

Aspen Regeneration

Locations: Crab Meadow, Kerrick Corral, Bell Meadow, and Round and Lower Round Meadows 

Need for Change: Protect aspen regeneration by ensuring Forest Plan standards and guidelines are 

met. Additional monitoring of aspen populations will facilitate better understanding of timing and 

patterns of livestock/wildlife aspen browse. 

Meadow Hydrologic Function

Locations: Crab Meadow, Mud Lake Meadow, Round Meadow, Lower Round Meadow, and Upper 

Bell Meadow, Lily Lake.

Need for Change: For meadows/areas that are hydrologically functional, ensure that grazing is not 

causing new headcuts, causing accelerated advancement of headcuts and/or contributing to bank 

instability or channel incision. Monitor identified headcuts, knick points and small gullies and report 

any changes to district hydrologist. Ensure standards for streambank disturbance are not exceeded.

Ecological Status of Meadows

Locations: Crab Meadow and Round Meadow 

Need for Change: Increase abundance of late-seral species in these meadows. Forest Plan standards 

and guidelines are designed to maintain meadows in satisfactory condition and improve condition of 

meadows where unsatisfactory.

Special Aquatic Features

Locations: Springs, seeps, and fens located throughout Allotment. 

Need for Change: Reduce impacts of livestock to Special Aquatic Features by improving livestock 

distribution and minimizing time spent near Special Aquatic features. Update AMPs to incorporate 

and implement an adaptive strategy to improve the condition of Special Aquatic Features that are 

Functioning At-Risk

Water Quality

Locations: All streams, lakes and rivers

Need for Change: Implement grazing BMPs to protect water quality. Implement adaptive 

management actions if necessary to protect water quality.

Developed and Dispersed Recreation

Locations: Crabtree Trailhead

Need for Change: Herd livestock away from developed recreation areas and high-use dispersed 

camping areas. Use adaptive management actions (fencing) if needed to prevent livestock drift into 

developed recreation areas.

Wilderness Character

Locations: High use destinations in Emigrant Wilderness - Camp Lake, Bear Lake, Grouse Lake

Need for Change: Disperse cattle and minimize drift outside Allotment.

Sensitive and Watchlist Plants

Locations: Sundew (Drosera rotundifolia) occurrence located in small pond above Camp Lake.

Need for Change: Minimize or avoid cattle presence near Sundew population above Camp Lake.
Appendix H Stanislaus 

Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan National Forest

304

Invasive Weeds

Locations: Aspen Pack Station and throughout Allotment. 

Need for Change: Forest Service encourages use of certified weed free hay and straw for all pack and 

saddle stock used by the permittee.

MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS

Standards and Guidelines

Livestock will be removed from an area when any standard or guideline is reached or exceeded or by 

the scheduled off date, whichever occurs first. Where more than one standard is applicable to a given 

key area (example: forage utilization and streambank disturbance in a meadow with a sensitive stream 

reach), the standard reached first will dictate livestock removal. The following standards were 

developed by the Forest Service with the goal of achieving desired conditions, and are applicable to 

livestock grazing on this Allotment:

Stanislaus National Forest, Forest Plan Direction 2010, Range Standards and Guidelines

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

management, and structural and nonstructural improvements. 

 Develop range resources to their reasonably attainable potential and manage them on a sustained 

yield basis. Manage grazed lands to achieve a stable or upward vegetative trend, except in 

specified areas of transitory range. Use management strategies that protect the soil and vegetative 

resources and other resources in a cost effective manner. Consider all vegetation dependent uses 

when developing Allotment management plans. 

 Revise range Allotment management plans to be consistent with law, regulations, Executive 

Orders, Forest Service direction and Forest Standards and Guidelines, by 1997. Revise and 

develop Allotment management plans in consultation with all involved parties, including 

permittees, State or other agencies, and any other involved entities.

 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 FSH 2209.21. Priority will be given to range improvement on Allotments with a 

high percentage of primary range land in unsatisfactory condition, or high conflicts between 

livestock grazing and other resources and uses.

 On Allotments where discontinuous grazing systems are not in effect, adjust permitted Animal 

Unit Months to achieve allowable use on the primary range. Transportation systems in established 

range Allotments will include fences and cattle guards where new roads open up natural livestock 

barriers. Reduce or eliminate livestock grazing from ranges in unsatisfactory range condition 

which cannot be improved through better management or treatment at the current level of 

grazing.

 Standards and Guidelines for Perennial Range. Includes meadows, perennial grassland, 

sagebrush, broadleaf and riparian vegetative types. When grazing management is extensive and is 

based on perennial range the following apply: 

 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.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix H 

Environmental Impact Statement Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan

305

 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. 

 Allowable uses limit the extent to which one or a group of key species may be grazed in key 

areas. The allowable use level must provide for sufficient herbage residue to ensure favorable 

plant vigor and soil protection on good and excellent condition range, or to contribute to 

improvement in lower condition range. Allowable use levels for specific areas will be set at or 

below these maximums to conform to local range condition, soil stability, or special 

circumstances. Allowable use levels will be detailed in the Allotment management plan for each 

Allotment. Pastures receiving periodic full growing season rest can have higher allowable use 

levels, as shown. If condition classes of vegetation and soil vary, use the lower class to establish 

the allowable level.

 Monitor ecological condition and trend using Regionally established methods and standards (R5 

FSH 2209.21) on a ten year schedule. 

Weed Free Hay

Encourage use of certified weed free hay and straw. Cooperate with other agencies and the public in 

developing a certification program for weed free hay and straw. Phase in the program as certified 

weed free hay and straw becomes available. This standard and guideline applies to pack and saddle 

stock used by the public, livestock permittees, outfitter guide permittees, and local, State, and Federal 

agencies.

Streambank Standards

Prevent disturbance to streambanks and natural lake and pond shorelines caused by resource activities 

(for example, livestock, off-highway vehicles, and dispersed recreation) from exceeding 20 percent of 

stream reach or 20 percent of natural lake and pond shorelines. Disturbance includes bank sloughing, 

chiseling, trampling, and other means of exposing bare soil or cutting plant roots. This standard does 

not apply to developed recreation sites; sites authorized under Special Use Permits and designated 

off-highway vehicle routes.

Special Aquatic Features

Assess the hydrologic function of meadow habitats and other special aquatic features during range 

management analysis. Ensure that characteristics of special features are, at a minimum, at Proper 

Functioning Condition, as defined in the appropriate Technical Reports (or their successor 

publications): (1) “Process for Assessing PFC” TR 1737-9 (1993), “PFC for Lotic Areas” USDI TR 

1737-15 (1998) or (2) “PFC for Lentic Riparian-Wetland Areas” USDI TR 1737-11 (1994). 

Fen Ecosystems

Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing activities that adversely affect hydrologic processes that 

maintain water flow, water quality, or water temperature critical to sustaining bog and fen ecosystems 

and plant species that depend on these ecosystems. During project analysis, survey, map, and develop 

measures to protect bogs and fens from such activities as trampling by livestock, pack stock, humans, 

and wheeled vehicles. Criteria for defining bogs and fens include, but are not limited to, presence of: 

(1) sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.), (2) mosses belonging to the genus Meessia, and (3) sundew 

(Drosera spp.) Complete initial plant inventories of bogs and fens within active grazing Allotments 

prior to re-issuing permit.

Meadow Utilization Standards

Under season-long grazing:

 For meadows in early seral status: limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to 30 

percent (or minimum 6-inch stubble height). 
Appendix H Stanislaus 

Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan National Forest

306

 For meadows in late seral status: limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to a 

maximum of 40 percent (or minimum 4-inch stubble height). 

Meadow Ecological Status

Determine ecological status on all key areas monitored for grazing utilization prior to establishing 

utilization levels. Use Regional ecological scorecards and range plant list in regional range handbooks 

to determine ecological status. Analyze meadow ecological status every 3 to 5 years. If meadow 

ecological status is determined to be moving in a downward trend, modify or suspend grazing. 

Include ecological status data in a spatially explicit Geographical Information System database. 

Riparian Browse Standards

Limit browsing to no more than 20 percent of the annual leader growth of mature riparian shrubs and 

no more than 20 percent of individual seedlings. Remove livestock from any area of an Allotment 

when browsing indicates a change in livestock preference from grazing herbaceous vegetation to 

browsing woody riparian vegetation. 

Hardwood Regeneration

To protect hardwood regeneration in grazing Allotments, allow livestock browse on no more than 20 

percent of annual growth of hardwood seedlings and advanced regeneration. Modify grazing plans if 

hardwood regeneration and recruitment needs are not being met. 

Threatened and Endangered and Sensitive Species

No threatened, endangered, or sensitive species are known to exist on this Allotment. Species 

Federally listed as threatened or endangered on this Allotment include Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged 

Frog. Habitat for Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog occurs in Bell Creek above Crabtree Trailhead. 

Meeting standards for streambank disturbance is the priority for protecting habitat for this species.

Other Applicable Management Requirements

Water Quality

Implement the following Pacific Southwest Region BMPs applicable to grazing:

 Practice 8-1. Rangeland Management Planning: Use the Allotment Management Plan (AMP) 

planning process to develop measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate and/or restore adverse impacts 

to water, aquatic and riparian resources during rangeland management activities.

 Practice 8-2. Rangeland Permit Administration: Manage rangeland vegetation and grazing to 

protect water, aquatic and riparian resources through administration and monitoring of Grazing 

Permits and Annual Operating Instructions (AOI).

 Practice 8-3. Rangeland Improvements: Implement range improvements to protect, maintain or 

improve water, aquatic and riparian resources and associated beneficial uses.

Salting

Salt and supplemental feeds will be placed in lightly used areas and at least one quarter mile from 

riparian areas, other water sources, and livestock concentration points. 

Dead Livestock

As soon as possible, dead animals must be taken at least 100 feet from streams or lakes and out of 

sight of trails, roads, and campgrounds. 

Age of Calves

Forest Service regulations require that any calf over 6 months old at time of entry onto the Allotment 

count as and be billed as an adult. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix H 

Environmental Impact Statement Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan

307

Private Lands

The permittees are responsible for keeping their livestock off private land unless they have 

permission of the landowner to graze. The Forest Service permit only applies to National Forest land 

and land waived to the Forest Service for grazing. 

Noxious and Invasive Weed Prevention

Forest Service encourages use of certified weed free hay and straw for all pack and saddle stock used 

by the permittee.

Livestock Distribution and Move Dates

Livestock distribution and movements between units as established by this Allotment Management 

Plan are necessarily flexible. Actual moves will be determined, to the extent practical, by on-theground inspections. Livestock will be removed from specific areas when any standard or guideline is 

reached or exceeded on any of the key areas. Permittees are encouraged to maintain a current 

knowledge of the status of the key use areas with regard to allowable use standards and current use 

levels. 

Allotment/Pasture Exit

No livestock should be on the Allotment after the end of the authorized off date. Any remaining 

livestock on the forest more than five days after the end of the season, without range staff 

authorization, will be billed for excess use. The off-date may be modified due to range conditions 

with an agreement between the Forest Service and the permittee. Any extensions of the grazing 

season must be requested in writing at least 15 days in advance of the scheduled off-date, and are 

subject to inspections by Supervisor’s Office Range staff as well as District Ranger approval. If an 

emergency situation, beyond the permittee’s control, making it impossible to remove all livestock by 

the end of the permitted season, then the authorized Forest Officer will be contacted immediately. 

Areas Closed to Grazing

The Bell Meadow Research Natural Area is excluded from livestock grazing. Livestock are not 

permitted within Upper Bell Meadow, including the aspen exclosure located in the Eastern portion of 

Middle Bell Meadow. Livestock trespass into areas excluded from livestock grazing will be addressed 

promptly. Repeated livestock trespass will be addressed using the adaptive management process 

(reconstruct fence to ensure effective exclusion of livestock) or through regular permit administration. 

Riding and Herding

Riding and herding are needed to improve distribution of livestock throughout the grazing season. 

The permittee will ride the Allotment as necessary to keep all livestock within the appropriate grazing 

unit(s). 

Pack and Saddle Stock

Pack and saddle stock can be ridden anywhere on the Stanislaus National Forest. To protect the 

forest, users are encouraged to pack in (certified weed free) supplemental feed for their animals. Only 

tether horses to trees for short periods as hooves can cause damage to tree roots and plants. 

Motorized Travel Management and Off-Highway Vehicle Use Restrictions

The permittee may be authorized to use Off Highway vehicles (OHV) off designated routes, trails, or 

OHV use areas to conduct permitted activities. Permittee use of OHVs is subject to approval by the 

authorized officer. Restrictions apply, and permission for OHV use will be authorized annually in the 

AOI.
Appendix H Stanislaus 

Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan National Forest

308

Heritage Resources

It is prohibited to disturb, collect, or in any way damage any known prehistoric, historic, or 

archaeological resource. New discoveries: If previously unidentified cultural resources are 

discovered, care shall be taken by the permittee and the Forest Service to ensure that such sites are not 

disturbed. The permittee shall notify the Forest Officer as soon as possible if a new site is found so 

that appropriate evaluation and mitigation measures can be made. 

GRAZING SYSTEM

Permitted Livestock Numbers

Grazing of up to 80 cow/calf pairs (calves less than six months) is permitted on this allotment. The 

actual number of livestock will be allocated in Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs) each year, but 

will not exceed 268 Animal Unit Months (AUMs). Adjustments to annual authorized livestock 

numbers may occur during the grazing season, based on conditions, range inspections and/or 

monitoring results. Permitted livestock numbers will not be exceeded unless an adjustment in season 

occurs and overall AUMs (as calculated by the permitted numbers and season) are not exceeded. Up 

to 5 head of horses (18 AUMs) would also be authorized on each Allotment to be used for Allotment 

administration. 

Season of Use

Livestock will graze in the Bell Meadow Allotment between the estimated on-date of July 1 and the 

estimated off-date of September 15. On dates are approximate and will be based on range readiness 

(plant phenology, soil moisture level, annual climate variation, or other site-specific constraints for 

each key area). The season of use may be administratively adjusted by allowing livestock to enter the 

Allotments as much as two weeks early and/or remain on the Allotment as much as two weeks past 

the permitted date, as long as all applicable standards are not exceeded. If livestock graze all 

authorized areas, reaching allowable use in each area prior to the “off date”, they will be moved off 

NFS lands early. If, however, livestock graze through available areas and reach the end of the grazing 

season prior to reaching allowable use, an extension may be authorized, providing other Forest Plan 

guidelines and objectives are met. An extended season of use would only be authorized if it has been 

determined through field inspections that soil, water, vegetative and other resource conditions are 

suitable. 

Grazing System

Bell Meadow Allotment is divided into units to implement a deferred grazing system. The Allotment 

would be divided into three units, or pastures, that would be used to improve distribution of forage 

utilization while livestock are moved through the Allotment. The units are referred to as the Round 

unit (Western unit), Crab unit (Northeastern unit), and Mud unit (Southeastern). A deferred grazing 

system will be achieved through intensive herding and dispersal, or through fencing or other 

infrastructure, if necessary. The cattle are trucked to and unloaded at a corral near Kerrick Horse 

Camp on July 1, depending on range readiness. The herd spends a day or two in the Round unit, 

where they will rest and “mother-up” before being pushed into the other units. From there the cattle 

are separated into two cow/calf herds, about 40 pair each. One herd is driven to the Mud unit and the 

other herd is moved to the Crab unit. Cattle will stay in the Mud and Crab units for about 6 weeks or 

until forage utilization approaches allowable use standards. Around mid-August, the cattle are 

allowed to drift back into the Round unit. Livestock remain in the Round unit for about 2 weeks, then 

are gathered into the Bell Meadow gathering pasture. Livestock are gathered and moved in small 

groups back to the corral near Kerrick Horse Camp and trucked off the Allotment by the permitted 

off-date of September 15, unless otherwise specified in the AOI. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix H 

Environmental Impact Statement Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan

309

Livestock Distribution

Keep livestock distributed as evenly as possible throughout capable and suitable rangelands. Riding 

and herding is necessary to maintain the distribution pattern and prevent cattle from congregating or 

drifting off the Allotment. Herd cattle away from concentrated use areas and popular recreation areas. 

