range specialist’s reporta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2016-10-03 ·...
Post on 02-Aug-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Un ited Sta tes
Depa r tm en t of
Agr icu ltu re
Fores t
Service
Decem ber 2 01 5
Pre pare d By : Leigh Sevy, Fores t Ra n gela n d Ma n a gem en t Sp ecia lis t
Ca tt le from Mos qu ito Allotm en t on Mos qu ito Ridge Roa d a bove Du n ca n Ca n yon .
Range Specialist’s Report
Mosquito Range Allotment Environmental Analysis American River Ranger District, Tahoe National Forest Placer County, California Townships 14 and 15 North, Ranges 11, 12, and 13 East,
Mount Diablo Base and Meridian
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page i
Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
Tahoe Land and Resource Management Plan ............................................................................. 1
Description .................................................................................................................................. 1
Goals, Objectives, Standards and Guidelines ............................................................................. 2
Grazing standards and guidelines which were designated in 1990 in the LRMP ................... 2
SNFPA Forest-wide grazing standards and guidelines:.......................................................... 3
Best Management Practices ........................................................................................................ 9
Range-1. Rangeland Management Planning ........................................................................... 9
Range-2. Rangeland Permit Administration ......................................................................... 10
Range-3. Rangeland Improvements ...................................................................................... 12
CAPABILITY AND SUITABILITY ........................................................................................... 13
Capability .................................................................................................................................. 13
Suitability .................................................................................................................................. 15
HISTORY ..................................................................................................................................... 17
Grazing on the Tahoe National Forest ...................................................................................... 17
Mosquito Grazing Allotment History ....................................................................................... 20
CURRENT MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................... 23
Mosquito Allotment Use Areas ................................................................................................ 26
MONITORING DATA AND TREND ......................................................................................... 28
WATER QUALITY...................................................................................................................... 29
Proper Functioning Condition Assessment ............................................................................... 30
Riparian Habitat Site Monitoring.............................................................................................. 30
CLIMATE CHANGE ................................................................................................................... 32
EXISTING AND DESIRED CONDITION ................................................................................. 34
Need for Change ....................................................................................................................... 35
Scientific Integrity .................................................................................................................... 35
Assumptions and Methodologies of Analysis........................................................................... 36
ALTERNATIVES......................................................................................................................... 36
Proposed Action – Alternative A .............................................................................................. 36
Adaptive Management Strategy ............................................................................................ 42
Monitoring Plan .................................................................................................................... 43
Alternative B - No Action (Allotment stays in LRMP) ............................................................ 47
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page ii
EFFECTS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 47
Environmental Consequences – Rangeland Conditions ........................................................... 48
Proposed Action – Alternative A .............................................................................................. 48
Direct Effects – Alternative A .............................................................................................. 49
Indirect Effects – Alternative A ............................................................................................ 49
Cumulative Effects – Alternative A ...................................................................................... 50
No Action–No Grazing – Alternative B ................................................................................... 51
Direct Effects – Alternative B............................................................................................... 51
Indirect Effects – Alternative B ............................................................................................ 52
Cumulative Effects – Alternative B ...................................................................................... 52
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 54
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 1
List of Figures Figure 1 – Adaptive Management Process for management of range allotments .............................. 12
Figure 2 – Mosquito Allotment Capability ......................................................................................... 14
Figure 3 – Mosquito Allotment Suitability. ........................................................................................ 16
Figure 4 – Cattle and Cattle/Sheep Allotments on the Tahoe National Forest, 1915. ........................ 18
Figure 5 – Sheep Allotments on the Tahoe National Forest, 1915. .................................................... 18
Figure 6 – Cattle and Sheep Allotments on the Tahoe National Forest, 1939.................................... 19
Figure 7 – Graph from 1970’s showing permitted and actual use on the Mosquito allotment. .......... 22
Figure 8 – Location of Mosquito Allotment Browse Plants as seen from Google Earth ................... 24
Figure 9 – Approximate Range Use areas for the Mosquito Allotment ............................................. 27
Figure 10 – Range Use Areas by Suitability for the Mosquito Allotment.......................................... 28
Figure 11 – Existing and Proposed Water Improvements of the Mosquito Allotment ...................... 40
Figure 12 – Existing and Proposed Fences of the Mosquito Allotment ............................................. 41
Figure 13 – Monitoring Sites of the Mosquito Allotment .................................................................. 47
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page iii
List of Tables
Table 1 – Mosquito allotment Units (Pasture) acres ............................................................................................................. 2
Table 2 – Current Mosquito allotment Capability by Ownership Type. ............................................................................. 14
Table 3 – Quantitative and/or Qualitative measures of significant factors -- Mosquito Suitability Assessment. ............... 15
Table 4 – Proportion of allotment suitable of producing browse or forage for livestock and wildlife ............................... 16
Table 5 – Permitted numbers for the Mosquito Allotment from 1956 to 2015 ................................................................... 20
Table 6 – 2014 Production Data ......................................................................................................................................... 24
Table 7 – Current permitted use on the Mosquito Allotment. ............................................................................................ 24
Table 8 – Authorized/Actual numbers for the Mosquito grazing allotment for the permittee’s tenure. ............................. 25
Table 9 – Summary of the Permitted and Authorized Use on the Mosquito Allotment ..................................................... 25
Table 10 – Summary of structural improvements on Mosquito Allotment. ....................................................................... 26
Table 11 – Approximate Percent Use acres by Unit (Pasture) of the Mosquito Allotment ................................................ 26
Table 12 – Acres and percentage of Range Use Areas by Suitability for the Mosquito Allotment .................................... 27
Table 13 – 2015 Percent Browse Measurements* .............................................................................................................. 28
Table 14 – Woody Vegetation Utilization Standards ......................................................................................................... 29
Table 15 – Streambank Alteration Standards ..................................................................................................................... 29
Table 16 – Proper Functioning Condition Rating of Select Stream reaches within the Mosquito allotment ...................... 30
Table 17 – 2013 Results for Riparian Habitat Site Monitoring of Mosquito Allotment ..................................................... 31
Table 18 – 2015 Results for Riparian Habitat Site Monitoring of Mosquito Allotment ..................................................... 31
Table 19 – Existing/Desired Condition by Resource with Resource needs and proposed actions to meet those needs. .... 34
Table 20 – Key Areas to be established in the Mosquito Allotment.20 .............................................................................. 44
Table 21 – Monitoring grazing utilization and implementation of proposed actions for the Mosquito Allotment ............. 46
Table 22 – Summary of effects to the rangeland conditions for the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives ........... 53
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 1
INTRODUCTION This analysis provides a summary of past and current livestock grazing on the Mosquito Allotment.
Grazing for beef cattle production has occurred in the allotment since the 1850’s. There have been
various permittees on these grazing lands. Evon Jonas held the previous Grazing Permits from
1956 through August 1999. The Mosquito allotment has existed in its present form since the
1950’s. The allotment is mainly timber with stands of deerbrush (Ceanothus integerrimus),
whitethorn (Ceanothus cordulatus), chinquapin (Castanopsis sempervirens), and greenleaf
manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula) in areas that have been harvested and where canopy cover is
less than forty percent (40%).
Historical grazing records indicate that Forest Service grazing permits were issued from at least
1926 to the present day, possibly earlier. While records are incomplete, they indicate that, over
the decades, the number of cattle allowed to graze on this Allotment has declined throughout its
more than 80-year permitted grazing history. Over the last 15 years, grazing use has averaged
approximately 566 head per year (including years of non–use due to fires).
Tahoe Land and Resource Management Plan
The Mosquito Allotment is listed as a grazing allotment in the Tahoe National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan (LRMP, 1990) within the 091 Sunflower, 092 Peavine, 098
Eldorado, 099 Mosquito, 102 End of the World, 106 Big Oak, and 108 Little Oak Management
Areas and encompasses entirely the 104 Grouse Falls and 107 Big Tree Management areas.
Standards and guidelines apply to grazing in these management areas to meet resource goals and
objectives defined in the LRMP. The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (SNFPA) amended the LRMP in 2004.
Description
The Mosquito Allotment is a mid-elevation forested allotment with the main grazing occurring in
forested rangelands that have been harvested in elevations ranging from approximately 2,000
feet on the west to 6,400 feet on the east. Large openings within the forest provide the primary
forage base for livestock. The planning area is located in T15N, R12 & 13E, and T14N, R11, 12,
& 13E. The current planning area consists of the Mosquito allotment totaling approximately
27,030 acres of which 26,107 acres (96.6%) are National Forest System lands, 314 acres (1.2%)
are owned by Simorg West Forest LLC, 190 acres are owned by Sierra Pacific Industries (0.7%),
and the remaining 420 acres (1.6%) are smaller private land parcels.
The allotment is comprised of five units: Big Oak Flat, Spruce Creek, Mosquito Ridge, Peavine,
and Trap Line. The Big Oak Flat Unit encompasses 2,100 acres of which 1,930 acres are NFS
lands. Spruce Creek Unit encompasses 6,442 acres of which 6,230 acres are NFS lands. The
Mosquito Ridge Unit encompasses a total of 3,475 acres of which all acres are National Forest
System (NFS) lands. Peavine Unit encompasses 12,396 acres of which 12,000 acres are NFS
lands. The Trap Line Unit encompasses a total of 2,616 acres of which 2,580 acres are National
Forest System (NFS) lands. The Mosquito allotment makes up 2% of Tahoe National Forest
(TNF) lands and 5% of TNF lands that are in grazing allotments. The Units are managed under
season long grazing.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 2
Table 1 – Mosquito allotment Units (Pasture) acres
Unit Name Unit Total Acres
Big Oak Flat 2,099
Spruce Creek 6,438
Mosquito Ridge 3,475
Peavine 12,396
Trap Line 2,621
Total 27,029
The climate and elevation limits this area to late spring and summer grazing since the forage
typically undergoes chemical changes mid-September and becomes less-palatable and nutrient
deficient later in the growing season (Kie, 1986). There is ample water available for livestock
throughout the grazing season in the form of perennial water sources.
The composition of livestock forage in this range is mainly deerbrush and upland grasses in
transitory range. The existing Allotment contains a few small wet meadows (less than ½ an acre
in size) associated with springs, seeps and in riparian areas of creeks. Spreitzer (1985) has defined
transitory range “as forested lands that are suitable for grazing for a limited time following a complete or
partial forest removal.” These forested areas generally have canopy closures less than forty percent and
are extensive in the allotment. Additionally, there are shrub fields with a mixture of deerbrush,
buckbrush, Greenleaf manzanita, and some small upland areas with grasses and forbs. Large areas
are dominated by Sierran Mixed Conifer with a canopy >40% cover and are not preferred forage
areas for cattle.
Tahoe National Forest has 36 allotments encompassing approximately 560,930 acres. The
Mosquito Allotment encompasses approximately 27,030 acres, representing less than five
percent of the NFS land in the TNF allotment land base. The capable rangeland in the allotment
amounts to approximately 13,033 acres (48%); within those capable acres roughly 7,895 (29%)
are considered suitable for grazing. The allotment is grazed approximately 4.0 months of the year
in an average year (usually June 1 through September 30), depending on the range resource and
annual weather conditions.
Goals, Objectives, Standards and Guidelines
The Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan of 1990 (LRMP) was amended
by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement Record of Decision of 2004 (SNFPA) by expanding on standards and guidelines
applicable to grazing in order to meet more specific land management goals and objectives. For
instance, the SNFPA established goals and objectives for designated riparian areas in the Aquatic
Management Strategy (AMS) and Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCO).
Grazing standards and guidelines which were designated in 1990 in the LRMP and that are
applicable to the Mosquito Allotment are as follows:
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species Management, Plant Management Emphasis – Manage
sensitive plants to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service
activities. LRMP Forestwide S&G #23, page V-28.
Range Program Administration – Protect, utilize, improve, inventory, and evaluate the range resource as
needed. Activities include range allotment management plans and inventories, administration, monitoring,
evaluations, research, cooperation, and preparation of environmental documents. This applies to all available,
capable, and suitable range lands both in and outside existing allotments. Fully utilize and improve the
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 3
condition of the permanent range type by enacting improved grazing systems. Examine all vacant allotments
and return them to active AUM production if feasible. Fully utilize transitory range opportunities on the
Forest in conjunction with the timber program and range allotment planning. LRMP Forestwide S&G #32,
page V-31.
Range Forage Utilization – Forage utilization standards described in FSH 2209.21, Range Environmental
Analysis Handbook, will be used initially to develop allowable use criteria. The interdisciplinary team
develops the final allowable use criteria. These criteria must be based on the factor that becomes critical or
limiting first (either a forage or nonforage factor). In some range areas it may be necessary to establish more
than one set of allowable use criteria. This is especially true for riparian areas. Riparian areas will be managed
so that riparian-dependent resources (water, fish, wildlife, riparian-related aesthetics, riparian-related
vegetation) take precedence over nonriparian-related resources. Where there is a conflict, it will be resolved in
favor of the riparian-dependent resource. Allotment management plans must establish allowable use… For
more explanation refer to LRMP Forestwide S&G #33, pages V-31 to V-32.
SNFPA Forest-wide grazing standards and guidelines:
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. 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.
The SNFPA 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.
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.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 4
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.
The SNFPA established an aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystem strategy with the following key
elements: a description of desired conditions for aquatic, riparian, and meadow habitats developed from the AMS
goals.
a set of land allocations, specifically riparian conservation areas and critical aquatic refuges, that delineate
aquatic, riparian, and meadow habitats, which are to be managed consistent with the riparian conservation
objectives (RCOs) and associated standards and guidelines.
an adaptive management program that includes monitoring and research activities specifically aimed at
assessing effects of management activities on the willow flycatcher ...
the use of landscape analysis as a tool for assessing existing uses and identifying restoration and
enhancement projects.
The SNFPA designated riparian conservation areas (RCA) as follows:
Perennial Streams: 300 feet on each side of the stream, measured from the bank full edge of the stream
Seasonally Flowing Streams (includes intermittent and ephemeral streams): 150 feet on each side of the
stream, measured from the bank full edge of the stream
Streams in Inner Gorge: top of inner gorge (Inner gorge is defined by stream adjacent slopes greater than 70
percent gradient)
Special Aquatic Features or Perennial Streams with Riparian Conditions extending more than 150 feet
from edge of streambank or Seasonally Flowing streams with riparian conditions extending more than 50
feet from edge of streambank: 300 feet from edge of feature or riparian vegetation, whichever width is greater
(Special Aquatic Features include: lakes, wet meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, and springs)
Other hydrological or topographic depressions without a defined channel: RCA width and protection
measures determined through project level analysis.
The SNFPA established desired conditions for RCAs as follows: 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.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 5
Spatial and temporal connectivity for riparian and aquatic-dependent species within and between watersheds
provides physically, chemically and biologically unobstructed movement for their 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.
General SNFPA Standards and Guidelines for Riparian Conservation Areas are as follows:
91. Designate riparian conservation area (RCA) widths as described in Part B of this appendix. The RCA
widths displayed in Part B may be adjusted at the project level if a landscape analysis has been
completed and a site-specific RCO analysis demonstrates a need for different widths.
92. Evaluate new proposed management activities within RCAs during environmental analysis to
determine consistency with the riparian conservation objectives at the project level and the AMS goals
for the landscape. Ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are enacted to (1) minimize the risk of
activity-related sediment entering aquatic systems and (2) minimize impacts to habitat for aquatic- or
riparian-dependent plant and animal species.
93. Identify existing uses and activities in RCAs during landscape analysis. At the time of permit
reissuance, evaluate and consider actions needed for consistency with RCOs.
94. As part of project-level analysis, conduct peer reviews for projects that propose ground-disturbing
activities in more than 25 percent of the RCA or more than 15 percent of a CAR.
Riparian Conservation Objective #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.
(RCO #1 is linked to the following AMS goals: #1: Water Quality; #2: Species Viability; #7: Watershed
Condition)
Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCO #1
95. For waters designated as "Water Quality Limited" (Clean Water Act Section 303(d)), participate in the
development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and TMDL Implementation Plans. Execute
applicable elements of completed TMDL Implementation Plans.
96. Ensure that management activities do not adversely affect water temperatures necessary for local
aquatic- and riparian-dependent species assemblages.
97. Limit pesticide applications to cases where project level analysis indicates that pesticide applications
are consistent with riparian conservation objectives.
