United States Department of Agriculture 

BEH Rangeland Allotments (33836) 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies 

Forest 

Service 

Stanislaus 

National Forest 

R5-MB-289 February 2016 

 

Cover Photo: View of Eagle Meadow in the fall. 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BEH Rangeland Allotments (33836) Appendix L
 

Environmental Impact Statement Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies
 

Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies 

Table of Contents1 

(06) Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board ........................................................1
 

(07) Tuolumne County Administrator’s Office.............................................................................5
 

(14) Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors..............................................................................7
 

(15) Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................................9
 

(17) California Department of Fish and Wildlife ........................................................................15
 

1 This Appendix includes letters submitted by Federal, State, and Local Agencies (including elected officials) as comments on the BEH 

Rangeland Allotments DEIS. The letters are listed by Respondent Number in the order they were received. 

i 
 

Appendix L Stanislaus
 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies National Forest
 

ii 
Water Boards 

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 

12 March 2014 

Susan Skalski 

Forest Supervisor 

Stanislaus National Forest 

Attn: BEH Range 

19777 Greenley Road 

Sonora, CA 95370 

. EDMUND G. BROWN JR . 

GOVERNOR 

~ MATTHEW RODRIQUEZ l_ 

~ 

~~ S£CAETAAV FOR 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BEH RANGELAND ALLOTMENTSSTANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST, TUOLUMNE COUNTY 

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) staff 

appreciates the opportunity to review the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the 

BEH Rangeland Allotments. The Central Valley Water Board implements and enforces the 

federal Clean Water Act, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the Water Quality 

Control Plan for the Sacramento /San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan). 

The DEIS proposes to authorize 56,500 acres of livestock grazing on three active allotments 

(Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek) in eastern Tuolumne County within the 

Stanislaus National Forest. Central Valley Water Board staff has reviewed the DEIS for the BEH 

Rangeland Allotments and submits the following comments: 

1. Based on the number of designated beneficial uses for the Tuolumne and Stanislaus 

Rivers and the high quality of their source waters, the Central Valley Water Board 

supports Alternative 4 (Resource Protection) in the BEH Rangeland Allotments DEIS. 

Our agency feels that, from a water quality protection standpoint, this alternative has the 

highest likelihood of success of the four alternatives considered and still provides 

livestock operators with viable options for continued livestock grazing on the three 

allotments. 

2. The Central Valley Water Board supports the Forest Service in identifying water quality 

impacts caused by livestock as a significant resource issue and concurs with the use of 

adaptive management to protect high risk/sensitive areas (i.e. wet meadows, springs, 

fens, etc.) on public lands. 

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 

KARLE. LONGLEY S cD, P . E . • CHA•R I P AMELA C. C REEDON P . E . • SCEE. ExEcuT1vE OFFICER 

11020 Sun Center Drive #200, Rancho Cord ova, CA 95670 l www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley 

0 RECYCLED PAPER 

BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies

L-1
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 

. EDMUND G. BROWN JR. 

GOVERNOR 

~ MATTH EW R ODRIQUEZ 

l.

~ 

--............. ~ SECRET ARY FOR 

EN VIRONMENTAL PRO TEC TION 

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. 

3. Although there is acknowledgement of high concentrations of fecal coliform and E. coli in 

the surface waters within the three allotment areas due to cattle grazing, this idea is 

discounted within the DEIS because it occurs in areas where ingestions of water is 

"unlikely" or "not reasonably possible." Furthermore, the DEIS states that the beneficial 

uses were "interpreted based on how activities occurring in these waters fit the definition 

of REC-1 or REC-2." It is beyond the scope of the DEIS and beyond the authority of the 

Forest Service to interpret the Basin Plan in such a manner. The Basin Plan states that: 

"The beneficial uses of any specifically identified water body generally apply to its 

tributary streams .. .. In some cases a beneficial use may not be applicable to the entire 

body of water. In these cases the Regional Water Board's judgment will be applied." 