Cattle are excluded from developed recreation sites and from the Lodge, parking area and facilities at 

the Dodge Ridge Ski Area. Salting may be used in addition to herding to improve livestock 

distribution. Place salt in underutilized upland areas at least 1⁄4 mile (about 1300 feet) from water. 

Disperse cattle away from riparian areas and special aquatic features as much as possible to minimize 

impacts to sensitive resources and water quality and to improve upland forage utilization.

ANNUAL OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS

Each year at the annual permittee meeting (or through correspondence if no meeting is held), the 

permittee(s) and the Forest Service will develop a set of Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) based 

on this Allotment Management Plan. The Annual Operating Instructions and permittee meetings are 

critical to successfully implementing the Allotment Management Plan. The AOI will detail the 

authorized use, current season’s grazing strategy, improvement maintenance responsibilities, 

allowable use standards, key areas, and other additional instructions. The AOI will become an 

amendment to this AMP and as such, a part of the Term Grazing Permit. The AOI should include, at a 

minimum:

1. Authorized Use--the maximum permissible amount of grazing use, including numbers, class of 

livestock and season of use.

2. Grazing strategy--this is the planned grazing management schedule and may be modified during 

the grazing season depending on conditions. Changes can be made as long as the objectives will 

still be met. Changes in the original grazing strategy must be agreed upon by both the permittee 

and the FS or the FS must be notified before implementing any change. Any deviation in the 

grazing strategy must follow the prescriptions and meet the objectives in the plan.

3. Range Improvement Responsibilities--this includes a list of any improvements to be constructed 

or reconstructed during that grazing season. All improvements the permittee has responsibility for 

must be annually maintained. 

4. Planned Monitoring--identify the key areas to be watched and go over the standards to be 

monitored. Monitoring needs to be done often enough to predict movement dates. 

5. Additional instructions--may include travel restrictions, upcoming projects or other miscellaneous 

business.

6. Annual Reporting by the Permittee--a form for annual reporting will be included with the AOI. 

The permittee will complete the form to the best of his/her ability and return it to the Forest 

Service. Information to be provided annually should include actual livestock numbers grazed, 

time of grazing livestock, distribution, range improvement condition, and maintenance activities 

conducted. 

RANGELAND IMPROVEMENTS

Existing range improvements, maintenance responsibilities, and maintenance standards are listed in 

Part 3 of the Term Grazing Permit for this Allotment and are included here for consistency. All 

existing improvements shall be maintained and operable to Forest Service standards. All new 

improvements shall be constructed according to Regional standards. Refer to FSH 2209.22 R5 and 

the 1988 USDA publication "Fences" for the standards. 
Appendix H Stanislaus 

Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan National Forest

310

Existing Improvements

Table H.01-1 Existing Improvements on the Bell Meadow Allotment

ID Description of Range Improvement Location

7146A Fence around Middle Bell Meadow T4N, R19E, Section 30

7146B Exclosure Fence at Upper Bell Meadow T4N, R19E, Sections 30 and 31

7146BB Fence around Lower Bell Meadow T4N, R19E, Section 36

7146C Allotment Boundary Fence West of Lily Lake T4N, R19E, Sections 34 and 35

7146I Drift Fence across Bell Meadow Trail T4N, R19E, Section 35

7146E Cattleguard Dodge Ridge on 4N99 T4N, R19E, Section 34

7146F Cattleguard West of Lily Lake on 4N25 T4N, R19E, Section 35

7378A Trough 1 at Old Layton Camp T4N, R19E, Section 19

7378C Trough 2 and Spring at Gooseberry T4N, R19E, Section 18

Cow Camp

In addition to the improvements listed above, the Permittee has permission to set up a temporary 

camp in the Kerrick Horse Camp Area to better manage the Allotment. This includes: trailers (3), 

corrals, cook trailer and piped watering system and trough. The permittee can move in two weeks 

before on-date to set up camp and stay two weeks after off-date to clean site and remove all of the 

above facilities.

Planned Improvements

Corral and handling facility is planned on the Bell Meadow Allotment at Forest Service Road 4N25. 

Meadow restoration, including temporary fencing is planned for Crab and Round Meadow as part of 

the Gooseberry project. Maintenance of temporary fences associated with the Gooseberry project is 

not the responsibility of the permittee. New fencing is planned on this Allotment as part of the BEH 

Rangeland Allotments decision.. The decision authorizes approximately .25 mile of allotment 

boundary fence on the Southeast corner of the Bell Meadow allotment. Additional fencing may be 

needed if implementation of the grazing strategy cannot be achieved through herding alone. 

Maintenance Responsibilities and Standards

The permittee is responsible for maintaining all assigned improvements before cattle are turned out 

and throughout the grazing season, so that each improvement is fully functioning and in good repair. 

If serious or repeated problems occur with an improvement, contact the District Range Technician 

and work cooperatively to find a long-term solution. The permittee is responsible for checking with 

adjoining permittees to find out when the livestock will come on. A permittee taking non-use is still 

responsible for maintaining the assigned Allotment boundary fences. 

Fence Maintenance Standards

 All broken wires will be spliced and repaired in such a manner that tension can be maintained.

 Broken or rotten posts, jacks, poles, braces, and staples will be replaced on an annual basis to 

maintain the fence for its intended purpose. Wires will be re-stretched when needed.

 The top wire on all post and wire fences will be kept at 42 inches and the bottom wire at 18 

inches if constructed to that standard. 

 All gates should be closed when livestock enter the grazing units and opened and tied back when 

cattle have left the unit or Allotment.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix H 

Environmental Impact Statement Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan

311

 Wire gate tension should be sufficient to prevent the gate from sagging and still be easily opened 

and closed. Gate loops will be made of smooth wire and not barbed wire. Gate loop closers 

should be used whenever possible. 

 Trees that have fallen on fences will be cut out and removed as needed. Loose or broken wire or 

poles will be repaired or replaced. 

 Corrals will be kept clean of litter, in good repair and in usable condition. 

 Tighten or replace wire on gateposts and braces as needed.

 Water Development Maintenance Standards

 Maintain spring source exclosures by insuring livestock accessibility is prevented through 

replacement or shoring up of jacks, poles, wires, staples, or other materials as necessary. 

 Headbox lids/covers shall be in place throughout the season to prevent dirt, rodents, or other 

refuse from getting into the headbox. 

 All outlets, pipes and valves from the headbox shall be functioning and all leakage shall be kept 

to a minimum.

 All headboxes shall be checked and cleared of mud and other materials.

 Water troughs will be kept at heights that allow easy access by livestock. Troughs that have been 

elevated by trampling should be periodically backfilled or reset to a useable height. 

 Water should not be allowed to overflow the sides of the troughs. Overflow pipes must be 

checked and kept functioning properly. 

 Troughs that become uneven due to settling will be leveled and reset.

 Inlet/outlet pipes will be protected from livestock with line poles or posts. These will be checked 

to ensure effective protection.

 Troughs, storage tanks and pipelines will be drained annually to prevent moss and debris buildup 

and prevent damage from freezing.

 Poles, posts and trough framing material used in the construction of water development will be 

maintained or repaired as needed.

 Pipeline leaks will be repaired or the damaged sections replaced with materials similar to the 

original construction materials. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The Monitoring Plan for the BEH Rangeland Allotments decision is a part of this Allotment 

Management Plan and will be used to guide monitoring and evaluation on the Bell Meadow 

Allotment. Three types of monitoring will be conducted on this Allotment. Implementation (Annual) 

Monitoring will be used to monitor implementation of the provisions of the Term Grazing Permit, 

including compliance with the Annual Operating Instructions. Effectiveness (Long-term) Monitoring 

tracks changes in vegetative conditions in response to livestock use and management. Permittee 

monitoring will ensure that standards and guidelines as listed in the Term Grazing Permit, Part 3 are 

met. Evaluation of monitoring data will determine if adaptive management adjustments are needed.

Monitoring Objectives

Specific objectives for monitoring on the Bell Meadow Allotment are: 

1. To determine compliance with the Term Grazing Permit and Annual Operating Instructions. 

2. To evaluate the implementation of management practices to insure movement from the Existing 

Conditions towards achievement of Desired Conditions, and use Adaptive Management to adjust 

livestock management strategies as necessary to meet Desired Condition.

3. To evaluate the degree and rate at which prescribed management practices are meeting Allotment 

objectives. If properly implemented practices are not effective in achieving Desired Conditions, 

they will be changed as necessary.

4. To demonstrate to all interested parties and partners that implementation of the Allotment 

Management Plan is effective in achieving multiple use management and is sound resource 

management of Forest Service lands.
Appendix H Stanislaus 

Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan National Forest

312

Allotment Key Areas and Monitoring Priorities

Key Areas for the Bell Meadow Allotment are shown in Table H.01-2. Key areas will remain 

constant for the duration of this AMP unless changed after consultation, coordination and cooperation 

with the permittee and other interested parties. Monitoring priorities are indicated by the label 

“key”and other potential monitoring is indicated by an “X”. Monitoring priorities were determined 

based on discrepancies between existing resource conditions and desired conditions on this 

Allotment. Additional monitoring may occur, as needed. 

Table H.01-2 Monitoring locations and methods for Bell Meadow Allotment

Location Aspen 

Browse

Forage 

Utilization

Meadow

Hydrologic 

Function

Meadow 

Ecological 

Status

Riparian 

Standards 

(MIM)

Special 

Aquatic 

Feature(s)

TES 

Species

Bear Lake X X

Camp Lake X

Crab Meadow (Key Area) X Key Key X X Key

Gianelli Area X

Gooseberry Creek X

Kerrick Corral X

Lily Lake X X

Lower Bell Meadow X X X

Lower Round Meadow X X Key X Key X

Middle Bell Meadow X X X

Mud Lake (Key Area) Key Key Key Key X

Round Meadow (Key Area) Key Key Key Key Key

Upper Bell Creek X X

Implementation Monitoring

Range Readiness

Range readiness is based on plant phenology, soil moisture level, annual climate variation, or other 

site-specific constraints for each key area. Readiness inspections may occur at Allotment key areas, 

but may also be determined at other locations with similar elevation, soil moisture, geomorphology 

and key species phenology. The range will be considered ready for grazing when soil is dry and firm 

enough to prevent compaction and displacement, and when the following vegetation development is 

achieved:

Table H.01-3 Range Readiness Indicators for Bell Meadow Allotment

Readiness Indicator Species: Growth stage:

Bromus marginatus, mountain brome when average height reaches 6 inches

Sitanion hystrix, squirrel tail when average height reaches 6 inches

Elymus glaucus, blue wild rye when average height reaches 6 inches

Carex integra, smooth beak sedge when flowers mostly open, stamens showing

Forage Utilization Standards

Implementation of utilization standards monitoring will focus on key areas, but may occur in other 

locations within the Allotment as need dictates. Herbaceous utilization in key areas will be measured 

using one of the following methods: the Height Weight Curve method on key species, the Stubble 

Height method, and/or Landscape Appearance method. Repeated photographs may also be used. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix H 

Environmental Impact Statement Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan

313

Riparian Conservation Standards

Implementation of Riparian Conservation Standards will focus on sensitive stream reaches on this 

Allotment. Riparian Stubble Height, Streambank Alteration, and Streamside Browse Utilization will 

be determined using the Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) method on streambanks accessible to 

cattle.

Aspen Browse Standards

Monitoring of aspen browse will occur in identified aspen stands on this Allotment. Effort will be 

made to monitor aspen browse prior to livestock entry on the Allotment to determine baseline browse 

levels. Hardwood browse in aspen stands will be measured using monitored at defined intervals using 

specified aspen browse protocol(s). 

Compliance Monitoring

Permit administration by the Forest Service includes compliance monitoring. Items to be monitored 

as part of implementation monitoring may include, but are not limited to the following:

 Livestock counts

 Actual livestock use and movements (from permittees records).

 Improvement inspections to insure that maintenance is completed to standard and on time. 

 Compliance with the Annual Operating Instructions. 

 Determination of any unauthorized use. 

 Livestock presence outside Allotment boundaries, in Bell Meadow RNA, in developed recreation 

sites or in the Dodge Ridge Ski Area. 

Permit Non-Compliance

If permit non-compliance occurs, corrective action will be taken according to the Regional Forester's 

Grazing Permit Administration, Suspension & Cancellation Guidelines (R5 FSM 2231.62, 2002). The 

intent is to provide a consistent and fair approach for permit administration actions which provide the 

permittee opportunity to remedy the noncompliance. Actions may include suspension or cancellation 

of the permit or civil actions, as appropriate depending on if the problem is persistent or willful. The 

permittee will be billed for any excess use at the unauthorized use rate. The permittee is encouraged 

to monitor the Allotment continuously throughout the grazing season and coordinate with the Forest 

Officer to resolve any problems that arise in a timely manner. 

Effectiveness Monitoring

The objective of effectiveness monitoring is to evaluate the degree and rate at which prescribed 

management practices are meeting Allotment objectives. If properly implemented practices are not 

effective in achieving Desired Conditions, they will be changed as necessary. Key Areas will receive 

effectiveness monitoring on the Bell Meadow Allotment. Range conditions and trend at specified key 

areas are assumed to be indicative of responses to management practices throughout the entire 

Allotment. 

Effectiveness monitoring includes, but is not limited to, the following: 

Meadow Ecological Status

Ecological Status of meadow vegetation will be determined in key areas using the Rooted Frequency 

Vegetation Sampling method. The Rooted Frequency protocol was developed and refined as part of 

an overall Regional rangeland monitoring program. The purpose of the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Region 5 Range Monitoring Project was to establish permanent 

plots on key range sites across National Forest lands in Region 5 (California) in order to provide longterm monitoring of range condition. Established sites are generally located at Allotment key areas and 

are read every 5 years. This monitoring provides an ecological classification (vegetative, soils, and 

hydrologic) and quantitative condition scorecard for each meadow.
Appendix H Stanislaus 

Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan National Forest

314

Special Aquatic Features

Special Aquatic Features (springs, seeps and fens) will be re-visited every 3-5 years. If cattle use is 

apparent, PFC methodology will be used to assess the condition of the feature. Monitoring may occur 

at any of the following known special aquatic features, or other features that are found during project 

implementation. Monitoring of special aquatic features will focus on determining PFC and trend and 

will prioritize the most at-risk special aquatic features. Soil ground cover measurements and 

photographs may also be used. 

Meadow Hydrologic Function

In meadows where hydrologic function is already impaired, monitoring will determine whether 

livestock impacts are causing continued degradation of the hydrologic function of the meadows. 

Where headcuts, knick points and/or small gullies were identified during project analysis, a qualified 

hydrologist will monitor the headcuts, knick points and/or small gullies to ensure that meadow 

hydrologic function is not compromised as a result of grazing 

Best Management Practices Evaluation Program

BMPEP monitoring will be used to verify that BMPs are implemented and to evaluate the 

effectiveness of BMPs in protecting water quality. The Best Management Practices Effectiveness 

Program (BMPEP) is long-term monitoring that is conducted on key areas chosen at random from a 

sample pool. The USFS Region 5 grazing BMPEP protocol records herbaceous and woody utilization 

levels, streambank disturbance, ground cover, bank angle, riparian and upslope erosion, and riparian 

vegetation and seral condition information. 

Permittee Monitoring

The permittee is responsible for ensuring that forage use is at or below the allowed levels and that 

standards and guidelines as listed in the Term Grazing Permit, Part 3 are met. The permittee is 

encouraged to participate in monitoring of the Allotment. At a minimum, the permittee will be invited 

to learn and participate in range monitoring activities performed by the Forest and District Range 

Staff.