98. Within 500 feet of known occupied sites for the California red-legged frog, Cascades frog, Yosemite
toad, foothill yellow-legged frog, mountain yellow-legged frog, and northern leopard frog, design
pesticide applications to avoid adverse effects to individuals and their habitats.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 6
99. Prohibit storage of fuels and other toxic materials within RCAs and CARs except at designated
administrative sites and sites covered by a Special Use Authorization. Prohibit refueling within RCAs
and CARs unless there are no other alternatives. Ensure that spill plans are reviewed and up-to-date.
Standards and Guidelines Associated with 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 aquatic-dependent species. (RCO #2 is linked to the following
AMS Goals: #2: Species Viability; #3: Plant and Animal Community Diversity; #4: Special Habitats; #5:
Watershed Connectivity; #6: Floodplains and Water Tables; #8: Streamflow Patterns and Sediment Regimes;
#9: Streambanks and Shorelines)
Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCO #2
100. 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.
101. Ensure that culverts or other stream crossings do not create barriers to upstream or downstream
passage for aquatic-dependent species. Locate water drafting sites to avoid adverse effects to in
stream flows and depletion of pool habitat. Where possible, maintain and restore the timing,
variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows, wetlands,
and other special aquatic features.
102. 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.
103. 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.
105. 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.
106. Cooperate with Federal, Tribal, State and local governments to secure in stream flows needed to
maintain, recover, and restore riparian resources, channel conditions, and aquatic habitat. Maintain in
stream flows to protect aquatic systems to which species are uniquely adapted. Minimize the effects
of stream diversions or other flow modifications from hydroelectric projects on threatened,
endangered, and sensitive species.
107. For exempt hydroelectric facilities on national forest lands, ensure that special use permit language
provides adequate in stream flow requirements to maintain, restore, or recover favorable ecological
conditions for local riparian- and aquatic-dependent species.
Riparian Conservation Objective #3: Ensure a renewable supply of large down logs that: (1) can
reach the stream channel and (2) provide suitable habitat within and adjacent to the RCA. (RCO #3 is linked to
the following AMS goals: #2: Species Viability; #3: Plant and Animal Community Diversity)
Standard and Guideline Associated with RCO #3
108. Determine if the level of coarse large woody debris (CWD) is within the range of natural variability
in terms of frequency and distribution and is sufficient to sustain stream channel physical complexity
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 7
and stability. Ensure proposed management activities move conditions toward the range of natural
variability.
Riparian Conservation Objective #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. (RCO #4 is linked to the following AMS Goals: #2: Species Viability,
#7: Watershed Condition)
Standard and Guideline Associated with RCO #4
109. Within CARs, in occupied habitat or "essential habitat" as identified in conservation assessments for
threatened, endangered, or sensitive species, evaluate the appropriate role, timing, and extent of
prescribed fire. Avoid direct lighting within riparian vegetation; prescribed fires may back into
riparian vegetation areas. Develop mitigation measures to avoid impacts to these species whenever
ground-disturbing equipment is used.
110. Use screening devices for water drafting pumps. (Fire suppression activities are exempt during initial
attack.) Use pumps with low entry velocity to minimize removal of aquatic species, including
juvenile fish, amphibian egg masses and tadpoles, from aquatic habitats.
111. Design prescribed fire treatments to minimize disturbance of ground cover and riparian vegetation in
RCAs. In burn plans for project areas that include, or are adjacent to RCAs, identify mitigation
measures to minimize the spread of fire into riparian vegetation. In determining which mitigation
measures to adopt, weigh the potential harm of mitigation measures, for example fire lines, against
the risks and benefits of prescribed fire entering riparian vegetation. Strategies should recognize the
role of fire in ecosystem function and identify those instances where fire suppression or fuel
management actions could be damaging to habitat or long-term function of the riparian community.
112. Post-wildfire management activities in RCAs and CARs should emphasize enhancing native
vegetation cover, stabilizing channels by non-structural means, minimizing adverse effects from the
existing road network, and carrying out activities identified in landscape analyses. Post-wildfire
operations shall minimize the exposure of bare soil.
113. Allow hazard tree removal within RCAs or CARs. Allow mechanical ground disturbing fuels
treatments, salvage harvest, or commercial fuelwood cutting within RCAs or CARs when the activity
is consistent with RCOs. Utilize low ground pressure equipment, helicopters, over the snow logging,
or other non-ground disturbing actions to operate off of existing roads when needed to achieve RCOs.
Ensure that existing roads, landings, and skid trails meet Best Management Practices. Minimize the
construction of new skid trails or roads for access into RCAs for fuel treatments, salvage harvest,
commercial fuelwood cutting, or hazard tree removal.
114. As appropriate, assess and document aquatic conditions following the Regional Stream Condition
Inventory protocol prior to implementing ground disturbing activities within suitable habitat for
California red-legged frog, Cascades frog, Yosemite toad, foothill and mountain yellow-legged frogs,
and northern leopard frog.
115. During fire suppression activities, consider impacts to aquatic- and riparian-dependent resources.
Where possible, locate incident bases, camps, helibases, staging areas, helispots, and other centers for
incident activities outside of RCAs or CARs. During pre-suppression planning, determine guidelines
for suppression activities, including avoidance of potential adverse effects to aquatic- and riparian-
dependent species as a goal.
116. 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.
Riparian Conservation Objective #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. (RCO #5 is linked to the following AMS
goals: #1: Water Quality, #2 Species Viability, #3 Plant and Animal Community Diversity, #4 Special Habitats;
#7: Watershed Condition; #9: Stream Banks and Shorelines)
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 8
Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCO #5
117. 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).
118. 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 permits.
119. 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.
120. 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 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 meadows 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.
121. 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 Conservation Objective #6: Identify and implement restoration actions to maintain,
restore or enhance water quality and maintain, restore, or enhance habitat for riparian and aquatic species. (RCO
# 6 is linked to all AMS goals)
Standard and Guideline Associated with RCO #6
122. 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.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 9
Best Management Practices In 2012 the Forest Service’s Regional Best Management Practices (BMPs) were replaced by National
BMPs. The National Core BMPs integrate individual State and Forest Service regional BMPs under one
umbrella to facilitate an agency-wide BMP monitoring program. The national core set provides general,
nonprescriptive BMPs for the broad range of activities that occur on NFS lands. Nearly every BMP in the
national core set already exists in current regulations, guidance, or procedures. Adopting a standard
national core set of BMPs may change what some national forests and grasslands refer to as their BMPs,
but it will not change the substance of site-specific BMP prescriptions. Those prescriptions will continue
to be based on State BMPs, regional Forest Service guidance, land management plan standards and
guidelines, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment. Standardization will improve
consistency, ensure that Forest Service resource professionals use best available science to develop site-
specific BMP prescriptions, and, ultimately, improve water quality on and downstream of NFS lands.
The purpose of Rangeland Management Activities set of BMPs is to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse
effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources that may result from rangeland management activities.
Rangeland use includes grazing by cattle, sheep, goats, horses, and saddle stock used to manage the range
and recreational stock. A primary purpose of the rangeland management program is to provide forage for
commercial livestock operations. Grazing can also be a means of managing vegetation to meet other
resource management objectives, such as fuels management, invasive species management, wildlife
habitat improvement, and reduction of competing vegetation in plantations.
Three National Core BMPs are for Rangeland Management Activities. These BMPs are to be used when
managing livestock grazing on National Forest System (NFS) lands. Each BMP is based on
administrative directives that guide and direct the Forest Service planning and permitting of livestock
grazing activities on NFS land. BMP Range-1 (Rangeland Management Planning) is a planning BMP for
management of grazing allotments. BMP Range-2 (Rangeland Permit Administration) provides practices
to be used when administering rangeland permits, including controlling overall livestock numbers,
distribution, and season of use. BMP Range-3 (Rangeland Improvements) provides guidance for
construction and maintenance of structural and nonstructural improvements and improvement of
deteriorated rangeland soil and water resources.
The full implementation of BMPs in Rangeland Management Activities requires the application of other
BMPs as well as those listed in this section.
Range-1. Rangeland Management Planning
Objective: Use the project-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning process to develop measures
to include in the Allotment Management Plan (AMP) to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to soil, water
quality, and riparian resources from rangeland management activities.
Explanation: Analysis of existing rangeland conditions and other resource values is conducted for each allotment as
part of the project-level NEPA analysis and decision process for authorizing livestock grazing on NFS lands. The
AMP is derived from the NEPA document and decision and is the primary document that guides implementation of
land management plan direction for rangeland resources at the allotment (project) level. The AMP is included as
part of the grazing permit and provides special management provisions, instructions, and terms and conditions for
that permit.
Practices: Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when required,
using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information,
and professional judgment.
Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-2 (Project Planning and Analysis) and BMP Plan-3 (Aquatic Management
Zone [AMZ] Planning) when completing allotment management planning and analysis.
• Validate land management plan grazing suitability decisions for the allotment.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 1 0
• Establish desired conditions for the allotment consistent with land management plan goals and objectives
for water quality and AMZs.
Consider linkages between rangelands and soils, water quality, and riparian and aquatic systems
when determining rangeland desired conditions.
Consider the ecological potential of riparian and aquatic systems when determining AMZ desired
conditions.
• Evaluate current rangeland condition and trends using accepted protocols.
Review past management within the allotment.
• Determine management objectives and needs for livestock grazing and water resources affected by
livestock grazing from management direction in the land management plan, biological opinions, or other
binding direction and comparison of desired conditions with existing conditions.
• Identify potential management strategies and rangeland and riparian improvement needs to maintain or
move resources in the allotment toward achieving desired conditions.
Establish management requirements such as the season of use, number, kind, class of livestock,
and the grazing systems.
• Establish annual endpoint indicators of use (e.g., forage utilization, stubble height, streambank alteration,
woody browse use) related to the desired conditions and triggers (thresholds) for management actions, such
as modifying intensity, frequency, duration, and timing or excluding livestock use.
Set the indicator thresholds at levels suitable to maintain or achieve desired conditions for uplands,
riparian areas, and aquatic ecosystems.
• Develop a monitoring strategy and plan for adaptive management of the allotment.
Use accepted protocols to evaluate compliance with annual indicators of use and other land
management plan standards.
Use accepted protocols to evaluate ecological status and trend, including water quality, aquatic
habitats, and beneficial uses.
• Document the following items from the project-level NEPA decision and analysis in the AMP, grazing
permit, and Annual Operating Instructions (AOI):
Management objectives for livestock grazing and all resources affected by livestock grazing.
Management requirements for livestock grazing in the allotment.
Monitoring requirements to implement adaptive management in the allotment.
Schedules for rehabilitating rangelands that do not meet land management plan objectives,
initiating range improvements, and maintaining existing improvements (see BMP Range-3
[Rangeland Improvements]).
Manual or Handbook Reference: Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2200 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13,
chapter 90.
Range-2. Rangeland Permit Administration
Objective: Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources when managing
rangeland vegetation and livestock grazing through administration and monitoring of grazing permits and AOI.
Explanation: Improper grazing can adversely affect the watershed condition in several ways. Loss of effective
ground cover in the uplands leads to increases in overland flow and peak runoff. Soil compaction, loss of ground
cover, and reduced plant vigor in riparian areas decreases the ability of the riparian area to filter pollutants and
function as a floodplain. Streambank trampling increases stream channel width/depth ratio, resulting in a change in
stream type and a lowering of the water table. Wider and shallower streams have higher stream temperatures and
lower dissolved oxygen content and are often unable to move the sediment load effectively, resulting in increased
flooding and bank stress. Introducing sediment, nutrients, and pathogens into waterbodies from grazing can lower
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 1 1
water quality. Managing livestock numbers, distribution, timing, and season of use can reduce the potential for these
impacts.
A grazing permit is used to authorize livestock grazing on NFS lands. The permit delineates the area to be grazed
and defines the number, kind, and class of livestock to be grazed and the season of use. The special terms and
conditions in the permit contain required management practices from the project-level NEPA decision to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate effects to water quality and other resource values. The permit and AMP also include
monitoring requirements to evaluate compliance with standards and determine long-term trends in range condition.
AOI issued to the grazing permittee specify those annual actions needed to implement the management direction set
forth in the project-level NEPA-based decision. The AOI identify the obligations of the permittee and the Forest
Service and clearly articulate annual grazing management requirements, standards, and monitoring necessary to
document compliance. The permittee carries out the terms and conditions of the permit under the immediate
direction and supervision of the district ranger.
Practices: Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when required,
using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information,
and professional judgment.
• Conduct implementation and effectiveness monitoring as specified in the AMP.
• Monitor water quality, habitat, or other designated beneficial uses of water as necessary (e.g., 303(d)
listed streams, required terms of Biological Opinions).
• Use monitoring results as an adaptive management feedback loop to revise, if necessary, annual grazing
requirements in the AOI to account for current allotment conditions and trends (figure 1).
• Use results of annual compliance monitoring and periodic trend monitoring, as well as forage utilization
by wildlife and recreational livestock, to determine allowable annual amount of livestock use to meet
rangeland and AMZ desired conditions.
• Adjust livestock numbers, season of use, and distribution when monitoring and periodic assessments
indicate consistent noncompliance with permit provisions.
Use suitable range management tools to alter livestock distribution.
Consider resting (placing an area in nonuse status for a period of time) a pasture or an allotment to
allow for natural recovery of resource conditions.
• Document adaptive management actions such as allowable use, the planned sequence of grazing on the
allotment, and any other operational changes in the AOI.
Modify the AMP and terms and conditions in the grazing permit for adaptive management actions
that become consistent over a period of years or grazing rotations.
• Modify, cancel, or suspend the permit in whole or in part, as needed, to ensure proper use of the rangeland
resource and protection of water quality.
Use permit authorities to change operations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil,
water quality, and riparian resources when special circumstances (e.g., drought) occur.
Manual or Handbook Reference: FSH 2209.13.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 1 2
Figure 1 – Adaptive Management Process for management of range allotments
Range-3. Rangeland Improvements
Objective: Implement range improvements to maintain or improve soil, water quality, and riparian resources.
Explanation: Rangeland improvements targeted at soil, water quality, and riparian resources are designed to protect
or improve conditions of sensitive areas, streams, riparian areas, and wetlands and move these resources toward
desired conditions. Improvements should emphasize protecting the beneficial uses in these areas. Improvements may
supplement changes in annual use levels, seasonal use, distribution, and number, or other administrative actions.
Development and maintenance of rangeland improvements can be the responsibility of either the permittee or the
Forest Service. The district ranger will ensure that the permittee is involved as a cooperator in rangeland
improvements. The permittee may construct or maintain improvements under Forest Service direction, or Forest
Service crews or contractors may construct or maintain improvements.
Practices: Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when required,
using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information,
and professional judgment.
• Identify and evaluate range improvement needs for soil, water quality, and riparian resources during
watershed analysis, watershed condition assessment, project-level rangeland NEPA, or other assessment
efforts.
• Include and schedule improvement actions and maintenance in the AMP and grazing permit.
• Design, implement, and maintain structural and nonstructural range improvements to achieve or sustain
desired conditions for the rangeland, soils, water quality, and riparian resources in the allotment as
determined in the project-level NEPA decision.
Use rangeland vegetation species and establishment techniques suitable to the project site and
objectives and consistent with local direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for
vegetation ecology and prevention and control of invasive species.
Use applicable Chemical Use Activities BMPs when using chemicals to treat rangeland vegetation
and control invasive species.
Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-8 (Mechanical Site Treatment) when implementing
mechanical treatments of rangeland vegetation.
Use applicable practices of BMP Fire-2 (Use of Prescribed Fire) when using prescribed fire to
improve rangeland vegetation and conditions.
Use applicable practices of BMP AqEco-3 (Ponds and Wetlands) and BMP AqEco-4 (Stream
Channels and Shorelines) for improvement activities that involve waterbodies.
Use applicable practices of BMP WatUses-3 (Administrative Water Developments) when
developing water sources for livestock watering.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 1 3
CAPABILITY AND SUITABILITY The information below is a synopsis of the capability and suitability analysis. The complexity of
issues within the Mosquito Allotment required significant analysis. There is a separate Capability
and Suitability Report for the Mosquito Allotment, 2015. Detailed information can be found in
that report.
Capability
Capability depends upon current conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform,
soils, and geology. The 1985 Tahoe National Forest (Tahoe) Land and Resource Management
Plan (LRMP) rangeland capability analysis provides acres for both capable and suitable
rangeland. Capable can be simply defined as those lands that are physically able to accommodate
livestock grazing. Capability is defined in Forest Service Manual 1905, as it relates specifically
to grazing as lands accessible to livestock, producing forage or having inherent forage-producing
capability, and able to withstand grazing on a sustained basis under reasonable management
practices. Accessible areas that produce forage as a result of timber management practices, fire,
or other events may be classified as capable rangeland.