In this case, the beneficial uses for the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers would apply to 

all upstream tributaries and connected surface waters. As stated in the Basin Plan, 

beneficial use designations must be reviewed at least triennially for the purpose of 

modification as appropriate. To be considered in the triennial review process for the 

purposes of modifying existing beneficial uses, a formal request must be made. For 

more information please visit 

www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water issues/basin plans/triennialreviews.shtml. 

4. Within the DEIS there is acknowledgment of monitoring as a necessary component of a 

successful adaptive management strategy to assess the effectiveness of Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) associated with range management. Several examples 

of monitoring for BMP effectiveness are provided; however, monitoring frequency and 

methods are not specified. It is understood that Annual Operating Instructions (AOls) 

may have more detailed information about protocol and frequency. 

As our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and 

ground waters of the state, our concern is to maintain this protection. We support 

comprehensive monitoring to evaluate BMP effectiveness associated with water quality 

protection. Absent any significant level of detail regarding monitoring frequency, 

methods, or location, it may be appropriate for the Central Valley Water Board to not 

only provide comments to this DEIS, but to also be involved in annual reviews and 

updates to the AOls for the BEH Rangeland Allotments. This type of multi-agency review 

and collaboration would benefit the mutual goal of identifying areas that are at high risk 

KARLE. LONGLEY Sc D, P.E., CHAIR I P AME LA C . C REEDON P.E., BCEE, EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

11020 Sun Center Drive #200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 I www .waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley 

0 RECYCLED PAPER 

Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies

Stanislaus 

National Forest

L-2
Water Boards 

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 

. 

EDMUND G . BROWN JR. 

GOVtRNOR 

~ MATTHEW ROORIOUEl l 

~ 

............... ~ !'if CRI IARY f OR 

tNv1RONM[NTAl PR01'lCT•ON 

for water quality impairment or degradation and allow for adaptive management changes 

that would protect and enhance those sensitive areas. 

The Central Valley Water Board staff submits the above comments for your review and is 

interested in working with the Stanislaus National Forest on our shared goals of protecting and 

enhancing water quality and sensitive aquatic habitat. If you have any questions regarding the 

above comments, please contact Rajmir Rai at (916) 464-4716 or at 

Rajmir.Rai@waterboards.ca.gov. 

Sue McConnell, Senior Engineer 

Planning and Assessment Unit 

KARLE . LONGLEY ScD, P.E., c~A.1R 1 PAMELA C. CR£EDON P.E .. SCEE. ExEcuT1vE 0H1CER 

11020 Sun Center Drive #200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 I www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley 

BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies

L-3
Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies

Stanislaus 

National Forest

L-4
County Administrator's Office 

Susan Skalski 

Forest Supervisor 

Stanislaus National Forest 

19777 Greenley Road 

Sonora, CA 95370 

Dear Supervisor Skalski: 

March 17, 2014 

Craig L. Pedro 

Co1111ty Administrator 

Tuolumne County Administration Center 

2 South Green Street 

Sonora, CA 95370 

Phone (209) 533-5511 

Fax (209) 533-5510 

www.tuolumnecounty.ca.gov 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the BEH Rangeland Allotments Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The ability for ranchers to use the allotments for 

summer forage is mutually beneficial in that it promotes affordable beef and it helps 

provide for a healthy forest ecosystem. The recommendations in the DEIS are for the most 

part encouraging, in that the existing rangeland forage use will continue, but with slight 

modifications in geography and management strategies. The County has a few areas of 

concern related to supposed grazing impacts on meadows and the Yosemite Toad. 

Meadows 

As is noted on Table 1.03-1 of the DEIS, livestock management is not the reason for 

impaired meadow hydrology on a number of meadows. Recent studies indicate that 

grazing does not by itself contribute to meadow degradation. The likely cause for degraded 

meadows is lower water tables and historic forest use activities. One of these is likely the 

lack of timber extraction which leads to meadow incursion by trees and more water being 

used by the trees, thus making less water available to meadows. The decrease in meadow 

moisture is a systemic forest management failure unrelated to grazing. 

