Grazing Strategies for Dinkey Creek Allotment; Kings River Ranger District, Sierra National Forest

SUMMARY: The action to be evaluated by this EIS is the development of

an allotment management plan and authorization for cattle grazing on

the Dinkey Creek Allotment (Sierra National Forest, Clovis, CA) that

will be consistent with the standard and guidleines in the Forest Land

and Resource Management Plan.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to the Forest Supervisor,

Sierra National Forest, Supervisor's Office, 1600 Tollhouse Road,

Clovis, CA 93611-0532.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Elliott, Assistant Land

Management Planner, Sierra National Forest, 1600 Tollhouse Road,

Clovis, CA 93611-0532. Phone (209) 297-0706 extension 4881. FAX (209)

294-4809.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This EIS will evaluate various grazing

strategies of which one will be selected as the direction contained in

the Allotment Management Plan. A Term Grazing Permit must be issued by

the Forest Service before implementation of the proposed action.

Development of the various alternatives will be in conjunction with the

local community, cattle permittees, special interest groups, State Fish

and Game Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other

interested publics. The EIS will also address the socioeconomic effects

of the different strategies on the current permittee. As required by

NEPA, the Forest will also anlayze the ``no action'' alternative as a

baseline for estimating the impacts of the various other alternatives.

The following information including tentative issues and

alternatives have been identified through internal (FS) scoping.

1. Proposed Action Statement

The Forest Service proposed to develop an Allotment Management Plan

(AMP) and authorize continued grazing on the Dinkey Creek Allotment.

The AMP will guide livestock management for approximately a 10-year

period.

2. Purpose and Need

The purpose and need is to develop a management plan and provide

authorization for cattle grazing on the Dinkey Creek Allotment that

will be consistent with the standards and guidelines in the Sierra

Forest Plan. The management plan and permit authorization will help in

achieving the goals and future conditions prescribed for the area in

the Forest Plan.

3. Issues Identified by FS Interdisciplinary Team

a. What are the effects of riparian damage and streambank

destruction by livestock on water quality and the aquatic environment,

and how can those effects be addressed by alternative grazing

strategies?

Localized riparian damage and destruction of streambanks by

livestock may impair water quality through increased sedimentation

(embedded gravel) and higher water temperatures. This could affect

aquatic insects, fish, amphibian and reptile productivity.

b. What are the effects of livestock grazing mitigations on the

economic feasibilty of the permittee's operation, and how can those

effects be addressed by alternative grazing strategies?

Costs of mitigating environmental concerns related to various

resources such as water quality, aquatic habitat, deer habitat,

sensitive species habitat, riparian habitat and historic/cultural

sites, etc. may cause the permittee's operation to no longer be

economically feasible.

c. What are the effects of livestock grazing on key deer habitat,

and how can those effects be addressed by alternative grazing

strategies?

Deer/livestock conflicts, including inadequate amount of meadow-

edge fawn hiding cover in deer summer range and deer forage needs.

d. What are effects of livestock grazing on key willow flycatcher

habitat, and how can those effects be addressed by alternative grazing

strategies?

Willow flycatcher may be impacted by livestock due to nest

destruction and heavy browsing of willows.

e. What are the effects of livestock grazing on the historic,

cultural and archaeological resources of the area, and how can grazing

management either protect and/or enhance those resources?

Social conflict between historical way of life of the cowboy,

including preservation and maintenance of historical facilities, and

the protection of cultural sites from livestock damage such as

trampling and trailing through sites.

f. What are the effects of livestock grazing on Bolander's clover

and Invesia unguiculata and how can those effects be addressed by

alternative grazing strategies?

Bolander's clover may occur in the allotment and cattle grazing may

impact the species. Ivesia unguiculata is present in some meadows and

may occur in other meadows with the allotment and could be impacted by

livestock grazing.

g. What are the effects of livestock grazing on the recreational

experience (hiking, OHV routes, campsites, etc.), and how can those

effects be addressed by alternative grazing strategies?

Localized recreation conflicts may occur on hiking trails, OHV

routes, meadow-edge shade areas, and campsites due to interaction of

people and livestock (cattle excrement--cowpies, flies, ticks and

aesthetics).

4. Tentative Alternatives

No action--grazing would continue at current levels.

(1) Deer and willow flycatcher protection and management--Reduce

cattle grazing effects on key deer and willow flycatcher habitat by

changing season of use and number of cattle.

(2) Intensive range management--Control cattle utilization and

provide additional return of organic matter to the riparian and meadow

system by using a rest rotation strategy.

(2A) Intensive range management with riparian area mitigation--Same

grazing strategy as Alternative 2 except it adjusts cattle numbers and/

or season of use to protect riparian areas.

(3) Riparian and wildlife protection by short-term rest--Minimum

level management strategy. A non-use period for entire allotment.

(4) Intensive herding with emphasis on specialized monitoring

training for permittees--Emphasizes a greater partnership role and

Forest Service and Permittee by having the permittee conduct monitoring

of cattle utilization.

(5) Long term rest--No grazing would be allowed for five years,

long term rest (5 years) of the allotment. Other uses would continue.

Public Involvement

The public will be invited to participate in the scoping process,

review of the draft environmental impact statement and two public

meetings. Initial comments are now being excepted through September 26

from those who wish to participate. The first public meeting will be

September 7, 1994, 7PM at the Clovis Memorial Building located at the

corner of 5th and Hughs Streets in Clovis, California. The second

meeting will depend on the progress of the analysis and will be

announced at a latter date in the Fresno Bee newspaper.

Estimated release of the draft environmental impact statement for

public comment will be on April of 1995. The comment period on the

draft environmental impact statement will be 45-days from the date the

Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in

the Federal Register. After the comment period ends, the comments will

be analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the final

EIS. As a result, the final environmental impact statement should be

ready for release in September of 1995.

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important

to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public

participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of

draft environmental impact statements must structure their

participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is

meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and

contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,

(1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the

draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised

until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may

be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d

1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritage, Inc. v. Harris, 490

F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings,

it is very important that those interested in this proposed action

participate by the close of the 30 day comment period (ending on the

26th of September) so that substantive comments and objections are made

available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully

consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact

statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues

and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft

environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is

also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the

draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft

environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives

formulated and discussed in the Statement. Reviewers may wish to refer

to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing

the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at

40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Dated: August 25, 1994.

James L. Boynton,

Forest Supervisor, Sierra National Forest.

[FR Doc. 94-21480 Filed 8-30-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M