Capable rangeland as defined within the Tahoe LRMP includes both permanent and transitory
range. Permanent range consists of high mountain meadows throughout the Sierra Crest and the
eastside pine forest type. Transitory range is created by wildland fires and by timber management
practices, especially timber harvesting. Transitory range occurs primarily on the lower elevation
western slopes, and lasts only as long as the tree canopy is below 40% closure, or the shrub type
contains a good proportion of deerbrush (Ceanothus integerrimus). The Tahoe LRMP identified
three major categories to determine land capable of range production: 1) land capable of producing
permanent range; 2) land capable of producing transitory range; and 3) land not capable of
producing forage (TNF LRMP 3-43). Transitory range has been defined as “forested lands that
are suitable for grazing for a limited time following a complete or partial forest removal” (Spreitzer
1985). And according to Allen (2011) “are generally higher elevation and/or more mesic forests,
often grazed primarily in the summer. Grazing occurs in openings, streamsides, meadows, along
roads, and on cutover and burned over land early in the successional life-cycle of the forest.”
The Tahoe LRMP was amended in 2004 by the Sierra Nevada Forests Plan Amendment (SNFPA),
Appendix K (2001) which further defined capability as having the following attributes:
1. Areas with less than 30% slopes for cattle… Frequently, the degree of slope cannot be used
by itself as a clear-cut guide to capability but must be considered as it interacts with other
local factors. Among these are location of water, length of slope, and kind of livestock and
their familiarity with the range. Exceptions may be made if, through successfully
demonstrated historical use, Forest Plan goals and objectives can be met. (The Tahoe
LRMP standard of 50% slope or less was used, due to site visits that showed that the few
issues are not related to slopes or soils, but are more about water resources and special
aquatic features such as peatlands/fens and their associated riparian vegetation.)
2. Soil with the potential to produce at least an average of 200 pounds per acre per year.
3. Areas are accessible to livestock, i.e., absence of physical barriers (water bodies, large rock
out crops, etc.).
Other Capability Considerations
Additionally, non-capable lands include areas of steep slopes (not accessible), areas where
palatable forage is lacking (barren land, rock out crops, river wash, hydraulic pits, lakes or
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 1 4
large rivers, etc.), water sources are too distant, where lands cannot be grazed without extensive
management improvements added (dense forest canopies that would have to be thinned), or
where conflicts with other resources, (such as private land, etc.) are considered too great to be
resolved.
Rangeland capability was analyzed using the Tahoe NF GIS database and professional
knowledge of the forage in the allotment. The above parameters were used to define the
generally capable area within the allotment; from these parameters it was determined that there
are approximately 13,033 acres of generally capable rangelands within the allotment (Table 2
and Figure 2.
Figure 2 – Mosquito Allotment Capability
Table 2 – Current Mosquito allotment Capability by Ownership Type.
Unit NFS
Acres
Private
Forests
Acres
Other
Acres
Total
Acres
NFS
Cap
Acres
Private
Forests
Acres
Total
Cap
Acres
%
Cap
NFS
% Cap
Private
Forests
%
Cap
Total
Big Oak Flat 1,930 0 169 2,099 798 0 798 3% 0% 3%
Spruce Creek 6,230 208 0 6,438 2,704 96 2,800 10% 0.4% 10%
Mosquito Ridge 3,475 0 0 3,475 2,993 0 2,993 11% 0% 11%
Peavine 12,001 392 3 12,396 4,140 290 4,430 15% 1% 16%
Trap Line 2,584 0 37 2,621 2,012 0 2,012 7% 0% 7%
Total Acres 26,220 600 209 27,029 12,647 386 13,033 47% 1% 48%
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 1 5
Suitability
Rangelands defined as suitable include only those capable lands that meet both ecological and
social suitability criteria, thus becoming more restrictive. Suitable lands can be thought of as those
capable lands that are available for grazing after examining those land management decisions for
site-specific areas. Lands may be capable, but not suitable on a site-specific basis due to land
management direction excluding grazing in an area. Additionally, the suitability assessment is
“conducted to address whether livestock grazing is compatible with management direction for a
management area's other uses and values, and which, if any, other uses would be foregone with
livestock grazing” (SNFPA - Appendix K, 2001). However, the designation of lands as either not
capable or not suitable does not mean that these lands cannot be used for egress or ingress, with
incidental use, by livestock into lands that are capable and/or suitable.
The Mosquito Allotment is designated suitable for grazing in the LRMP. Suitability of the
allotment is confirmed by actual use. There are factors which are considered as having the
potential to affect suitability of the Mosquito Allotment for grazing; however, generally the
applicable standards and guidelines from the LRMP, as amended, successfully mitigate potential
effects. These factors are summarized as follows.
Table 3 – Quantitative and/or Qualitative measures of significant factors -- Mosquito Suitability Assessment.
Factors affecting
rangeland
suitability
Potential effects to suitability
Degree of Effects to Suitability
Degree of
localized effect
Overall effect to the
allotment’s suitability
Forage availability The allotment has interspersed shrub fields that are open
and provide forage for livestock grazing.
High
Moderate
Special Aquatic
Features: Fens,
Peatlands, Springs
and Seeps
There are peatlands, spring complexes, springs and seeps
scattered throughout the allotment. Livestock are
attracted to these sites and have caused resource damage
at some of these sites.
High Moderate-High
Recreation
The Tevis Cup and Western States Endurance Ran occur
on the Allotment, one at the beginning of the grazing
season and one during the grazing season. Conflicts
along the Western States Trail Occur but are rare. There
are no other known recreation issues for the Mosquito
allotment.
Medium Low
Noxious Weeds
Permittee feeds livestock at end of season to attract them
in for gathering. So far feed has been weed free, but if
not diligent, could create a problem.
High Low
Cultural resources
There are cultural resources scattered throughout the
allotment. Salting grounds are also located throughout
the allotment. A minimum 300 feet distance needs to be
instituted near cultural resource sites.
High Moderate
TES Species (Fauna
and/or Flora)
There are some known plants within the allotment; some
occur on rock outcrops and in serpentine soils where
livestock don’t tend to graze. Others are found within
peatlands, springs/seeps and the Placer Big Trees SIA,
some trampling has occurred at peatlands and
springs/seeps. No known effects at Placer Big Trees SIA.
SNYL, FHYL, RLF may occur on the allotment but have
yet to be identified.
Moderate
(S&Gs minimize
impacts)
Moderate
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 1 6
Primary and Secondary Ranges
The capable and suitable lands are generally spatially linked, providing movement corridors for
grazing throughout the allotment. Primary rangelands are synonymous with permanent
rangelands. Permanent range consists of high mountain meadows throughout the Sierra Crest
and the eastside pine forest type. Secondary rangelands, or transitory range, are created by
wildland fires and by timber management practices, especially timber harvesting. Transitory
range occurs primarily on the lower elevation western slopes, and lasts only as long as the tree
canopy is below 40% closure, or the shrub type contains a good proportion of deerbrush
(Ceanothus integerrimus). Transitory rangelands include woodlands, early seral stage forests
(with a relatively open canopy and/or with a herbaceous understory), or other areas that
currently provide grazing forage but are expected at some point to no longer provide forage as
the canopy becomes dense over time and sunlight transmission to the ground is reduced.
Secondary rangelands may include lands with slopes greater than 30% and less than 50% slopes.
The Mosquito allotment is primarily transitory rangelands.
Table 4 – Proportion of allotment suitable of producing browse or forage for livestock and wildlife
Vegetation Suitability Allotment Big Oak Flat Spruce Creek Mosquito Ridge Peavine Trap Line
Acres
Suitable 7,892 602 1,696 1,369 2,777 1,448
Suitable for Travel 19,137 1,497 4,742 2,106 9,619 1,173
Total 27,029 2,099 6,438 3,475 12,396 2,621
Percentage
Suitable 29.2% 28.7% 26.3% 39.4% 22.4% 55.2%
Suitable for Travel 70.8% 71.3% 73.7% 60.6% 77.6% 44.8%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Figure 3 – Mosquito Allotment Suitability.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 1 7
HISTORY
Grazing on the Tahoe National Forest
Grazing has occurred in the area now designated as the Mosquito Allotment since the Gold Rush
days starting in the 1850’s. Burcham (1956) reports that “Almost overnight a prodigious market
for meat was created—on the very doorstep of the California rancher. The spectacular livestock
boom which marked the decade that followed was a natural outgrowth of the Gold Rush.” The
demand for meat could not be satisfied by local ranches and therefore “Large herds were driven
from Texas, Mexico, Arizona and New Mexico while more than 150,000 head” entered the state
between 1852 and 1853 from the Mid-West. Droughts in the latter part of the decade into the
early 1900’s saw many of these large herds decimated due not only to lack of water but to lack of
feed as well. The World Wars saw an increased demand for meat, wool and leather, which put a
strain on the resources of all National Forests in meeting that demand. However, after each
World War numbers were reduced by the Forest Service to increase the quality of grazing lands.
(West, 1992). The Tahoe National Forest was formed in 1906 when President Theodore
Roosevelt consolidated the Lake Tahoe Forest Reserve and Yuba Forest Reserve into the Tahoe
National Forest (Jackson etal (1982); USDA PSW Region (online)).
The following information came from the 1984 Jackson Research Project report History of the
Tahoe National Forest; 1840 – 1940. Range management and the founding of allotments started
when the Forest Reserves were first established, with the establishment of the reserves, the
grazing problem become “one of the most perplexing in reserve management.” The problem
was framed in the context of sheep vs. cattle without getting to the “problem in its broadest
context.” By the time the forests began to be created, cattlemen and sheepmen had been grazing
their livestock on the ranges of Northern California for several decades. By the early 1900s the
competition for forage stimulated a “demand for control of the public domain by the stockmen
themselves.” The Forest Reserves were originally formed in 1891 with administration placed
within the Department of Interior (DOI). The act that authorized the creation of the reserves did
not provide for their administration and in 1894 the DOI “forbade livestock within the forest
reserves.” The National Livestock Association endorsed the transfer from DOI to the Department
of Agriculture in 1902 due to the DOI prohibition. By 1904 basic principles for the national
forests was developed by the Forestry Bureau and stockmen for range management. By 1907
these principles, as policy and regulation, were instituted on the Tahoe National Forest.
The Forest was subdivided into “administrative units laid out on the basis of the types of land,
the means of access, and the use made of the land.” Grazing allotments came from the
subdivision of these units for grazing administration purposes. Allotment boundaries were
“drawn in conformance with natural landforms” (i.e. ridgetops, canyon bottoms, creeks, rivers,
etc.) with water availability further influencing allotment configuration. The Forest has a
complex landownership pattern that also played a role in allotment configuration, the complex
“interspersion of Forest land with railroad grant lands, mining claims, or other private holdings
caused special problems. The early allotment boundaries typically excluded mining districts,
towns, and agricultural settlements.”
Initially, demand exceeded supply for these Forest range allotments. In 1908 230 stockmen
attended the Tahoe National Forest’s Second Annual Convention of Livestock Grazers coming
from Sierra, Placer, Nevada, Sutter and Yuba counties as well as from the Sacramento Valley
and state of Nevada. Determining the location, size of the allotment as well as the number of
stock each applicant could run on the allotment appeared to be a daunting task, but by 1915
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 1 8
(Figures 4 through 6) allotment boundaries were fixed with cattle mainly grazing the western
slopes and lower elevations on the eastside of the Forest. Sheep grazing allotments were
formed in the higher mountain meadows and eastern slopes of the Forest. This allotment
pattern lasted at least through 1939.
Historic methods of operation where changed on cattle allotments by Forest Service range
policy. For decades the cattleman created mountain homesteads where their cattle tenders were
based to watch over their interests. The establishment of Forest allotments created a need to
keep livestock from straying and so drift fences were constructed that provided three benefits:
1) cattleman’s time was reduced in retrieving stray cattle, 2) cattle were kept within their
assigned allotment, and 3) kept cattle or sheep from other allotments out. In the more
mountainous areas, allotment boundaries were most often drawn along very steep slopes or
creeks to prevent the need for fence construction.
Figure 4 – Cattle and Cattle/Sheep Allotments on the Tahoe National Forest, 1915.
In addition to the installation of drift fences, measures were introduced that helped cattle
“distribute themselves and graze all over the range with minimum driving.” Salt licks were
placed in areas that were lightly grazed to draw in cattle. Springs were developed that piped
water to troughs and ponds dug to hold water longer in an area, which also aided in improved
distribution. Predator eradication programs were instituted to reduce the large number of stock
killed each year by bears, coyotes, mountain lions, and wolves. Poisonous plant and infectious
disease control programs were created by the Forest Service as well to reduce stockmen losses.
Figure 5 – Sheep Allotments on the Tahoe National Forest, 1915.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 1 9
Figure 6 – Cattle and Sheep Allotments on the Tahoe National Forest, 1939.
The increased demand for meat and wool during World War I led to an increase in the
permitted number of livestock on all national forests. The overgrazing caused by the increased
numbers was disastrous for the range and led to reduced numbers throughout the 1920s. The
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 2 0
livestock industry was hit by a depression following the war, meat and wool prices dropped
quickly and these detrimental conditions also lasted throughout most of the 1920s. The Tahoe
National Forest saw a drop in cattle numbers of thirty percent between 1926 and 1930. The
same conditions and issues would occur again during and after World War II. Livestock
numbers had steadily declined since that time up until the 1990s where the numbers have
remained steady with monitoring data showing most sites within the Forest as trending
upwards or remaining stable. Some sites have shown a downward trend, but upon analysis
other factors are contributing to that trend on the Tahoe National Forest.
Mosquito Grazing Allotment History
Grazing records for the Mosquito allotment are inconsistent; years of data are missing,
particularly for the early years of the allotment. There is some information from the 1940’s. A
1944 range analysis indicates that 16,020 government lands and 12,789 private lands (total of
28,809 acres-more than currently available) made up the allotment. The report estimated that
“waste range” on government lands was 5,500 acres and 5,500 acres on private lands. 1944
capacity was for 290 head on government lands and 96 on private lands for 4.5 months (June 1 to
October 15) with a statement that capacity in 1922 was estimated on the basis of 10 acres per
head month of usable range. The permitted numbers in 1944 were for 250 head on government
lands and 86 head on private lands due to herd reductions.
More consistent records are found after permittee Graham Cranston’s tenure, Forest records only
show that he was the permittee prior to Evon Jonas. Evon Jonas obtained the permit in 1956 and
was the permittee until 1999. Ed Machado received the permit at the end of the 1999 grazing
season and has been permitted use on the allotment since that time. Table 5 shows the numbers
that were permitted for both Evon Jonas and Ed Machado, a period of 60 years. The average
permitted number over 60 years was 182 cow/calf pairs or 751 equivalent head months (HMs) of
permitted use.
Table 5 – Permitted numbers for the Mosquito Allotment from 1956 to 2015
Permittee Year
Term
Permit
#s
Temporary
Permit
#s
Total
#s Kind Class From To HMs AUMs Remarks
Machado 2015 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Machado 2014 Total Non-use American Fire; RP
Machado 2013 150 0 150 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 602 794 25% Suspension
Machado 2012 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059 +12 Head Excess Use
Machado 2011 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Machado 2010 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Machado 2009 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Machado 2008 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Machado 2007 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Machado 2006 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Machado 2005 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Machado 2004 Total Non-use Star Fire; PC
Machado 2003 Total Non-use Star Fire; RP
Machado 2002 Total Non-use Star Fire; RP
Machado 2001 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Machado 2000 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1999 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059 Waived to Machado
Jonas 1998 Total Non-use D.B 1998 see 2210 File,
Section 4 Jonas 1997 Total Non-use
Jonas 1996 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1995 Total Non-use
Jonas 1994 Total Non-use
Jonas 1993 100 0 100 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 401 529
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 2 1
Permittee Year
Term
Permit
#s
Temporary
Permit
#s
Total
#s Kind Class From To HMs AUMs Remarks
Jonas 1992 110 0 110 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 441 582
Jonas 1991 125 0 125 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 501 662 RP non-use 75 hd
Jonas 1990 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1989 197 0 197 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 790 1043
Jonas 1988 197 0 197 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 790 1043
Jonas 1987 197 0 197 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 790 1043
Jonas 1986 150 0 150 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 602 794 2nd year non-use 50 hd
Jonas 1985 175 0 175 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 702 927 1st year non-use 25 hd
Jonas 1984 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1983 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1982 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1981 175 0 175 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 702 927 25 hd partial non-use
Jonas 1980 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1979 200 0 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1978 160 40 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1977 160 40 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1976 160 40 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059 58 hd on Duncan Sailor
Jonas 1975 160 40 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1974 160 0 160 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 642 847
Jonas 1973 160 0 160 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 642 847
Jonas 1972 160 0 160 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 642 847
Jonas 1971 160 0 160 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 642 847
Jonas 1970 160 0 160 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 642 847
Jonas 1969 160 40 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1968 Total Non-use
Jonas 1967 Total Non-use
Jonas 1966 160 40 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1965 160 40 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1964 160 40 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1963 160 40 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1962 160 40 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1961 160 40 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1960 160 40 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1959 160 40 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1958 160 40 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1957 160 40 200 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802 1059
Jonas 1956 160 30 190 Cattle Cow/calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 762 1006
Total Years: 175 30 187 : Average Numbers 751 992 : Average HMs and
AUMs
Average for years temporary permits provided
The most recent Allotment Management Plan (AMP) is dated 1979. The 1979 AMP states that
the “highest and best use for the allotment area is timber production.” The allotment consists
mainly of transitory range and “grazing values are secondary to timber harvest and
reforestation.” Therefore, grazing resources won’t be fully utilized. Range and timber uses are
not completely incompatible and grazing “facilitates brush control in plantations and released
timber stands.”