Since meeting the standards and guidelines are a permittee responsibility, it is highly recommended 

that the permittee enter into a formal Partnership Agreement to conduct range monitoring. Standard 

protocols and instruction on their use will be provided. It is recommended that the Forest Service and 

the permittee work together to conduct formal mid and post season monitoring for permanent 

monitoring sites as listed in the Term Grazing Permit. The permittee is encouraged to maintain 

written documentation of monitoring conducted by him/her, and to share this information with the 

Forest Officer on a timely basis. Written results of any permittee performed monitoring and 

measurements should be provided to the District within 30 days of the end of the grazing season. 

Evaluation

Data collected from both implementation and effectiveness monitoring will be used to evaluate 

management effectiveness and progress toward achieving desired conditions. Adaptive management 

will be used to set forage utilization standards based on vegetation condition; adjust management; 

and/or adjust livestock use levels or season of use. 

The following criteria will be used as indicators that adaptive management adjustments are needed: 

 Forage utilization and stubble height standards are not met on Key Areas and other areas of the 

Allotment.

 Meadow Ecological Status is determined to be moving in a downward trend. 

 Livestock browse exceeds 20 percent of the annual leader growth of mature riparian shrubs and 

seedlings. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix H 

Environmental Impact Statement Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan

315

 Livestock browse exceeds 20 percent of annual growth of hardwood seedlings and advanced 

regeneration. 

 Livestock disturbance to streambanks and natural lake and pond shorelines exceeds 20 percent of 

stream reach or 20 percent of natural lake and pond shorelines. Disturbance includes bank 

sloughing, chiseling, trampling, and other means of exposing bare soil or cutting plant roots. 

 Special Aquatic Features are rated is Functional-at-Risk with a downward trend or NonFunctional. 

 Livestock presence outside Allotment boundaries, in Bell Meadow RNA, in developed recreation 

sites or in the Dodge Ridge Ski Area becomes problematic. 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Adaptive management refers to the concept of allowing decisions, which are focused on desired 

outcomes, to be made with the best information available and to be adjusted during implementation to 

achieve desired conditions. Decision-making is expected to proceed using the best information 

available. Monitoring and evaluation are used to assess the effects of those decisions and to identify 

new information that may become available. Decisions are adapted, as needed, to respond to new

information. 

Data collected from both implementation and effectiveness monitoring will be used to evaluate 

management effectiveness and progress toward achieving desired conditions. Adaptive management 

actions will be used to achieve management objectives when monitoring indicates that adjustments 

are necessary in order to achieve defined desired conditions. 

Management actions will be applied through the Annual Operating Instructions issued for the Bell 

Meadow Allotment. These possible management actions are designed to be used alone or in 

combinations in order to achieve management objectives.

 Adjust stocking rate (number of cow/calf pairs)

 Adjust grazing season (livestock turn-on and removal dates) 

 Use of salt or supplement to draw livestock toward or away from specific areas

 Incorporate a range rider to move livestock from riparian areas (herding)

 Incorporate use of herding dogs to move livestock from riparian areas 

 Rest from livestock grazing for one or more seasons

 Construct temporary electric fence to control livestock distribution patterns

 Construct permanent fence to control livestock distribution patterns 

 Implement a high-intensity/short duration grazing system (by riding, herding, temp. fence, etc.) 

Permittee and agency flexibility during adaptive management implementation will be needed. 

Flexibility is provided to adjust livestock grazing practices in response to unpredictable management 

situations caused by weather fluctuations (e.g., drought), livestock behavior, unexpected monitoring 

results or acts of nature such as wildfires. Adaptive actions would be constrained by Forest Plan 

direction, current Allotment NEPA decisions, regulations, policy and Term Grazing Permit terms and 

conditions. 

In keeping with the adaptive management concept, Forest Plan Direction utilization standards would 

be adjusted if monitoring and evaluation determines that the current standards do not continue to meet 

or move towards attaining Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. 

Continued monitoring of forage utilization in key use areas and of riparian and upland condition and 

trend as described in the Forest Plan will be used to determine if the grazing program continues to 

achieve desired future conditions and Forest Plan objectives for vegetation management. If 

monitoring shows that livestock grazing is not meeting or moving towards desired conditions, 

adaptive management would make it possible for management to review and correct the problems as 

described above. If monitoring shows that livestock grazing is meeting desired conditions, adaptive 
Appendix H Stanislaus 

Bell Meadow Allotment Management Plan National Forest

316

management could allow for greater grazing flexibility through the Annual Operating Instruction 

process (reasonable adjustment in season of use, numbers, etc.).

MODIFICATION OF ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN

This AMP provides management direction for the Bell Meadow Allotment. The direction in this 

AMP may be modified as appropriate based on the results of both annual and long term monitoring. 

As long as these modifications are consistent with the BEH Rangeland Allotments Record of 

Decision and the associated NEPA analysis, additional NEPA analyses may not be needed (FSH 

1909.15, Section 18). Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) will be used to direct annual 

implementation of this AMP. AOIs may include variations in direction from this AMP for short term 

situations including drought, seasonal climatic variations, wild fire, insect or disease outbreaks, 

changes in base ranch operations, results from the previous year monitoring, etc. Where these 

situations are short term in nature, they will be dealt with through the AOI only. If these situations 

warrant long term changes, the AMP will be modified as appropriate following analysis and 

documentation. 

MAP

Figure H.01-1 Bell Meadow Allotment Map
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix I 

Environmental Impact Statement Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan

317

I. Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan

INTRODUCTION

Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 221.1 and 222.2) allow Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) to 

be included in grazing permits consistent with the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLMPA), 

as amended by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA). An AMP is defined in FLPMA as a 

document outlining a specific program of action for livestock management. Included in the AMP is 

the authorized number of livestock and season of use, selected grazing strategy and range 

improvement plan and all other management objectives identified as a result of the environmental 

analysis process.

The Eagle Meadow AMP outlines the management decisions of the BEH Rangeland Allotments

EISand documented in the Record of Decision (ROD) signed by the Responsible Official, the Forest 

Supervisor, on DATE, YEAR. The decision authorizes continued livestock grazing on the Bell 

Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek Allotments. This Allotment Management Plan is 

intended to guide on-the-ground management of the Eagle Meadow Allotment for the next 10 or more 

years. Additional analysis is not required to implement this management plan. This plan may be 

modified as part of the adaptive management strategy, as long as modifications are consistent with the 

decision and with applicable management direction. 

The BEH Rangeland Allotments Record of Decision prescribes implementation of specific design 

criteria, including an Adaptive Management Strategy (AMS) that would be implemented to achieve 

defined desired conditions through ongoing monitoring and adjustments to livestock management, as 

necessary to implement management direction and to continue improving resource conditions on this 

Allotment.

Allotment Location and Description

The Eagle Meadow Allotment is located on the Summit Ranger District in Tuolumne County, 

California (Figure I.01-1). It is bounded on the west and north by Highway 108 and the Middle Fork 

Stanislaus River; on the east by Kennedy Meadows and Relief Reservoir; and, on the south by Eagle 

Pass. The location is generally described as Townships 5 and 6 North and Ranges 19 and 20 East. The 

Allotment ranges in elevation from about 6400 to 9900 feet. Annual precipitation averages 50 to 65 

inches. The Eagle Meadow Allotment encompasses about 25070 acres, about 870 acres of which are 

National Forest System (NFS) lands.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Goals and Objectives for the Eagle Meadow Allotments are based on current Forest Plan Direction, 

which presents management direction from original Forest Plan as modified through the Forest Plan 

appeals and amendment processes (USDA 2010). Goals and objectives are also based on the 

management decisions of the BEH Rangeland Allotments EISas documented in the Record of 

Decision signed by the Responsible Official, the Forest Supervisor, on DATE, YEAR. The decision is 

intended to guide on-the-ground management of the Eagle Meadow Allotment for the next 10 or more 

years. The goals and objectives of this Allotment Management Plan are:

1. To meet multiple-use objectives by allowing continued livestock grazing on forage-producing 

National Forest System lands in this Allotment.

2. To ensure consistency with all applicable management direction, including Forest Plan 

objectives, standards and guidelines. 
Appendix I Stanislaus

Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan National Forest

318

3. To move resource conditions toward desired conditions. Gaps between existing conditions and 

desired conditions indicate a need to change grazing management by updating AMPs.

4. To implement an adaptive management strategy that will allow decisions to be made with the best 

information available and will adjust management during implementation to achieve desired 

conditions in a manner that is timely and consistent with Forest Plan Direction. 

Stanislaus National Forest Goal for Range

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

quality, wildlife, fisheries and riparian zones. 

Desired Conditions

Desired conditions are land or resource conditions expected to result if planning goals and objectives 

are fully achieved. The following desired conditions were identified during planning for the BEH 

Rangeland Allotments project and are consistent with Stanislaus National Forest Management 

Direction. 

Aspen Regeneration

A diversity of age classes of hardwood shrubs is present and regeneration is occurring.

Meadow Hydrologic Function

Meadows are hydrologically functional: streams have floodplain connectivity to dissipate high flow 

energy, stream morphology is suitable for optimizing ground water retention, and the water table 

supports desired plant species composition and structural diversity. 

Yosemite toad Populations

Provide habitat for diverse and viable populations of all native and desired non-native species.

Great Gray Owl

Meadow vegetation in great grey owl PACs supports a sufficiently large meadow vole population to 

provide a food source for GGO through the reproductive period. 

Ecological Status of Meadows

Species composition and structural diversity of plant and animal communities in riparian areas, 

wetlands, and meadows provide desired habitat conditions and ecological functions.

Special Aquatic Features

Maintain and restore the distribution and health of biotic communities in special aquatic habitats 

(springs, seeps, vernal pools, fens, bogs, and marshes) to perpetuate their unique functions and 

biological diversity.

Water Quality

Water quality meets the goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act; it is fishable, 

swimmable, and suitable for drinking after normal treatment.

Developed and Dispersed Recreation

Minimize conflicts between recreational users and grazing operations. 

Wilderness Character

Minimize conflicts between recreational users and grazing operations.

Sensitive and Watchlist Plants

Provide for protection and habitat needs of sensitive plants and watchlist species, so that Forest 

activities will not jeopardize their continued existence.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix I 

Environmental Impact Statement Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan

319

Invasive Weeds

Manage weeds using an integrated weed management approach.

Need for Change

Following is a description of resources and locations where a wherever existing conditions do not 

meet desired conditions as specified in the Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010):

Aspen Regeneration

Locations: Barn Meadow, Eagle Meadow and Niagara Creek

Need for Change: Protect aspen regeneration by ensuring Forest Plan standards and guidelines are 

met. Additional monitoring of aspen populations will facilitate better understanding of timing and 

patterns of livestock/wildlife aspen browse.

Meadow Hydrologic Function

Locations: East Eagle Meadow, Long Valley, Lower Eagle Meadow, Red Rock Meadow and Shell 

Meadow.

Need for Change: For meadows/areas that are hydrologically functional, ensure that grazing is not 

causing new headcuts, causing accelerated advancement of headcuts and/or contributing to bank 

instability or channel incision. Monitor identified headcuts, knick points and small gullies and report 

any changes to district hydrologist. Ensure standards for streambank disturbance are not exceeded.

Yosemite toad Populations

Locations: Shell Meadow and other small meadows in the vicinity of Shell Meadow. 

Need for Change: Implement standards and guidelines for the protection of Yosemite toad and its 

habitat. Ensure consistency with management direction using site-specific measures for conservation 

of Yosemite toad.

Great Gray Owl

Locations: Lower Eagle Meadow. 

Need for Change: Implement standards and guidelines for Great Gray Owl. Replace temporary fence 

at Lower Eagle Meadow with permanent fence.

Ecological Status of Meadows

Locations: Red Rock Meadow

Need for Change: Increase abundance of late-seral species in meadow. Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines are designed to maintain meadows in satisfactory condition and improve condition of 

meadows where unsatisfactory.

Special Aquatic Features

Locations: Springs, seeps, and fens located throughout Allotment. 

Need for Change: Reduce impacts of livestock to Special Aquatic Features by improving livestock 

distribution and minimizing time spent near Special Aquatic features. Update AMPs to incorporate 

and implement an adaptive strategy to improve the condition of Special Aquatic Features that are 

Functioning At-Risk

Water Quality

Locations: All streams, lakes and rivers

Need for Change: Implement grazing BMPs to protect water quality. Implement adaptive 

management actions if necessary to protect water quality.
Appendix I Stanislaus

Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan National Forest

320

Developed and Dispersed Recreation

Locations: dispersed camping areas near Barn Meadow.

Need for Change: Herd livestock away from developed recreation areas and high-use dispersed 

camping areas. Use adaptive management actions (fencing) if needed to prevent livestock drift into

developed recreation areas.

Invasive Weeds

Locations: Eagle Meadow Gathering Pasture and throughout Allotment

Need for Change: Forest Service encourages use of certified weed free hay and straw for all pack and 

saddle stock used by the permittee.

MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS

Standards and Guidelines

Livestock will be removed from an area when any standard or guideline is reached or exceeded or by 

the scheduled off date, whichever occurs first. Where more than one standard is applicable to a given 

key area (example: forage utilization and streambank disturbance in a meadow with a sensitive stream 

reach), the standard reached first will dictate livestock removal. The following standards were 

developed by the Forest Service with the goal of achieving desired conditions, and are applicable to 

livestock grazing on this Allotment:

Stanislaus National Forest, Forest Plan Direction 2010, Range Standards and Guidelines

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

management, and structural and nonstructural improvements. 

 Develop range resources to their reasonably attainable potential and manage them on a sustained 

yield basis. Manage grazed lands to achieve a stable or upward vegetative trend, except in 

specified areas of transitory range. Use management strategies that protect the soil and vegetative 

resources and other resources in a cost effective manner. Consider all vegetation dependent uses 

when developing Allotment management plans. 

 Revise range Allotment management plans to be consistent with law, regulations, Executive 

Orders, Forest Service direction and Forest Standards and Guidelines, by 1997. Revise and 

develop Allotment management plans in consultation with all involved parties, including 

permittees, State or other agencies, and any other involved entities. 

 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 FSH 2209.21. Priority will be given to range improvement on Allotments with a 

high percentage of primary range land in unsatisfactory condition, or high conflicts between 

livestock grazing and other resources and uses.

 On Allotments where discontinuous grazing systems are not in effect, adjust permitted Animal 

Unit Months to achieve allowable use on the primary range. Transportation systems in established 

range Allotments will include fences and cattle guards where new roads open up natural livestock 

barriers. Reduce or eliminate livestock grazing from ranges in unsatisfactory range condition 

which cannot be improved through better management or treatment at the current level of 

grazing.

 Standards and Guidelines for Perennial Range. Includes meadows, perennial grassland, 

sagebrush, broadleaf and riparian vegetative types. When grazing management is extensive and is 

based on perennial range the following apply: 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix I 

Environmental Impact Statement Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan

321

 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. 

 Allowable uses limit the extent to which one or a group of key species may be grazed in key 

areas. The allowable use level must provide for sufficient herbage residue to ensure favorable 

plant vigor and soil protection on good and excellent condition range, or to contribute to 

improvement in lower condition range. Allowable use levels for specific areas will be set at or 

below these maximums to conform to local range condition, soil stability, or special 

circumstances. Allowable use levels will be detailed in the Allotment management plan for each 

Allotment. Pastures receiving periodic full growing season rest can have higher allowable use 

levels, as shown. If condition classes of vegetation and soil vary, use the lower class to establish 

the allowable level.

 Monitor ecological condition and trend using Regionally established methods and standards (R5 

FSH 2209.21) on a ten year schedule. 