Yosemite Toad 

The DEIS also mentions potential grazing impacts on the Yosemite Toad. Although the 

DEIS states that grazing impacts are uncertain, the County is also aware that should the 

current proposal by the US Department of Fish and Wildlife to list the Yosemite Toad as an 

endangered species be successful, each forest will have the responsibility to determine any 

appropriate management actions. On November 5, 2013, the third and final paper from an 

extensive study (Mcllroy) to determine grazing impacts on the Yosemite Toad was 

published. The paper found that neither fencing cattle from the toad breeding area, nor 

from the entire meadow improved toad populations. These findings refute any conclusions 

that grazing is a definitive risk to the Yosemite Toad. The County encourages that the 

... serving the Board of Supervisors, departments, and the community as good stewards of the County'sjiscal 

and human resources through collaborative, professional and ethical leadership. 

BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies

L-5
DEIS acknowledge the best available science and remove mention of grazing as a risk to 

the Yosemite Toad. 

Flexibility 

It is encouraging to see flexibility built into the grazing season, depending on field 

inspections of soil, water, vegetative, and other resource conditions. The inclusion of 

flexibility into the plan allows for adaptive management and to ultimately move towards 

desired forest conditions. 

Summary 

The Board of Supervisors reiterates the need to use best available science in developing 

solutions. The County also supports improving the forest's meadows; however, excluding 

cattle from them will not achieve this goal. Recent science states that excluding cattle from 

areas with habitat suitable for the Yosemite Toad is unnecessary. During this time of 

economic unce1iainty, it is not appropriate to penalize the rural ranching community by 

taking away their forest grazing opp01iunities. Balance is required to maintain a healthy 

forest. 

Sincerely, 

County 

~ Administrator 

Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies

Stanislaus 

National Forest

L-6
Tuolumne County 

Administration Center 

2 South Green Street 

Sonora, California 95370 

Sherri Brennan, First District 

John L Gray, Fourth District 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

COUNTY OF TUOLUMNE 

Randy Hanvelt, Second District 

March 18, 2014 

Susan Skalski, Forest Supervisor 

Stanislaus National Forest 

19777 Greenley Road 

Sonora, CA 95370 

Dear Supervisor Skalski: 

Alicia L. Jamar, Chief Deputy 

Clerk of the Board of Supetvisors 

Telephone: (209) 533-5521 

Facsimile: (209) 533-6549 

www.tuolumnecounty.ca.gov 

Evan Royce, Third District 

Karl Rodefer, Fifth District 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The ability for ranchers to use the 

allotments for summer forage is mutually beneficial in that it promotes affordable beef 

and it helps provide for a healthy forest ecosystem. The recommendations in the DEIS 

are for the most part encouraging, in that the existing rangeland forage use will 

continue, but with slight modifications in geography and management strategies. The 

County has a few areas of concern related to supposed grazing impacts on meadows, 

the Yosemite Toad, and the Great Gray Owl. 

Meadows 

As is noted on Table 1 .03-1 of the DEIS, livestock management is not the reason 

for impaired meadow hydrology on a number of meadows. Recent studies indicate that 

grazing does not by itself contribute to meadow degradation. The likely cause for 

degraded meadows is lower water tables and historic forest use activities. One of these 

is likely the lack of timber extraction which leads to meadow incursion by trees and 

more water being used by the trees, thus making less water available to meadows. The 

decrease in meadow moisture is a systemic forest management failure unrelated to 

grazing. 

Yosemite Toad 

The DEIS also mentions potential grazing impacts on the Yosemite Toad. 

Although the DEIS states that grazing impacts are uncertain, the County is also aware 

that should the current proposal by the US Department of Fish and Wildlife to list the 

Yosemite Toad as an endangered species be successful, each forest will have the 

responsibility to determine any appropriate management actions. On November 5, 

2013, the third and final paper from an extensive study (Mcilroy) to determine grazing 

impacts on the Yosemite Toad was published. The paper found that neither fencing 

BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies

L-7
Susan Skalski, Forest Supervisor 

March 18, 2014 

Page 2 

cattle from the toad breeding area, nor from the entire meadow improved toad 

populations. These findings refute any conclusions that grazing is a definitive risk to the 

Yosemite Toad. The County encourages that the DEIS acknowledge the best available 

science and remove mention of grazing as a risk to the Yosemite Toad. 