The principal forage crop is deerbrush with other brush species and some grasses supplementing
livestock diet. There are no key areas within the allotment as it was felt that it’s not practical to
measure utilization of deerbrush ranges other than ocularly; only to ensure soil damage does not
occur. No condition and trend transects were established for this reason as well. Deerbrush is
highly nutritious (~20% protein). However it is not palatable to cattle late in the season as it
causes cattle to lose weight and develop a nervous disorder called the ‘jimmies’, which could
cause death. It was recommended in the 1979 AMP that due to the large influx of deer hunters
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 2 2
after the first heavy snows, that it was “desirable to remove livestock beforehand from a safety
aspect.”
Correspondence between the Forest and Evon Jonas, indicate that his livestock became accustom
to grazing the Robinson Flat area during they’re short tenure in 1976, and were seen in following
years drifting into the Robinson Flat area. A June 1, 1984 letter from Forest Supervisor Geri B.
Larson to Evon Jonas states “We allowed you a Temporary Grazing Permit on the Duncan-Sailor
Allotment in 1976. That permitted use has been a major contributing factor to the continued drift
of your livestock from the Mosquito Allotment to the Duncan-Sailor Allotment. Additional
permitted use would only add to this problem.”
Ed Machado purchased Evon’s cattle as part of the permit waiver process in 1999, and they have
continued to drift onto the Duncan-Sailor Allotment within the last 16 years. Before the
installation of the Mosquito Boundary Fence (completed in 2014) there was nothing to prevent
cattle drift onto either the Duncan-Sailor or Chipmunk allotments. The fact that there are still
problems with allotment boundaries and straying livestock over 100 years later, show the
complexities and difficulty of range management within Forest Service rangelands and more
specifically grazing allotments.
Figure 7 – Graph from 1970’s showing permitted and actual use on the Mosquito allotment.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 2 3
CURRENT MANAGEMENT
In the spring, usually starting around June 1st, Machado cattle are hauled in by cattle trucks to the
Mosquito corral just east of Ed’s private land and west of the Innerbay road on the south side of
Mosquito ridge road; the process of placing all the livestock on the allotment takes anywhere
from 2 to 3 weeks. Livestock run on the allotment season long, moving throughout the allotment
in search of forage and water, they move back and forth through the allotment season long, and
according to Mr. Machado (pers. comm. February 2013) their movement through the allotment
on where they start and finish depends on that seasons climate, more specifically whether or not
the year is dry or wet. Livestock routinely find their way onto adjacent allotments and off the
allotment during the grazing season. Mr. Machado starts rounding up cattle around September
1st and can take anywhere from 3-6 weeks to remove all livestock from the allotment. The total
number of actual use is less than authorized, due to the length of time it takes the permittee to
place and remove his livestock. Also of note is that one reason it can take the permittee so long
to remove livestock in September is that some squirrel hunters are not following regulations,
shooting from their vehicles on roads, sometimes over the permittee as he is riding the allotment
either looking for, or moving cattle. The safety of the permittee and any additional riders during
this time is of great concern and when alerted to the problem, Forest Service law enforcement is
notified.
The primary forage currently used on the allotment is deerbrush, with some use of meadow
grasses, sedges and rushes. There is also some use of other riparian vegetation, both herbaceous
and woody. Other uses of NFS land such as, but not limited to, recreation use, maintaining
optimal habitat for sensitive plants and animals, and the potential for damage to heritage
resources can have an effect on the suitability for grazing use.
Current management is geared around the utilization of deerbrush which is available following
fire or extensive timber management. Methods determining the production of shrubs species are
problematic due to shrub form and structure. According to Bartolome and Kosco (1982) “Shrubs
produce a significant amount of the forage in forests and brushlands. Yet layering, poorly
defined shrub canopies, and ill-defined current annual growth may make accurate estimates of
browse production difficult to achieve. Forage production varies within and among species, with
age of the plant, with season of the year, among years, and with site. Developmental response to
browsing may be highly variable.” Many methods have been developed for estimation of forage
production of shrubs; almost all are time and labor intensive. This may be due to “A complex
branching pattern and indeterminate growth of individual stems” as noted by Bartolome and
Kosco (1982) and thus would “rule out simple approaches based on current annual stem
growth…”
The Point-Center Quarter method coupled with twig weight measurements and numbers were
used to derive forage production in a fairly simple manner. A summary of the production data
gathered is displayed below. (Data sheets and calculations can be found in the Appendix). One
season of measurements were conducted and did not meet expectations as they show production
levels less than 150 lbs/acre; however, cattle coming off the allotment are in excellent condition,
an indication that rangeland conditions overall are good and that deerbrush is not the only source
of livestock feed. Smith (2000) advises the evaluation of stocking rate when grazing objectives
are not being met. However, where animal performance is maintained, riparian and stream
habitats are not eroding, upland vegetation composition meets desired conditions, and/or forage
is being provided for other herbivores after livestock grazing, adjustments to stocking rates may
not be necessary.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 2 4
Table 6 – 2014 Production Data Plot # Species 2014 Date 2014 lbs/ac
1 Chinquapin 11/18/2014 42.2
2 Whitethorn 11/18/2014 19.1
2 Choke Cherry 11/18/2014 1.3
3 Chinquapin 11/18/2014 5.1
4 Whitethorn 11/19/2014 26.1
5 Deer Brush 11/19/2014 7.7
6 Whitethorn 11/19/2014 0.2
Figure 8 – Location of Mosquito Allotment Browse Plants as seen from Google Earth
Permitted Use
Current permitted use is 200 cow/calf pair from June 1 to September 30 (Table 7).
Table 7 – Current permitted use on the Mosquito Allotment.
LIVESTOCK PERIOD OF USE HMs AUMs
NUMBER KIND CLASS FROM TO
200 Cattle Cow/calf 6/1 9/30 802 1,059
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 2 5
Authorized or Actual Use
Authorized Use is use that is allowed each year through an authorizing document such as the
permit, Annual Operating Instructions or Bill for Collection. Table 8 shows the authorized use for
the last 16 years; during this time, actual use on the allotment has been close to what is authorized.
However, there have been some Administrative issues with livestock not being removed in a timely
manner as well as livestock wandering onto private property or off the allotment. This has raised
a concern on the actual and overall suitability of the allotment. There is a need to ensure that
utilization within the allotment meets management area objectives and that forage is sufficient to
meet the needs of the permittees operations. Currently this data shows that even though the
permitted numbers are for 802 head months annually, this number has rarely been met. There are
many holes in the allotment boundary. This has made it difficult in determining whether or not the
allotment contains enough suitable grazing area, coupled with the fact that there are many shrub
fields that have sufficient forage at the end of the grazing season, currently suggests that the
allotment is suitable in its present configuration for grazing, but that other factors may play a part
in the movement of the cattle off the allotment.
Table 8 – Authorized/Actual numbers for the Mosquito grazing allotment for the permittee’s tenure.
Grazing
Year
Number
of Stock
Kind of
Stock Class of Stock From To HMs Remarks
2015 200 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 15-Jun 15-Oct 809
2014 0 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 0 25% Suspension & nonuse
due to the American Fire
2013 150 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 602 25% Suspension
2013 50 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 1-Oct 16-Oct 26 Unauthorized Use
2012 200 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 15-Jun 30-Sep 710
2012 10 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 17-Jun 14-Dec 60 Unauthorized Use
2011 200 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 15-Jun 30-Sep 710
2010 150 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 602 25% Suspension
2009 150 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 602 25% Suspension
2008 200 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 8-Jun 30-Sep 756
2008 22 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 30-Sep 10-Nov 30 Unauthorized Use
2007 200 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 1-Jul 30-Sep 605
2006 200 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 13-Jun 7-Oct 769
2006 8 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 8-Oct 16-Nov 11 Unauthorized Use
2005 200 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802
2005 9 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 1-Oct 7-Nov 11 Unauthorized Use
2004 0 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 0 Star fire - nonuse
2003 0 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 0 Star fire - nonuse
2002 0 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 0 Star fire - nonuse
2001 200 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802
2000 200 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 1-Jun 30-Sep 802
2000 30 Cattle Mature Cow w/nursing calf 1-Oct 25-Oct 25 Unauthorized Use
2,379 Total 8,734
149 16 year Average 546
198 Average of Years Grazed 728
Table 9 – Summary of the Permitted and Authorized Use on the Mosquito Allotment
Permittee Permitted Use in HMs (AUMs) Average actual/billed use from 2000 through 2015 in
HMs (AUMs)
Authorized Use 802 (1,059) 702 (927)
Unauthorized (actual) Use 0 (0) 77 (103)
Totals 399 (526) 374 (492)
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 2 6
Structural Improvements
There are very few structural improvements within the Mosquito Allotment (Table 10). Most of
the improvements are used to assist with livestock movement within the allotment and various
Units within the allotment.
Table 10 – Summary of structural improvements on Mosquito Allotment. Improvement Name Type Description
Mosquito Corral Corral Corrals for livestock handling. Located along Mosquito Road 96 west of Innerbay Road 96-17,
NE¼, NE¼ section 22, T14N, R12E.
Dellar Springs Drift Fence Fence Fence from Mosquito Corrals (NE¼, NE¼ section 22, T14N, R12E) east towards Dellar springs (NW¼, NE¼ section 23, T14N, R12E).
Mosquito Ridge Boundary
Fence & Cattleguards
Fence/
Cattleguards
From southwest of Blue Eyes Mine site (SE¼, NE¼ section 5, T14N, R13E), north to a point in
the NW¼, NE¼ section 32, T15N, R13E.
Big Oak Flat Fence Exclusion Within the Big Oak Flat area (NW¼, NE¼ section 17, T14N, R12E)
Last Chance Corral Corral
Corrals for livestock handling on the North side of the allotment. Located along Last Chance
Ridge, at junction of Western States Trial/Road (FS RD #44-22) and FS Road 44-22-8, SE¼,
SE¼ section 27, T15N, R12E.
Mosquito Allotment Use Areas
Determination of areas of use within the Mosquito allotment has been quite challenging, as use
changes from year to year based on winter/spring precipitation (Machado pers. comm. 2013).
The map and table below show a close approximation of this use between wet and dry years that
was estimated from the conversation with the permittee.
Table 11 – Approximate Percent Use acres by Unit (Pasture) of the Mosquito Allotment
Allotment Approximate Acres by Percent Use
Unit 20 30 40 50 60 Total
Big Oak Flat 0 224.4 172.8 6.4 5.8 409.4
Spruce Creek 306.4 108.4 989.2 13.8 48.9 1,466.7
Mosquito Ridge 995 0 0 447.8 53.7 1,496.5
Peavine Ridge 2,734 744.3 2,948 0 65.6 6,491.9
Trap Line 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total % Use 4,035 1,077 4,110 468 174 9,865
Approximated use acres (9,865) are more than the suitable acres (7,892) available for grazing by
livestock. However, the approximated use areas include acres that are only suitable for travel
through the area. Also, portions of the suitable acres have no percent use associated with them,
but when viewed together, suitable acres should grade from higher to lower use percentages or
vice versa (see Figures 9 & 10 and Table 12). Trap Line use is generally less than 10 percent
throughout the unit, due to Trap Line unit being in non-use the past few years as a means to
ensure cattle stay on the Mosquito Allotment and not enter either the Duncan Sailor or
Chipmunk allotments.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 2 7
Figure 9 – Approximate Range Use areas for the Mosquito Allotment
Table 12 – Acres and percentage of Range Use Areas by Suitability for the Mosquito Allotment
Acres
Percent Use 20 30 40 50 60 20 30 40 50 60
Unit Suitable Suitable for Travel
Big Oak Flat 0 141 83 0 2 0 83 90 6 6
Spruce Creek 294 38 64 8 57 13 71 925 6 16
Mosquito Ridge 21 0 0 203 27 0 0 0 249 3
Peavine Ridge 1,411 291 317 0 17 2,299 453 2,631 0 49
Trap Line¹ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1,727 470 464 211 102 2,312 607 3,646 261 74
Percentage
Percent Use 20 30 40 50 60 20 30 40 50 60
Unit Suitable Suitable for Travel
Big Oak Flat 0 63 48 3 24 0 37 52 97 76
Spruce Creek 96 35 6 58 78 4 65 94 42 22
Mosquito Ridge 100 0 0 45 89 0 0 0 55 11
Peavine Ridge 38 39 11 0 26 62 61 89 0 74
Trap Line¹ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
¹Trap Line Unit has not been used for several years to keep livestock on the Mosquito Allotment
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 2 8
Figure 10 – Range Use Areas by Suitability for the Mosquito Allotment
MONITORING DATA AND TREND Long term monitoring on transitory rangelands of the Sierra Nevada, including the Mosquito
Allotment, has been sporadic, in the past many Rangeland Specialists did not monitor trend within
transitory allotments, due to the temporary nature of the forage.
Two primary types of monitoring have occurred on the Mosquito Allotment within recent years,
implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring assesses
short-term rangeland condition and utilization, and whether the standards and guidelines for
grazing are being met. Types of implementation monitoring include range readiness assessment,
point center-quarter method for browse, streambank alteration, residual stubble height, and visual
site checks, such as through photo monitoring (see the Appendix). Monitoring has followed
established protocols, currently as outlined in the Region 5 Rangeland Analysis and Planning
Guide (1997) except point center-quarter method which is found in Measuring and Monitoring
Plant Populations (BLM 1998).
Table 13 – 2015 Percent Browse Measurements*
Location Date Browse %
Deerbrush field along Spruce Creek Loop 10/14/2015 62
*Due to the 2015 drought no other deerbrush fields were monitored as brush conditions were marginal.
The use of deerbrush by browsers has rarely been an issue. Deerbrush produces a high volume
of forage, can withstand a high amount of use (70% or more on plants 2 years old or older,
Sampson and Jespersen,1963), and it has a wide range throughout the western foothills of the
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 2 9
Sierra Nevada. Foresters have used grazing as a method to control deerbrush in young timber
stands for many years (Kosco and Bartolome, 1981). However, use of deerbrush after mid-
September has been reported to be problematic causing cattle to be sick due to chemical changes
in deerbrush after mid-September (Cronemiller 1953, Kie 1986). Data on deerbrush and
herbaceous utilization has not been gathered consistently in transitory range allotments in general
and in Mosquito in particular (see Table 5 and 13 above). Implementation monitoring has shown
that the permittees have worked diligently to manage the allotment appropriately and has been
somewhat responsive in quickly correcting any problems that may arise, particularly those
involving drift of livestock from public onto private land or off the allotment completely.
Effectiveness monitoring is used to analyze whether current rangeland management is sustaining
or moving the rangeland toward desired conditions. Types of effectiveness monitoring include
Condition and Trend (C&T), Landscape Photographs, and R5 Range Long-Term Monitoring.
The Condition and Trend protocol has been abandoned. There are no R5 Range Long-Term
Monitoring plots on the Mosquito Allotment. There have been Riparian Habitat Site Photographs
on the allotment starting in 2013. The continued use of Landscape Photographs in key areas
(Table 18 and Figure 13) and collection of data within those key areas as modes of effectiveness
monitoring will provide valuable information for long-term assessment of grazing activities.