Weed Free Hay

Encourage use of certified weed free hay and straw. Cooperate with other agencies and the public in 

developing a certification program for weed free hay and straw. Phase in the program as certified 

weed free hay and straw becomes available. This standard and guideline applies to pack and saddle 

stock used by the public, livestock permittees, outfitter guide permittees, and local, State, and Federal 

agencies.

Streambank Standards

Prevent disturbance to streambanks and natural lake and pond shorelines caused by resource activities 

(for example, livestock, off-highway vehicles, and dispersed recreation) from exceeding 20 percent of 

stream reach or 20 percent of natural lake and pond shorelines. Disturbance includes bank sloughing, 

chiseling, trampling, and other means of exposing bare soil or cutting plant roots. This standard does 

not apply to developed recreation sites; sites authorized under Special Use Permits and designated 

off-highway vehicle routes.

Special Aquatic Features

Assess the hydrologic function of meadow habitats and other special aquatic features during range 

management analysis. Ensure that characteristics of special features are, at a minimum, at Proper 

Functioning Condition, as defined in the appropriate Technical Reports (or their successor 

publications): (1) “Process for Assessing PFC” TR 1737-9 (1993), “PFC for Lotic Areas” USDI TR 

1737-15 (1998) or (2) “PFC for Lentic Riparian-Wetland Areas” USDI TR 1737-11 (1994). 

Fen Ecosystems

Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing activities that adversely affect hydrologic processes that 

maintain water flow, water quality, or water temperature critical to sustaining bog and fen ecosystems 

and plant species that depend on these ecosystems. During project analysis, survey, map, and develop 

measures to protect bogs and fens from such activities as trampling by livestock, pack stock, humans, 

and wheeled vehicles. Criteria for defining bogs and fens include, but are not limited to, presence of: 

(1) sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.), (2) mosses belonging to the genus Meessia, and (3) sundew 
Appendix I Stanislaus

Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan National Forest

322

(Drosera spp.) Complete initial plant inventories of bogs and fens within active grazing Allotments 

prior to re-issuing permit.

Meadow Utilization Standards

Under season-long grazing:

 For meadows in early seral status: limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to 30 

percent (or minimum 6-inch stubble height). 

 For meadows in late seral status: limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to a 

maximum of 40 percent (or minimum 4-inch stubble height). 

Meadow Ecological Status

Determine ecological status on all key areas monitored for grazing utilization prior to establishing 

utilization levels. Use Regional ecological scorecards and range plant list in regional range handbooks 

to determine ecological status. Analyze meadow ecological status every 3 to 5 years. If meadow 

ecological status is determined to be moving in a downward trend, modify or suspend grazing. 

Include ecological status data in a spatially explicit Geographical Information System database. 

Riparian Browse Standards

Limit browsing to no more than 20 percent of the annual leader growth of mature riparian shrubs and 

no more than 20 percent of individual seedlings. Remove livestock from any area of an Allotment 

when browsing indicates a change in livestock preference from grazing herbaceous vegetation to 

browsing woody riparian vegetation. 

Hardwood Regeneration

To protect hardwood regeneration in grazing Allotments, allow livestock browse on no more than 20 

percent of annual growth of hardwood seedlings and advanced regeneration. Modify grazing plans if 

hardwood regeneration and recruitment needs are not being met. 

Threatened and Endangered and Sensitive Species

Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species are known to exist on this Allotment. Sensitive species 

on this Allotment include Great Gray Owl and Willow Flycatcher. Habitat for Great Gray Owl occurs 

in Lower Eagle Meadow. Historically occupied Willow Flycatcher Habitat occurs in Long Valley. 

Species that have been Federally listed as threatened or endangered on this Allotment include 

Yosemite toad. Habitat for Yosemite toad occurs in Shell Meadow and in another small meadow in 

the vicinity of Shell Meadow. Meeting the following standards is a priority for protecting these 

species.

Great Gray Owl

In meadow areas of great gray owl Protected Activity Centers (PAC), maintain herbaceous vegetation 

at a height commensurate with site capability and habitat needs of prey species. 

Willow Flycatcher

For historically occupied willow flycatcher sites, assess willow flycatcher habitat suitability within 

the meadow. If habitat is degraded, develop restoration objectives and take appropriate actions (such 

as physical restoration of hydrological components, limiting or re-directing grazing activity, and so 

forth) to move the meadow toward desired conditions. Evaluate site condition of historically occupied 

willow flycatcher sites. Those sites that no longer contain standing water on June 1 and a deciduous 

shrub component and cannot be reasonably restored may be removed from the willow flycatcher site 

database. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix I 

Environmental Impact Statement Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan

323

Yosemite toad

Exclude livestock from standing water and saturated soils in wet meadows and associated streams and 

springs occupied by Yosemite toads or identified as “essential habitat” in the conservation assessment 

for the Yosemite toad during the breeding and rearing season (through metamorphosis). Wet meadow 

habitat for Yosemite toad is defined as relatively open meadows with low to moderate amounts of 

woody vegetation that have standing water on June 1 or for more than 2 weeks following snow melt. 

Specific breeding and rearing season dates will be determined locally. If physical exclusion of 

livestock is impractical, then exclude grazing from the entire meadow. Exclusions in this standard and 

guideline may be waived if an interdisciplinary team has developed a site-specific management plan 

to minimize impacts to Yosemite toad and its habitat by managing the movement of stock around wet 

areas. Such plans are to include a requirement for systematically monitoring a sample of occupied 

Yosemite toad sites within the meadow to: (1) assess habitat conditions and (2) assess Yosemite toad 

occupancy and population dynamics. Every 3 years from the date of the plan, evaluate monitoring 

data. Modify or suspend grazing if Yosemite toad conservation is not being accomplished. Plans must 

be approved by the authorized officer and incorporated into all Allotment plans and/or special use 

permits governing use within the occupied habitat. 

Other Applicable Management Requirements

Water Quality

Implement the following Pacific Southwest Region BMPs applicable to grazing: 

 Practice 8-1. Rangeland Management Planning: Use the Allotment Management Plan (AMP)

planning process to develop measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate and/or restore adverse impacts 

to water, aquatic and riparian resources during rangeland management activities.

 Practice 8-2. Rangeland Permit Administration: Manage rangeland vegetation and grazing to 

protect water, aquatic and riparian resources through administration and monitoring of Grazing 

Permits and Annual Operating Instructions (AOI). 

 Practice 8-3. Rangeland Improvements: Implement range improvements to protect, maintain or 

improve water, aquatic and riparian resources and associated beneficial uses.

Salting

Salt and supplemental feeds will be placed in lightly used areas and at least one quarter mile from 

riparian areas, other water sources, and livestock concentration points. 

Dead Livestock

As soon as possible, dead animals must be taken at least 100 feet from streams or lakes and out of 

sight of trails, roads, and campgrounds. 

Age of Calves

Forest Service regulations require that any calf over 6 months old at time of entry onto the Allotment 

count as and be billed as an adult. 

Private Lands

The permittees are responsible for keeping their livestock off private land unless they have 

permission of the landowner to graze. The Forest Service permit only applies to National Forest land 

and land waived to the Forest Service for grazing. 

Noxious and Invasive Weed Prevention

Forest Service encourages use of certified weed free hay and straw for all pack and saddle stock used 

by the permittee.
Appendix I Stanislaus

Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan National Forest

324

Livestock Distribution and Move Dates

Livestock distribution and movements between units as established by this Allotment Management 

Plan are necessarily flexible. Actual moves will be determined, to the extent practical, by on-theground inspections. Livestock will be removed from specific areas when any standard or guideline is 

reached or exceeded on any of the key areas. Permittees are encouraged to maintain a current 

knowledge of the status of the key use areas with regard to allowable use standards and current use 

levels. 

Allotment/Pasture Exit

No livestock should be on the Allotment after the end of the authorized off date. Any remaining 

livestock on the forest more than five days after the end of the season, without range staff 

authorization, will be billed for excess use. The off-date may be modified due to range conditions 

with an agreement between the Forest Service and the permittee. Any extensions of the grazing 

season must be requested in writing at least 15 days in advance of the scheduled off-date, and are 

subject to inspections by Supervisor’s Office Range staff as well as District Ranger approval. If an 

emergency situation, beyond the permittee’s control, making it impossible to remove all livestock by 

the end of the permitted season, then the authorized Forest Officer will be contacted immediately. 

Areas Closed to Grazing

Livestock are not permitted within the permanent exclosure located in Lower Eagle Meadow, the 

fenced exclosure around the Bennett Juniper, and the fenced exclosure (deer habitat) located in 

Township 5N, Range 20E, Section 17. The Eagle Unit is also excluded from livestock grazing. 

Livestock are excluded from Shell Meadow (exclusion may be waived with annual approval). 

Livestock trespass into areas excluded from livestock grazing will be addressed promptly. Repeated 

livestock trespass will be addressed using the adaptive management process (reconstruct fence to 

ensure effective exclusion of livestock) or through regular permit administration. 

Riding and Herding

Riding and herding are needed to improve distribution of livestock throughout the grazing season. 

The permittee will ride the Allotment as necessary to keep all livestock within the appropriate grazing 

unit(s). 

Pack and Saddle Stock

Pack and saddle stock can be ridden anywhere on the Stanislaus National Forest. To protect the 

forest, users are encouraged to pack in (certified weed free) supplemental feed for their animals. Only 

tether horses to trees for short periods as hooves can cause damage to tree roots and plants. 

Motorized Travel Management and Off-Highway Vehicle Use Restrictions

The permittee may be authorized to use Off Highway vehicles (OHV) off designated routes, trails, or 

OHV use areas to conduct permitted activities. Permittee use of OHVs is subject to approval by the 

authorized officer. Restrictions apply, and permission for OHV use will be authorized annually in the 

AOI.

Heritage Resources

It is prohibited to disturb, collect, or in any way damage any known prehistoric, historic, or 

archaeological resource. New discoveries: If previously unidentified cultural resources are 

discovered, care shall be taken by the permittee and the Forest Service to ensure that such sites are not 

disturbed. The permittee shall notify the Forest Officer as soon as possible if a new site is found so 

that appropriate evaluation and mitigation measures can be made. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix I 

Environmental Impact Statement Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan

325

GRAZING SYSTEM

Permitted Livestock Numbers

Grazing of up to 150 cow/calf pairs (calves less than six months) is permitted on this allotment. The 

actual number of livestock will be allocated in Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs) each year, but 

will not exceed 599 Animal Unit Months (AUMs). Adjustments to annual authorized livestock 

numbers may occur during the grazing season, based on conditions, range inspections and/or 

monitoring results. Permitted livestock numbers will not be exceeded unless an adjustment in season 

occurs and overall AUMs (as calculated by the permitted numbers and season) are not exceeded. Up 

to 5 head of horses (18 AUMs) would also be authorized on each Allotment to be used for Allotment 

administration. 

Season of Use

Livestock will graze in the Eagle Meadow Allotment between the estimated on-date of July 1 and the 

estimated off-date of September 30. On dates are approximate and will be based on range readiness 

(plant phenology, soil moisture level, annual climate variation, or other site-specific constraints for 

each key area). The season of use may be administratively adjusted by allowing livestock to enter the 

Allotments as much as two weeks early and/or remain on the Allotment as much as two weeks past 

the permitted date, as long as all applicable standards are not exceeded. If livestock graze all 

authorized areas, reaching allowable use in each area prior to the “off date”, they will be moved off 

NFS lands early. If, however, livestock graze through available areas and reach the end of the grazing 

season prior to reaching allowable use, an extension may be authorized, providing other Forest Plan 

guidelines and objectives are met. An extended season of use would only be authorized if it has been 

determined through field inspections that soil, water, vegetative and other resource conditions are 

suitable. 

Grazing System

Eagle Meadow Allotment uses a deferred rotation grazing system with the option of using some of 

the units under a rest-rotation system. The cattle enter the Allotment around July 1 at the Niagara unit, 

depending on range readiness. The Niagara Unit is used first to facilitate deferred grazing in the 

higher elevation units. From the Niagara unit, cattle would be distributed through the Lower Eagle 

unit and remain there until allowable utilization standards are being approached and there is reduced 

risk of Larkspur poisoning in the other units. Cattle are then moved into the Sardine or Long Valley 

unit depending on the operating plan for the year. The Haypress unit is used in conjunction with the 

Sardine unit to improve livestock distribution on the east side of the Allotment. In years the Long 

Valley unit is grazed last, prior to gathering, the McCormick Pocket unit would be used for partial 

numbers in order to improve livestock distribution and to facilitate gathering into the Eagle Meadow 

unit. At the end of the season the cattle are gathered into the Eagle Meadow unit (gathering pasture) 

for up to two weeks and then trucked off the Allotment.

Livestock Distribution

Keep livestock distributed as evenly as possible throughout capable and suitable rangelands. Riding 

and herding is necessary to maintain the distribution pattern and prevent cattle from congregating or 

drifting off the Allotment. Herd cattle away from concentrated use areas and popular recreation areas. 

Cattle are excluded from developed recreation sites and from exclosures. Salting may be used in 

addition to herding to improve livestock distribution. Place salt in underutilized upland areas at least 

1⁄4 mile (about 1300 feet) from water. Disperse cattle away from riparian areas and special aquatic 

features as much as possible to minimize impacts to sensitive resources and water quality and to 

improve upland forage utilization. 
Appendix I Stanislaus

Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan National Forest

326

ANNUALOPERATING INSTRUCTIONS

Each year at the annual permittee meeting (or through correspondence if no meeting is held), the 

permittee(s) and the Forest Service will develop a set of Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) based 

on this Allotment Management Plan. The Annual Operating Instructions and permittee meetings are 

critical to successfully implementing the Allotment Management Plan. The AOI will provide annual 

instructions for the permittee to follow in order to implement all applicable management direction. 

The AOI will become an amendment to this AMP and as such, a part of the Term Grazing Permit. 

The AOI should include, at a minimum:

1. Authorized Use--the maximum permissible amount of grazing use, including numbers, class of 

livestock and season of use.

2. Grazing strategy--this is the planned grazing management schedule and may be modified during 

the grazing season depending on conditions. Changes can be made as long as the objectives will 

still be met. Changes in the original grazing strategy must be agreed upon by both the permittee 

and the FS or the FS must be notified before implementing any change. Any deviation in the 

grazing strategy must follow the prescriptions and meet the objectives in the plan.

3. Range Improvement Responsibilities--this includes a list of any improvements to be constructed 

or reconstructed during that grazing season. All improvements the permittee has responsibility for 

must be annually maintained. 

4. Planned Monitoring--identify the key areas to be watched and go over the standards to be

monitored. Monitoring needs to be done often enough to predict movement dates. 

5. Additional instructions--may include travel restrictions, upcoming projects or other miscellaneous 

business.

6. Annual Reporting by the Permittee--a form for annual reporting will be included with the AOI. 

The permittee will complete the form to the best of his/her ability and return it to the Forest 

Service. Information to be provided annually should include actual livestock numbers grazed, 

time of grazing livestock, distribution, range improvement condition, and maintenance activities 

conducted. 

RANGELAND IMPROVEMENTS

Existing range improvements, maintenance responsibilities, and maintenance standards are listed in 

Part 3 of the Term Grazing Permit for this Allotment and are included here for consistency. All 

existing improvements shall be maintained and operable to Forest Service standards. All new 

improvements shall be constructed according to Regional standards. Refer to FSH 2209.22 R5 and 

the 1988 USDA publication "Fences" for the standards.