Great Gray Owl 

The Stanislaus National Forest expends significant resources to identify Great 

Gray Owl habitat. These locations are then labeled as a Protected Area Center (PAC) 

and closed to grazing and logging. While there is a process to protect an area for the 

Great Gray Owl, it is unknown if there is a process to decertify a PAC. Prohibiting 

grazing in perpetuity due to the potential of a PAC is not supported by science and is 

detrimental to the goals of the forest grazing program. 

Flexibility 

It is encouraging to see flexibility built into the grazing season, depending on field 

inspections of soil, water, vegetative, and other resource conditions. The inclusion of 

flexibility into the plan allows for adaptive management and to ultimately move towards 

desired forest conditions. 

Summary 

The Board of Supervisors reiterates the need to use best available science in 

developing solutions. The County also supports improving the forest's meadows; 

however, excluding cattle from them will not achieve this goal. Recent science states 

that excluding cattle from areas with habitat suitable for the Yosemite Toad is 

unnecessary. During this time of economic uncertainty, it is not appropriate to penalize 

the rural ranching community by taking away their forest grazing opportunities. Balance 

is required to maintain a healthy forest. 

I hereby certify that according lo the 

provisions of Government Co.de 

Section 25103, delivery of this 

document has been made. 

IA . JAMAR 

~ e Board 

By: ./J,'/!Jt~f}i;,. __ _ 

Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies

Stanislaus 

National Forest

L-8
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies

' 1 : - ' 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY .
	

REGION IX
	 75 Hawthome Street
	

San Francloco, CA 94105
	

Susan Skalski,Forest Supervisor 

Stanislans National Forest 

Attn:BEH Range 

I9777 Greenley Road 

Sonora, CA 95370 

Subject:		 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the BEH Rangeland 

Allotments Project (CEQ# 20I4002I) 

Dear Ms. Skalski: 

The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed theDraft Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Bell Meadow,Eagle Meadow and Herring Creek grazing allotments (BEH) 

Rangeland Allotments Project, Stanislaus National Forest. Our review is provided pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 

Parts 1500-1508), and Section309 of the Clean Air Act. 

EPA supports the effort to maintainor bring about sustainable,functioning ecological conditions 

in the Stanislaus National Forest, and implementation of adaptive management strategies. 

Nevertheless,we are concerned that further resource declines will occur unless additional 

rangeland management changes are made. EPA recommends consideration of further reductions 

in grazing where water quality problems exist. 

Based upon our review, we have rated the proposed Preferred Action Alternative I,which would 

reauthorize livestock grazing in the Summit Ranger District, as Environmental ConcernsInslffficient Information (EC-2) due to the potential for further degradation of water quality and 

habitat forspecies of concern.See attached "Summary of the EPA Rating Definitions"for a 

description of the rating.We have identified additional measures to be incorporated into 

Alternative I (including elements of Alternative 4) in order for the preferred action to be more 

protective of the environment. 

EPA is concerned that the preferred action does not go far enough to meet two of the three 

"Purpose and Need"statements listed in the DEIS.Specifically, EPA is concerned with resource 

protection needs due to poor conditions. 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.Our detailed comments 

are enclosed. 

L-9
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies

Stanislaus 

National Forest

We appreciate the opportunity to review this DEIS. When the FEIS is released for public review, 

please send one hard copy and two CD ROMs to the address above (mail code:ENF-4-2).Ifyou 

have any questions, please contact James Munson, the lead reviewer for this project, at (415) 

972-3852 or munson.james@epa.gov, or me at (415) 972-3521. 