The allotment was amended in 2003 with the 2001 SNFPA standards and guidelines. The
grazing system used on this allotment is season-long grazing. Woody species standards for the
allotment are outlined in Table 14, and stream bank alteration in Table 15.
Table 14 – Woody Vegetation Utilization Standards
Vegetation Type Maximum Utilization Standard
Mature Riparian Shrubs (willow, aspen, etc.) 20% of annual leader growth
Riparian Shrub Seedlings 20% of individual seedlings browsed
Upland Hardwoods (oak, tanoak, madrone) 20% of annual leader growth on mature plants and seedlings.
Table 15 – Streambank Alteration Standards
Streambank Alteration Alteration Standard
Meadow associated streambanks 20%
Natural lake shoreline 20%
Natural pond shoreline 20%
Monitoring plots are recorded with GPS; photographically documented; and are on file in both
the Supervisors Office and American River Ranger District office.
WATER QUALITY No clear link to the grazing operations could be discerned from water quality monitoring studies
on the eastside of the Tahoe NF (Bakos, 2006). Recent research supports this finding, suggesting
that the means for determining levels of undesirable fecal contamination may not be directly
related to the metrics used by the water quality board (Ken Tate, UC Davis, presentation at USFS
range meeting). The recent research and the highly fluctuating results observed through water
quality monitoring efforts does not provide useful information for varying current range
management practices. Research does suggest that maintaining appropriate vegetation along a
stream course reduces the potential for fecal inputs into the water (Gary, 1983; Atwill¹, 2002;
Tate, 2004; Mayer, 2007). Residual vegetation is maintained through the LRMP standards and
guidelines, as discussed above.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 3 0
Proper Functioning Condition Assessment
Proper functioning condition (PFC) is a qualitative method for assessing the condition of
riparian-wetland areas. The term PFC is used to describe both the assessment process, and as
defined, on the-ground condition of a riparian-wetland area. The PFC assessment refers to a
consistent approach for considering hydrology, vegetation, and erosion/deposition (soils)
attributes and processes to assess the condition of riparian-wetland areas. The on-the-ground
condition termed PFC refers to how well the physical processes are functioning. PFC is a state of
resiliency that will allow a riparian-wetland area to hold together during high-flow events with a
high degree of reliability. This resiliency allows an area to then produce desired values, such as
fish habitat, neo-tropical bird habitat, or forage, over time. Riparian-wetland areas that are not
functioning properly cannot sustain these values. PFC is a qualitative assessment based on
quantitative science. The PFC assessment is intended to be performed by an interdisciplinary
(ID) team with local, on-the ground experience in the kind of quantitative sampling techniques
that support the PFC checklist. These quantitative techniques are encouraged in conjunction with
the PFC assessment for individual calibration, where answers are uncertain, or where experience
is limited. PFC is also an appropriate starting point for determining and prioritizing the type and
location of quantitative inventory or monitoring necessary (USDI, 1998).
Analysis of proper functioning condition of several reaches of stream within the Allotment
provided the following:
Table 16 – Proper Functioning Condition Rating of Select Stream reaches within the Mosquito allotment
Stream Reach PFC Rating Trend Trend Factors
Spruce Creek Functional-at-Risk Not Apparent Road encroachment, Spring Development
Mosquito Creek Proper Functioning Condition Not Apparent
Frazier Creek Proper Functioning Condition Not Apparent Road encroachment
Peavine Creek Proper Functioning Condition
Peavine Tributary Functional-at-Risk
So. Branch Grouse Ck Trib. Proper Functioning Condition
Peavine Creek (Sec 14) Proper Functioning Condition Not Apparent
Peavine Creek (Sec 16) Proper Functioning Condition Possibly mining activities
Grub Gulch Proper Functioning Condition
The data indicates that the streams are functioning and where they are not livestock grazing, and
use by cattle is not contributing to their not functioning.
Riparian Habitat Site Monitoring
In 2013, during surveys for the Biggie project, 34 sites were visited by the Botany crew to assess
riparian habitat status. These same sites were visited in 2015 by the Forest Rangeland Specialist
and Forest Rangeland Technician to ascertain if any changes had occurred to the sites over the
last two years (Appendix F). The severe drought of 2015, coupled with the 2014 drought, made
finding all sites difficult, some sites were not located at all this past summer, and some sites were
found but conditions so altered that either only a small area of riparian habitat remained or there
was no riparian habitat found within the drainage bottom. Results of the surveys can be found in
Table 17 and 18 from 2013 and 2015 respectively. Some survey sites that were called Riparian
Habitat were found to lack Riparian Habitat except for a small portion of the surveyed area. The
surveys assisted in finding those sites that are doing well within the grazing allotment and those
that need protection from livestock impacts (see the Proposed Action, in the Effects Analysis
section of this report (pages 37-43). This should go toward maintaining high water quality that
comes off the allotment.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 3 1
Table 17 – 2013 Results for Riparian Habitat Site Monitoring of Mosquito Allotment
Past. ID Rip. Site# Site Name Site Type Impacts? 2013 Livestock Impact Type(s)
27B 2705 Bear Spring Spring Complex Yes Hoof Punching - Trampling
27B 2717 Big Mosquito Creek Stream No None
27B 2714 Big Mosquito Creek II Stream No Grazing area; No Impacts noted
27E¹ 2731 Blue Eyes Mine Ponds Pond No None
27A 2728 Cedar Springs (Big Oak Flat Reservoir) Pond Yes Trampling
27B 2711 Creek along FS Road 96-28-1 Stream TBD Old cow sign from previous year(s)
27B 2733 Creek along the 96-28-2 Road Stream TBD Old cow sign from previous year(s)
27B 2706 Creek at FS Road 96-28-2 Stream No None
27B 2713 Creek below Dellar Spring Stream Yes Trampling
27E¹ 2730 Creek crossing Glen Mine RD Stream No None
27E¹ 2722 Creek west of Glen Mine Road Stream No None
27E¹ 2723 East Fork Gray Eagle Canyon Stream No Not on site; cow bells heard
27E¹ 2710 Eastern Creek below FS Road 96-49-12 Stream No Cattle observed-No impacts noted
27B-C 2725 Four Springs on Spruce Creek Stream Yes Hoof Punching - Trampling
27E¹ 2729 Gray Eagle Canyon Stream No None
27B 2735 Little Mosquito Creek near FS Road 16-8 Stream No None
27D 2732 Man Made Pond FS Road 44 Pond No None
27B 2734 Man-Made Pond FS Road 16 Pond No None
27B 2712 Peavine Creek Stream No Cattle observed-No impacts noted
27B 2736 Seep near Big Mosquito Creek Seep No None
27B 2707 Seep near Spruce Creek drainage Seep Yes Hoof Punching - Trampling
27C 2704 Seep Upper Jack Robinson Ravine Seep Yes Hoof Punching - Trampling
27E¹ 2724 Seep west of East Fork Gray Eagle Canyon Seep No Not on site; cow bells heard
27C 2703 Spring Above Gold Dollar Mine Spring Yes Hoof Punching - Trampling
27C 2726 Spring FS Road 16-46-8 Spring Yes Trampling
27E¹ 2720 Spring near Glen Mine Spring No Not on site; cow bells heard
27B 2701 Spruce Ck Trib. in upper Secs 7&18 Stream Yes Hoof Punching - Trampling
27B-C 2708 Spruce Creek-Pine Nut Ditch Stream Yes Trampling
27E¹ 2716 Starr Ravine Stream/Spring Comp. Yes Trampling
27E¹ 2719 Stream at Duncan Diversion Dam Road Stream No Not on site; cow bells heard
27E¹ 2721 Un-Named Trib.-Duncan Creek Stream No Not on site; cow bells heard
27E¹ 2715 West Fork Gray Eagle Canyon Stream Yes Trampling
27E¹ 2709 Western Creek at FS Road 96-49-12RD Stream TBD Old cow sign from previous year(s)
27C 2702 Yellow Jacket Spring Spring No Not on site; cow bells heard
¹Unit 27E, or the Trap Line unit, was formed when the Mosquito Ridge Unit was split in two. This was done to provide management opportunities to keep livestock from leaving the allotment and from wandering on to adjacent allotments.
Table 18 – 2015 Results for Riparian Habitat Site Monitoring of Mosquito Allotment Past.
ID
Rip.
Site# Site Name Site Type 2015 Livestock Impacts
Impact
Degree
Acr
es
27B 2705 Bear Spring Spring
Complex Hoof Punching - Trampling High 1.2
27B 2717 Big Mosquito Creek Stream Grazing, stream channel armored; no
other impacts Low 1.2
27B 2714 Big Mosquito Creek II Stream Grazing, stream channel armored; no
other impacts Low 1.7
27E¹ 2731 Blue Eyes Mine Ponds Pond Stream and ponds dried up; None None 2.7
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 3 2
27A 2728 Cedar Springs (Big Oak Flat
Reservoir) Pond Hoof Punching - Trampling High 0.4
27B 2711 Creek along FS Road 96-28-1 Stream Creek dried up; None None 1.9
27B 2733 Creek along the 96-28-2 Road Stream Little water flowing; some Hoof
Punching - Trampling Low 2.5
27B 2706 Creek at FS Road 96-28-2 Stream Creek dried up; None None 3.4
27B 2713 Creek below Dellar Spring Stream Creek dried up; None None 1
27E¹ 2730 Creek crossing Glen Mine RD Stream None None 24.
7
27E¹ 2722 Creek west of Glen Mine
Road Stream None None 0.9
27E¹ 2723 East Fork Gray Eagle Canyon Stream None None 1.1
27E¹ 2710 Eastern Creek below FS Road
96-49-12 Stream None None 1.3
27B-
C 2725 Four Springs on Spruce Creek Stream
Heavy Trailing; Hoof Punching -
Trampling High
16.
4
27E¹ 2729 Gray Eagle Canyon Stream None None 11.
3
27B 2735 Little Mosquito Creek near FS
Road 16-8 Stream
Water in creek with no cow use; 2
cows on slope None 2.7
27D 2732 Man Made Pond FS Road 44 Pond Little Hoof Punching - Trampling,
Logging Traffic Low 0.8
27B 2734 Man-Made Pond FS Road 16 Pond Some Trampling-Hoof punching along
perimeter Moderate 0.8
27B 2712 Peavine Creek Stream None None 27.
1
27B 2736 Seep near Big Mosquito Creek Seep Slight Hoof Punching-grazing; very
little use Low 0.7
27B 2707 Seep near Spruce Creek
drainage Seep
Substantial Hoof Punching -
Trampling thru seep High 0.3
27C 2704 Seep Upper Jack Robinson
Ravine Seep
Unable to Locate: Site may be dried up
due to drought None 1.3
27E¹ 2724 Seep west of East Fork Gray
Eagle Canyon Seep None None 0.2
27C 2703 Spring Above Gold Dollar
Mine Spring
Unable to Locate: Site may be dried up
due to drought None 0.8
27C 2726 Spring FS Road 16-46-8 Spring Unable to Locate: Site may be dried up
due to drought None 0.2
27E¹ 2720 Spring near Glen Mine Spring None None 1.6
27B 2701 Spruce Ck Trib. in upper Secs
7&18 Stream Riparian area 1/4 acre, little trampling Low 0.7
27B-
C 2708 Spruce Creek-Pine Nut Ditch Stream
Substantial Hoof Punching -
Trampling High 39
27E¹ 2716 Starr Ravine Stream/Spring
Comp. None None 5.7
27E¹ 2719 Stream at Duncan Diversion
Dam Road Stream None None 0.1
27E¹ 2721 Un-Named Trib.-Duncan
Creek Stream None None 0.6
27E¹ 2715 West Fork Gray Eagle Canyon Stream None None 1
27E¹ 2709 Western Creek at FS Road 96-
49-12RD Stream None None
22.
7
27C 2702 Yellow Jacket Spring Spring Hoof Punching - Trampling High 3.3
CLIMATE CHANGE The Forest Service acknowledges that climate changes occur. There are many factors which
affect the Earth’s global climate, such as solar cycles and ocean currents. In addition, there is
much discussion over the possible impacts of human influences, especially in regards to
greenhouse gasses. Changes in climate, regardless of cause affect the environment in various
ways. For example, the Little Ice Age (1450-1850) was a period of global cooling.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 3 3
Methane, which is produced by the digestion of cattle, is a greenhouse gas. Livestock produce
between 250 to 300 liters of methane per day, depending on various factors, including diet
(Johnson & Johnson, 1995). Over the next 50 to 100 years, the contribution by all cattle in the
United States to greenhouse gases is less than 2% (Ibid). However, less than 3 percent of all
cattle production occurs from public land grazing (http://www.publiclandsranching.org/
htmlres/wr_taking_stock.htm). Therefore, using 3 percent, the contribution of methane from
public land over the next 50-100 years would be 0.0006%. The Mosquito is but one of many
cattle allotments on public land, and therefore represents a very small contributor of methane.
There is no debate over the harmful effects of unmanaged grazing and overgrazing. However,
there is much discussion about the effects of managed grazing. Another study (Pyke and Marty,
2005) concluded that livestock grazing can be a tool to mitigate climate change. They found that
with managed cattle grazing, vernal pools (a type of wetland) stayed wet for a longer period of
time, to provide critical habitat for aquatic species. Without managed grazing, pools dried up on
average 50 days sooner each year.
Lovell and Ward tell us that managed grazing is a more effective restoration tool than
mechanical methods and that managed grazing can increase biodiversity and build healthier
landscapes. Healthier landscapes, in turn, are more resilient to climate changes. They identified
an unmanaged grazing site in New Mexico that was 11% snakeweed and 46% bare ground in
1986. By using managed grazing, snakeweed was reduced to 1%, and bare ground was reduced
to 30% by 1990. They also noted that nine previously dormant perennial grass species
reappeared and 10 feet of water reappeared in a well that had been dry since the 1950s.
Lovell and Ward also note that the management of livestock on the U Bar Ranch in New Mexico
has resulted in creating a habitat that supports more endangered southwestern willow flycatchers
than any preserve.
Regardless of the causes of climate change, our responsibility is to determine effective ways to
respond to changes and manage the land effectively. Livestock grazing does appear to be a tool
in managing some various aspects of the land. (Coconino NF, 2011)
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 3 4
EXISTING AND DESIRED CONDITION
Table 19 – Existing/Desired Condition by Resource with Resource needs and proposed actions to meet those needs.
Resource Desired Condition Existing Condition Resource
Needs Proposed Actions
Riparian Conservation Areas
Species composition and structural diversity of plant and animal communities in riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows provide desired habitat conditions and ecological functions.
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.
Spatial and temporal connectivity for riparian and aquatic-dependent species within and between watersheds provides physically, chemically and, biologically unobstructed movement for their 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.
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.
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
Current standards and guidelines are applied to maintain and improve riparian and aquatic ecosystems (LRMP as amended by SNFPA 2004). Best Management Practices (BMPs) are applied which have the objective of safeguarding water quality potentially affected by livestock grazing activities. (National Core BMP Tech. Guide, 2012)
Continue implementing LRMP standards and guidelines, and BMPs for water quality.
Continue implementing LRMP standards and guidelines, and BMPs for water quality.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 3 5
Resource Desired Condition Existing Condition Resource
Needs Proposed Actions
affecting the viability of native species, the appropriate State and Federal wildlife agencies have reduced impacts to native populations.
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.
Species composition and structural diversity of plant and animal communities in riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows provide desired habitat conditions and ecological functions.
Forage and Wood Fiber
Maintain or enhance the production of forage and wood fiber (TNF LRMP – Management Direction – Page V-9)
Same as desired. None None
Range Resources
…evaluate the range resource as needed. Activities include range allotment management plans and inventories, …evaluations, … and preparation of environmental documents. This applies to all available, capable, and suitable range lands both in and outside existing allotments. Fully utilize transitory range opportunities on the Forest in conjunction with the timber program and range allotment planning (TNF LRMP S&G 32 Range Program Administration).
Same as desired. None None
Need for Change
A new Allotment Management Plan (AMP) needs to be developed for the Mosquito Allotment
that incorporates LRMP standards, formalizes monitoring for forage utilization and emphasizes
herding to avoid conflicts. Table 21 displays the forage utilization standards from the LRMP that
are currently being applied towards management of the Mosquito Allotment and will be
incorporated into the new AMP. Standards for mixed conifer forests and browse utilization
standards for riparian areas are all applicable for the Mosquito Allotment. There is also a need to
implement measures to keep cattle on the allotment and ensure that the boundary is sufficient to
that end, mostly through construction of fences along strategic points of the boundary. Springs
need to be protected from trampling and hoof-punching by livestock either through development
or exclusion.