Existing Improvements

Table I.01-1 Existing Improvements on the Eagle Meadow Allotment

ID Description of Range Improvement Location

7151A Niagara Allotment Boundary Fence T6N, R19E, Section 32; T5N, R19E, Sections 5 and 8

7151B Niagara-Eagle Division Fence T5N, R19E, Sections 2 and 35

7151D Eagle Meadow Pasture Fence T5N, R19E, Sections 13 and 24

7151DD Long Valley Drift Fence T5N, R20E, Sections 7 and 8

7151E Long Valley Creek Division Fence T5N, R20E, Sections 17 and 18

7151F Sardine Division Fence T5N, R20E, Sections 4 and 5

7151G Haypress Allotment Boundary Fence T5N, R20E, Sections 4 and 9

7151H Enclosure Fence T5N, R20E, Section 17

7151HH Allot. Div. Fence E of Martin’s Cow Camp T5N, R20E, Sections 7, 8, and 18

7151K Enclosure Fence – Private Land T5N, R20E, Section 17

7151L Fence at Lower Eagle Meadow T5N, R19E, Section 12
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix I 

Environmental Impact Statement Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan

327

ID Description of Range Improvement Location

7151FF First Cattleguard on Road 5N01 T5N, R19E, Section 13

7151GG Second Cattleguard on Road 5N01 T5N, R19E, Section 13

7151I Cattleguard at 5N04 T6N, R19E, Section 32

7151J Cattleguard at Sardine Meadow T5N, R20E, Section 5

7934A Cabin at Martin’s Cow Camp T5N, R19E, Section 13

7934B New Corral at Crossroads (5N01 and 5N13Y) T5N, R19E, Section 5

7934C Barn at Martin’s Cow Camp T5N, R19E, Section 13

Planned Improvements

New range improvements are planned on the Eagle Meadow Allotment and are necessary for 

implementation of the BEH Rangeland Allotments decision. A new boundary fence will be 

constructed on the western edge of the Niagara addition area to keep livestock away from Highway 

108. The temporary exclosure fencing at Lower Eagle Meadow will be replaced with permanent 

fencing. Existing abandoned fences in McCormick Pocket will be rebuilt as needed. A cattleguard 

will be installed on Forest Service road 5N01 at the edge of the Niagara Creek addition. The 

temporary electric fence exclosure at Shell Meadow will be replaced with standard barbed wire fence. 

A water trough will be installed in the Lower Eagle Unit near Indian Rock. A corral will be 

constructed at Forest Service Road 5N01 near 5N13Y. 

Maintenance Responsibilities and Standards

The permittee is responsible for maintaining all assigned improvements before cattle are turned out 

and throughout the grazing season, so that each improvement is fully functioning and in good repair. 

If serious or repeated problems occur with an improvement, contact the District Range Technician 

and work cooperatively to find a long-term solution. The permittee is responsible for checking with 

adjoining permittees to find out when the livestock will come on. A permittee taking non-use is still 

responsible for maintaining the assigned Allotment boundary fences. 

Fence Maintenance Standards

 All broken wires will be spliced and repaired in such a manner that tension can be maintained.

 Broken or rotten posts, jacks, poles, braces, and staples will be replaced on an annual basis to 

maintain the fence for its intended purpose. Wires will be re-stretched when needed.

 The top wire on all post and wire fences will be kept at 42 inches and the bottom wire at 18 

inches if constructed to that standard. 

 All gates should be closed when livestock enter the grazing units and opened and tied back when 

cattle have left the unit or Allotment.

 Wire gate tension should be sufficient to prevent the gate from sagging and still be easily opened 

and closed. Gate loops will be made of smooth wire and not barbed wire. Gate loop closers 

should be used whenever possible. 

 Trees that have fallen on fences will be cut out and removed as needed. Loose or broken wire or 

poles will be repaired or replaced. 

 Corrals will be kept clean of litter, in good repair and in usable condition. 

 Tighten or replace wire on gateposts and braces as needed.

Water Development Maintenance Standards

 Maintain spring source exclosures by insuring livestock accessibility is prevented through 

replacement or shoring up of jacks, poles, wires, staples, or other materials as necessary.

 Headbox lids/covers shall be in place throughout the season to prevent dirt, rodents, or other 

refuse from getting into the headbox. 

 All outlets, pipes and valves from the headbox shall be functioning and all leakage shall be kept 

to a minimum.

 All headboxes shall be checked and cleared of mud and other materials.
Appendix I Stanislaus

Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan National Forest

328

 Water troughs will be kept at heights that allow easy access by livestock. Troughs that have been 

elevated by trampling should be periodically backfilled or reset to a useable height. 

 Water should not be allowed to overflow the sides of the troughs. Overflow pipes must be 

checked and kept functioning properly. 

 Troughs that become uneven due to settling will be leveled and reset.

 Inlet/outlet pipes will be protected from livestock with line poles or posts. These will be checked 

to ensure effective protection.

 Troughs, storage tanks and pipelines will be drained annually to prevent moss and debris buildup 

and prevent damage from freezing.

 Poles, posts and trough framing material used in the construction of water development will be 

maintained or repaired as needed.

 Pipeline leaks will be repaired or the damaged sections replaced with materials similar to the 

original construction materials. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The Monitoring Plan for the BEH Rangeland Allotments decision is a part of this Allotment 

Management Plan and will be used to guide monitoring and evaluation on the Eagle Meadow 

Allotment. Three types of monitoring will be conducted on this Allotment. Implementation (Annual) 

Monitoring will be used to monitor implementation of the provisions of the Term Grazing Permit, 

including compliance with the Annual Operating Instructions. Effectiveness (Long-term) Monitoring 

tracks changes in vegetative conditions in response to livestock use and management. Permittee 

monitoring will ensure that standards and guidelines as listed in the Term Grazing Permit, Part 3 are 

met. Evaluation of monitoring data will determine if adaptive management adjustments are needed.

Monitoring Objectives

Specific objectives for monitoring on the Eagle Meadow Allotment are: 

1. To determine compliance with the Term Grazing Permit and Annual Operating Instructions. 

2. To evaluate the implementation of management practices to insure movement from the Existing 

Conditions towards achievement of Desired Conditions, and use Adaptive Management to adjust 

livestock management strategies as necessary to meet Desired Condition.

3. To evaluate the degree and rate at which prescribed management practices are meeting Allotment 

objectives. If properly implemented practices are not effective in achieving Desired Conditions, 

they will be changed as necessary.

4. To demonstrate to all interested parties and partners that implementation of the Allotment 

Management Plan is effective in achieving multiple use management and is sound resource 

management of Forest Service lands.

Allotment Key Areas and Monitoring Priorities

Key Areas for the Eagle Meadow Allotment are shown in Table I.01-2. Key areas will remain 

constant for the duration of this AMP unless changed after consultation, coordination and cooperation 

with the permittee and other interested parties. Monitoring priorities are indicated by the label 

“key”and other potential monitoring is indicated by an “X”. Monitoring priorities were determined 

based on discrepancies between existing resource conditions and desired conditions on this 

Allotment. Additional monitoring may occur, as needed. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix I 

Environmental Impact Statement Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan

329

Table I.01-2 Monitoring locations and methods for Eagle Meadow Allotment

Location Aspen 

Browse

Forage 

Utilization

Meadow 

Hydrologic 

Function

Meadow 

Ecological 

Status

Riparian 

Standards 

(MIM)

Special 

Aquatic 

Feature(s)

TES 

Species

Barn Meadow (Key Area) Key Key X Key X

Eagle Meadow Key X Key X X Key

Long Valley (Key Area) X Key Key X X

Lower Eagle Meadow Key Key X Key

McCormick Pocket X X X X

Meadow at T1N, R6E, Sec. 35 X X X

Niagara Addition Area X X X

Niagara Creek X X

Northwest Allotment X X

Red Rock Meadow (Key Area) X Key X Key

Sardine meadow X X

Shell Meadow X X X

Implementation Monitoring

Range Readiness

Range readiness is based on plant phenology, soil moisture level, annual climate variation, or other 

site-specific constraints for each key area. Readiness inspections may occur at Allotment key areas, 

but may also be determined at other locations with similar elevation, soil moisture, geomorphology 

and key species phenology. The range will be considered ready for grazing when soil is dry and firm 

enough to prevent compaction and displacement, and when the following vegetation development is 

achieved:

Table I.01-3 Range Readiness Indicators for Eagle Meadow Allotment

Readiness Indicator Species: Growth stage:

Carex integra, smooth beak sedge when flowers mostly open, stamens showing

Veratrum californicum, corn lily when average height reaches 24 inches

Achillea millefolium, western yarrow when average height reaches 4 inches

Forage Utilization Standards

Implementation of utilization standards monitoring will focus on key areas, but may occur in other 

locations within the Allotment as need dictates. Herbaceous utilization in key areas will be measured 

using one of the following methods: the Height Weight Curve method on key species, the Stubble 

Height method, and/or Landscape Appearance method. Repeated photographs may also be used. 

Riparian Conservation Standards

Implementation of Riparian Conservation Standards will focus on sensitive stream reaches on this 

Allotment. Riparian Stubble Height, Streambank Alteration, and Streamside Browse Utilization will 

be determined using the Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) method on streambanks accessible to 

cattle.

Aspen Browse Standards

Monitoring of aspen browse will occur in identified aspen stands on this Allotment. Effort will be 

made to monitor aspen browse prior to livestock entry on the Allotment to determine baseline browse 

levels. Hardwood browse in aspen stands will be measured using monitored at defined intervals using 

specified aspen browse protocol(s). 
Appendix I Stanislaus

Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan National Forest

330

Compliance Monitoring

Permit administration by the Forest Service includes compliance monitoring. Items to be monitored 

as part of implementation monitoring may include, but are not limited to the following: 

 Livestock counts

 Actual livestock use and movements (from permittees records).

 Improvement inspections to insure that maintenance is completed to standard and on time. 

 Compliance with the Annual Operating Instructions. 

 Determination of any unauthorized use. 

 Livestock presence outside Allotment boundaries, in exclosures, in developed recreation sites or 

in other exclusion areas. 

Permit Non-Compliance

If permit non-compliance occurs, corrective action will be taken according to the Regional Forester's 

Grazing Permit Administration, Suspension & Cancellation Guidelines (R5 FSM 2231.62, 2002). The 

intent is to provide a consistent and fair approach for permit administration actions which provide the 

permittee opportunity to remedy the noncompliance. Actions may include suspension or cancellation 

of the permit or civil actions, as appropriate depending on if the problem is persistent or willful. The 

permittee will be billed for any excess use at the unauthorized use rate. The permittee is encouraged 

to monitor the Allotment continuously throughout the grazing season and coordinate with the Forest 

Officer to resolve any problems that arise in a timely manner. 

Effectiveness Monitoring

The objective of effectiveness monitoring is to evaluate the degree and rate at which prescribed 

management practices are meeting Allotment objectives. If properly implemented practices are not 

effective in achieving Desired Conditions, they will be changed as necessary. Key Areas will receive 

effectiveness monitoring on the Eagle Meadow Allotment. Range conditions and trend at specified

key areas are assumed to be indicative of responses to management practices throughout the entire 

Allotment. 

Effectiveness monitoring includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Meadow Ecological Status

Ecological Status of meadow vegetation will be determined in key areas using the Rooted Frequency 

Vegetation Sampling method. The Rooted Frequency protocol was developed and refined as part of 

an overall Regional rangeland monitoring program. The purpose of the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Region 5 Range Monitoring Project was to establish permanent 

plots on key range sites across National Forest lands in Region 5 (California) in order to provide longterm monitoring of range condition. Established sites are generally located at Allotment key areas and 

are read every 5 years. This monitoring provides an ecological classification (vegetative, soils, and 

hydrologic) and quantitative condition scorecard for each meadow.

Special Aquatic Features

Special Aquatic Features (springs, seeps and fens) will be re-visited every 3-5 years. If cattle use is 

apparent, PFC methodology will be used to assess the condition of the feature. Monitoring may occur 

at any of the following known special aquatic features, or other features that are found during project 

implementation. Monitoring of special aquatic features will focus on determining PFC and trend and 

will prioritize the most at-risk special aquatic features. Soil ground cover measurements and 

photographs may also be used. 

Meadow Hydrologic Function

In meadows where hydrologic function is already impaired, monitoring will determine whether 

livestock impacts are causing continued degradation of the hydrologic function of the meadows. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix I 

Environmental Impact Statement Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan

331

Where headcuts, knick points and/or small gullies were identified during project analysis, a qualified 

hydrologist will monitor the headcuts, knick points and/or small gullies to ensure that meadow 

hydrologic function is not compromised as a result of grazing 

Best Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP)

BMPEP monitoring will be used to verify that BMPs are implemented and to evaluate the 

effectiveness of BMPs in protecting water quality. The Best Management Practices Effectiveness 

Program (BMPEP) is long-term monitoring that is conducted on key areas chosen at random from a 

sample pool. The USFS Region 5 grazing BMPEP protocol records herbaceous and woody utilization 

levels, streambank disturbance, ground cover, bank angle, riparian and upslope erosion, and riparian 

vegetation and seral condition information. 

Permittee Monitoring

The permittee is responsible for ensuring that forage use is at or below the allowed levels and that 

standards and guidelines as listed in the Term Grazing Permit, Part 3 are met. The permittee is 

encouraged to participate in monitoring of the Allotment. At a minimum, the permittee will be invited 

to learn and participate in range monitoring activities performed by the Forest and District Range 

Staff.

Since meeting the standards and guidelines are a permittee responsibility, it is highly recommended 

that the permittee enter into a formal Partnership Agreement to conduct range monitoring. Standard 

protocols and instruction on their use will be provided. It is recommended that the Forest Service and 

the permittee work together to conduct formal mid and post season monitoring for permanent 

monitoring sites as listed in the Term Grazing Permit. The permittee is encouraged to maintain 

written documentation of monitoring conducted by him/her, and to share this information with the 

Forest Officer on a timely basis. Written results of any permittee performed monitoring and 

measurements should be provided to the District within 30 days of the end of the grazing season.

Evaluation

Data collected from both implementation and effectiveness monitoring will be used to evaluate 

management effectiveness and progress toward achieving desired conditions. Adaptive management 

will be used to set forage utilization standards based on vegetation condition; adjust management; 

and/or adjust livestock use levels or season of use.

The following criteria will be used as indicators that adaptive management adjustments are needed: 

 Forage utilization and stubble height standards are not met on Key Areas and other areas of the 

Allotment.

 Meadow Ecological Status is determined to be moving in a downward trend. 

 Livestock browse exceeds 20 percent of the annual leader growth of mature riparian shrubs and 

seedlings. 

 Livestock browse exceeds 20 percent of annual growth of hardwood seedlings and advanced 

regeneration. 

 Livestock disturbance to streambanks and natural lake and pond shorelines exceeds 20 percent of 

stream reach or 20 percent of natural lake and pond shorelines. Disturbance includes bank 

sloughing, chiseling, trampling, and other means of exposing bare soil or cutting plant roots. 

 Special Aquatic Features are rated is Functional-at-Risk with a downward trend or NonFunctional. 

 Livestock presence outside Allotment boundaries, in livestock exclosures, in developed recreation 

sites or in other exclusion areas becomes problematic. 
Appendix I Stanislaus

Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan National Forest

332

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Adaptive management refers to the concept of allowing decisions, which are focused on desired 

outcomes, to be made with the best information available and to be adjusted during implementation to 

achieve desired conditions. Decision-making is expected to proceed using the best information 

available. Monitoring and evaluation are used to assess the effects of those decisions and to identify 

new information that may become available. Decisions are adapted, as needed, to respond to new 

information. 

Data collected from both implementation and effectiveness monitoring will be used to evaluate 

management effectiveness and progress toward achieving desired conditions. Adaptive management 

actions will be used to achieve management objectives when monitoring indicates that adjustments 

are necessary in order to achieve defined desired conditions. 

Management actions will be applied through the Annual Operating Instructions issued for the Eagle 

Meadow Allotment. These possible management actions are designed to be used alone or in 

combinations in order to achieve management objectives.