,,!- inc ely, 'l': ,,, ..'.M 

K fo 

Environmental Review Section 

Enclosures: 

Snmmary of EPA Rating Definitions 

EPA's Detailed Comments 

L-10
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies

SUMMARY OF EPA RATING DEFINITIONS*
	

This rating system was developed as a means to summarize the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 

(EPA) level of concern with a proposed action.The ratings are a combination of alphabetical categories 

for evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposal and numerical categories for evaluation of the 

adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE ACTION 

"LO" (Lack of Objections) 

The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to 

the proposal.The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that 

could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal. 

"EC" (Environ-ntal 

Concerns) 

TheEPA review has identified environmental impacts that should he avoided in order to fully protect the 

environment Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of 

mitigation measures that can reduce the environmental impact EPA would like to work with the lead 

agency to reduce these impacts. 

"EO" (Environmsntal Objections) 

The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to 

provide adequate protection forthe enviroument Corrective measures may require substantial changes to 

the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action 

alternative or a new alternative).EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. 

"EU" (Environmsntally Unsatisfactory) 

The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts tiuit are of sufficient magnitude that they 

are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality.EPA intends 

to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.Ifthe potentially unsatisfitctory impacts are nnt 

corrected at the final EIS stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ). 

ADEQUACY OF THE IMPACT STATEMENT 

Category "1" (Adeqllllle) 

EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative 

and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data 

collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information. 

Category "Z" (lnsldJ" eient Information) 

The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that 

should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new 

reasonably available alternatives that are within thespectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, 

which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional ioformation, data, 

analyses, or discussion should be included in the final EIS. 

Category "3" (lnadequote) 

EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts 

of the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of 

the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the 

potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, 

data, analyses, or discussions are ofsuch a magnitode that they should have full public review at a draft 

stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the NEPA and/or Section 

309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a 

supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal 

could he a candidate for referral to the CEQ. 

*From EPA Manual 1640, Policy and Proceduresfor the Review ofFedera!Actions Imnacting the Environment 

L-11
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies

Stanislaus 

National Forest

EPA'SDETAILEDCOMMENTSONDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTFORTHE 

BELL MEADOW,EAGLE MEADOW AND HERRING CREEK GRAZING ALLOTMENTS(BEH) 

RANGELAND ALLOTMENTS PROJECT (PROJECT), STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST.(CEQ# 

20140021)MARCH 17,2014 

Prooosed Action CPreferred AlternativeJ) Description 

Alternative 1 proposes to improve the ecological condition ofthe rangelands through expansion 

of the current rangeland. Theoreticallyibis would more widely distribute adverse impacts thus 

reducing the level of degradation to currently over stressed resource areas. Alternative 1 would 

set proper use criteria/utilization for areas to protect species of concern and their habitat. 

Allotment Management Plans (AMP's) 

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS),page vii states:"The Stanislaus National 

Forest proposes to: update Allotment Management Plans, change Allotment boundaries, and 

implement design criteria, including resource conservation measures and an adaptive 

management strategy that would move existing resource conditions toward desired conditions". 

Recommendations: 

• 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. 

Water Quality 

The DEIS identifies grazing management activity as "detrimental impacts to individuals and 

habitats"due to harmful effects on water quality and quantity (page:59).Livestock grazing can 

directly affect water quality through increased sedimentation, erosion, and nutrient iuputs. 

Indirect effects include a reduction of water quantity, increased water temperatures, and changes 

in streambed morphology. Nevertheless,the DEIS does not appear to prohibit livestock grazing 

within the streambed corridors. 

Recommendations: 

•		The FEIS should disclose existing and proposed practices that prevent 

livestock from entering streambed corridors and wetlands associated with 

seeps and springs (e.g.fencing). 

•		We recommend the FEIS commit to implementation of management measures 

that would remove or reduce livestock grazing in areas where water quality 

problems exist in riparian and stream conditions due to nutrient and sediment 

loading. 

•		Clearly state avoidance measures that will be taken to protect already stressed habitat 

areas currently adversely impacted by grazing. 

