beh rangeland allotments (33836) environmental impact...

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: [email protected].

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

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.htmlmailto:[email protected]

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


L-1


. 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/cent ralvalley

0 RECYCLED PAPER



L-2

Water Boards


. 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 [email protected].

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



L-3



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.



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



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



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;,. __ _



L-8



' 1 : - '

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY .REGION IX

75 Hawthome StreetSan 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 Concerns Inslffficient Information (EC-2) due to the potential for further degradation of water quality and habitat for species 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 concernedwith 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



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 [email protected], 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

mailto:[email protected]



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 of such 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



EPA'SDETAILEDCOMMENTSONDRAFTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTFORTHE BELLMEADOW,EAGLEMEADOW ANDHERRING 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 of the rangelands through expansion of the current rangeland. Theoretically ibis 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 wouldmove 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



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



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



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



L-16


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 [email protected].

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 [email protected]



L-17


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.



L-18

CoverTable of Contents06_Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board07_Tuolumne County Administrator’s Office14_Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors15_Environmental Protection Agency17_California Department of Fish and Wildlife

beh rangeland allotments (33836) environmental impact...

Documents