 Adjust stocking rate (number of cow/calf pairs)

 Adjust grazing season (livestock turn-on and removal dates) 

 Use of salt or supplement to draw livestock toward or away from specific areas

 Incorporate a range rider to move livestock from riparian areas (herding)

 Incorporate use of herding dogs to move livestock from riparian areas

 Rest from livestock grazing for one or more seasons

 Construct temporary electric fence to control livestock distribution patterns 

 Construct permanent fence to control livestock distribution patterns 

 Implement a high-intensity/short duration grazing system (by riding, herding, temp. fence, etc.) 

Permittee and agency flexibility during adaptive management implementation will be needed. 

Flexibility is provided to adjust livestock grazing practices in response to unpredictable management 

situations caused by weather fluctuations (e.g., drought), livestock behavior, unexpected monitoring 

results or acts of nature such as wildfires. Adaptive actions would be constrained by Forest Plan 

direction, current Allotment NEPA decisions, regulations, policy and Term Grazing Permit terms and 

conditions. 

In keeping with the adaptive management concept, Forest Plan Direction utilization standards would 

be adjusted if monitoring and evaluation determines that the current standards do not continue to meet 

or move towards attaining Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. 

Continued monitoring of forage utilization in key use areas and of riparian and upland condition and 

trend as described in the Forest Plan will be used to determine if the grazing program continues to 

achieve desired future conditions and Forest Plan objectives for vegetation management. If 

monitoring shows that livestock grazing is not meeting or moving towards desired conditions, 

adaptive management would make it possible for management to review and correct the problems as 

described above. If monitoring shows that livestock grazing is meeting desired conditions, adaptive 

management could allow for greater grazing flexibility through the Annual Operating Instruction 

process (reasonable adjustment in season of use, numbers, etc.).

MODIFICATION OF ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN

This AMP provides management direction for the Eagle Meadow Allotment. The direction in this 

AMP may be modified as appropriate based on the results of both annual and long term monitoring. 

As long as these modifications are consistent with the BEH Rangeland Allotments Record of 

Decision and the associated NEPA analysis, additional NEPA analyses may not be needed (FSH 

1909.15, Section 18). Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) will be used to direct annual 

implementation of this AMP. AOIs may include variations in direction from this AMP for short term 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix I 

Environmental Impact Statement Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan

333

situations including drought, seasonal climatic variations, wild fire, insect or disease outbreaks, 

changes in base ranch operations, results from the previous year monitoring, etc. Where these 

situations are short term in nature, they will be dealt with through the AOI only. If these situations 

warrant long term changes, the AMP will be modified as appropriate following analysis and 

documentation. 

MAP

Figure I.01-1 Eagle Meadow Allotment Map
Appendix I Stanislaus

Eagle Meadow Allotment Management Plan National Forest

334
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan

335

J. Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan

INTRODUCTION

Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 221.1 and 222.2) allow Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) to 

be included in grazing permits consistent with the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLMPA), 

as amended by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA). An AMP is defined in FLPMA as a 

document outlining a specific program of action for livestock management. Included in the AMP is 

the authorized number of livestock and season of use, selected grazing strategy and range 

improvement plan and all other management objectives identified as a result of the environmental 

analysis process.

The Herring Creek AMP outlines the management decisions of the BEH Rangeland Allotments

EISand documented in the Record of Decision (ROD) signed by the Responsible Official, the Forest 

Supervisor, on DATE, YEAR. The decision authorizes continued livestock grazing on the Bell 

Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek Allotments. This Allotment Management Plan is 

intended to guide on-the-ground management of the Herring Creek Allotment for the next 10 or more 

years. Additional analysis is not required to implement this management plan. This plan may be 

modified as part of the adaptive management strategy, as long as modifications are consistent with the 

decision and with applicable management direction. 

The BEH Rangeland Allotments Record of Decision prescribes implementation of specific design 

criteria, including an Adaptive Management Strategy (AMS) that would be implemented to achieve 

defined desired conditions through ongoing monitoring and adjustments to livestock management, as 

necessary to implement management direction and to continue improving resource conditions on this 

Allotment.

Allotment Location and Description

The Herring Creek Allotment is located on the Summit Ranger District in Tuolumne County, 

California (FigureJ.01-1). It is bounded on the west by Highway 108 and Leland Creek; on the north 

by Pikes Peak and Eagle Peak; on the east by Horse and Cow Meadow and McCormick Pocket; and 

on the south by the South Fork of the Stanislaus River. The location is generally described as 

Townships 4 and 5 North and Ranges 18 and 19 East. The Allotment ranges in elevation from about 

5700 to 9500 feet. Annual precipitation averages 50 - 60 inches. The Herring Creek Allotment 

encompasses about 18,150 acres, all of which are National Forest System (NFS) lands.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Goals and objectives for the Herring Creek Allotment are based on current Forest Plan Direction, 

which presents management direction from original Forest Plan as modified through the Forest Plan 

appeals and amendment processes (USDA 2010). Goals and objectives are also based on the 

management decisions of the BEH Rangeland Allotments EIS as documented in the Record of 

Decision signed by the Responsible Official, the Forest Supervisor, on DATE, YEAR. The decision is 

intended to guide on-the-ground management of the Herring Creek Allotment for the next 10 or more 

years. The goals and objectives of this Allotment Management Plan are:

1. To meet multiple-use objectives by allowing continued livestock grazing on forage-producing 

National Forest System lands in this Allotment.

2. To ensure consistency with all applicable management direction, including Forest Plan 

objectives, standards and guidelines. 

3. To move resource conditions toward desired conditions. Gaps between existing conditions and 

desired conditions indicate a need to change grazing management by updating AMPs. 
Appendix J Stanislaus

Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan National Forest

336

4. To implement an adaptive management strategy that will allow decisions to be made with the best 

information available and will adjust management during implementation to achieve desired 

conditions in a manner that is timely and consistent with Forest Plan Direction. 

Stanislaus National Forest Goal for Range

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

quality, wildlife, fisheries and riparian zones. 

Desired Conditions

Desired conditions are land or resource conditions expected to result if planning goals and objectives 

are fully achieved. The following desired conditions were identified during planning for the BEH 

Rangeland Allotments project and are consistent with Stanislaus National Forest Management 

Direction. 

Aspen Regeneration

A diversity of age classes of hardwood shrubs is present and regeneration is occurring.

Meadow Hydrologic Function

Meadows are hydrologically functional: streams have floodplain connectivity to dissipate high flow 

energy, stream morphology is suitable for optimizing ground water retention, and the water table 

supports desired plant species composition and structural diversity. 

Yosemite toad Populations

Provide habitat for diverse and viable populations of all native and desired non-native species.

Great Gray Owl

Meadow vegetation in great grey owl PACs supports a sufficiently large meadow vole population to 

provide a food source for GGO through the reproductive period. 

Ecological Status of Meadows 

Species composition and structural diversity of plant and animal communities in riparian areas, 

wetlands, and meadows provide desired habitat conditions and ecological functions. 

Special Aquatic Features

Maintain and restore the distribution and health of biotic communities in special aquatic habitats 

(springs, seeps, vernal pools, fens, bogs, and marshes) to perpetuate their unique functions and 

biological diversity.

Water Quality

Water quality meets the goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act; it is fishable, 

swimmable, and suitable for drinking after normal treatment.

Developed and Dispersed Recreation

Minimize conflicts between recreational users and grazing operations.

Wilderness Character

Minimize conflicts between recreational users and grazing operations. 

Sensitive and Watchlist Plants

Provide for protection and habitat needs of sensitive plants and watchlist species, so that Forest 

activities will not jeopardize their continued existence.

Invasive Weeds

Manage weeds using an integrated weed management approach.
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan

337

Need For Change

Following is a description of resources and locations where a wherever existing conditions do not 

meet desired conditions as specified in the Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010):

Aspen Regeneration

Locations: Bull Run, Fiddler’s Green, Hammill Canyon, and Punch Bowl 

Need for Change: Protect aspen regeneration by ensuring Forest Plan standards and guidelines are 

met. Additional monitoring of aspen populations will facilitate better understanding of timing and 

patterns of livestock/wildlife aspen browse.

Meadow Hydrologic Function

Locations: Bluff Meadow, Burt Reed Meadow, Castle Meadow, Coyote Meadow, Groundhog 

Meadow, Hammill Canyon, Upper Willow Meadow. 

Need for Change: For meadows/areas that are hydrologically functional, ensure that grazing is not 

causing new headcuts, causing accelerated advancement of headcuts and/or contributing to bank 

instability or channel incision. Monitor identified headcuts, knick points and small gullies and report 

any changes to district hydrologist. Ensure standards for streambank disturbance are not exceeded.

Ecological Status of Meadows

Locations: Hammill Canyon meadow (R5 monitoring location) 

Need for Change: Increase abundance of late-seral species in these meadows. Forest Plan standards 

and guidelines are designed to maintain meadows in satisfactory condition and improve condition of 

meadows where unsatisfactory.

Special Aquatic Features

Locations: Springs, seeps, and fens located throughout Allotment. 

Need for Change: Reduce impacts of livestock to Special Aquatic Features by improving livestock 

distribution and minimizing time spent near Special Aquatic features. Update AMPs to incorporate 

and implement an adaptive strategy to improve the condition of Special Aquatic Features that are 

Functioning At-Risk

Water Quality

Locations: All streams, lakes and rivers

Need for Change: Implement grazing BMPs to protect water quality. Implement adaptive 

management actions if necessary to protect water quality.

Developed and Dispersed Recreation

Locations: Developed Campgrounds near Herring Creek Reservoir

Need for Change: Herd livestock away from developed recreation areas and high-use dispersed 

camping areas. Use adaptive management actions (fencing) if needed to prevent livestock drift into 

developed recreation areas.

Sensitive and Watchlist Plants

Locations: Yuba Pass Willowherb (Epilobium howellii) occurrences located in middle three meadows 

and in small meadow at the top of Fiddler’s Green.

Need for Change: Minimize or avoid cattle trailing in small uppermost meadow at Fiddler’s Green.

Invasive Weeds

Locations: potential for introduction of invasive weeds throughout Allotment.
Appendix J Stanislaus

Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan National Forest

338

Need for Change: Forest Service encourages use of certified weed free hay and straw for all pack and 

saddle stock used by the permittee.

MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS

Standards and Guidelines

Livestock will be removed from an area when any standard or guideline is reached or exceeded or by 

the scheduled off date, whichever occurs first. Where more than one standard is applicable to a given 

key area (example: forage utilization and streambank disturbance in a meadow with a sensitive stream 

reach), the standard reached first will dictate livestock removal. The following standards were 

developed by the Forest Service with the goal of achieving desired conditions, and are applicable to 

livestock grazing on this Allotment:

Stanislaus National Forest, Forest Plan Direction 2010, Range Standards and Guidelines

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

management, and structural and nonstructural improvements. 

 Develop range resources to their reasonably attainable potential and manage them on a sustained 

yield basis. Manage grazed lands to achieve a stable or upward vegetative trend, except in 

specified areas of transitory range. Use management strategies that protect the soil and vegetative 

resources and other resources in a cost effective manner. Consider all vegetation dependent uses 

when developing Allotment management plans. 

 Revise range Allotment management plans to be consistent with law, regulations, Executive 

Orders, Forest Service direction and Forest Standards and Guidelines, by 1997. Revise and 

develop Allotment management plans in consultation with all involved parties, including 

permittees, State or other agencies, and any other involved entities.

 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 FSH 2209.21. Priority will be given to range improvement on Allotments with a 

high percentage of primary range land in unsatisfactory condition, or high conflicts between 

livestock grazing and other resources and uses.

 On Allotments where discontinuous grazing systems are not in effect, adjust permitted Animal 

Unit Months to achieve allowable use on the primary range. Transportation systems in established 

range Allotments will include fences and cattle guards where new roads open up natural livestock 

barriers. Reduce or eliminate livestock grazing from ranges in unsatisfactory range condition 

which cannot be improved through better management or treatment at the current level of 

grazing.

 Standards and Guidelines for Perennial Range. Includes meadows, perennial grassland, 

sagebrush, broadleaf and riparian vegetative types. When grazing management is extensive and is 

based on perennial range the following apply: 

 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. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan

339

 Allowable uses limit the extent to which one or a group of key species may be grazed in key 

areas. The allowable use level must provide for sufficient herbage residue to ensure favorable 

plant vigor and soil protection on good and excellent condition range, or to contribute to 

improvement in lower condition range. Allowable use levels for specific areas will be set at or 

below these maximums to conform to local range condition, soil stability, or special 

circumstances. Allowable use levels will be detailed in the Allotment management plan for each 

Allotment. Pastures receiving periodic full growing season rest can have higher allowable use 

levels, as shown. If condition classes of vegetation and soil vary, use the lower class to establish 

the allowable level.

 Monitor ecological condition and trend using Regionally established methods and standards (R5 

FSH 2209.21) on a ten year schedule. 

Weed Free Hay

Encourage use of certified weed free hay and straw. Cooperate with other agencies and the public in 

developing a certification program for weed free hay and straw. Phase in the program as certified 

weed free hay and straw becomes available. This standard and guideline applies to pack and saddle 

stock used by the public, livestock permittees, outfitter guide permittees, and local, State, and Federal 

agencies.

Streambank Standards

Prevent disturbance to streambanks and natural lake and pond shorelines caused by resource activities 

(for example, livestock, off-highway vehicles, and dispersed recreation) from exceeding 20 percent of 

stream reach or 20 percent of natural lake and pond shorelines. Disturbance includes bank sloughing, 

chiseling, trampling, and other means of exposing bare soil or cutting plant roots. This standard does 

not apply to developed recreation sites; sites authorized under Special Use Permits and designated 

off-highway vehicle routes.

Special Aquatic Features

Assess the hydrologic function of meadow habitats and other special aquatic features during range 

management analysis. Ensure that characteristics of special features are, at a minimum, at Proper 

Functioning Condition, as defined in the appropriate Technical Reports (or their successor 

publications): (1) “Process for Assessing PFC” TR 1737-9 (1993), “PFC for Lotic Areas” USDI TR 

1737-15 (1998) or (2) “PFC for Lentic Riparian-Wetland Areas” USDI TR 1737-11 (1994). 

Fen Ecosystems

Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing activities that adversely affect hydrologic processes that 

maintain water flow, water quality, or water temperature critical to sustaining bog and fen ecosystems 

and plant species that depend on these ecosystems. During project analysis, survey, map, and develop 

measures to protect bogs and fens from such activities as trampling by livestock, pack stock, humans, 

and wheeled vehicles. Criteria for defining bogs and fens include, but are not limited to, presence of: 

(1) sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.), (2) mosses belonging to the genus Meessia, and (3) sundew 

(Drosera spp.) Complete initial plant inventories of bogs and fens within active grazing Allotments 

prior to re-issuing permit. 

Meadow Utilization Standards

Under season-long grazing:

 For meadows in early seral status: limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to 30 

percent (or minimum 6-inch stubble height). 

 For meadows in late seral status: limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to a 

maximum of 40 percent (or minimum 4-inch stubble height). 
Appendix J Stanislaus

Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan National Forest

340

Meadow Ecological Status

Determine ecological status on all key areas monitored for grazing utilization prior to establishing 

utilization levels. Use Regional ecological scorecards and range plant list in regional range handbooks 

to determine ecological status. Analyze meadow ecological status every 3 to 5 years. If meadow 

ecological status is determined to be moving in a downward trend, modify or suspend grazing. 

Include ecological status data in a spatially explicit Geographical Information System database. 

Riparian Browse Standards

Limit browsing to no more than 20 percent of the annual leader growth of mature riparian shrubs and 

no more than 20 percent of individual seedlings. Remove livestock from any area of an Allotment 

when browsing indicates a change in livestock preference from grazing herbaceous vegetation to 

browsing woody riparian vegetation. 

Hardwood Regeneration

To protect hardwood regeneration in grazing Allotments, allow livestock browse on no more than 20 

percent of annual growth of hardwood seedlings and advanced regeneration. Modify grazing plans if 

hardwood regeneration and recruitment needs are not being met. 