L-12
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies

Endangered Species and Species of Concern 

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 habitaf' 

(page: 47). However, the document falls short of stating why the habitat is unsuitable or if this 

condition is caused by past grazing.Inaddition, measures to reduce impacts to endangered 

species and species of concern should be integrated into the preferred action. 

Recommendation: 

• The FEIS should commit to additional measures to decrease livestock access to areas 

that include habitat for endangered species and species of concern such as the 

Yosemite toad and the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog. 

• The FEIS should include a comprehensive biological survey of the entire project area 

as well as the streams above and below grazing areas, including a complete review of 

species that may be affected by the project.The results of consultation with the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), if appropriate, regarding threatened or endangered species or 

critical habitat should be included in the FEIS. 

L-13
Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies

Stanislaus 

National Forest

L-14
State of California - Natural Resources Agency 

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 

Central Region 

1234 East Shaw Avenue 

Fresno, California 93710 

(559) 243-4005 

www.wildlife.ca.gov 

April 7, 2014 

Susan Skalski 

Forest Supervisor 

Stanislaus National Forest 

Attn: BEH Range 

19777 Greenely Road 

Sonora, California 95370 

Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

BEH Rangeland Allotments Project 

Dear Ms. Skalski: 

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor 

CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director 

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has reviewed the information 

prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture, Stanislaus National Forest (Forest 

Service) for the BEH Rangeland Allotments Project (Project). The Project area consists of 

three active cattle grazing allotments, Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek, 

which encompasses 51, 182 acres. Approval of the Project's preferred alternative 

(Alternative 1) would allow the Forest Service to renew the above grazing allotments, add a 

total of approximately 5,650 acres to the above allotments, and construct infrastructures 

such as fencing and corrals. Current permitted livestock numbers are not proposed to 

change, and the Forest Service proposes to use an adaptive management approach which 

will allow the Forest Service to adaptively manage the above allotments based on the 

proposed design criteria, which includes standards and guidelines, an adaptive 

management strategy, and a monitoring plan. The Department previously commented on 

the Rangelands Allotments Phase I Environmental Assessment (EA), in a letter dated July 

20, 2009, for the above allotments. Several concerns raised in the above letter are not fully 

addressed in the DEIS. 

Based on data provided in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), there are 

numerous sensitive species that are known or have historically occurred on the Project site 

or within its vicinity. These include the State endangered great gray owl (Strix nebu/osa); 

the State threatened Sierra Nevada red fox (Vu/pes vulpes necator) and Sierra Nevada 

yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae); the State Candidate fisher (Martes pennant1); the 

Species of Special Concern, spotted owl (Strix occidentalis), northern goshawk (Accipiter 

gentilis), Yosemite toad (Anaxyrus canorus), and foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boy/ii); 

and special status plants. The DEIS includes several avoidance and minimization 

measures for several of the above listed species and other sensitive biological resources. 

The Department concurs with several of these measures; however, not all of the 

Department's concerns are fully addressed in the DEIS. Our specific comments follow: 

Conserving Ca{ijornia's WiU{ije Since 1870 

BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies

L-15
Susan Skalski 

April 7, 2014 

Page 2 

Project Comments 

The Department has concerns regarding the addition of approximately 8,269 acres of ungrazed land to the allotments proposed in Alternative 1, the Preferred Alternative. The 

Department recommends the selection of Alternative 4, the Resource Protection Alternative, 

and it is unclear why this alternative was not selected. Alternative 4 does not include 

additional acreage, minimizes and excludes cattle from sensitive areas, and includes higher 

thresholds to trigger the Forest Service adaptive management framework. Further, per the 

DEIS Alternative 4 would include: 

• Reduced amount of potential suitable habitat for special status species (such as the 

great gray owl, Sierra Nevada red fox, willow flycatcher, etc.) impacted by grazing. 

• Reduced number of cow/calf units and reduced animal unit months (AUM). 