Scientific Integrity
The analysis in this specialist report relies on applicable science as well as professional
experience and judgment. When appropriate, the conclusions are based on scientific analysis
with a review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views,
and the acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty and
risk.
The relevant science considered for this analysis consists of several key elements. For range and
vegetation resources, the elements of science used are:
• Established Key Areas to monitor for disturbance in riparian habitats (see Monitoring and
Trend pp. 28-32, Table 20 and Figure 13).
• Field notes and photos (see the Appendix)
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 3 6
• The effects to range and vegetative resources from other projects occurring considered in
the analysis (see Cumulative Effects pp. 16-21)
• Review of scientific literature (References)
Assumptions and Methodologies of Analysis
Key Assumptions and Methodologies – The analysis method is to present the desired conditions
for rangeland vegetative resources; describe range conditions and trends within the allotment;
and present information on potential effects of the proposed action.
Existing Inventories, Monitoring, and Research Literature Review – Sources of information are
used to determine the condition and trend of rangeland. There were no long-term range trend
study areas prior to the initiation of this project on the Mosquito Allotment. In 2013 Riparian
Habitat assessments with photos were completed and revisited in 2015 and a portion of them will
be used where possible to establish a foundation for monitoring from this point forward. One
site will be established at the Little Grizzly peatland to collect data on the condition of the
peatland, which has been inventoried. Sites at five springs, two streams, and one spring with
pond were established in the summer of 2015 to determine current riparian condition. Key
indicators at these study sites were used to determine condition and trend. These indicators
include ground cover, streambank alteration, species richness and diversity, composition of plant
functional and structural groups and presence of invasive weeds.
ALTERNATIVES
Proposed Action – Alternative A
The Forest Service is proposing the actions listed below on identified NFS lands within the
Mosquito Grazing Allotment to meet the needs described in the Purpose and Need.
This Proposed Action consists of, in general terms, the following five actions:
1. Authorize cattle grazing,
2. Implement specific resource management measures to minimize potential adverse effects of
grazing on natural resources,
3. Fence off certain sensitive areas, and
4. Monitor and adapt as needed.
Following is a detailed description of the actions which include all applicable TNF LRMP, as
amended, Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs). Any term grazing permit issued for the Mosquito
Allotment would include all the S&Gs.
In addition, the proposed action is consistent with Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect
water quality for range management as specified in the National Core Best Management
Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands (2012). These BMPs
specifically address rangeland management planning, rangeland permit administration
(monitoring and adaptive management), and rangeland improvements to protect, maintain, or
improve water and aquatic and riparian resources and associated beneficial uses. Application of
these BMPs is reflected in the proposed action’s design features, resource management measures
(mitigations), and monitoring and adaptive management plan.
In order to meet the purpose and need for action, the Forest Service is proposing to:
1. Authorize cattle grazing on the Mosquito Grazing Allotment consistent with the
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 3 7
Standards and Guidelines of the Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan (1990), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2004) and Best
Management Practices (BMPs). Grazing use on National Forest System lands within the
Mosquito Allotment would not exceed 800 head months per year, cow/calf, and would
typically be permitted in normal grazing years between 6/1 and 10/1 of each year. However,
grazing use could be adjusted in drought years to include an earlier on date of 5/15 and in
years with above normal precipitation extend the season to a later off date of 10/31.
2. Implement the following resource management measures to minimize potential future
impacts from livestock grazing on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive plant and animal
species, and/or their habitat and to monitor the Allotment to ensure Forest Plan standards and
guidelines are being met and result in satisfactory rangeland conditions and trends:
Remove livestock from stream corridors in order to protect streambanks in areas where
streambank disturbances have exceeded 20 percent of the stream reach. Disturbance
includes bank sloughing, chiseling, trampling, or other means of exposing bare soil or
cutting plant roots. If livestock removal is insufficient in protecting streambanks, place
structural barriers (such as electric fencing) to protect stream reaches from exceeding the
20% standard for disturbance (SNFPA ROD #103; BMP Range-1).
Move instream watering sites outside the riparian areas and onto hardened surfaces, such
as landings or other compacted sites (SNFPA ROD #119; BMP Range-1 and 3; TNF
LRMP S&G #33). Currently known sites are listed below:
o Bear Spring; NW¼ section 18, T14N, R13E,
o Last Chance Spring; SE¼ section 34, T15N, R12E,
o Garden Site Spring; section 17, T14N, R12E,
o Greek Flat Spring; section 18, T14N, R13E, and
o Greek Store Spring; SE ¼ section 8, T14N, R13E.
Prohibit any use of supplemental feed or salt within Riparian Conservation Areas or
within 300 feet of water (BMP Range-1).
Remove livestock from riparian areas in order to maintain riparian hardwoods in areas
where browsing of riparian hardwoods exceeds 20 percent of the annual leader growth of
mature riparian shrubs and/or 20 percent of individual seedlings. If livestock removal is
insufficient in protecting riparian hardwoods, place structural barriers (such as electric
fencing) to protect riparian hardwoods from being browsed over the 20% standard
(SNFPA ROD, #121; BMP Range-1)
3. Implement the following resource management measures to minimize impacts to
sensitive cultural resources:
Last Chance spring (see above for location): construct and maintain fencing to prevent
cattle access to the spring in the Last Chance Townsite area.
Garden Site spring (see above for location): construct and maintain fencing to prevent
cattle access to the spring and associated sensitive resources.
Greek Flat spring (see above for location): construct and maintain fencing to prevent
cattle access to the spring and associated sensitive resources.
Greek Store spring (see above for location): construct and maintain fencing to prevent
cattle access to the spring and associated sensitive resources.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 3 8
Cedar Springs (aka Big Oak Flat Reservoir): monitor site and if livestock impacts
increase, construct and maintain fencing to prevent cattle access to the ponds and
associated sensitive resources.
Salt Lick locations – Move salt lick locations away from all mine locations. No salt licks
would be placed within 300 feet of any sensitive cultural resource areas.
4. To maintain deerbrush stand health and productivity, limit browsing of deerbrush to no
more than 50 percent of annual growth as indicated by number of leaders browsed the first
two years after fire or any vegetation treatment, such as mastication or other mechanical
manipulation used to release timber stands.
5. Prohibit the use of supplemental feed unless necessary for improving Allotment
management and approved in advance by a Forest Service Officer. If supplemental feed is
used, it must be certified weed-free (SNFPA ROD #42 and #43). Monitor supplemental feed
sites to ensure feed was weed free and that weeds are not allowed a chance to gain a foothold.
6. To maintain upland perennial herbaceous vegetation, limit grazing to no more than 40
percent of annual growth (which is consistent with grazing of perennial herbaceous
vegetation in meadows – refer to 2004 SNFPA ROD, pg. 65, Standard and Guideline #120
and would account for variable needs of grasses in uplands). If utilization remained high, then
pasture rotation, season of use, or livestock number reduction would be used to bring it within
this standard.
7. To protect hardwood regeneration, allow livestock browse on no more than 20 percent of
annual growth of hardwood seedlings and advanced regeneration (2004 SNFPA ROD,
pg. 55, Standard and Guideline #50). If utilization remained high, then pasture rotation,
season of use, or livestock number reduction would be used to bring it within this standard.
8. New structural range improvements would be constructed and maintained within the allotment
for the reasons that follow. Responsibility for the construction and maintenance of range
improvements falls under permit administration and is addressed in the Term Grazing Permit,
scheduled in the Allotment Management Plan and implemented in the Annual Operating
Instructions.
For allotment management and to keep livestock on the allotment:
Last Chance Corral, Holding Field and Drift Fence; SE¼, SE¼ section 27, T15N, R12 E,
(at the junction of Last Chance and Home Ticket Mine Roads).
Western Boundary Drift fence, approximately ½-mile west of Ditch Camp; SW¼, SW¼
section 20, T14N, R12E.
Little Oak Boundary Fence, along the Allotment Boundary that is just northeast of Little
Oak Flat; SE¼, SE¼ section 29, T14N, R12E.
Cattleguard on Mosquito Ridge Road within the western Mosquito Boundary Fence,
SW¼, SW¼, section 20, T14N, R12E - installation and maintenance.
Cattleguard or swing gate northeast of Little Oak Flat on FS Road 96-10 within the
Western Mosquito Boundary Fence, NW¼, NW¼, section 29, T14N, R12 E - installation
and maintenance.
If monitoring shows that livestock are exiting the allotment over the Cavanah Road over
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 3 9
the Deep Canyon Bridge, a cattleguard and drift fence would be installed south of the
bridge, SE¼, SE¼, section 30, T15N, R13E - installation and maintenance.
To protect Little Oak Flat and a portion of Big Trees Management Areas:
Ditch Camp fence; center of section 20, T14N, R12E
Based on Forest Service monitoring, if the Placer County Big Tree Redwood Grove is
being impacted by livestock, construct an Exclosure Fence to mitigate impacts; sections
18 and 19, T14N, R13E.
To ensure disturbance within riparian habitat areas and special aquatic features are within
standards:
Fences would be constructed at the water sources listed below to exclude livestock from
these areas. At each site, a water trough would be placed outside the riparian area and
water would be piped from the creek to the trough. The water would then be returned to
the stream by the shortest distance feasible to minimize potential impacts to instream
temperatures.
o Last Chance Spring: section 34, T15N, R12E,
o Bear Spring: section 18, T14N, R13E,
o Ditch Camp Spring Development; section 20, T14N, R12E, and
o Greek Store Spring Development; section 8, T14N, R13E.
A fence would be constructed around a very small wetland, below the spring and in the
road bed. At the site, a depression where the cattle are currently drinking, and that is very
muddy, would be armored with rocks, and slightly deepened (approximately 10ft x 10ft x
1ft) to provide clear water and reduce sediments in the creek. This would allow water to
run from the small spring remaining in its present creek bed, while keeping the water
clear of sediments.
o Yellow Jacket Canyon Spring; section 8, T14N, R13E
Fences would be constructed at the special aquatic features listed below to exclude
livestock from these areas. No improvements (spring developments or troughs) would be
included due to their small size and/or proximity to other improvements of the same type.
o Four springs – upper Spruce Creek; NW ¼ section 17 and NE ¼ section 18, T14N,
R13E.
o Spruce Creek Tributary Seep/Peatland, section 18, T14N, R13E
o Frazier Creek Spring Complex; section 6, T14N, R13E
o Little Grizzly Spring Complex; section 31, T15N, R13E
o Little Grizzly Peatland; section 31, T15N, R13E
The following areas would be monitored annually to determine if livestock are impacting
them after salt locations and water troughs installed (as described above) prove to be
ineffectual. If these measures are ineffectual, then fences would be constructed at these
sites to eliminate impacts:
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 4 0
o Millers Defeat Pond; section 28, T15N, R13E
o Cedar Springs (Big Oak Flat Reservoir); section 16, T14N, R12E
o Spruce Creek Tributary above arched culvert; section 18, T14N, R13E
o Bear Wallows; section 10, T14N, R12E
o South Branch Grouse Creek; section 2, T14N, R13E
For allotment management and to keep livestock on the allotment:
Monitoring would be conducted within the Peavine Unit during the grazing season,
specifically those ridges above the North Fork of Middle Fork American River. If cattle
are making their way down slopes or trails, short drift fences along any cattle trails found
that enter shrub buffers, or where shrub buffers were removed during the 2013 American
Fire, will be installed to keep livestock on the Allotment and out of the North Fork of
Middle Fork American River. Additionally, monitoring would be conducted each season
to determine if cattle drift up Cavanah Road and off the allotment. A short drift fence and
cattleguard near the allotment boundary on Cavanah Road (FS Road 44) would be
installed and constructed.
Figure 11 – Existing and Proposed Water Improvements of the Mosquito Allotment
9. Existing structural range improvements would be maintained within the allotment to aid in
management of the allotment:
Mosquito Corrals, Holding Field and Dellar Springs drift fence; sections 22 and 23, T14N,
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 4 1
R12E
Mosquito Ridge Boundary Fence; sections 4 and 5 T14N, R13E; and section 32 T15N,
R13E
Big Oak Flat Fence; section 17T14N, R12E
Last Chance Corral: section 27 T15N, R12 E,
Cattleguard on Mosquito Ridge Road within the eastern Mosquito Boundary Fence, NE¼,
NE¼, section 5, T14N, R13E - maintenance.
Cattleguard on the Western States Trail within the eastern Mosquito Boundary Fence, SE¼,
SE¼, section 32, T15N, R13E - maintenance.
Figure 12 – Existing and Proposed Fences of the Mosquito Allotment
10. Implement the proposed action’s Monitoring Plan. The proposed monitoring activities would
support making necessary administrative adjustments to the permit, designed to maintain or
continue movement toward desired rangeland conditions, as described in the next section.
The proposed action and any term grazing permit issued for the Mosquito Allotment would
include all Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, plus the more restrictive desired deerbrush
stand health and productivity browsing utilization limit (#4 identified above). In addition, the
proposed action is consistent with Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water
quality for range management as specified in the National BMPs (2012). These BMPs
specifically address rangeland management planning, rangeland permit administration
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 4 2
(monitoring and adaptive management), and rangeland improvements to protect, maintain, or
improve water and aquatic and riparian resources and associated beneficial uses. Application
of these BMPs is reflected in the proposed action’s design features, resource management
measures (mitigations), and monitoring plan.
Adaptive Management Strategy
Monitoring would be conducted and areas where results do not either meet, or move towards,
desired conditions, where standards and guidelines are not being met and result in
unsatisfactory rangeland conditions and trends would trigger the following actions:
1. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive plant and animal species, and/or their habitat:
Remove livestock from stream corridors in order to protect streambanks in areas where
streambank disturbances have exceeded 20 percent of the stream reach. Disturbance
includes bank sloughing, chiseling, trampling, or other means of exposing bare soil or
cutting plant roots. If livestock removal is insufficient in protecting streambanks, place
structural barriers (such as electric fencing) to protect stream reaches from exceeding the
20% standard for disturbance.
Move instream watering sites outside the riparian areas and onto hardened surfaces, such
as landings or other compacted sites
Maintain riparian hardwoods: Remove livestock from areas where browsing of riparian
hardwoods exceeds 20 percent of the annual leader growth of mature riparian shrubs
and/or 20 percent of individual seedlings. If livestock removal is insufficient in protecting
these riparian hardwoods, place structural barriers (such as electric fencing) to protect
riparian hardwoods from being browsed over the 20% standard
2. Maintain upland perennial herbaceous vegetation;
If utilization remained high, greater than 40 percent of annual growth, then administrative
actions such as: pasture rotation, season of use, or livestock number reduction would be
used to bring it within this standard.
3. To protect hardwood regeneration:
If utilization on hardwoods remained high, where concern for hardwood regeneration
would be affected, then new water development or administrative action such as: pasture
rotation, season of use, or livestock number reduction would be used to bring it within
standard.
4. For allotment management and to keep livestock on the allotment:
Peavine Unit - ridges above North Fork Middle Fork American River: short drift fences
along cattle trails that enter shrub buffers or where shrub buffers were removed in the
2013 American Fire to keep livestock on the Allotment and out of the North Fork Middle
Fork American River. Additionally, if cattle drift up Cavanah Road and off the
allotment, a short drift fence and cattleguard at allotment boundary and Cavanah Road
(FS Road 44) would be constructed.
5. To protect Little Oak Flat and a portion of Big Trees Management Areas:
Ditch Camp fence (center of section 20 T14N, R12E)
Based on Forest Service monitoring, if the Placer County Big Tree Redwood Grove is
being impacted by livestock, construct an Exclosure Fence to mitigate impacts.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 4 3
6. Disturbance within riparian habitat areas are outside of standards:
Fences would be constructed at the special aquatic features listed below to exclude
livestock from these areas. No improvements (spring developments or troughs) would be
included due to their small size and/or proximity to other improvements of the same type.
o Spruce Creek Tributary Seep (section 18, T14N, R13E,)
o Millers Defeat Pond (section 28, T15N, R13E)
o Big Oak Flat Reservoir would have a partial exclosure allowing livestock access
on a portion of the Reservoir (section 16, T14N, R12E)
The following areas would be monitored annually to determine if livestock are impacting
them after salt locations and water troughs installed (as described above) prove to be
ineffectual. If these measures are ineffectual, then fences would be constructed at these
sites to eliminate impacts:
o Spruce Creek Tributary above arched culvert; section 18, T14N, R13E.
o Cedar Springs (Big Oak Flat Reservoir), section 16, T14N, R12E
o Bear Wallows Creek; section 10, T14N, R12E.
o South Branch Grouse Creek; section 2, T14N, R12E.