Threatened and Endangered and Sensitive Species

Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species are known to exist on this Allotment. Sensitive species 

on this Allotment include Willow Flycatcher. Historically occupied Willow Flycatcher Habitat occurs 

in Willow Meadow. Species that are Federally listed as threatened or endangered on this Allotment 

include Yosemite toad (threatened) and Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog (endangered). Habitat for 

Yosemite toad occurs in Bluff Meadow, Castle Meadow, Bloomer Lake, Groundhog Meadow and 

Wire Corral. Habitat for Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog occurs in Willow Creek. Meeting the 

following standards is a priority for protecting these species.

Willow Flycatcher

For historically occupied willow flycatcher sites, assess willow flycatcher habitat suitability within 

the meadow. If habitat is degraded, develop restoration objectives and take appropriate actions (such 

as physical restoration of hydrological components, limiting or re-directing grazing activity, and so 

forth) to move the meadow toward desired conditions. Evaluate site condition of historically occupied 

willow flycatcher sites. Those sites that no longer contain standing water on June 1 and a deciduous 

shrub component and cannot be reasonably restored may be removed from the willow flycatcher site 

database. 

Yosemite toad

Exclude livestock from standing water and saturated soils in wet meadows and associated streams and 

springs occupied by Yosemite toads or identified as “essential habitat” in the conservation assessment 

for the Yosemite toad during the breeding and rearing season (through metamorphosis). Wet meadow 

habitat for Yosemite toad is defined as relatively open meadows with low to moderate amounts of 

woody vegetation that have standing water on June 1 or for more than 2 weeks following snow melt. 

Specific breeding and rearing season dates will be determined locally. If physical exclusion of 

livestock is impractical, then exclude grazing from the entire meadow. Exclusions in this standard and 

guideline may be waived if an interdisciplinary team has developed a site-specific management plan 

to minimize impacts to Yosemite toad and its habitat by managing the movement of stock around wet 

areas. Such plans are to include a requirement for systematically monitoring a sample of occupied 

Yosemite toad sites within the meadow to: (1) assess habitat conditions and (2) assess Yosemite toad 

occupancy and population dynamics. Every 3 years from the date of the plan, evaluate monitoring 

data. Modify or suspend grazing if Yosemite toad conservation is not being accomplished. Plans must 

be approved by the authorized officer and incorporated into all Allotment plans and/or special use 

permits governing use within the occupied habitat. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan

341

Other Applicable Management Requirements

Water Quality

Implement the following Pacific Southwest Region BMPs applicable to grazing: 

 Practice 8-1. Rangeland Management Planning: Use the Allotment Management Plan (AMP) 

planning process to develop measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate and/or restore adverse impacts 

to water, aquatic and riparian resources during rangeland management activities.

 Practice 8-2. Rangeland Permit Administration: Manage rangeland vegetation and grazing to 

protect water, aquatic and riparian resources through administration and monitoring of Grazing 

Permits and Annual Operating Instructions (AOI). 

 Practice 8-3. Rangeland Improvements: Implement range improvements to protect, maintain or 

improve water, aquatic and riparian resources and associated beneficial uses.

Salting

Salt and supplemental feeds will be placed in lightly used areas and at least one quarter mile from 

riparian areas, other water sources, and livestock concentration points. 

Dead Livestock

As soon as possible, dead animals must be taken at least 100 feet from streams or lakes and out of 

sight of trails, roads, and campgrounds. 

Age of Calves

Forest Service regulations require that any calf over 6 months old at time of entry onto the Allotment 

count as and be billed as an adult. 

Private Lands

The permittees are responsible for keeping their livestock off private land unless they have 

permission of the landowner to graze. The Forest Service permit only applies to National Forest land 

and land waived to the Forest Service for grazing. 

Noxious and Invasive Weed Prevention

Forest Service encourages use of certified weed free hay and straw for all pack and saddle stock used 

by the permittee.

Livestock Distribution and Move Dates

Livestock distribution and movements between units as established by this Allotment Management 

Plan are necessarily flexible. Actual moves will be determined, to the extent practical, by on-theground inspections. Livestock will be removed from specific areas when any standard or guideline is 

reached or exceeded on any of the key areas. Permittees are encouraged to maintain a current 

knowledge of the status of the key use areas with regard to allowable use standards and current use 

levels.

Allotment/Pasture Exit

No livestock should be on the Allotment after the end of the authorized off date. Any remaining 

livestock on the forest more than five days after the end of the season, without range staff 

authorization, will be billed for excess use. The off-date may be modified due to range conditions 

with an agreement between the Forest Service and the permittee. Any extensions of the grazing 

season must be requested in writing at least 15 days in advance of the scheduled off-date, and are 

subject to inspections by Supervisor’s Office Range staff as well as District Ranger approval. If an 

emergency situation, beyond the permittee’s control, making it impossible to remove all livestock by 

the end of the permitted season, then the authorized Forest Officer will be contacted immediately. 
Appendix J Stanislaus

Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan National Forest

342

Areas Closed to Grazing

The Three Meadows fenced area is excluded from livestock grazing. Livestock are also not permitted 

within the temporary aspen exclosures or in the gully restoration area exclosure located at Fiddler’s 

green. The exclosure fence at Fiddler’s Green will be removed when restoration work is complete and 

the site is able to support livestock grazing. Livestock trespass into areas excluded from livestock 

grazing will be addressed promptly. Repeated livestock trespass will be addressed using the adaptive 

management process (reconstruct fence to ensure effective exclusion of livestock) or through regular 

permit administration.

Riding and Herding

Riding and herding are needed to improve distribution of livestock throughout the grazing season. 

The permittee will ride the Allotment as necessary to keep all livestock within the appropriate grazing 

unit(s). 

Pack and Saddle Stock

Pack and saddle stock can be ridden anywhere on the Stanislaus National Forest. To protect the 

forest, users are encouraged to pack in (certified weed free) supplemental feed for their animals. Only 

tether horses to trees for short periods as hooves can cause damage to tree roots and plants. 

Motorized Travel Management and Off-Highway Vehicle Use Restrictions

The permittee may be authorized to use Off Highway vehicles (OHV) off designated routes, trails, or 

OHV use areas to conduct permitted activities. Permittee use of OHVs is subject to approval by the 

authorized officer. Restrictions apply, and permission for OHV use will be authorized annually in the 

AOI.

Heritage Resources

It is prohibited to disturb, collect, or in any way damage any known prehistoric, historic, or 

archaeological resource. New discoveries: If previously unidentified cultural resources are 

discovered, care shall be taken by the permittee and the Forest Service to ensure that such sites are not 

disturbed. The permittee shall notify the Forest Officer as soon as possible if a new site is found so 

that appropriate evaluation and mitigation measures can be made. 

GRAZING SYSTEM

Permitted Livestock Numbers

Grazing of up to 156 cow/calf pairs (calves less than six months) is permitted on this Allotment. The 

actual number of livestock will be allocated in Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs) each year, but 

will not exceed 623 Animal Unit Months (AUMs). Adjustments to annual authorized livestock 

numbers may occur during the grazing season, based on conditions, range inspections and/or 

monitoring results. Permitted livestock numbers will not be exceeded unless an adjustment in season 

occurs and overall AUMs (as calculated by the permitted numbers and season) are not exceeded. Up 

to 5 head of horses (18 AUMs) would also be authorized on each Allotment to be used for Allotment 

administration. 

Season of Use

Livestock will graze in the Herring Creek Allotment between the estimated on-date of July 1 and the 

estimated off-date of September 30. On dates are approximate and will be based on range readiness 

(plant phenology, soil moisture level, annual climate variation, or other site-specific constraints for 

each key area). The season of use may be administratively adjusted by allowing livestock to enter the 

Allotments as much as two weeks early and/or remain on the Allotment as much as two weeks past 

the permitted date, as long as all applicable standards are not exceeded. If livestock graze all 

authorized areas, reaching allowable use in each area prior to the “off date”, they will be moved off 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan

343

NFS lands early. If, however, livestock graze through available areas and reach the end of the grazing 

season prior to reaching allowable use, an extension may be authorized, providing other Forest Plan 

guidelines and objectives are met. An extended season of use would only be authorized if it has been 

determined through field inspections that soil, water, vegetative and other resource conditions are 

suitable. 

Grazing System

The Herring Creek Allotment is divided into 4 pastures and is operated under a deferred rotation 

grazing system. This is achieved through intensive herding and dispersal. Livestock enter the 

Allotment at Burt Reed meadow on or about July 1, depending on range readiness, and from there are 

dispersed evenly throughout the Bull Run and then Cascade units, which are used first to facilitate 

deferred grazing in the upper units. When allowable use in the Bull Run and Cascade units is 

approached (around August 1), livestock are moved to the Hammill Canyon unit. To reduce grazing 

pressure on the meadows in Hammill Canyon the permittee is encouraged to herd cattle toward the 

permanent uphill watering troughs and supplement in approved locations with a salt or protein block 

to hold and increase distribution of cattle in the upland vegetation until allowable use is reached. 

When allowable use and/or other standards (streambank disturbance) is approached (mid- to lateAugust), livestock are removed from the Hammill Canyon unit and placed in the Willow unit. Cattle 

will be managed in meadows occupied by Yosemite toad according to Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines listed below. At the end of the season cattle are gathered near and into Bluff Meadow for a 

period of about one to two weeks, and from there they are shipped off the Allotment.

Livestock Distribution

Keep livestock distributed as evenly as possible throughout capable and suitable rangelands. Riding 

and herding is necessary to maintain the distribution pattern and prevent cattle from congregating or 

drifting off the Allotment. Herd cattle away from concentrated use areas and popular recreation areas. 

Cattle are excluded from developed recreation sites, Three Meadows, and exclosures at Fiddler’s 

Green. Salting may be used in addition to herding to improve livestock distribution. Place salt in 

underutilized upland areas at least 1⁄4 mile (about 1300 feet) from water. Disperse cattle away from 

riparian areas and special aquatic features as much as possible to minimize impacts to sensitive 

resources and water quality and to improve upland forage utilization. 

ANNUAL OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS

Each year at the annual permittee meeting (or through correspondence if no meeting is held), the 

permittee(s) and the Forest Service will develop a set of Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) based 

on this Allotment Management Plan. The Annual Operating Instructions and permittee meetings are 

critical to successfully implementing the Allotment Management Plan. The AOI will detail the 

authorized use, current season’s grazing strategy, improvement maintenance responsibilities, 

allowable use standards, key areas, and other additional instructions. The AOI will become an 

amendment to this AMP and as such, a part of the Term Grazing Permit. The AOI should include, at a 

minimum:

1. Authorized Use--the maximum permissible amount of grazing use, including numbers, class of 

livestock and season of use.

2. Grazing strategy--this is the planned grazing management schedule and may be modified during 

the grazing season depending on conditions. Changes can be made as long as the objectives will 

still be met. Changes in the original grazing strategy must be agreed upon by both the permittee 

and the FS or the FS must be notified before implementing any change. Any deviation in the 

grazing strategy must follow the prescriptions and meet the objectives in the plan.

3. Range Improvement Responsibilities--this includes a list of any improvements to be constructed 

or reconstructed during that grazing season. All improvements the permittee has responsibility for 

must be annually maintained. 
Appendix J Stanislaus

Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan National Forest

344

4. Planned Monitoring--identify the key areas to be watched and go over the standards to be 

monitored. Monitoring needs to be done often enough to predict movement dates. 

5. Additional instructions--may include travel restrictions, upcoming projects or other miscellaneous 

business.

6. Annual Reporting by the Permittee--a form for annual reporting will be included with the AOI. 

The permittee will complete the form to the best of his/her ability and return it to the Forest 

Service. Information to be provided annually should include actual livestock numbers grazed, 

time of grazing livestock, distribution, range improvement condition, and maintenance activities 

conducted. 

RANGELAND IMPROVEMENTS

Existing range improvements, maintenance responsibilities, and maintenance standards are listed in 

Part 3 of the Term Grazing Permit for this Allotment and are included here for consistency. All 

existing improvements shall be maintained and operable to Forest Service standards. All new 

improvements shall be constructed according to Regional standards. Refer to FSH 2209.22 R5 and 

the 1988 USDA publication "Fences" for the standards. 

Existing Improvements

Table J.01-1 Existing Improvements on the Herring Creek Allotment

ID Description of Range Improvement Location

7149A Bert Reed Pasture Fence T4N, R18E, Section 3

7149B Southwest Boundary Fence T4N, R18E, Sections 9, 10, and 16

7149C Cattleguard 1 on 4N12 T4N, R18E, Section 9

7149D Leland Drift Fence T4N, R18E, Section 2

7149E West Boundary Fence T5N, R18E, Sections 26, 34, and 35

7149F Unit Division Fence T5N, R18E, Section 36

7149G Cattleguard 2 on 4N12 T5N, R18E, Section 36

7149GG Allotment Boundary Fence at Bert Reed T4N, R18E, Sections 3 and 9

7149H Northwest Boundary Fence T5N, R19E, Sections 19 and 30

7149J Bluff Meadow Fence T5N, R19E, Sections 32 and 33

7149K Three Meadows Fence T5N, R19E, Sections 33 and 34

7149P Leland Drift Fence Extension T5N, R18E, Section 34

7149Q Horse Pen at Lower Cow Camp T4N, R18E, Section 9

7932AA Corral near Bluff Meadow T5N, R19E, Section 33 

7932B Unloading Corral T4N, R18E, Section 9

7381F Herring Creek Water Development 1 T5N, R19E, Section 28

7381G Herring Creek Water Development 2 T5N, R19E, Section 30

7381H Water Development in Bluff Meadow T5N, R19E, Section 33

Planned Improvements

There are range-related improvements planned on this Allotment as part of the BEH Rangeland 

Allotments decision. Additional fencing may be needed if implementation of the specified grazing 

strategy cannot be achieved through herding alone. The following are planned and potential 

improvements for this Allotment

 Fence along west side of Cascade Creek addition to keep livestock away from Highway 108 and 

developed recreation facilities (about 1.2 miles).

 Cattleguards on Forest Service Roads 5N21 and 5N31 at Cascade Creek addition

 Small drift fence between the Hammill Canyon and Willow Creek units, along Herring Creek at 

the top of Hammill Canyon, to the west of Bloomer Lake (about 400 feet). 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan

345

 Additional fencing may be needed to divide the Hammill Canyon and Willow Creek units, if 

deferred rotation cannot be achieved through intensive herding alone. 

Maintenance Responsibilities and Standards

The permittee is responsible for maintaining all assigned improvements before cattle are turned out 

and throughout the grazing season, so that each improvement is fully functioning and in good repair. 

If serious or repeated problems occur with an improvement, contact the District Range Technician 

and work cooperatively to find a long-term solution. The permittee is responsible for checking with 

adjoining permittees to find out when the livestock will come on. A permittee taking non-use is still 

responsible for maintaining the assigned Allotment boundary fences. 

Fence Maintenance Standards

 All broken wires will be spliced and repaired in such a manner that tension can be maintained.

 Broken or rotten posts, jacks, poles, braces, and staples will be replaced on an annual basis to 

maintain the fence for its intended purpose. Wires will be re-stretched when needed.

 The top wire on all post and wire fences will be kept at 42 inches and the bottom wire at 18 

inches if constructed to that standard. 

 All gates should be closed when livestock enter the grazing units and opened and tied back when 

cattle have left the unit or Allotment.

 Wire gate tension should be sufficient to prevent the gate from sagging and still be easily opened 

and closed. Gate loops will be made of smooth wire and not barbed wire. Gate loop closers 

should be used whenever possible. 

 Trees that have fallen on fences will be cut out and removed as needed. Loose or broken wire or 

poles will be repaired or replaced. 

 Corrals will be kept clean of litter, in good repair and in usable condition. 

 Tighten or replace wire on gateposts and braces as needed.