• Proposed fencing to exclude cattle from all known Yosemite toad habitat. Cattle 

fencing would not exclude deer to the meadow. 

• Stream bank disturbance standard of 10%. 

• Increased surveys for sensitive plants. 

• Reduced disturbance to deer populations. 

The Department encourages the Forest Service to implement Alternative 4, rather than 

Alternative 1. Further, the Department recommends the Forest Service address the 

following concerns in the final EIS, and incorporate our recommendations into the 

Department's recommended preferred alternative, Alternative 4. 

Monitoring 

The Department still has concerns regarding the monitoring and enforcement of 

grazing practices. Compliance with the Allotment Management Plans is still largely 

monitored by the permittees, and the Forest Service still has only has funding to monitor 

30 percent of allotment key areas. The Forest Service needs to commit to adequately 

monitor allotments on a yearly basis in order to implement the proposed adaptive 

management strategy. Without adequate monitoring and enforcement of the proposed 

conditions of the grazing permits it is unclear how the Forest Service can determine the 

actuai impacts of the proposed action and adaptively manage appropriately. The 

Department recommends that a financial commitment to an ongoing program of adequate 

monitoring and enforcement of the allotments for the life of the permits be made a condition 

of Project approval. 

Wildlife Species and Habitat: The impacts of grazing on wildlife species are not 

adequately mitigated in the DEIS. Without adequate monitoring and enforcement, as 

described above, the protective measures in the DEIS may not be sufficient to mitigate 

impacts to special status and management indicator species. 

Further, 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 

Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies

Stanislaus 

National Forest

L-16
Susan Skalski 

April 7, 2014 

Page 3 

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. Deer populations monitored by the Department on the 

Project area, which include a combination of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne deer herds, have 

been declining. Fall composition counts show that the survival of fawns on the summer 

range is not sufficient to replace annual adult mortality. Loft, Menke, and Kie (1991) found 

that female mule deer shifted habitat use by reducing their use of habitats preferred by 

cattle and increasing their use of habitats avoided by cattle. Deer preferred meadowriparian habitat at all grazing levels; however, in the absence of livestock grazing, meadowriparian habitat comprised a greater proportion of deer home ranges than when grazing 

occurred. Aspen habitat was found to be preferred by deer only in the absence of livestock 

grazing. Livestock grazing also negatively impacts the availability of fawning cover (Loft et 

al., 1987), increases completion for food resources, and results in dispersal of deer into 

suboptimal habitats. 

The Department desires to work with the Forest Service in developing measures that could 

be incorporated into the proposed action to eliminate or reduce the adverse effects to 

biological resource to a level of insignificance. 

Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA): If biological surveys result in the detection of 

any federally listed or candidate species, the Department recommends survey results be 

submitted to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service who has jurisdiction over species 

listed under.FESA. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this Project. If you have any 

questions on these issues, please contact Margarita Gordus, Staff Environmental Scientist, 

at the address provided on this letterhead, by telephone at 559-243-4014, extension 236, or 

by electronic mail at Margarita.Gordus@wildlife.ca.gov. 

Sincerely, 

-/ic{ c(c· c 

Jeffrey R. Single, Ph.D. 

Regional Manager 

cc: United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Forest and Foothills Branch 

2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605 

Sacramento, California 95825 

ec: Nathan Graveline, Environmental Scientist, CDFW 

Nathan.Graveline@wildlife.ca.gov 

BEH Rangeland Allotments 

Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies

L-17
Susan Skalski 

April 7, 2014 

Page 4 

Literature Cited 

Loft, E.R., J.W. Menke, J.G. Kie, and R.C. Bertram. 1987. Influence of cattle stocking rate 

on the structural profile of deer hiding cover. Journal of Wildlife Management. 51 (3):655-

664. 

Loft, E.R., J.W. Menke, J.G. Kie. 1991. Habitat shifts by mule deer: the influence of cattle 

grazing. Journal of Wildlife Management. 55(1):16-26. 

Appendix L 

Letters from Federal, State and Local Agencies

Stanislaus 

National Forest

L-18