8. Other sites of concern identified either during routine allotment monitoring or through
other project analysis, such as the Cuckoo Vegetation Project would have further
monitoring conducted, as well as having mitigation measures applied to them when
conditions are not meeting standards or guidelines. Mitigation measures would depend
on the site and site concerns and would include the following:
Ο Remove livestock from stream corridors in order to protect streambanks in areas
where streambank disturbances have exceeded 20 percent of the stream reach.
Disturbance includes bank sloughing, chiseling, trampling, or other means of
exposing bare soil or cutting plant roots. If livestock removal is insufficient in
protecting streambanks, place structural barriers (such as electric or other fencing) to
protect stream reaches from exceeding the 20% standard for disturbance.
Ο Move instream watering sites outside the riparian areas and onto hardened surfaces,
such as landings or other compacted sites.
o Fences would be constructed at special aquatic features that are being impacted by
livestock in order to exclude livestock from these features. No additional
improvements (spring developments or troughs) would be constructed at these
features.
Monitoring Plan
Implementation monitoring is conducted to assure the parameters of the decision are being
implemented as described. Monitoring would be conducted in a frequency and intensity
commensurate with the resource concerns and management complexity of any specific area.
Implementation monitoring would include the following activities:
Monitoring of herbaceous and woody vegetation ( riparian hardwoods) utilization would be
conducted in the plots listed in Table 20 once every 3 to 5 years. Methods of utilization
monitoring would be consistent with the Interagency Technical Reference for Utilization
Studies and Residual Measurements (USDI 1996). Monitoring would be conducted on a
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 4 4
rotational basis within each Unit; only one plot would be read in each Unit in a given year
that monitoring is conducted.
The streambank/shoreline disturbance standards would be monitored within the riparian sites
displayed in Table 20 below (BMP Range-2).
Table 20 – Key Areas to be established in the Mosquito Allotment.20
Unit Unit Name Plot ID Plot Name Town
-ship Range
Sect
-ion Site Type
27D Peavine Ridge 2701Spg Bear Wallows T14N R12E 10 Spring
27B Spruce Creek 2702Spg Bear Spring T14N R13E 18 Spring
27B Spruce Creek 2703Spg Spruce Creek Trib. Above arched bridge T14N R13E 18 Spring
27A Big Oak Flat 2701Pnd Cedar Springs (Big Oak Flat Pond) T14N R12E 17 Pond
27C Mosquito Ridge 2705Spg Frazier Creek Spring Complex T14N R13E 06 Spring
27D Peavine Ridge 2702Stm Lower Peavine Creek T14N R12E 15 Stream
27C Mosquito Ridge 2704Spg Little Grizzly Spring Complex T15N R13E 31 Spring
27C Mosquito Ridge 2701PtL Little Grizzly Peatland T15N R13E 31 Peatland
27D Peavine Ridge 2703Stm South Branch Grouse Creek T14N R12E 02 Stream
27A Big Oak Flat 2701Oak Big Oak Flat T14N R12E 17 Oak Woodland
Effectiveness monitoring would be conducted to assess how well the project design standards and
mitigation measures are performing in achieving their intended effects.
Monitoring of Riparian Habitat sites identified in Table 18 (above) would inform
effectiveness monitoring efforts. If it is determined that conditions are not in, or moving
towards, desired condition, as indicated by SNFPA ROD standard #103 (described above),
then salting locations would be reviewed and location changes made to ease grazing
pressures and help disperse utilization away from riparian habitats. If utilization remains
high then short-term electric fences would be put in place and maintained by the Forest to
exclude use from sites impacted by hoof-punching, trampling, and extensive trailing. Sites
that would remain protected by electric fence for 2 to 5 years. If after that time, fences are
removed and sites are again impacted, more stringent methods will at that time be analyzed
to keep livestock from further impacting the sites. [Additional riparian habitat sites identified
either during routine allotment monitoring or through other project analysis, such as the
Cuckoo Vegetation Project, within the allotment boundary would also be monitored in the
same manner. If needed, analysis would be conducted and mitigation measures applied to
protect these sites when livestock have been determined to have an impact. Mitigation
measures would include those outlined in Adaptive Management Strategy number 8 above.]
Effectiveness monitoring for cultural resources protection would be conducted according to
standards specified in Stipulation III.D.1-6 Monitoring Standards of the Programmatic
Agreement (PA) Between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Regarding Rangeland Management Activities on
National Forest System Lands,6/26/1996. The PA authorizes the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region,
California State Historic Preservation Officeer, and the Nevada State Historic Preservation
Officer Regarding Rangeland Managemant Activities,Option 2.
Three types of cultural resources monitoring would be conducted.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 4 5
o Type 1 monitoring would be conducted annually on approximately 20-40 percent of
the cultural resource sites to confirm or refute evidence of grazing impacts based on
the results from the 2011-2015 monitoring conducted for this proposed action
(monitoring would be completed within 5 years);
o Type 2 monitoring would be conducted to assess effectiveness of cultural site
protection measures on 100% of approximately 5-15% of the sites; and
o Type 3 monitoring would be conducted at 100% of approximately 45-75 of the
cultural sites where grazing effects are ambiguous or indeterminate. Type 2 and 3
monitoring would occur pre- and post-grazing the first operating season, and then
every 3-5 years as needed.
If cultural resources values were being degraded, the Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs)
would include measures (for example, changing salting locations, moving water sources,
fencing etc.) to minimize adverse effects. If these measures were unsuccessful in mitigating
effects, the Forest Service would apply provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) and its implementing regulations found at 36 CFR 800.4(c) through 800.6, as
appropriate, or provisions of the Programmatic Agreement Among the U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer,
Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of
the Pacific Southwest Region (Regional PA 2013) to evaluate heritage resources and to
minimize adverse effects from grazing on historic properties.
Field checks and measurements will be made at least annually as described below by Forest
Service or permittee with quality control provided by the Forest Service.
Monitoring will be emphasized to determine permittee compliance with permit provisions. The
compliance indicators for annual use include those related to water quality, forage utilization,
streambank alteration, or utilization of woody riparian vegetation with specific information
regarding the status of the listed amphibians.
Table 19 below summarizes the implementation and effectiveness monitoring activities included
in the proposed action as well as the triggers for the adaptive management measures described in
the above proposed action. If monitoring points to the need for change, then the above adaptive
management measures would be implemented to obtain the change needed.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 4 6
Table 21 – Monitoring grazing utilization and implementation of proposed actions for the Mosquito Allotment
Monitoring Activity/
Type of monitoring Indicator or
Standard
When Monitoring
Would Occur
Where Monitoring
Would Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Streambank Disturbance
Implementation and
Effectiveness Monitoring
Prevent disturbances to
stream banks and from
exceeding 20% of
stream reach or 20%
of. Disturbance
includes bank
sloughing, chiseling,
trampling, or other
means of exposing
bare soil or cutting
plant roots.
Monitoring would
occur while
livestock are
present and after
they have left the
allotment
Low to Mod-Low
gradient stream
reaches of:
1. Frazier Creek
2. Spruce Creek
Annually
Riparian Habitat
Disturbance
Implementation and
Effectiveness Monitoring
Prevent disturbances to
spring and seeps areas.
Disturbances include
trampling and/or hoof-
punching, or other
means of exposing
bare soil or cutting
plant roots.
Monitoring would
occur while
livestock are
present and after
they have left the
allotment
Riparian Habitats:
4 Springs – Upper
Spruce Creek; Bear
Spring; Bear Wallows;
South Branch Grouse
Creek; Little Grizzly
Creek; and Frazier
Creek.
Annually
Deerbrush Utilization
Implementation and
Effectiveness Monitoring
After Fire or
Vegetation Treatment:
Limit utilization of
deerbrush to no more
than 50% of annual
growth for two years
following the fire or
treatment.
Monitoring would
occur while
livestock are
present and after
they have left the
allotment
Where ever vegetation
treatments occur with
an objective of
retention of deerbrush
within the community
Following two
years after
treatment or
incident.
Herbaceous Vegetation
Utilization
Implementation and
Effectiveness Monitoring
Limit utilization of
upland herbaceous
vegetation to no more
than 40% of annual
growth.
Monitoring would
occur while
livestock are
present and after
they have left the
allotment
Oak Woodlands and/or
Plantations, within Big
Oak Flat and near
Mosquito Corrals and
Last Chance.
Annually
Rotate through
one-third of the
sites every year.
Riparian Hardwood
Utilization
Implementation and
Effectiveness Monitoring
Utilization of livestock
browse on mature
riparian shrubs would
be limited to no more
than 20% of the annual
leader growth and no
more than 20% of
individual seedlings.
Monitoring would
occur while
livestock are
present and after
they have left the
allotment
Monitor Riparian
shrubs in low to mod-
low gradient reaches
of:
1. Frazier Creek
2. Spruce Creek
Annually Rotate
through one-
third of the sites
every year.
Noxious Weed
Implementation and
Effectiveness Monitoring
Monitor supplemental
feed areas during
occupancy and for up
to two years after to
determine if noxious
weed seeds present.
Monitoring would
occur while
livestock are
present and after
they have left the
allotment
Areas identified by the
permittee where he
provides supplemental
feed.
Annually and
for up to two
years after
occupancy.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 4 7
Figure 13 – Monitoring Sites of the Mosquito Allotment
Alternative B - No Action (Allotment stays in LRMP)
This alternative does not implement any of the actions proposed. For this project, No Action
equals No Grazing. Grazing would not be authorized within the Allotment. Under this
alternative, routine land stewardship, including fire suppression, road maintenance, or other
administrative activities that address threats to life and property, would continue. This
alternative complies with 40 CFR 1502.14(d), which requires that a no-action alternative be
included in the analysis.
EFFECTS ANALYSIS The proposed action maintains the current permitted stocking level of 800 head months (HMs)
with most use occurring between June 1st and September 30th annually. The standards and
guidelines set forth in the LRMP, as amended by the SNFPA, are being implemented
successfully and are contributing to meeting desired rangeland resource conditions as discussed
earlier in this report. The permittee is able to operate within the design features of the proposed
action and understands that modifications to grazing operations will help to improve the
rangeland conditions in the long-term. There would be no significant effect to the permittee
either in the short-term or long-term for the management recommendations that would inhibit the
ability to operate in accordance with his grazing permit.
In relation to potential effects to water quality from grazing, there are standards and guidelines
for streambank disturbance and for maintenance of residual herbaceous vegetation. The 20%
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 4 8
limit on streambank disturbance promotes streambank stability and thereby reduces short and
long-term potential sediment inputs into the water column. Maintenance of generally 4 to 6”
residual herbaceous vegetation in the floodplain and along the streambanks provides a means of
sediment and nutrient capture and a long-term healthy and vigorous herbaceous vegetation
community and a dense root mat throughout riparian meadows. Grazing in Mosquito Allotment
does not occur until after the soils are firm enough to sustain livestock impacts, and the area does
not typically receive much precipitation in the summer months. Also, given the typical character
of both the North Fork of the Middle Fork American River and Middle Fork American River
flowing on the boundary of the Mosquito Allotment, slopes adjacent to the streams are generally
very steep thus livestock are confined to above the water channel and flood plain for
approximately 1,000 feet above the channel. These factors combine to minimize transportation of
fecal contaminants into the stream channel from overland or shallow subsurface flow (Atwill¹ et
al. 2002, Tate et al. 2004). Contamination from wildlife could potentially contribute fecal
contamination orders of magnitude higher than those produced by beef cattle, depending on
species and age class (Atwill² et al. 2002). Whether produced by wildlife or cattle, fecal inputs to
the water column would be minimized by implementation of the standards and guidelines.
There are ten key areas proposed for riparian areas, and one proposed in the peatland that will be
used to assess the rangeland conditions on the allotment (Table 21, Figure 13 above). A key area
is not a pinpoint location, but rather a representative grazed area to extrapolate information to the
area or Unit in general. Implementation of the monitoring strategy will help ensure that
management continues to meet or move towards desired conditions.
The no grazing alternative would preclude grazing in the allotment. This would have direct
economic effects to the permittee and indirect effects in the local and regional community for at
least some period into the future. The extent of the economic effects would be relatively
minimal, because of the relatively low level of use permitted. The current level of use provides a
benefit to the permittee. The removal of grazing in the Mosquito Allotment may cumulatively
contribute to the trend for loss of privately owned open space and rangeland in the regional area
through increased potential for conversion to urban development. The direct economic effect
would likely be minimal, the incremental impact of removal of grazing in this allotment would
be insignificant when considered in context.
Environmental Consequences – Rangeland Conditions
Potential effects to rangeland conditions are the focus in this analysis. For the purpose of this
discussion, rangeland conditions are considered to be exclusively the rangeland forage and
economic impacts to the grazing permittee. Any economic effects to the community are
discussed where possible, but they are beyond the scope of this document and only discussed in
general. The focus of the analysis of effects to the rangeland vegetation is on deerbrush and
riparian vegetation, which are the primary forage types used within this allotment. The effects to
these forage types determine the long-term sustainability of the rangeland resource within the
allotment; therefore, they are the ultimate factors to take into considering for this analysis of
effects. Direct and indirect effects of all Alternatives are summarized in Table 22 below.
Proposed Action – Alternative A
Suitability Determination
There are a total of 27,029 acres within the Mosquito Allotment, of which 13,033 acres (48%)
are capable. There are 7,892 suitable acres (29%) on the allotment for grazing with the remaining
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 4 9
19,137 acres suitable for travel that is expected to receive incidental use when the cattle are
present. Additionally, the examination of resource needs, which is derived from a comparison of
existing and desired conditions, has led to this determination. The examination of resource needs
is provided in the Appendix.
Direct Effects – Alternative A
Rangeland management practices are formalized in Alternative A to meet the standards and
guidelines for grazing and therefore maintain or move resource conditions toward the desired
conditions and would be incorporated into the AMP.
Rangeland Forage
The standards and guidelines implemented by the LRMP, as amended by the SNFPA FSEIS
ROD (2004), are designed to maintain or move range forage and related resource conditions
toward the desired conditions. Implementation of the standards and guidelines are expected to
maintain forage resources, soil resources, water quality, and peatlands in late seral status, or
move peatlands in early seral status toward a late seral status.
The standard management practices prescribed under Alternative A are designed to improve the
use of rangeland vegetation throughout the Allotment.
Conclusion: Healthy and vigorous rangeland forage would be perpetuated for long-term
sustainability under Alternative A.
Economic Impact
The maximum allowable level of livestock use under Alternative A would be a total of 800 cattle
head months.
Under Alternative A, grazing would not occur in any future (as yet to be defined) prescribed
understory burn areas and areas burned in a low to moderate severity wildfire for such a period
of time that the vegetation had recovered and soil stability would not be compromised,
potentially for two to five years. During this time, grazing use would be deferred to other
capable areas within the Allotment, so there would be no economic effect to the permittee. An
exception to this would be catastrophic fire, which renders a significant portion of the capable
rangeland to be unsuitable for a period of time; however, this risk does not differ between
alternatives.
Alternative A would incorporate strengthening the allotment boundary through the
implementation of drift fences, cattle guards and/or gates in strategic areas to keep livestock
within the allotment. This would remove the need for phone calls to the permittee, and eliminate
the need of the permittee to ride areas outside the allotment in search of his cattle, thus saving
time, energy and money in the endeavor.
Conclusion: There is a direct economic benefit to permittees by providing forage for 800
head months of grazing and keeping livestock within the allotment boundary under
Alternative A.
Indirect Effects – Alternative A
Economic Impact
Alternative A provides grazing for cattle (800 head months), from which there is some economic
revenue to Forest Service associated with 800 head months of grazing. The county, State, and
surrounding communities would receive a small economic benefit from this level of grazing on
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 5 0
the Mosquito Allotment. Alternative A would allow for a permittees’ continuing operation on a
foothill or valley home ranch, keeping valuable foothill or valley lands in open space.
Conclusion: Alternative A would provide indirect benefits to the economy of the areas
associated with the Mosquito Allotment commensurate with permitting 800 head months
annually under this alternative.
Cumulative Effects – Alternative A
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Mosquito Allotment boundary
of Alternative A were considered to assess potential cumulative effects on rangeland forage
under Alternative A.
Currently, there are approximately 7,892 suitable acres within the Mosquito Allotment available
for grazing. A portion of these suitable acres are located on large private forestry company lands
and become unsuitable for a short period of time (2-3 years) when areas are treated with
herbicide, which is applied to reduce competition with young trees.