Water Development Maintenance Standards

 Maintain spring source exclosures by insuring livestock accessibility is prevented through 

replacement or shoring up of jacks, poles, wires, staples, or other materials as necessary.

 Headbox lids/covers shall be in place throughout the season to prevent dirt, rodents, or other 

refuse from getting into the headbox. 

 All outlets, pipes and valves from the headbox shall be functioning and all leakage shall be kept 

to a minimum.

 All headboxes shall be checked and cleared of mud and other materials.

 Water troughs will be kept at heights that allow easy access by livestock. Troughs that have been 

elevated by trampling should be periodically backfilled or reset to a useable height. 

 Water should not be allowed to overflow the sides of the troughs. Overflow pipes must be 

checked and kept functioning properly. 

 Troughs that become uneven due to settling will be leveled and reset.

 Inlet/outlet pipes will be protected from livestock with line poles or posts. These will be checked 

to ensure effective protection.

 Troughs, storage tanks and pipelines will be drained annually to prevent moss and debris buildup 

and prevent damage from freezing.

 Poles, posts and trough framing material used in the construction of water development will be 

maintained or repaired as needed.

 Pipeline leaks will be repaired or the damaged sections replaced with materials similar to the 

original construction materials. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The Monitoring Plan for the BEH Rangeland Allotments decision is a part of this Allotment 

Management Plan and will be used to guide monitoring and evaluation on the Herring Creek 
Appendix J Stanislaus

Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan National Forest

346

Allotment. Three types of monitoring will be conducted on this Allotment. Implementation (Annual) 

Monitoring will be used to monitor implementation of the provisions of the Term Grazing Permit, 

including compliance with the Annual Operating Instructions. Effectiveness (Long-term) Monitoring 

tracks changes in vegetative conditions in response to livestock use and management. Permittee 

monitoring will ensure that standards and guidelines as listed in the Term Grazing Permit, Part 3 are 

met. Evaluation of monitoring data will determine if adaptive management adjustments are needed.

Monitoring Objectives

Specific objectives for monitoring on the Herring Creek Allotment are:

1. To determine compliance with the Term Grazing Permit and Annual Operating Instructions. 

2. To evaluate the implementation of management practices to insure movement from the Existing 

Conditions towards achievement of Desired Conditions, and use Adaptive Management to adjust 

livestock management strategies as necessary to meet Desired Condition.

3. To evaluate the degree and rate at which prescribed management practices are meeting Allotment 

objectives. If properly implemented practices are not effective in achieving Desired Conditions, 

they will be changed as necessary.

4. To demonstrate to all interested parties and partners that implementation of the Allotment 

Management Plan is effective in achieving multiple use management and is sound resource 

management of Forest Service lands.

Allotment Key Areas and Monitoring Priorities

Key Areas for the Herring Creek Allotment are shown in Table J.01-2. Key areas will remain 

constant for the duration of this AMP unless changed after consultation, coordination and cooperation 

with the permittee and other interested parties. Monitoring priorities are indicated by the label 

“key”and other potential monitoring is indicated by an “X”. Monitoring priorities were determined 

based on discrepancies between existing resource conditions and desired conditions on this 

Allotment. Additional monitoring may occur, as needed. 

Table J.01-2 Monitoring locations and methods for Herring Creek Allotment

Location Aspen 

Browse

Forage 

Utilization

Meadow 

Hydrologic 

Function

Meadow 

Ecological 

Status

Riparian 

Standards 

(MIM)

Special 

Aquatic 

Feature(s)

TES 

Species

Bloomer Lake X X X X X X

Bluff Meadow X X X X X X

Bull Run Meadow X X X X X X

4N12 Meadow (Key Area) X Key

Burt Reed Meadow X X X X X

Cascade Addition Area X X X X X

Castle Meadow X Key X X X

Coyote Meadow X X X X

Fiddler's Green Key X X X

Groundhog Meadow X X X X X

North Allotment Ridge X

Herring Creek Reservoir X X

Hammill Canyon (Key Area) X Key Key Key Key

Leland Meadow X X X X X

Pinecrest Peak Area X

Punch Bowl X X X X X X

Three Meadows X X X

Willow Meadow X Key X X X X

Wire Corral (Key Area) X X Key X X
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan

347

Implementation Monitoring

Range Readiness

Range readiness is based on plant phenology, soil moisture level, annual climate variation, or other 

site-specific constraints for each key area. Readiness inspections may occur at Allotment key areas, 

but may also be determined at other locations with similar elevation, soil moisture, geomorphology 

and key species phenology. The range will be considered ready for grazing when soil is dry and firm 

enough to prevent compaction and displacement, and when the following vegetation development is 

achieved:

Table J.01-3 Range Readiness Indicators for Herring Creek Allotment

Readiness Indicator Species: Growth stage:

Carex nebraskensis, Nebraska sedge when flowers mostly open, stamens showing

Carex integra, smooth beak sedge when flowers mostly open, stamens showing

Veratrum californicum, corn lily when average height reaches 24 inches

Achillea millefolium, western yarrow when average height reaches 4 inches

Forage Utilization Standards

Implementation of utilization standards monitoring will focus on key areas, but may occur in other 

locations within the Allotment as need dictates. Herbaceous utilization in key areas will be measured 

using one of the following methods: the Height Weight Curve method on key species, the Stubble 

Height method, and/or Landscape Appearance method. Repeated photographs may also be used. 

Riparian Conservation Standards

Implementation of Riparian Conservation Standards will focus on sensitive stream reaches on this 

Allotment. Riparian Stubble Height, Streambank Alteration, and Streamside Browse Utilization will 

be determined using the Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) method on streambanks accessible to 

cattle.

Aspen Browse Standards

Monitoring of aspen browse will occur in identified aspen stands on this Allotment. Effort will be 

made to monitor aspen browse prior to livestock entry on the Allotment to determine baseline browse 

levels. Hardwood browse in aspen stands will be measured using monitored at defined intervals using 

specified aspen browse protocol(s). 

Compliance Monitoring

Permit administration by the Forest Service includes compliance monitoring. Items to be monitored 

as part of implementation monitoring may include, but are not limited to the following:

 Livestock counts

 Actual livestock use and movements (from permittees records).

 Improvement inspections to insure that maintenance is completed to standard and on time. 

 Compliance with the Annual Operating Instructions. 

 Determination of any unauthorized use. 

 Livestock presence outside Allotment boundaries, in Bell Meadow RNA, in developed recreation 

sites or in the Dodge Ridge Ski Area. 

Permit Non-Compliance

If permit non-compliance occurs, corrective action will be taken according to the Regional Forester's 

Grazing Permit Administration, Suspension & Cancellation Guidelines (R5 FSM 2231.62, 2002). The 

intent is to provide a consistent and fair approach for permit administration actions which provide the 

permittee opportunity to remedy the noncompliance. Actions may include suspension or cancellation 
Appendix J Stanislaus

Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan National Forest

348

of the permit or civil actions, as appropriate depending on if the problem is persistent or willful. The 

permittee will be billed for any excess use at the unauthorized use rate. The permittee is encouraged 

to monitor the Allotment continuously throughout the grazing season and coordinate with the Forest 

Officer to resolve any problems that arise in a timely manner. 

Effectiveness Monitoring

The objective of effectiveness monitoring is to evaluate the degree and rate at which prescribed 

management practices are meeting Allotment objectives. If properly implemented practices are not 

effective in achieving Desired Conditions, they will be changed as necessary. Key Areas will receive 

effectiveness monitoring on the Herring Creek Allotment. Range conditions and trend at specified

key areas are assumed to be indicative of responses to management practices throughout the entire 

Allotment. 

Effectiveness monitoring includes, but is not limited to, the following: 

Meadow Ecological Status

Ecological Status of meadow vegetation will be determined in key areas using the Rooted Frequency 

Vegetation Sampling method. The Rooted Frequency protocol was developed and refined as part of 

an overall Regional rangeland monitoring program. The purpose of the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Region 5 Range Monitoring Project was to establish permanent 

plots on key range sites across National Forest lands in Region 5 (California) in order to provide longterm monitoring of range condition. Established sites are generally located at Allotment key areas and 

are read every 5 years. This monitoring provides an ecological classification (vegetative, soils, and 

hydrologic) and quantitative condition scorecard for each meadow.

Special Aquatic Features

Special Aquatic Features (springs, seeps and fens) will be re-visited every 3-5 years. If cattle use is 

apparent, PFC methodology will be used to assess the condition of the feature. Monitoring may occur 

at any of the following known special aquatic features, or other features that are found during project 

implementation. Monitoring of special aquatic features will focus on determining PFC and trend and 

will prioritize the most at-risk special aquatic features. Soil ground cover measurements and 

photographs may also be used. 

Meadow Hydrologic Function

In meadows where hydrologic function is already impaired, monitoring will determine whether 

livestock impacts are causing continued degradation of the hydrologic function of the meadows. 

Where headcuts, knick points and/or small gullies were identified during project analysis, a qualified 

hydrologist will monitor the headcuts, knick points and/or small gullies to ensure that meadow 

hydrologic function is not compromised as a result of grazing 

Best Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP)

BMPEP monitoring will be used to verify that BMPs are implemented and to evaluate the 

effectiveness of BMPs in protecting water quality. The Best Management Practices Effectiveness 

Program (BMPEP) is long-term monitoring that is conducted on key areas chosen at random from a 

sample pool. The USFS Region 5 grazing BMPEP protocol records herbaceous and woody utilization 

levels, streambank disturbance, ground cover, bank angle, riparian and upslope erosion, and riparian 

vegetation and seral condition information. 

Permittee Monitoring

The permittee is responsible for ensuring that forage use is at or below the allowed levels and that 

standards and guidelines as listed in the Term Grazing Permit, Part 3 are met. The permittee is 

encouraged to participate in monitoring of the Allotment. At a minimum, the permittee will be invited 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan

349

to learn and participate in range monitoring activities performed by the Forest and District Range 

Staff.

Since meeting the standards and guidelines are a permittee responsibility, it is highly recommended 

that the permittee enter into a formal Partnership Agreement to conduct range monitoring. Standard 

protocols and instruction on their use will be provided. It is recommended that the Forest Service and 

the permittee work together to conduct formal mid and post season monitoring for permanent 

monitoring sites as listed in the Term Grazing Permit. The permittee is encouraged to maintain 

written documentation of monitoring conducted by him/her, and to share this information with the 

Forest Officer on a timely basis. Written results of any permittee performed monitoring and 

measurements should be provided to the District within 30 days of the end of the grazing season. 

Evaluation

Data collected from both implementation and effectiveness monitoring will be used to evaluate 

management effectiveness and progress toward achieving desired conditions. Adaptive management 

will be used to set forage utilization standards based on vegetation condition; adjust management; 

and/or adjust livestock use levels or season of use.

The following criteria will be used as indicators that adaptive management adjustments are needed: 

 Forage utilization and stubble height standards are not met on Key Areas and other areas of the 

Allotment.

 Meadow Ecological Status is determined to be moving in a downward trend. 

 Livestock browse exceeds 20 percent of the annual leader growth of mature riparian shrubs and 

seedlings. 

 Livestock browse exceeds 20 percent of annual growth of hardwood seedlings and advanced 

regeneration. 

 Livestock disturbance to streambanks and natural lake and pond shorelines exceeds 20 percent of 

stream reach or 20 percent of natural lake and pond shorelines. Disturbance includes bank 

sloughing, chiseling, trampling, and other means of exposing bare soil or cutting plant roots. 

 Special Aquatic Features are rated is Functional-at-Risk with a downward trend or NonFunctional. 

 Livestock presence outside Allotment boundaries, in developed recreation sites or in exclosures 

becomes problematic. 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Adaptive management refers to the concept of allowing decisions, which are focused on desired 

outcomes, to be made with the best information available and to be adjusted during implementation to 

achieve desired conditions. Decision-making is expected to proceed using the best information 

available. Monitoring and evaluation are used to assess the effects of those decisions and to identify 

new information that may become available. Decisions are adapted, as needed, to respond to new 

information. 

Data collected from both implementation and effectiveness monitoring will be used to evaluate 

management effectiveness and progress toward achieving desired conditions. Adaptive management 

actions will be used to achieve management objectives when monitoring indicates that adjustments 

are necessary in order to achieve defined desired conditions. 

Management actions will be applied through the Annual Operating Instructions issued for the Herring 

Creek Allotment. These possible management actions are designed to be used alone or in 

combinations in order to achieve management objectives.

 Adjust stocking rate (number of cow/calf pairs)

 Adjust grazing season (livestock turn-on and removal dates) 
Appendix J Stanislaus

Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan National Forest

350

 Use of salt or supplement to draw livestock toward or away from specific areas

 Incorporate a range rider to move livestock from riparian areas (herding)

 Incorporate use of herding dogs to move livestock from riparian areas 

 Rest from livestock grazing for one or more seasons

 Construct temporary electric fence to control livestock distribution patterns 

 Construct permanent fence to control livestock distribution patterns

 Implement a high-intensity/short duration grazing system (by riding, herding, temp. fence, etc.) 

Permittee and agency flexibility during adaptive management implementation will be needed. 

Flexibility is provided to adjust livestock grazing practices in response to unpredictable management 

situations caused by weather fluctuations (e.g., drought), livestock behavior, unexpected monitoring 

results or acts of nature such as wildfires. Adaptive actions would be constrained by Forest Plan 

direction, current Allotment NEPA decisions, regulations, policy and Term Grazing Permit terms and 

conditions. 

In keeping with the adaptive management concept, Forest Plan Direction utilization standards would 

be adjusted if monitoring and evaluation determines that the current standards do not continue to meet 

or move towards attaining Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. 

Continued monitoring of forage utilization in key use areas and of riparian and upland condition and 

trend as described in the Forest Plan will be used to determine if the grazing program continues to 

achieve desired future conditions and Forest Plan objectives for vegetation management. If 

monitoring shows that livestock grazing is not meeting or moving towards desired conditions, 

adaptive management would make it possible for management to review and correct the problems as 

described above. If monitoring shows that livestock grazing is meeting desired conditions, adaptive 

management could allow for greater grazing flexibility through the Annual Operating Instruction 

process (reasonable adjustment in season of use, numbers, etc.).

MODIFICATION OF ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN

This AMP provides management direction for the Herring Creek Allotment. The direction in this 

AMP may be modified as appropriate based on the results of both annual and long term monitoring. 

As long as these modifications are consistent with the BEH Rangeland Allotments Record of 

Decision and the associated NEPA analysis, additional NEPA analyses may not be needed (FSH 

1909.15, Section 18). Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) will be used to direct annual 

implementation of this AMP. AOIs may include variations in direction from this AMP for short term 

situations including drought, seasonal climatic variations, wild fire, insect or disease outbreaks, 

changes in base ranch operations, results from the previous year monitoring, etc. Where these 

situations are short term in nature, they will be dealt with through the AOI only. If these situations 

warrant long term changes, the AMP will be modified as appropriate following analysis and 

documentation. 
BEH Rangeland Allotments Appendix J 

Environmental Impact Statement Herring Creek Allotment Management Plan

351

MAP

Figure J.01-1 Herring Creek Allotment Map


BEH Rangeland Allotments

Environmental Impact Statement

Stanislaus National Forest

19777 Greenley Road

Sonora, CA 95370

As the lead Federal agency in natural resource conservation, the USDA Forest Service 

provides leadership in the protection, management, and use of the Nation’s forest, 

rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems. Our ecosystem approach to management integrates 

ecological, economic, and social factors to maintain and enhance the quality of the 

environment to meet current and future needs. Through implementation of land and 

resource management plans, the agency ensures sustainable ecosystems by restoring and 

maintaining species diversity and ecological productivity that helps provide recreation, 

water, timber, minerals, fish, wildlife, wilderness, and aesthetic values for current and future 

generations of people.

Caring for the Land and Serving People