Healthy and vigorous rangeland forage would be perpetuated for long-term sustainability due to
the implementation of standards and guidelines from the LRMP, as amended, combined with
adaptive management in response to findings of declining trends from the established monitoring
sites within the allotment for utilization and stream bank alteration under Alternative A. The
effects of the proposed action, combined with effects of the past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions noted above, is not expected to result in a cumulative reduction in
available range forage.
Rangeland Forage
The American River Ranger District has implemented vegetation treatments/timber sales in the
past (i.e. Last Chance, etc) and plans on implementing vegetation treatments/timber sales in the
future (i.e. Biggie, Cuckoo). Although under SNFPA S&Gs (#s 7 & 29), canopy closure is not to
exceed 40% in a certain stands, some small areas will due to the nature of treatments and will
provide additional forage. Mechanical treatments to mature brush stands, particularly deer brush,
will reinvigorate those stands creating additional forage for both livestock and deer.
The standard management practices prescribed under Alternative A as applied to treated areas
are designed to improve the use of rangeland vegetation, while protecting sensitive resources
(such as riparian areas, seeps, peatlands, etc), throughout the Allotment. These actions would
combine to create beneficial cumulative impacts related to forage for livestock and deer, and
with the application of standards to sensitive resources, cumulative impacts are expected to
improve sites not at desired condition and remain stable where sites are at desired condition.
Economic Impacts
Ten-year term grazing permits are issued on Forest Service allotments. Under Alternative A,
grazing fees for 8,000 HMs would be collected for that term. Additionally, industries such as
livestock transport would be contacted twice a year to move cattle to and from the Allotment.
After the fences are constructed, the fences would need maintenance and would require materials
from fence material suppliers, and the area frequently sees snowfall of 10 feet or more which
creates additional need for fence maintenance. Finally, the permittees sell their livestock at local
auctions in the state, creating revenue for themselves, the County where the sale occurs, and the
State of California. These actions would combine to create beneficial cumulative economic
impacts.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 5 1
No Action–No Grazing – Alternative B
Suitability Determination
Under the No Grazing Alternative, although there are capable areas within the allotment, grazing
would be precluded on the Mosquito Allotment. There would be no grazing allowed on this
allotment under Alternative B. Grazing could only be allowed after a new NEPA analysis
specifically proposing the use was completed and a decision was made.
Direct Effects – Alternative B
Range Forage
Alternative B would create a loss of range forage on 7,892 acres of suitable rangelands within
Placer County.
Standards and guidelines designed to maintain or move range forage and related resource
conditions toward desired conditions would not be implemented. Desired conditions in some
areas would be met due to cessation of grazing and in other areas would not be met due to
grazing cessation. Grazing cessation would impact deerbrush stands by allowing, in the short
term, denser and less palatable stands to develop more rapidly (compared to the action
alternative). However, grazing cessation in other areas, would allow range conditions and related
natural resources (such as, riparian areas, peatlands, or springs) to improve (without requiring
other inputs, such as structural improvements (see Economic Impact below)).
Conclusion: Under Alternative B, range forage on 7,892 acres of suitable Placer County
rangelands would be lost. In some cases, desired conditions would be met under grazing
cessation. However, for other resources (for example, deerbrush stands), desired
conditions would not be met. Resources would be protected without further inputs;
however, range forage that is suitable for grazing would not be utilized.
Economic Impact
Alternative B would create a direct loss of 800 head months allowed under the proposed action
that would not be allowed under this, the “no grazing” alternative. There would be a direct
economic effect in loss of revenue to cattle producers that would have a multiplier effect of 1.92
for Placer County (SNFPA 2001). Some of that direct economic effect would be in the form of
the elimination of merchandise and services purchased in support of the grazing operations such
as, salt block purchases, fence materials, fence installation, and livestock transport, as well as a
detrimental economic impact to Placer County and the State of California due to the elimination
of sales taxes from direct sale of livestock, and the merchandise and services used to support
livestock.
Alternative B would reduce costs related to maintaining grazing within the area, by eliminating
the need for structural improvements (fences, water developments) to protect resources.
Conclusion: Loss of grazing opportunities on this Allotment under the “no grazing”
alternative would result in adverse economic impacts on permittees and the business
community commensurate with the loss of 800 head months permitted per year under the
proposed action. Conversely, costs related to maintaining grazing would be reduced for
the Forest Service.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 5 2
Indirect Effects – Alternative B
Range Forage
Livestock utilize deerbrush, which is found in Foothill transitory range. Deerbrush is a major
component of this range. Livestock are able to keep deerbrush plants under 6 feet tall for up to
10 years, or more. The short-term indirect effect on range forage under Alternative B would be
that less palatable and denser deerbrush stands would be available for use by wildlife. In the
long term, deerbrush stands would become less dense (due to competition for resources, such as
sunlight and water) but would remain less palatable and out of reach. Deerbrush plants can grow
10-15 feet without browsing.
Conclusion: The indirect effect of “no grazing” on range forage would be a reduction in
forage quantity and quality due to decreasing deerbrush stand density and declining
palatability over time.
Economic Impact
Under Alternative B, there would be no grazing allowed on this Allotment Grazing. Grazing in
the future would only be allowed after a new NEPA analysis specifically proposing the use was
completed and a decision was made. Under Alternative B the degree of economic impacts would
be commensurate with the annual loss of grazing opportunities for 800 animal head months.
Livestock utilize deerbrush which is found in Foothill transitory range. Deerbrush is a major
component of this range. Livestock are able to keep deerbrush plants under 6 feet tall for up to
10 years, or more, thus reducing the need for mechanical fuels reduction treatments in
plantations and timber stands for those 10 years. The cessation of grazing may create an indirect
increased cost due to a need for mechanical pre-treatments in deerbrush stands, as deerbrush can
grow quite tall (over 10 feet), creating ladder fuels that cannot be burned during prescribed fire
operations.
Conclusion: Implementation of Alternative B would result in reduced economic benefits
to permittees and the business community commensurate with loss of 800 animal head
months annually for an undetermined period of time into the future. Increased costs of
vegetation and fuels treatments would be expected due to the need for mechanical
treatments related to deerbrush height and density.
Cumulative Effects – Alternative B
Rangeland Forage
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Mosquito Allotment boundary
of Alternative A were considered to assess potential cumulative effects on rangeland forage
under Alternative B.
As previously described, the indirect effect of “no grazing” on range forage would be a reduction
in forage quantity and quality due to decreasing deerbrush stand density and declining
palatability over time. Herbicide treatments on large private forestry company lands would
reduce forage availability for a short period of time (2-3 years).
Rangeland forage quantity and quality would decrease over the long-term under Alternative B.
However, the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions noted above
would not add cumulatively to this long-term effect as effects of these actions on range forage
availability would be short-term.
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 5 3
Economic Impacts
There would be direct loss of revenue from grazing operations related to seasonal grazing of 800
animal head months annually to permittees and their employees, loss of revenue for livestock
transporters, suppliers of salt blocks and fence materials, loss of Forest Service and Placer
County revenue.
If other agencies reduce grazing on their lands, the loss of grazeable lands may put livestock
owners out of business with their private lands being sold and developed with a loss of open
space, contributing to the long-term trend of loss of open space in California’s foothill ranges
under Alternative B (although the degree of this effect is uncertain). Additionally, if many
livestock operators are unable to find additional grazing lands for lease, the market would
become flooded and there would be a reduction in livestock prices at auction, resulting in a loss
of income for that year and years to come due to reduced number of livestock within the county
and surrounding foothills and Sacramento Valley adjacent to the foothills..
The economic impact could cause increased potential for loss of Sierra Nevada foothill and
adjacent valley ranch properties, due to further reduction in lands available for grazing.
Table 22 – Summary of effects to the rangeland conditions for the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives
Rangeland Attribute Proposed Action No Action-No Grazing Alternative
Rangeland Forage Healthy and vigorous rangeland forage will be perpetuated for long-term sustainability due to standards and guidelines from the LRMP, as amended, and the standard management practices implemented under this alternative
Not applicable to this alternative
Economic Impact Sustained economic effect to the permittee and the business community associated with the allotment and the permittee’s home ranch, and retention of the current permittee’s base property.
Unknown degree of economic effect to the permittee and the business community, and an increased potential for loss of the current permittee’s base property. This impact would extend for an unknown period of time into the future, and might cause an increase in the potential for loss of open space to urban development
Permitted Head Months 800 HMs 0 HMs
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 5 4
REFERENCES
Allen, B.H. 2008. Chapter 14. Forest rangeland relationships. In: Handbook of Vegetation
Science. Vegetation science applications for rangeland analysis and management. Tueller,
P.T. editor Springer Netherlands pp339-362
Atwill¹, Edward R., Lingling Hour, Betsy M. Karle, Thomas Harter, Kenneth W. Tate, and Randy A.
Dahlgren. 2002. Transport of Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts through Vegetated Buffer Strips and
Estimated Filtration Efficiency. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Nov. 2002, p. 5517-5527.
doi: 10.1128/AEM.68.11.5517-5527.2002 URL: http://aem.asm.org/content/68/11/5517
Atwill², Edward R., Ralph Phillips, Franz Rulofson. 2002. Environmental Loading Rates of the
Waterbourne Pathogenic Protozoa Cryptosporidium parvum in Certain Domestic and Wildlife
Species in California. Proc. 20th Vertebr. Pest Conf. (R. M. Timm and R. H. Schmidt, Eds.). Pp. 241-
243. URL: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0c5054fm
Bakos, Toby. 2006. Boca, Kyburz, Sagehen, Sierra Crest, and Summit Allotments Range Report. USDA
FS. Tahoe National Forest.
Bartolome, James W. and Barbara H. Kosco. 1982. Estimating Browse Production by Deerbrush
[Ceanothus intergerrimus]. J. Range Manage. 35(5): 671-672. URL:
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/download/7413/7025
Burcham, L. T.. 1956. Historical Backgrounds of Range Land Use in California. Journal of Range
Management, 9(2), 81–86. http://doi.org/10.2307/3894555 or Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3894555
Conrad, Susan G, Annabelle E. Jaramillo, Kermit Cromack, Jr., and Sharon Rose. 1985. The role of the
genus Ceanothus in western forest ecosystems. USFS PNW-GTR-182 72 pgs. URL:
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/7584
Cronemiller, Fred P. 1953. Deerbrush (sweet birch) in California. U.S. Forest Service, Region 5, San
Francisco, Unnumbered Publ. 16 p.
________. 1959. The Life History of Deerbrush. A Fire Type. J. Range Manage. 12:21-25 URL:
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/viewFile/4892/4503
Davis, Richard C. 2005. National Forests of the United States. The Forest History Society
URL: http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Places/National%20Forests%20of%20the%20U.S.pdf
Gary, Howard L., Steven R. Johnson and Stanley L. Ponce. 1983. Cattle grazing impact on surface water
quality in a Colorado Front Range stream. J. of Soil and Water Cons. 38(2): 124-128 URL:
http://srnr.arizona.edu/rnr/wsm462/Readings/garyetal1983.pdf
Jackson, W.T., R. Herbert, and S. Wee. 1982. History of the Tahoe National Forest: 1840-1940. A
Cultural Resources Overview History. The Forest History Society URL:
http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Publications/region/5/tahoe/contents.htm
Johnson, K.A. and D.E. Johnson. 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 73:2483-2492.
Stable URL: http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/73/8/2483
Kie, John G. 1985. Production of Deerbrush and Mountain Whitethorn Related to Shrub Volume and
Overstory Crown Closure. USDA FS Research Note PSW-377. URL:
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_rn377/
________. 1986. Nutritive Quality of Ceanothus Shrubs in California Mixed Conifer Forest. J. Range
Mgmt. 39(6):521-526. DOI: 10.2307/3898763 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3898763
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 5 5
Kosco, Barbara H. and James W. Bartolome. 1981. Forest Grazing: Past and Future. J. of Range Manage.
34(3):248-251. DOI: 10.2307/3898057 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3898057
Kosco, Barbara H., Richard Standiford, Ken Mayer, W. James Clawson, John Ronald, Tess Albin-Smith,
and Warren Peden. 1984. Forest Grazing Management in California. Cooperative Ext., Div. of Agr.
and Nat Res., Univ. California Leaflet 21388
Machado, Ed. February 2013. Personal communication regarding use of the Mosquito grazing allotment.
Mayer, Paul M., Steven K. Reynolds, Jr., Marshall D. McCutchen, and Timothy J. Canfield. 2007. Meta-
Analysis of Nitrogen Removal in Riparian Buffers. J. Environ. Qual. 36:1172–1180 URL:
https://www.co.san-juan.wa.us/cdp/docs/CAO/MayerReynolds2007.pdf
Pyke, Christopher R. and Jaymee Marty. 2005. Cattle Grazing Mediates Climate Change Impacts on
Ephemeral Wetlands. Cons. Biology 19(5): 1619-1625 URL:
http://people.eri.ucsb.edu/~trobinson/COMB/downloads/references/pyke-marty-2005.pdf
Roche, Leslie M., Lea Kromschroeder, Edward R. Atwill, Randy A. Dahlgren, Kenneth W. Tate. 2013.
Water Quality Conditions Associated with Cattle Grazing and Recreation on National Forest Lands.
PLoS ONE 8(6): e68127. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068127 URL:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068127
Sampson, A.W. and B.S. Jespersen. 1963. California range brushlands and browse plants. Univ. Calif.
Cooperative Extension
Smith, Michael A. 2000. Management of Rangeland and Grazing-Determination of Stock Rates
Rangelands 22(4):49-51 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4001548
Spreitzer, Patricia N. 1985. Transitory Range: A New Frontier. Rangelands 7(1):33-34. Stable URL:
http//www.jstor.org.stable/3900912
Tate, Kenneth W., Maria Das Gracas C. Pereira, and Edward R. Atwill. 2004. Efficacy of Vegetated
Buffer Strips for Retaining Cryptosporidium parvum. J. Environ. Qual. 33:2243-2251. URL:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6q70z4tv
USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Early 1900’s to Present. Tahoe National Forest Range
Allotment Files: Administration (2230) and Analysis (2210). Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City,
CA.
________. 1985. Identification of Lands Tentatively Capable, Available and Suitable for Resource
Management. Revised. Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City, CA.
________. 1990. Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Tahoe National Forest,
Nevada City, CA.
________. 1990. Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Environmental Impact
Statement. Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City, CA.
________. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final EIS, ROD.
________. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final SEIS, ROD. URL:
http://fsweb.stanislaus.r5.fs.fed.us/lmp/forest-plan/snfp/2004-0121_SNFPA-ROD.pdf
USDA, Forest Service. 2004. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13 - Grazing Permit Administration
Handbook. Chapter 90 - Rangeland Management Decisionmaking URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-
bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2209.13!..
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Page 5 6
________. 2006. FSH 1909.12 - Land Management Planning Handbook URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-
bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?1909.12!..
________. 2007. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1900 – Planning URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-
bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsm?1900
________. Online. How the California National Forests Were Named. URL:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/r5/learning/history-culture/?cid=stelprdb5301043&width=full
________. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest
System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. URL:
http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012_sb.pdf
________. 2015. Mosquito Allotment. Rangeland Capability and Suitability Analysis. Tahoe National
Forest
USDA, FS, Southwest Region, Coconino National Forest. September 2011. Walker Basin Range
Allotment
USDI, BLM. 1993. Riparian Area Management: Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. TR
1737-9 URL:
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_refs.Par.93254.File.dat/TR_1737-
09.pdf
_______. 1997. Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements. Interagency Technical Reference TR
1734-03 URL:
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_refs.Par.92958.File.dat/TR_1734-
03.pdf
_______. 1998. Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations. TR 1730-1. pg. 173. URL:
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usblmpub/17/ OR
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_refs.Par.44521.File.dat/TR_1730-
01.pdf
_______. 2015. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for
Lotic Areas. TR 1737-15 URL:
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_refs.Par.57054.File.dat/TR_1737-
15.pdf
Ward, Bruce. 2011. Grazing management and building soil carbon. Holistic Results Pty Limited,
Australia URL: http://holisticresults.com.au/your-resources/Grazing%20and%20Soil%20Carbon.pdf
West, T.L., 1992. Centennial mini-histories of the Forest Service. USDA Forest Service Pub. FS-
518, Washington DC, 72 pp. URL:
http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Publications/centennial_minis/index.htm
Mos quito Allotm ent Ra n ge Report Append ices Page 1of 1
Appendices
Mosquito Allotment
Range Report
top related